Mufon ufo journal 1989 5. may


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 1989 5. may

  1. 1. MUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 253 MAY 1989Founded 1967OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF JIM/JFOJV/ MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.$2.503000 rT= 200 SECSUFO 3# 20KV WD29MM 1453/214/752 1/17/892000o1000K0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000ENERGYPENNSYLVANIA TRACE CASE?
  2. 2. MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A.DENNIS W. STACYEditorWALTER H. ANDRUS, JR.International Director andAssociate EditorTHOMAS P. DEULEYArt DirectorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorANN DRUFFELContributing EditorROBERT J. GRIBBLEColumnistROBERT H. BLETCHMANPublic RelationsPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityMARGE CHRISTENSENPublic EducationREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryT. SCOTT CHAINGREG LONGMICHAEL D. SWORDSStaff WritersTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERMedical CasesLEONARD STRINGFIELDUFO Crash/RetrievalWALTER N. WEBBAstronomyNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKRICHARD H. HALLROBERT V. PRATTEditor/Publishers Emeritus(Formerly SKYLOOK)The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscription rates:$25.00 per year in the U.S.A.; $30.00foreign in U.S. funds. Copyright 1989by the Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin, Texas.POSTMASTER: Send form 3579 toadvise change of address to TheMUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155-4099.FROMTHE EDITORWere heartened by the reader response recent issues of theJournal have drawn, though the opinions expressed range from"keep up the good work," to a complaint that some articles havebeen "so esoteric 1dont know whether to laugh or cry." If therehas been one single refrain Ive tried to maintain as editor it isthat of variety, in terms of approach to the subjects under con-sideration, and the subjects themselves. Since its patentlyimpossible to please all of the people all of the time, Ive optedfor trying to satisfy as many as possible each time out. Thosethat are offended by "think pieces," like the one by psychologistKenneth Ring that opens this issue, should be well served by thetwo following "hard" articles by Stan Gordon and Dan Wright.The addition of four extra pages to each issue of the Journalallows us this sort of freedom, and we hope you continue toexpress your opinions with your criticisms and comments. Thefact that we now publish 288 pages on the average each year istestimony to the fact that our common theme, the UFO pheno-menon, is virtually inexhaustible. We hope and trust you, thereader, will not mind seeing it approached from every conceiva-ble angle, however cantankerous or acute some of those mayseem to be.In this issueTOWARD AN IMAGINAL INTERPRETATIONOF "UFO" ABDUCTIONS Kenneth Ring,Ph.D. 3LAW OFFICER REPORTS CEII INCIDENT Stan Gordon 10CONFERENCE CALENDAR/NEW JOURNAL 15LIFE NOT SO LONELY Michael Swords, Ph.D. 16LOOKING BACK Bob Gribble 18MARS FEATURES REVIEWED Elaine Douglass 19OPEN LETTER TO DR. CARLSAGAN Stanton T. Friedman 20LETTERS Evans, Jones, Sturrock, etc. 21MAY NIGHT SKY Walter N. Webb 22SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE 23DIRECTORS MESSAGE Walt Andrus 24Copyright 1989 by the Mutual UFO Network, Inc. (MUFON), 103 Old-towne Road, Seguin, Texas 78155-4099U.S.A.ALL RIGHTSRESERVEDNo part of this document may be reproduced in any form by photostat,microfilm, xerograph, or any other means, without the written permissionof the Copyright Owners.The Mutual UFO Network, exempt from Federal Income Tax underSection 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a publiclysupported organization of the type described in Section 509(a)(2). Donorsmay deduct contributions from their Federal Income Tax. In addition,bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are deductible for Federalestate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of Sec-tions 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the code.The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, anddo not necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contrib-utors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, the staff,or MUFON. Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to pub-lished articles may be in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or in ashort article (up to about 2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: thearticle author may reply but will be allowed half the wordage used in theresponse; the responder may answer the author but will be allowed half the wor-dage used in the authors reply, etc. All submissions are subject to editing forstyle, clarity, and conciseness. Permission is hereby granted to quote from thisissue provided not more than 200 words are quoted from any one article, theauthor of the article is given credit, and the statement "Copyright 1989 by theMutual UFO Network, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155" isincluded.
  3. 3. Toward an Imaginal Interpretationof "UFO Abductions"By Kenneth Ring, Ph.D.Department of Psychology, University of ConnecticutDr. Ring, a MUFON consultantin psychology, is the author ofLife at Death (1980) and HeadingToward Omega (1984).Anyone who comes to have aserious interest in ufology is imme-diately forced to confront the ques-tion that is at once the focal concernof this field and the source of whathas been protracted, even vicious,disagreement among its researchers:Have extraterrestrial beings from spe-cific physical locations in or beyondour galaxy come to our planet wherethey interact with selected membersof the human species?Although there is a felt pressure atthe outset to take a stand on thismatter (since uncertainty coupled withdeep emotional investment sparksproselytizing), it would of course befoolish to yield to these demands.After all, one has presumably beenled to study ufology precisely in orderto evaluate the claims for the extra-terrestrial hypothesis for oneself. Onehas not entered the fray merely totake sides or to leap aboard the latestbandwagon to leave the station. Sift-ing through the tormentingly complexwelter of evidence over which somany thoughtful investigators havediffered so violently requires time andreflection. There is no point in "rush-ing to judgment" simply in order tocast ones vote yea or nay.As a relative newcomer to UFOstudies, however, I, too, have puzzledover the "data" of this strange fieldand wondered how best to interpretthem. Like many other novices, Isuppose, I found myself at first sub-ject to many shifts of viewpoint. As Igradually came to get my bearings inufology, though, I seemed to find myown way to a position that somehowcame down on neither side yet wasntagnostic either. The main purpose ofMUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989this article is to outline this perspec-tive, but before doing so I would likebriefly to offer my own reflections onthe two leading contenders for ourET hypothesis vote — and my rea-sons for rejecting them.The notion that extraterrestrial beingsare here among us is one that I per-sonally have not only come to disfa-vor, but, frankly, find absurd. Anddespite Tertullian, in this instance I donot find that absurdity compels belief.On the contrary, most absurd thingsdeserve to be rejected and, in myview, the ET hypothesis should be.Of course, I could easily be provenwrong. All it would take would be fora shining space craft to land you-know-where and for Dan Rather tointerview its non-earthly inhabitantson CBS News. Or some other formof consensually undeniable, if lessdramatic, hard evidence. Indeed, Iconsider it one of the virtues of myown position that it can be so readilydisconfirmed. I dont mind taking therisk either of being wrong or red-faced; besides, I would have lots ofcompany.More to the point, however, are myreasons for spurning the idea ofextraterrestrial intervention in earthlyaffairs. My reading both of historyand modern UFO literature inclinesme to view the ET hypothesis as acontemporary manifestation of anancient though powerful myth. Assuch, it has been an integral and psy-chologically compelling part of manycreation stories and religious mythol-ogies throughout the world. The ideathat sky gods (or demons) have fos-tered (or interfered with) human evo-lution through direct intervention —including sexual liaisons and geneticmanipulation — in human affairs playsan important role in world mythologyand continues to exert a subtle buttenacious influence on the psyche ofmodern humanity. In our contempor-ary world, of course, myth is some-thing that happened long ago; mythhas become history. Although weappreciate the role of myth in litera-ture, drama and art, we sophisticatedadults of the Space Age think of our-selves as having been emancipatedfrom the spell-binding grip of mythol-ogy. As a result, when we encounterit in the form of UFO imagery sugges-tive of abductions and genetic exper-imentation, we are inclined to literal-ize it. This is a sign of the dominanceof the scientific spirit of our era whichhas demythologized the universe. UFOphenomena must therefore either bethe products of fantasy, delusion orhallucination — or they are real.These are the only two alternatives ofCartesian rationalism which still holdssway over our thinking. Such think-ing, however, leads to totallyindefens-ible positions: one has a choice ofbecoming either a UFO debunker ora UFO fundamentalist. For make nomistake about it: if you think that"UFO abductions" are literally true,you are guilty of the kind of reduc-tionism that converts the richness ofmyth and symbol into bare facticity.And that is surely fundamentalism —even when it tries to pretend other-wise by clothing itself in the fashiona-ble conceptual attire of science.Likewise, the position of the debunk-er is equally absurd — and I alsoreject it summarily. Anyone whotakes the trouble to talk with personswho have reported UFO phenomena— or simply studies the availableliterature with an open mind — even-tually must conclude that whatever isresponsible for these experiences can-not be explained away by factorssuch as fantasy, delusion or hoax —even while admitting that in somecases there is no doubt that suchinterpretations are appropriate. There3
  4. 4. Fantasies are idiosyncratic and evanescent. "UFOabductions/9like near-death experiences, are nota-ble for their consistent patterning as well as fortheir powerful aftereffects. People are not generallyprofoundly transformed or traumatized by "merefantasies."are always, however, what WilliamJames called "the unexplained resi-duum" — instances that stubbornly,persistently and convincingly defy con-ventional explanations.CONSISTENCYNowhere in UFO studies is thismore evident than in the case of"UFO abductions." Even before wide-spread publicity was given to thesebizarre-sounding reports, the inde-pendent accounts describing themwere impressive in their consistencies,even to minute details, as Bullard(1987) has demonstrated. This couldhardly be explained as the result of acleverly orchestrated hoax nor is itlikely that the facile assumption ofcontagion is anything other than askeptical social scientists fantasy. Asfor fantasy itself, this is as implausibleas suggesting that the tens of thou-sands of persons who have describednear-death experiences are merelythe dupes of some sort of wish fulfil-lment. Fantasies are idiosyncratic andevanescent. "UFO abductions," likenear-death experiences, are notablefor their consistent patterning as wellas for their powerful aftereffects.People are not generally profoundlytransformed or traumatized by "merefantasies." Clearly — to use thephrase that is on everyones lips thesedays — "something is happening."Whatever "UFO abductions" may be,they represent a subjectively real andoften deeply upsetting experience tothe persons who undergo them. Some-thing is happening. They must beacknowledged to occur — and theymust be reckoned with. The pheno-menon cries out for our respectful, ifperplexed, attention — as the individ-uals who have been subjected tothese experiences cry out for our4help, compassion and understanding.It is no good to dismiss all this asattention-seeking fantasy or, even worse,as necessarily some form of risiblepsychopathology. "UFO abductions"are not funny and those whose livesare dislocated by them dont deserveto be laughed at. Instead, both criesmust be heeded.But in responding to these cries forattention and sympathetic understand-ing, we neednt be limited to the choi-ces provided by an antiquated Carte-sian dualism, there is a third possibilityavailable that allows us to slip pastthe seemingly all-encompassing eith-er/or — physicality or fantasy —interpretations of "UFO abductions."This third option is what I want toadumbrate in this paper. It is the wayof the imaginal.Notice that I said imaginal — notimaginary. The distinction, which wasintroduced by the great French Islamicscholar, Henry Corbin (who died in1978), is not merely important; it iscrucial. For in dealing with things ofthe imaginal realm, we are not talkingabout the stuff of fantasy or even ofimagination, as these terms are generallyunderstood today. Specifically, we arenot concerned here with fictive mat-ters or with what is "made up"through creative invention. Instead,the imaginal refers to a third king-dom, access to which is dependentneither on sensory perception norordinary cognition (includingfantasy).Normally hidden, it can be appre-hended in what we would today callcertain altered states of conscious-ness that destabilize ordinary percep-tual modalities and cognitive systems.When these are sufficiently disturbed,the imaginal realm, like the night skywhich can only be discerned whensunlight is absent, stands revealed.The most important attribute of theimaginal realm, however, is that it isontologically real. According to Cor-bin who was a deep student of mysti-cal and especially visionary experience:"It must be understood that theworld into which these (visionaries)probed is perfectly real. Its reality ismore irrefutable and more coherentthan that of the empirical world,where reality is perceived by thesenses. Upon returning, the beholdersof this world are perfectly aware ofhaving been elsewhere; they are notmere schizophrenics. This world ishidden behind the very act of senseperception and has to be soughtunderneath its apparent objective cer-tainty. For this reason we definitelycannot qualify it as being imaginary inthe current sense of the word, i.e., asunreal, or non-existent ... (The imagi-nal) world .. is ontologically as real asthe world of the senses and that ofthe intellect ... We must be carefulnot to confuse it with the imaginationidentified by so-called modern manwith fantasy ..." (Corbin, 1976, p. 17,9; emphasis is Corbins.)Not only is the imaginal realm onto-logically real, it is also a world thathas form, dimension and, most impor-tant for us, persons. Corbin suggeststhis when he writes:"(This is) a world possessing exten-sion and dimension, figures and colors;but these features cannot be per-ceived by the senses in the samemanner as if they were properties ofphysical bodies. No, these dimen-sions, figures and colors are theobject of imaginative perception, orthe psycho-spiritual senses,." (Cor-bin, p. 9.)And James Hillman, the father ofarchetypal psychology which is rootedin Corbinesque conceptions of theimaginal world, is even more expliciton this point. He maintains that per-sonifying is a spontaneous and naturalactivity in those states of conscious-ness — he calls it mythical con-sciousness — that give us access tothe imaginalworld:"Mythical consciousness is a modeof being in the world that brings withit imaginal persons. They are givenwith the imagination and are its data.Where imagination reigns, personify-ing happens. We experience itnightly,MUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989
  5. 5. spontaneously, in dreams. Just as wedo not create our dreams, but theyhappen to us, so we do not inventthe persons of myth and religion;they, too, happen to us. the personspresent themselves as existing priorto any effort of ours to personify. Tomythic consciousness, the persons ofthe imagination are real." (Hillman,1975, p. 16-17; emphasis isHillmans.)Hillmans assumptions find strongsupport from the legacy of our ownWestern explorations of "the other-world." For example, Caitlin andJohn Matthews (1985) in their studyof the Western mystery traditionsassert that one of its central tenetswas "The otherworld and its inhabit-ants were real in their own worlds, intheir own right, they were not theresult of imaginative or mental states."(Matthews and Matthews, 1985, p.105; emphasis is the authors.)Shamanic TravelsIndeed, although the phrase, "theimaginal world," is relatively new tomodern scholarship (it was originallyproposed by Corbin in 1972), theconception it stands for has been wellknown and understood among tradi-tional peoples and in civilized socie-ties since deep antiquity. It is, forexample, fundamental to the practiceof shamanism which has been calledhumanitys primordial religion andwas at one time, in one form oranother, virtually worldwide in its dis-tribution. The shaman is the proto-typic "otherworld traveller," a man(or woman) who is at home in bothworlds, recognizes the reality of each,and can easily journey between them.Even a casual perusal of some of theclassic and recent literature on sham-anism (Eliade, 1958; 1964; Nicholson,1987; Doore, 1988; Kalweit, 1988;McKenna, 1989) will be sufficient todemonstrate an obvious and strongconnection between "shamanic statesof consciousness" (to use the termintroduced by Michael Harner) andwhat I have called the imaginal world.Of course, this world is not limitedto those who follow the shamanicroad into other realities. In principle,it is available to anyone who culti-vates within himself the means toMUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989enter into visionary experience or tothose who are for whatever reasonsnaturally susceptible to it. Thus, stu-dies of those persons inclined to mys-tical and religious experience (James,1958; Bucke, 1969; Riccardo, 1977;Cohen and Phipps, 1979; Foster,1985) again afford many instances ofencounters with imaginal realities theprofound effects of which will be evi-dent to any attentive reader. Evenextreme situational factors can cata-pult individualsinto an imaginal realmof astonishingly similar properties asrecent research on the near-deathexperience has convincingly shown(Moody, 1975; Ring, 1980; 1984; Gal-lup, 1982; Sabom, 1982). And herealso the link between the nature ofthe experience itself and imaginalreal-ities has already been noted by somecommentators (Zaleski, 1987; Ring, inpress).Needless to say, I wouldnt haveoutlined these notions here if I didntbelieve that they had application tothe phenomenon of "UFO abduc-tions." In brief, I submit that theseencounters take place in an imaginaldomain — though, as the passages Ihave cited from other authors makeclear, such experiences may seemfully real to the persons who undergothem. Lacking the framework andterminology of the third realm, how-ever, such persons may easily andnaturally attempt to assimilate theseencounters to physical reality — aprocess that is surely abetted by thepublicity given to UFO investigatorswho have fallen into the same inter-pretative error but whose pronounce-ments nevertheless provide a kind oflegitimization of this view for individu-als desperately seeking to make senseof a baffling and often frighteningexperience. Such literal interpreta-tions, in my judgment, only serve tomake a confusing ordeal more confus-ing to all concerned as well as givingrise to all sorts of extravagant fanta-sies concerning the alleged purposebehind these "extraterrestrial interven-tions."But, I repeat, these episodes do noftake place in the physical world assuch, even when they leave physicaltraces of the effects they obtrude intoour space/time continuum. This is asubtle but deeply important point,and we need to linger over it in orderto clarify certain implications of thisimaginal perspective. UFO encoun-ters not only sometimes seem physi-cal, but they can clearly alter thematerial environment as well as thehuman body. How can an imaginalconception account for such undeni-able effects?First, it is important to rememberthat the imaginal world is an interme-diary one, somewhere between whatwe still call mind and matter. As such,it may be regarded as the source ofborder phenomena, events that seemat once to partake of otherworldlyand objective realities. Stigmata mayserve to illustrate such phenomena.Here we have a physical effect thatcan be reliably witnessed, photograph-ed, etc., while at the same time itsorigins are obviously "not of thisworld" (i.e., have no discernible phys-ical cause). Reports of such extraor-dinary manifestations tend to con-found our ontological categories, yet,like UFO accounts, they are plentifuland impossible to disregard.From an imaginal point of view,"UFO abductions" could be under-stood as border phenomena thatreflect the behavior of authochtonousquasi-physical beings of the imaginalrealm whose activity precipitates intoour material reality — but whose orig-ins remain in imaginal, not outer,space.Crack EventThose disposed to Jungian formula-tions of such phenomena might welllabel them psychoid. Michael Grossowho employs this term has nicelycaught the inherent ambiguity and "inbetweeness" of the UFO border inthe following passage:"A psychoid entity might affectradar, cause burns, leave traces inthe ground and at the same time passthrough walls, appear and disappearlike ghosts, defy gravity, assume vari-able and patently symbolic shapes,and strike deep chords of psychic,mystic and prophetic sentiment. In asense, a psychoid experience wouldbe doubly "real" because it combinedthe weight of objectivity with the
  6. 6. transparency of immediate experience."(Grosso, 1988a p. 10.)So, too, has Peter Rojcewicz, who,in analyzing "men in black" reports,has tentatively suggested the phrase,the crack event, to indicate the inter-play of "... the world of the everyday(and) the world of the apparentlyimpossible. The crack event, neitherentirely concrete nor entirely ephe-meral, is an ontologically ambiguousexperience whose nature exists some-where in between... The crack is atransition zone, where one realmpasses through and blurs the boun-dary between two realities, e.g., themundane and the sacred, the materialand the imaginative, simultaneousyperceived by the same witness. It is acategory of experience betwixt andbetween ..." (Rojcewicz, in press [b],p. 10, 13; emphasis isRojcewiczs.)Thus, the imaginal approach I amsuggesting here, far from denying thereality of physical effects, actually pos-its them as stemming from the leak-age of the imaginal into the physicalworld. And in doing so, it even helpsto solve a problem that literalisticinterpretations founder on — the oth-erwise curious and disturbing blend-ing of the seemingly objective with thebizarre and absurd.We come now to another impor-tant facet of "UFO abductions" thatan imaginal interpretation must address.This relates to the consistent pattern-ing of these experiences — somethingwhich, as I noted earlier, absolutelyrefutes the convenient hypothesis ofthe debunkers that such stories areonly the fantasies of the psychologi-cally naive and credulous. What,then, is responsible for the remarka-ble uniformity of the typical "UFOabduction" scenario?The answer, from an imaginal pointof view, lies in what can be called,with apologies to Jung, archetypalpatterning. Corbin and Hillman, forexample, make it clear that theybelieve that the imaginal world isstructured in archetypes — which forour purposes we can define as pri-mordial constellations of images basedon cumulative,collectivehuman exper-ience that can nevertheless expressthemselves in forms conditioned bythe times. Indeed, Corbin who prefersthe Latin, mundus imaginalis, has alsoused the phrase, mundus archefypus,to refer to this realm. What this means,fundamentally, is that there are in effect,definite experiential matrices (Grot, 1975)in the imaginal world that give structureand coherence to different types ofjourneys there. There is, then, a certainarchetypal similarity to shamanic expe-riences, as anthropological researchmakes clear, regardless of the culture inwhich they occur. Similarly,there is theold aphorism of Saint-Martin, certainlyin need of qualification but still possess-ing a nugget of truth, that "all mysticsspeak the same language and comefrom the same country" (LeShan, 1974,p. 42). And yet again, this time in thecase of near-death experiences, there isanother different but distinctively struc-tured archetypal realm that is reliablydescribed by sojoumers into this imagi-nal territory.So it is, too, with those who are sub-jected to the terror of "UFO abduc-tions." These experiences also reflect anencounter with a particular imaginalmatrix. Just why this matrix has theform and attributes it does is a largequestion to which I must not yield herein order not to depart from the path Iwant to follow — but it is one that Iwould like to consider properly inanother article.VulnerabilityWhat I can speak to in this context,however, is why certain individualsappear vulnerable in the first place tothis kind of imaginal experience. I haveeneral sensitizing factor already menti-oned that the gis slippinginto an alteredstate of consciousness of some sort. Inthis case, it appears to be the kind thatJenny Randies (1987)calls a "quaskxjnsciousexperience" — something that is neitherthe product of normal waking con-sciousness nor subconscious fantasy,but rather, as she says, "something elsein between (my emphasis)." Of course,it is well known that "UFO abductions"often seem to have their origin underconditions that are conducive to suchstates (such as driving at night ondeserted country roads or in sleep-related circumstances) and that suchepisodes frequently involve an entranc-ing stimulus of some kind as well as aperiod of "missing time." These are, tobe sure, features that we normallyassociate with dissociative or hypnoidalstates of consciousness, susceptibility towhich seems to be characteristic ofmany persons who report being abduct-ed (Moravec, 1989). Where these initialconditions are not present, one mightbe inclined to suppose that personswho feel that they have neverthelessbeen spirited away by extraterrestrialswould tend to be those who are natu-rally highly prone to dissociative orhypnoidal trance states regardless ofoutward circumstances.Precisely this kind of argument hasbeen advanced, of course, by theproponents of the misleadingly formu-lated fantasy-proneness hypothesis of"UFO abductions," principally Baster-field and Bartholomew (1988a; 1988b;1988c), which has lately stimulatedconsiderable controversy among stu-dents of the abduction phenomenon(Hopkins, 1988a; 1988b; Stenshoel,1988; Rogo, 1988; Randies, 1988;Goldsmith, 1988). In essence, a fantasy-prone person, as originally describedby Wilson and Barber (1983), is anindividual who lives much of his life ina world of apparently self-generatedfantasy, lives /or that world, and mayhave a hard time distinguishingbetweenthe events of that world and those ofphysical reality. Fantasy-prone per-sons make exceptionally good hyp-notic subjects, report a large numberof psychic and other anomalous exper-iences and are said to constitutesomething like four percent of thepopulation at large. The main findingsconcerning the fantasy-prone persondetailed by Wilson and Barber on thebasis of a small sample of womenhave been largely supported, thoughsomewhat qualified, for both sexes bythe subsequent work of Rhue andLynn (Rhue and Lynn, 1987a; 1987b;Lynn and Rhue, 1986; 1988).Basterfield and Bartholomew, inone of their papers (1988a), havetheorized that Whitley Strieber, argua-bly the best known and most contro-versial abductee of the present day, isa such a fantasy-prone person, andthat therefore his experiences are lar-gely self-generated fantasies. Theyhave also proposed that the typical.abductee is likely to score high onmeasures of fantasy-proneness — aMUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989
  7. 7. proposition that has already stimu-lated heated debate. No empiricalevidence is available on this point asyet, but some will be before the endof 1989. For the past year, I havebeen carrying out a study of personswho have reported UFO experiences,especially abductions, and one of myquestionnaires assessesfantasy-prone-ness. I have included a number ofcomparison groups in this study whichwill make it possible to draw sometentative conclusions concerning therelative fantasy-proneness of UFOexperients.Nevertheless, I personally do notendorse the use of the term, fantasy-proneness, for several related rea-sons. First, it has a pejorative conno-tation, suggesting as it does that suchan individual is subject to a world ofpure, idiosyncratic fantasy. Second, italso conveys the impression that suchan attribute is somewhat, if notextremely pathological. Finally, it ap-pears to deny that the realms ofexperience to which such an individ-ual may have access could have anyontological validity whatever.From an imaginal point of view,however, such a disposition appearsin a much more favorable light. Indi-viduals who score high on measuresof fantasy-proneness may in fact behighly gifted persons who have a privi-leged means of access to imaginalrealities. Thus, they may be muchcloser to visionaries than to schizoph-renics. Rather than being disdained,their experiences should be studiedcarefully for the information they maycontain concerning the nature anddynamics of the realms to which suchpersons are sensitive. For these rea-sons, I would like to propose that wecease using the demeaning term,fantasy-proneness, and substitute inits place the more neutral one ofimagina/ify. We would then speak ofpersons who rank high or low on thepsychological characteristic of imagi-nality, the ability to enter into imagi-nal realities.It will not have escaped the percep-tive reader that conditions conduciveto quasi-conscious experiences andtendencies toward imaginality are notin themselves sufficient to explain theabduction phenomenon. For we arestill left to account for the particularMUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989Individuals who score highon measures of fantasy-proneness may in factbe highly gifted personswho have a privilegedmeans of access to imagi-nal realities. They maybe much closer to vision-aries than to schizophren-ics.form of the experience, viz., theabduction scenario itself. Susceptibil-ity to imaginal domains does not tellus why certain persons "tune into"this specific experiential matrix.Obviously, here again, we bumpinto "the large question" I alluded toearlier — and which I still plan toeschew for the time being — pertain-ing to the reasons for the dominanceof these experiential motifs in ourown historical period. Although I wantto tackle this formidable matter head-on in a subsequent article, I can atleast take a moment here to indicatewhere I think the answer should belooked for. It turns out to be preciselyin the cultural counterpart of theimaginal world itself where the imagesof that realm come to lead a fugitive,quasi-physical life.FolkloreFolklore is the earthly mirror of theimaginal world. Simulacra of thatworld have always haunted ours withtheir ghostly presence. They havebeen as ineradicable as they havebeen elusive — and they have alwaysdefied capture by net-carrying rational-ists. All cultures have their traditionsof "the little people" who inhabitnormally visible interstitial realms butwho seem to have the ability some-times to penetrate into (John Keelwould say "infest") and cause mischiefin ours. We have been sharing ourspace with angels and demons, elvesand fairies, goblins and spirits sincetime began. A materialistic sciencemay have banished them from ourawareness and remain blind to themand, when their existence is claimed,laugh them away, but the truth seemsto be that they continue to see us,trick us, play with us and, indeed,laugh at us. "A huge confidence trickon a grand, theatrical scale," Houghcalls it. (Hough, 1989, p. 120.)There was a time, of course, whenfairies were commonly seen. No longer,as fairies are out of style. But theelementals are masters of disguise (aswell as deception) and their form isprotean — I am tempted to say For-tean. Since we now live in a SpaceAge and our heads are no longerbowed down to the soil but insteadgaze outward into the incalculablevastness of the cosmos, they dress inthe costume of our own epochsarchetypal figure — the extraterres-trial alien — whom we can see sincehe conforms to our current concep-tion of imaginative possibility. It seemsthat they want to be seen, perhaps sowe can ponder, as we obviously do,their meaning for modern humanity.Though their kinds are various,they seem always to fall into two maincategories. From old Swedenborg totodays schizophrenics, we find higher-order angelic entities who seem toguide rather than coerce an individualto draw on his own inner wisdom andwho protect him from harm. Thenthere are the darker denizens whoare decidedly manipulative or coollyindifferent to ones fate — or evenpatently malevolent. Students of UFO-lore are well familiar with both ofthese types though the latter kind arecertainly more commonly involvedwith "UFO abductions" these days.Nothing new here, really — exceptthe uniform. One piece jump suitswerent always in fashion.Indeed, nothing new here at allsince these folkloric riffs have beenplayed for years for UFO enthusiastsby several able writers, most notablyJacques Vallee (1970, 1988) and JohnKeel (1970, 1988). Recent contribu-tions by a new generation of scholarssuch as David Hufford (1982), PeterRojcewicz (1984; 1986; 1987; inpressa; in press b), Thomas Bullard (1987;1988), and Michael Grosso (1988a;1988b) have only added more persua-sive accompaniment to an alreadyirresistible refrain.Im bringing in this familiar theme
  8. 8. Folklore is the earthly mirror of the imaginal world.Simulacra of that world have always haunted ourswith their ghostly presence. They have been asineradicable as they have been elusive — and theyhave always defied capture by net-carrying, however, only because onecomes to it by following out "theimaginal imperative" — tracing theimplications of the imaginal perspec-tive for the problem of "UFO abduc-tions." In other words, I have reachedthe same conclusions as these parti-sans of the folkloric view, but I gotthere by taking a different route, towit; (1) the imaginal realm is a self-existent world; (2) it is accessiblethrough altered states of conscious-ness; (3) it is populated by ontologi-cally real personified beings; and (4) itinteracts with the everyday materialworld, albeit often in ways that defyrational understanding. When I applythe template that results from theseconsiderations to the UFO abductionphenomenon, it makes parsimonioussense of it. I dont have to posit somekind of almost inconceivable extrater-restrial invasion to explain it; instead Ican understand it against the back-drop of a worldwide tradition — folk-lore — that has always co-existedalong with man.And always means now, too, obvious-ly. It is happening this very day,though we may be no more aware ofit than a 15th century Italian knewthat he was living through the Renais-sance. As Jacques Vallee has aptlysaid, UFO phenomena, such as abduc-tions, are "folklore in the making."We just need to be able to see it inthat light. Try thinking about TheNational Enquirer as our most popu-lar journal of folklore, for example,and youll see what I mean.At its core, after all, folklore is sto-ries — stories that are often hard tobelieve. The same could be said forUFO reports. Indeed, ufology is afield that is mostly stories of this kind— wild, fantastic tales fed by a neverending supply of tantalizing rumors("The Government is about to come8clean" — how long have we beenhearing that one?) and unquenchablehopes that the long sought-after butalways elusive artefact (today, its animplant) that will conclusively estab-lish extraterrestrial presence on theplanet will be tomorrow morningsheadline. How long will it take ufolo-gists to realize that they themselvesare part of the folkloric machine, help-ing to create a new myth for todayshumanity while thinking that they areworking in a scientific spirit to solve"the UFO question?"An imaginal approach allows one tosee clearly the self-generated futility ofmuch of the UFO enterprise — as itseems to be carried out by manyinvestigators these days. They arechasing their own tails; they are partof the very problem they think theyare trying to separate out for study.Furthermore, they inadvertently con-fuse the people they are endeavoring,with full compassionate intent, to help— those reporting "UFO abductions."And Im afraid that to many educatedlaymen, they may simply appear foolish.And how ironic all this is —becausein fact the so-called "UFO question"is one of enormous importance fortodays world. UFO research-ers really deserve not only our respectbut our praise for they have rightly, inmy judgment, identified perhaps oneof the most significant cultural issuesof our time. I fully share their convic-tion about how momentous it is andhow important it is to examine itsimplications. And I deeply sympathizewith all those persons whose ownencounters with (what we still mis-leadingly call) UFO phenomena haveleft them disturbed, if not profoundlytroubled. They deserve our help andunderstanding; they have experiencedsomething very real. "The UFO prob-lem" merits all the attention its inves-tigators have been demanding, and Isupport them in this.But we can help best, in my opin-ion, by jettisoning our outworn Carte-sian habits of thought and approach-ing these phenomena from an imagi-nal/folkloric perspective. This willnecessarily take us down a psycholog-ical road that will lead not only intofolkloric territory but into the realm ofmyth itself — which is where this dis-cussion began, as the reader willrecall. This may make some ufologistsuncomfortable if not downright unhap-py, but in the long run it will, I think,prove salutary for UFO studies. Forby placing this field within an alreadyestablished scholarly tradition, ufol-ogy, long orphaned and shunned bythe academy, will finally find a home.This may, of course, make it hard onreporters for The National Enquirer,but it would enable a lot of timidacademicians — like me — who areinterested in UFO phenomena tocome out ofhiding.In the end, the search for the aliensomewhere out in the galaxy must beabandoned anyway, for he is notthere. You will find him instead in themulti-dimensional richness of humanexperience on this planet. But let uswork to develop our own imaginalvision so that when we do encounterhim we can finally deliteralize him.Then we will see him for who he is —and find him more astonishing thanthe extraterrestrials we now fantasizeabout.ReferencesBartholomew, R.E., and Basterfield,K. Abduction states of consciousness.International UFO Reporter, March/April, 1988a, 7-9, 15.Bartholomew, R.E., and Basterfield,K. UFO "abductees" and "contac-tees": psychopathogy orfantasy-prone?Unpublished manuscript, 1988c.Basterfield, K., and Bartholomew,R.E. Abductions: The fantasy-pronepersonality hypothesis. InternationalUFO Reporter, May/June, 1988b,9-11.Bucke, R.M. Cosmic Conscious-ness. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1969.Bullard, T.E. Comparafiue Analysisof UFO Abduction Reports. Washing-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May, 1989
  9. 9. ton, D.C.: Fund for UFO Research,1987.Bullard, T.E. Folklore scholarshipand UFO reality. International UFOReporter, July/August, 1988, 9-13.Cohen, J.M., and Phipps, J-F. TheCommon Experience. London: Rider,1979.Corbin, H. Mundus Imaginalis: Orthe Imaginary and the Imaginal. Ips-wich, England: Golgonooza Press, 1976.Doore, G. Shamans Path. Boston:Shambhala, 1988.Eliade, M. Rifes and Symbols ofInitiation. New York: Harper, 1958.Eliade, M. Shamanism. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1964.Foster, G.W. The World was Hood-ed with Light. Pittsburgh: PittsburghUniversity Press, 1985.Gallup, G., Jr. Aduenrures in Immor-tality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982.Goldsmith, S. Letter. InternationalUFO Reporter, July/August, 1988,23-24.Grof, S. Realms of the HumanUnconscious. New York: Viking, 1975.Grosso, M. Transcending the "EThypothesis." UFO, 1988a, 3 (1), 9-11.Grosso, M. The symbolism of UFOabductions. UFO Universe, November,1988b, 44-45,62-63.Hillman, J. Re-Wsioning Psychol-ogy. New York: Harper and Row,1975.Hopkins, B. Letter. InternationalUFO Reporter, May/June, 1988a, 22-23.Hopkins, B. Letter, /nfernafiona/UFO Reporter, July/August, 1988b,20-21.Hough, P. The development ofUFO occupants. In Spencer, J, andEvans, H. (eds.) Phenomenon. NewYork: Avon, 1989.Hufford, D. The Terror that Comesin the Night. Philadelphia:Universityof Pennsylvania Press, 1982.James, W. The Varieties of Reli-gious Experience. New York: Mentor,1958.Kalweit, H. Dreamtime and InnerSpace. Boston: Shambhala, 1988.Keel, J. UFOs: Operation TrojanHorse. New York: G.P. PutnamsSons, 1970.Keel, J. Disneyland of the Gods.New York: Amok Press, 1988.LeShan, L. The Medium, the Mys-tic and the Physicist. New York:Vik-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989ing, 1974.Lynn, S.J., and Rhue, J.W. Thefantasy-prone person: hypnosis, imag-ination and fantasy. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 1988,51, 404-408.Lynn, S.J., and Rhue, J.W. Fantasy-proneness: hypnosis, developmentalantecedents and psychopathology.American Psychologist, 1988, 43, 35-44.Matthews, C., and Matthews, J.The Western Way. London: Arkana,1985.McKenna, T. New maps of hypers-pace. Magical Blend, April, 1989,58-66.Moody, R.A., Jr. Life After Life.Atlanta: Mockingbird Press, 1975.Moravec, M. Is there a UFO stateof mind? In Spencer, J., and Evans,H. (eds.) Phenomenon. New York:Avon, 1989.Nicholson, S. Shamanism. Whea-ton, Illinois: Theosophical PublishingHouse, 1987.Randies, J. Beyond Explanation?New York: Bantam, 1987.Randies, J. Letter. InternationalUFO Reporter, July/August, 1988,21-23.Riccardo, M. Mystical Conscious-ness. Burbank, Illinois: MVR Books,1977.Rhue, J.W., and Lynn, S.J. Fantasy-proneness: developmental antecedents.Journal of Personality, 1987a, 55,121-137.Rhue, J.W., and Lynn, S.J. Fantasy-proneness and psychopathology. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 1987b, 53, 327-336.Ring, K. Life at Death. New York:Coward, McCann and Geoghegan,1980.Ring, K. Heading Toward Omega.New York: Morrow, 1984.Ring, K. Near-death and UFOencounters as shamanic initiations.Re-Vision, in press.Rogo, D.S. Letter. InternationalUFO Reporter, July/August, 1988, 20.Rojcewicz, P.M. The Boundaries ofOrthodoxy: A Folkloric Look at "theUFO Phenomenon." Ph.D. Disserta-tion, Universityof Pennsylvania, 1984.Rojcewicz, P.M. The extraordinaryencounter continuum hypothesis andits implications for the study of beliefmaterials Folklore Forum, 1986, 19(2),131-152.Rojcewicz, P.M. The "men inblack" experience and tradition: ana-logues with the traditional devil hypoth-esis. Journal of American Folklore,April/June, 1987, 148-160.Rojcewicz, P.M. Signals of trans-cendence: the human-UFO equation.Journal of UFO Studies, New Series,1 in press (a).Rojcewicz, P.M. The folklore of the"men in black:" a challenge to theprevailing paradigm. Reuision, in press(b).Sabom, M. Recollections of Death.New York: Harper and Row, 1982.Vallee, J. Passport fo Magonia.Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1970.Vallee, J. Dimensions. Chicago:Contemporary Books, 1988.Wilson, S.C., and Barber, T.X. Thefantasy-prone personality: implicationsfor understanding imagery, hypnosis,and parapsychological phenomena. InA. Sheitch (ed.): Imagery: CurrentTheory, Research and Application.New York: Wiley, 1983.Zaleski, C. Otherworld Journeys.New York: Oxford University Press,1987.NEWS FLASHPublishers WeeklyApril?, 1989Those creatures from outer spaceare back again — or maybe theyre adifferent breed from those who haveintruded upon the lives of WhitleyStrieber and others over the years. Inany case, theres a book on the wayfrom Edward and Frances Walters, aFlorida couple, titled UFO — ProofPositive: A True Story of the GulfBreeze Sightings. Jim Landis has paid$200,000 to acquire world rights forMorrow, and contracts have beendrawn whereby FTC is taking an option,through Rosenstone/Wender agency inNew York, on miniseries rights. Termsare $100,000 down against $450,000.The Walters and fellow townsfolkclaim to have been visited by UFOsand are ready with photographs and, itis said, a videotape by way of substanti-ation. (William Morrow is targeting for aNovember 1989 release date.)9
  10. 10. Pennsylvania Law OfficerReports CE2 IncidentGordon is PASUs director ofoperations and MUFON State Direc-tor for Pennsylvania. He can becontacted at 6 Oakhill Ave., Greens-burs, PA 15601, Hotline (412) 838-7768.Beginning in 1986, UFO sightingreports to the Pennsylvania Associa-tion for the Study of the Unexplained(PASU) revealed an increase in thenumber of unexplained incidents.Since August of 1987, a continuouswave of UFO activity has been occur-ring in the Keystone State. During1988, numerous close encountercases occurred and were investigatedby PASU. While all classes of closeencounters were logged, daylightobservations, and dozens of nocturnallight sightings were also reported byhundreds of the states residents.This wave of unexplained UFOevents has continued into early 1989,with many high quality UFO incidentscurrently under investigation. Acrossthe state of Pennsylvania, a largenetwork of UFO researchers hasbeen established to handle the sight-ings as they are reported. This net-work is comprised of members ofboth PASU and MUFON, who workclosely together to provide quickresponse to important UFO incidents.PASU has been established for manyyears as a volunteer, statewide scien-tific clearinghouse that conductsopen-minded investigations into allaspects of the UFO phenomena.PASU membership is not open to thepublic, but is comprised of peoplewith specialized experience or trainingin scientific and technical fields.Members include professional scient-ists, medical doctors, engineers, tech-nicians, and former military intelli-gence officers. The organization hasmany types of research equipment togather data in the field. It has beenset up to respond on a 24-hour basis10By Stan Gordonto UFO cases that warrant such aresponse. While many of the 1988cases deserve special recognition, themost important UFO cases occurredas the year was coming to an end.The ObservationLate on the afternoon of December4, 1988, the PASU UFO Hotline tele-phone rang. The caller was a lawenforcement officer from DauphinCounty, who began to ask questionsabout what PASU investigated, whatkind of people were involved with thegroup, and what was done with theinformation. As our discussion con-tinued, it was apparent that he hadsome information to discuss, butseemed reluctant. With a little moretalk we gained his confidence, and herevealed details about an incident thathe had been involved in during theearly morning hours of the same day.Officer Jones (pseudonym; the actualidentity of the witness is on file withPASU and MUFON) had left forwork at 5:25 A.M., and was proceed-ing south on an intersecting road withold Route 22. This four-lane, undi-vided highway goes into and out ofthe City of Harrisburg. He noticed abright light through the trees ahead ofhim in the distance. After rounding abend in the highway, he was startledto see a large object hovering about125 feet away, almost directly abovethe power lines and a traffic light atan intersection. The light from theobject was so bright that it causedhim to swerve to a stop, blocking twolanes of the road. Even though thesky was clear, 40-mile-per-hour windgusts were blowing, making it difficultfor the officer to open the car door totake a better look at the mysteriousobject.He pulled his service cap downover his forehead to provide someadditional protection from the gustywind. The object was about 75 feetlong, shaped like an elongated ovaland appeared to be made of a highlypolished silver-colored material. Thelight from the object was brilliant,comparable to burning magnesium.The object was motionless when firstobserved. As the officer watched, theobject moved to the left, then to theright, and at times rose and fell in alti-tude. After a while, the object sud-denly accelerated straight up a shortdistance then stopped again. Finallythe object departed in a southwes-terly direction, emitting a whitish trailwith a silvery color behind it. Whenthe object was in motion, the officerheard a humming sound that variedfrom a moderate to a high-pitched rate.CEII Physical EffectsThe officer noticed during the obser-vation that he felt like he was in amist, and that the interior of his carwas illuminated with a bluish-haze. Healso noted that his cars exterior paintcolor seemed unusually dull. Theofficer also observed numerous phy-siological effects both during and afterthe sighting. When the witness firststepped out to look at the object, herealized that even with his hands overhis eyes, it was too bright to look atdirectly. Physically,he felt an increasein warmth, a sensation like an electricshock, experienced dizziness, slug-gishness and a headache. His eyesbegan to smart and water, his ear-drums vibrated, and his hair stood onend. After the object departed, someof these effects continued along witha burning sensation in the facial area.His neck muscles and spinal columnached. The pain in his eyes becamemore serious and his vision seemedto be blurred or out of focus. His earsturned red and pain was evident. Inaddition, his hearing seemed impaired.Second WitnessJust after the sighting, the officerMUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989
  11. 11. saw another car about 75 feet awayalso parked along the road. Heapproached the car and found a manin a business suit with his tie missing,and looking as though he had justgotten off work. The man appearedshaken, and tears were observed inhis eyes. The officer asked him if hehad seen the strange object. The manstated that, "yes he had, but he didntknow what it was." The officer was soshaken at the time, that he forgot toobtain the other witnesss name orauto license number. Later, whenrecalling this part of the event, theofficer remembered some unusualdetails. He remembered that as heapproached this other car, he smelleda strong odor similar to sulphur.Upon walking up to the second carhe noted that the motor was shut off,and that the engine was cold asthough it had not been running forsome time. The gentlemans appear-ance at that early morning hourseemed out of place. The author hasposed this question: Could the officerMUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989have come across the ending to aUFO abduction? Why hadnt he seenthis car as he approached the area?After the incident, Jones was stunnedby the experience, and did not feelwell. He thought twice about whetherhe should continue to work, andelected to do so, arrivingabout a halfhour later than normal. When he con-fided in his superior officers, theytook his report seriously. In the pastthey both had observed unexplainedthings in the sky. One of these offic-ers also had a strange experienceabout the same time that Jones hadhis UFO encounter. Officer Lang(pseudonym) was also getting readyto leave for work, when he heard astrange humming sound that seemedto be coming from above his house.He went to the back porch and sawnothing. The sound seemed to befad-ing away as he went into the backyard for a better look. Lang lives inthe same direction that the UFOdeparted after hovering. The officers,after seeing Jones condition, felt thatan official report on the incidentshould be made. It was at this pointthat they made a decision to contactus.Physical EvidenceAfter the initial interview, it wasapparent that the case appeared tobe of high importance. Not only hadimportant physical effects from anearby UFO been reported, but theofficer also mentioned that after theobject departed, he noticed an unus-ual, powdery dust-like material on hiscar. UFO researcher Leslie Varnicle(a telecommunications engineer andMUFON amateur radio net manager)who lives close to the area of thesighting was contacted. She arrangedto meet with the officer and his wifethe same evening the incident tookplace.Varnicle stated in her incidentreport on the sighting, "Officer Joneshas all the outward appearance ofbeing sincere and honest in his11
  12. 12. 3000 rT= 200 SECSUFO 3# 20KV WD29MM 1453/214/752 1/17/892000oLJ1000cLNA0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 10.000ENERGYreporting of what happened to him.He did appear to be visibly shaken byhis experience even though over 12hours had passed between the sight-ing, and this interview. The burningon his face showed definite outlineofhis service cap where it had beenpulled down across his forehead. Theburn marks on his neck and chest aswell as his face were only on the fron-tal portion and did not appear to havebeen made by a sunlamp."Vamicle reported that Jones appear-ed to have what looked like first-degree sunburn on his face. His eyeswere red and bloodshot and his earswere reddened. The witness at thattime stated that he was seeing multi-ple spots in front of his eyes. Varnicletook photographs of the officers faceusing a 35mm camera. Due to thefilm jamming in the camera (this hadnever happened before in the 15years Varnicle had been using thiscamera) the pictures were lost. Theofficers wife, using a VHS cam-corder, took video recordings of hisburnt face. They utilized a separatelight to obtain better pictures. Laterwhen the tape was reviewed, it wasfound that the picture was washedout. Varnicle obtained law enforce-ment sampling tape, and went overthe surface of the car to obtain sam-12pies of the dust-like residue. Most ofthe material had blown away due tothe high winds, so as much as possi-ble was taken from around the crevi-ces of the windows.Health ProblemsBecause of the nature of the physi-cal effects, PASU and MUFON medi-cal consultants in the state were puton alert. The officer had originallydecided to visit his family doctor thenext day after the sighting, but afterthinking over the implications, hedecided not to obtain medical help.The officer emphasized that becauseof his job position, he was fearful ofany publicity and did not want to beidentified. He was worried that hewould have to tell his doctor whatreally happened to produce the burn-ing effects which he received. Consul-tants were prepared to examine thewitness, but the officer, while willingto co-operate as much as possible,did not wish to take time off fromwork to travel a considerable distanceto meet with one of these medicalconsultants. These physical effectslasted several weeks and then gradu-ally began to subside. The officer, infact, never went for any medicalassistance to document the injuries.In late January, 1989, he said that heis now feeling well.Sample AnalysisThe dust samples taken from thecar were sent to the PASU office forfurther study. PASU arranged for anextensive laboratory analysis of thesamples. The examination was con-ducted by a professional analyticallaboratory which is one of severalthat assists PASU as a professionalcourtesy. (Name of lab on file withMUFON). While particles of clay,sodium, and carbon covered with saltwere found, much of the samplesshowed another substance which wasidentified as Potassium Chloride. Whilethe analysts were surprised to findthis material, it was important todetermine if Potassium Chloride mayhave been used in the road salt, andkicked up by a passing car. A checkwas made with the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation andthe Salt Institute located in Alexan-dria, Virginia. Both agencies indicatedthat this material was not used by anyhighway department they were awareof, since it was too expensive to usefor the purpose of melting ice andsnow.This detection of Potassium Chlo-ride on the surface of the car afterhaving been within close range of ahovering UFO is of significance dueto another CE2 incident that madeworldwide news in January of 1988.The Knowles family, while drivingnear Mundrabilla, Australia on Janu-ary 20, 1988 reported that a UFOpicked their car off the highway, thendropped it. An unusual dust materialwas found in their Ford Telstar by theinvestigators. Recent news accountsfrom the Australian press indicatethat analysis of that substance alsoidentified Potassium Chloride. Thislaboratory analysis was performed inCalifornia through the courtesy ofRichard F. Haines, Ph.D. While wecannot rule out the possibilitythat thematerial was picked up by some nor-mal means, the fact that apparentlythe same substance was found ontwo cars intimately involved in closeContinued on page 23MUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989
  13. 13. Case Submittals:A Two-Year Time ExposureBy Dan Wright, Deputy Director, InvestigationsAs the account of one Florida manand his family thundered across theUFO landscape, MUFON investiga-tors in twenty-three states and twoCanadian provinces were quietly assem-bling the broader account of anomal-ous aerial phenomena over NorthAmerica.Responding to a promise of earlyexamination and feedback on allincoming case reports, members sub-mitted a total of 174 cases during the17th-month period ending December31, 1988. In composite, the accountsare reminiscent of a bygone era.Amid the clamor for abduction expe-riences and tales of hybrid pregnan-cies, it is important to realize that thesame momentary, inexplicable UFOappearances which clogged the paper-backs of the Sixties continue unabated.New ProceduresIn early August 1987, the procedurefor submitting and evaluating casereports was revised. Under the newguidelines, a copy of each investigatedcase is to be sent to the DeputyDirector for preliminary evaluation.(The originals of all documents andmaterials should be sent to theSeguin, Texas headquarters.) Eachreport is assured an assessment as toits completeness and clarity. By thismeans, any followup necessary forstrengthening can be accomplishedwhile the case is still fresh. Utilizingthe "Speiser Classification" (MUFONUFO Journal, April 1987), the reportcontent is categorized in terms of itsstrangeness and the probable reliabil-ity of the witness.The value of initiating an assess-ment and feedback mechanism hasbeen borne out by the decliningnumber of incomplete reports sinceits inception. In the first four monthsunder the revised submittal proce-dure, fully half of the case reportsMUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989lacked the necessary thoroughness —in the case materials and/or investiga-tive efforts presented — to be consi-dered complete. By contrast, over thesubsequent thirteen months, fewerthan twenty percent were missing thebasics.The following review of case defi-ciencies is offered to strengthen futurereports. The recurring problems dis-covered have been of three generaltypes:• Forms and summaries: A sight-ing form was not included or essentialinformation was left blank. In effect,the witness did not affirm (via formsignature or handwritten account)that the incident as described in theinvestigators narrative actually occurred.Alternately, the witness statementwas not accompanied by a case eva-luation as summarized by the investiga-tor.• Case elements: Questions arosedue to ambiguities in the event cir-cumstance or description of the claimedanomaly, conflicting testimony, or fac-tors in the environment that were notaddressed.• Collateral contacts: Necessary con-tacts with police, airport or militarybase, neighbors and other sources toeither confirm or resolve the incidentwere not mentioned in the casereport.Readily evident in a statistical anal-ysis of the 174 submittals is the con-centration of states and provinces oforigin. Perhaps not coincidentally,larger numbers of submittals eman-ated from local MUFON organiza-tions that are more robust than theircounterparts. For the descending orderby numbers of reports submitted, seeFigure 1.Valid ReportsOver the 17-month period, 98 casereports were assessed as complete,79 of which were substantial as veri-fied by the investigator. ("Substance"is defined by means of the Speiserscale: a strangeness factor of at leastS3 — possibly explainable but withelements of strangeness; and witnesscredibility of at least P3 — somewhatcredible or indeterminate.)Forty additional cases, including 35from Pennsylvania, were held withoutevaluation pending the arrival of furtherpromised materials. It should also benoted that, at the conclusion of 1988,analysis of the photographs taken by"Mr. Ed" of Gulf Breeze, Florida wasongoing, and a final report on hisclaimed encounters had not beensubmitted. Hence, none of thoseevents are included in the totals. Sev-eral seemingly related reports by oth-ers in the Pensacola - Gulf Breezearea were finalized during the periodPennsylvania - 48Indiana - 32Florida - 18Michigan - 17Washington - 13Massachusetts - 12Alabama - 4Minnesota - 3Ohio - 3Saskatchewan - 3Arizona - 2Iowa - 2Kentucky - 2Ontario - 2Utah - 2West Virginia - 2California - 1Colorado - 1Figure 1Connecticut - 1Mississippi - 1North CarolinaNorth Dakota -Oklahoma - 1Oregon - 1South CarolinaTotal: 174-11-113
  14. 14. and so are properly recognized here.Of the 79 substantial reports, 58concerned incidents occurring fromJanuary 1987 forward, to which thecommentary below is confined. Withcaution against making any judgmentsbased on a small universe of cases,object shape among the 58 cases wasas described in Figure 2.Twenty-three of the 58 events werecategorized as close encounters ofthe first kind, nineteen of whichoccurred at night involving a lone,average (non-exceptional) witness. Twosingle-witness CE-1 occurrences werein daylight, while multiple witnesseswere present in two others at night.No radar-visual cases were reportedand no instances of a CE-II, III or IVwere substantiated.Setting aside two ground tracesdiscovered without direct observationof an anomalous vehicle, 33 othervalid cases were submitted during theperiod. Fifteen of these were classifiedas nocturnal lights (NL), seven asdaylight objects at a distance (DD),and eleven as night objects at adis-tance. (Note: Hyneks classificationsystem does not account for clearlydefined objects beyond close-encounterrange after nightfall. These eleven,then, would be termed nocturnallights under that system.) Night objectis an advent of the Berliner Coeffi-cient (MUFON UFO Journal, March1987).Fifteen of the 33 distant sightingsinvolved single average observers,while in five the lone witness wasconsidered exceptional by reason ofspecific training as an observer. Thir-teen reports included multiple wit-esses.Sky, Sound &EMThe 56 substantial cases of direct(close or distant) observation arereviewed below in respect to skycondition, perceived sound, and appar-ent electrical/magnetic (EM) effects.The sky was clear or partly cloudyin 50 of the 56 observations. Fouroccurred with an overcast, one duringfoggy conditions, and one under athreatening weather alert.No sound was associated with theobject in 47 events. In three, a humwas heard, while in two others a swi-shing/jet sound was detected. Onewitness reported a whizzing; oneclaimed a medium-range tone mixedwith static; and one stated the win-dows of her home vibrated from anundefined sound.EM effects were noted in fourcases. In one,an autos engine missedand headlights dimmed momentarily.The second incident entailed an autosradio being stuck on a particular sta-tion after an overflight. In a third, anelectrical outage was confirmed in theimmediate area of an object hoveringabove powerlines. These three casesinvolved disc-shaped vehicles. In thefourth (a possible abduction), the wit-nesss car came to a halt without thebrakes being applied as a brilliant redlight approached.Best Case ScenariosTwelve case reports stood apartfrom the remainder as both beingimportant in the chronology of thesubject and having been especiallywell investigated. Each, on the Speiserscale, was afforded a strangeness fac-Nocturnal light(s) onlyDiscoid or variant*Cylindrical or variant**Spherical or variant***Other geometric shapeGround trace (no object)15208582(26%)(34%)(14%)( 9%)(14%)( 3%)* 1hexagonal, 1octagonal, 1 ovoid/discoid** 4 bulbous/tapered, 1 winged*** 1wingedFigure 214tor of at least S4 (strange, does notconform to known principles) andwitness reliability of at least P4 (cred-ible and sound). These are capsulizedbelow in sequential order. AH statedtimes are local.3/4/87 (Log #881001), Mauckport,Indiana, 11:15PM, 20-minute duration(lead investigator, Jim Delehanty): A wo-man returning from feeding her dogwas engulfed by an orange glow.Three hundred feet above hovered adisc with a prominent rim and perime-ter lights of red, green and blue. Attimes the vehicle appeared to wobble.Finally, it accelerated vertically, levelledoff, and moved out of sight inseconds.3/13/87 (Log #880101), 20 milesfrom Moose Jaw,Saskatchewan, 7:20PM, 7-second duration (lead investiga-tor, Tim Tokaryk): While drivingalong Highway 2, a family observed atapered cylindrical vehicle, 12 feet inlength, pacing their auto at a distanceof 40 feet. The object was soundlessand emitted no exhaust. The middleportion of its upper section was brigh-ter. It moved in front of the auto,accelerating out of sight.9/3/87 (Log #871209), Greensburg,Pennsylvania, 1 AM, 3-minute dura-tion (lead investigator, Stan Gordon),Winner of the Meritorious Achieve-ment in a UFO Investigation awardfor 1987: Five men, including threepolice officers, observed a metallicdisc hovering over power lines. Adocumented electrical outage in thearea immediatelyafterward was report-ed as being a consequence of theobjects presence.9/24/87 (Log #871104), near Cory-don, Indiana, 9:50 PM, 15-secondduration (lead investigator, Jim Dele-hanty): A teenager witnessed a domeddisc, larger than the witnesss auto,pass from the rear, tilt to miss a barnand again to avoid a farmhouse, thenspeed off into the night. Upper andlower domes displayed windows. Theobject emitted a yellow-green glow,while red-orange lights were seenaround the perimeter and a blue lighton the lower portion. The enginecoughed and headlights dimmed momen-tarily as the vehicle moved overhead.1/21/88 (Log #880202),Oak Har-bor, Washington, 10:45 PM, 25-secondMUFON UFO Journal, No. 253,May 1989
  15. 15. duration (lead investigator Donald John-son): Three adults, including a retiredmilitary officer, and two children observeda lighted disc leave the perimeter of anearby base and pass overhead. A ringof bluish-white lights on the bottom inthe shape of slits were pulsating sequen-tially in a clockwise direction. The vehi-cle appeared to be silent.2/22/88 (Log #880302), Irwin, Pen-nsylvania, 9:45 PM, 15-minute duration(lead investigator, Stan Gordon): Threeadults observed a silent disc at closerange with red and white lights and sur-rounded by a colorful aura. The objectemitted two beams of light downward.It then moved off in a zigzagmanner.3/11/88 (Log #880605), Gulf Breeze,Florida, 6:45 PM, 1-minute duration(lead investigator, Gary Watson): Aminister and teen babysitter observed asilent rotating disc emitting a bluish lightfrom windows on the lower portion.The object hovered, then moved offbeyond a treeline.3/13/88 (Log #880704), near Loxley,Alabama, 11:10 PM, 5-10 minute dura-tion (lead investigator, Duncan Crow):A retired military aircraft technician firstheard an abbreviated sound likened toa jet, then observed a disc movingoverhead, light emanating from a row ofholes along the objects perimeter.3/14/88 (Log #880606), Gulf Breeze,Florida, 9:45 PM, 3-minute duration(lead investigator, Gary Watson): Twowomen pursued a disc with portholesemitting orange light and a ring of lightu n d e r n e a t h . The object atone point moved directly in front of thewitnesss auto. Attempts to photographit were unsuccessful.4/28/88 (Log #880501), Gulf Breeze,Florida, 10 PM, 1-minute duration (leadinvestigator, Donald Ware): A retiredmilitary aircraft technician and veteransorganization commander confronted asilent disc moving in front of his vehicle,then hovering over a nearby field. Theobject had a bright orange coloration onthe bottom portion and emitted a bluebeam of light downward. Three smallairplanes circled the field immediatelyafterward.9/3/88 (Log #880903), Ipswich, Mass-achusetts, 1:10 AM, 4-minute duration(lead investigator, Ray Fowler): Prepar-ing to retire, a woman looked out herbedroom window. Over an adjoiningfield was a smallish vehicle with rowsofgreen and yellow lights on the undersideand red lights along the perimeter. Nosound was noticed. She woke her hus-band, who confirmed the basic descrip-tion. Unbeknownst to the witness,twelve years earlier a report was madeconcerning a UFO over the same field.10/24/88 (Log #881102), Valparaiso,Florida, 9:30 PM, 5-minute duration(lead investigator, Muril V.D. Garten):The wife of a USAF officer noticedthree lights shining through her second-floor window.She observed an approach-ing vehicle at nearly eye-level justbeyond the apartment buildings lawn.Rectangular, it displayed one-meter roundlights situated side by side on one end.It halted and hovered, then movedaway. No sound was detected. At thespeed of a light airplane, it crossed andrecrossed a bayou, its lights reflectingon the water below.(Dan Wright is a member of theMUFON Executive Committee andCalendar of UFO Conferences for 1989June 29 & 30, July 1 — 10th Rocky Mountain Conference on UFO Investigation, Uni-versity of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.June 30, July 1 & 2 — MUFON International UFO Symposium, Aladdin Hotel andCasino, Las Vegas, NevadaJuly 14, 15 & 16 — Fifth London International UFO Congress, London BusinessSchool, Regents Park, London, EnglandSeptember 15, 16 & 17 — 26th Annual National UFO Conference, Quality Inn West,Phoenix, ArizonaOctober 21 — The Show-Me UFO Conference, Harley Hotel, Earth City, Missouri(near St. Louis)November 11 & 12 —The UFO Experience, Ramada Inn, North Haven, ConnecticutBoard of Directors. His mailingaddress for receipt of case reportsand other correspondence is: 228 S.Fairview, Lansing, Michigan 48912.)New JournalPublishedAre UFO abductions real? Arepeople actually getting abducted byaliens? Or are these stories all fanta-sies, hoaxes, or confabulations? InVolume One of the new Journal ofUFO Studies, published in March bythe J. Allen Hynek Center for UFOStudies (CUFOS), seven commenta-tors in a special "UFO abductionforum" debate the issue and enumer-ate the various arguments in favor offantasy and reality. Editor Michael D.Swords, professor of natural sciencesat Western Michigan University, sum-marizes: "Although the forum partici-pants disagreed over the cause ofabductions, they all concur that thephenomenon is not well understood— yet it is sufficiently widespread tocall for scientific study."Also in this issue, folklorist ThomasE. Bullard examines the relationshipbetween hynposis and UFO abduc-tions. Critics have charged that abduc-tion stories amount to nothing morethan fantasy, raised to an unusualheight of vividness by hypnotic inves-tigation itself. But according to Bul-lard, who has compared stories obtain-ed through hypnosis with storiesobtained by natural recall, the formand content of abduction narrativesseem independent of hypnosis.In addition, the beliefs and person-alities of the investigating hypnotistsdo not influence the stories, and"real" abductees actually tell morecoherent stories than non-abducteeswho have been asked to make up astory under hypnosis. The concision?Although hypnosis is flawed, it cannotbe solely responsible for the claimsUFO abductees have made.CUFOS first published the Journalof UFO Studies in 1978. This latestseries, to be published annually,marksthe beginning of a new enterpriseContinued on page 17MUFON UFO Journal, No. 256, May 1989 15
  16. 16. Life Not So LonelyBy Michael Swords, Ph.D.Dr. Swords is associate professorof natural sciences at WesternMichigan University, Kalamazoo,and editor of the Journal of UFOStudies.A rejoinder to the reprinted articleby Jerome Pearson, "Lonely Life of aDouble Planet," MUFON UFO Jour-nal, 247, Nov. 1988, should probablybe written by Dr. John Derr or someother credentialled geologist, but Iam, as usual, incapable of restrainingmyself on "matters scientific," so hereis an oppositional view.Mr. Pearson is of the opinion thatthe presence of an unusually largeMoon explains:• Ourhot molten core• Continental drift• Ourmagnetic field• The atmosphere• Ozone shield-layerand• Life.I respectfully disagree.The hot molten core: the currenttheory for the hot molten core is notfrictional tidal heating from a nearbymoon, but radioactive decay of var-ious sorts, including such a powerfulsource in early years (from an alumi-num isotope) that it melted the wholeplanet! A rare large Moon is notnecessary for this.Continental drift: continental driftoccurs due to the need for release ofsuch internal heat through the crust,plus the ability of a relatively thincrust to crack and ride upon thesemi-molten interior mantle. No Moonneeded. Then why arent the otherterrestrial planets showing drift? Mer-cury and Mars are small. They haveprobably radiated their heat rapidlydue to their large surface to volumeratio. What about Venus? We dontknow about Venus. Ground observa-tions are difficult and incomplete.Some evidence of geological activityexists but everything is guesswork at16this stage. Two other things of possi-ble relevance: crust thickness may becritical, and Venus is known to be dif-ferently composed (a different den-sity) than Earth; secondly, wateroceans may be critical, and VenusGreenhouse Effect has ridded theplanet of water long ago. And, mostimportantly, there is no obvious rea-son why one must have continentaldrift for life evolution anyway. It mayhelp create mass extinctions andstresses, which in some backhandedways open up niches and accelerateevolution, but, given time, life shouldadvance even on a relatively quietworld.Magnetic FieldThe magnetic field: the field is aproduct of the initial melting of part ofthe iron core, which is maintainedin liquid state by radioactive decayacross the milennia — not by theMoon. Then, what about the otherterrestrials (again)? Well, Mercurydoes have an Earthlike magnetic field(which immediately "gives the lie" tothe "needed Moon" viewpoint). It isreally the absence of a magnetic fieldin Venus which is the solar systemsmystery, rather than the presence ofone in the Earth. Almost all the otherplanets have magnetic fields, usuallyquite powerful ones. The proper con-clusion seems to be: planets normallyform magnetic fields, not rarely formthem ... and that goes Moons or not.The venting of the primordial atmos-phere: this almost needs no comment— where does Pearson think thatVenus and Mars atmospheres camefrom? All extra-bright Suns blow thepre-solar cloud gases away.The ozone shield-layer: well, lifemakes oxygen. Oxygen rises and getshit by UV-radiation.It splits and somerecombines into the three atom ver-sion of oxygen, ozone. Pearson seesthe Moon as relevant to this by(somehow) the magnetic field (whichit allegedly caused) being necessary tohold the ozone in. He quotes anIndian researcher in the "SatelliteCenter in Bangalore" but Ive notheard of the work. Even if legitimate,it is irrelevant as we have seen — theMoon was not necessary to create amagneticfield.Life: since this "no-Moon, no-Life"conclusion depends on all of theabove, it too has become nonsequitur.Lastly, why did this hypothesisoccur? Maybe it was just simple intel-lectual fun, and if so, more power toMr. Pearson. A good theory expandsthe mind. But I am suspicious thatthis is another piece of thought fromthe "school of Human Aggrandize-ment," struggling mightily against thethrust of modern discovery to main-tain the egocentric belief that we arethe pinnacle of creation and the mostmighty and important things in theUniverse. As a religious person whois also a scientist I have nothingagainst viewing each of us as individ-ually very important and worth sin-cerely caring about, but the elevationof Mankind to some dominant factorin the scheme of things is, I fear,neither healthy nor true. Such are myviews for what they are worth. For-give me Mr. Pearson if I have misin-terpreted yours.P.S. The notion that our Earth-Moon system is unique in our solarsystem as to the relative masses ofthe two objects may itself requirefurther analysis. The Neptune-Tritonsystem has a current mass ratio ofabout 10 times that of our own, bur,had it formed close to our Sun ratherthan distantly, the early super-brightsolar wind would have blown much ofwhat is now gaseous Neptune awayand reduced the ratio to somethingvery near our own.MUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989
  17. 17. Pearson RespondsThe paper written for New Scient-ist and reprinted in the MUFON UFOJournal was a popularization of "TheMoon and SETI," a technical paper(IAF/IAA 87-601) I presented at the38th Congress of the InternationalAstronautical Federation in Brighton,England during October of 1987. Theoriginal paper includes 42 referencesthat address the concerns of Profes-sor Swords. These references repres-ent more than twenty years of SETIstudies; they explain the observationsof the Indian researcher Rao and oth-ers, and they chronicle the longtradi-tion of SETI studies done under theauspices of the British InterplanetarySociety Journal. I welcome ProfessorSwords to this engaging interplay ofconflicting opinions.The most important point in mypaper, which so many researchershave overlooked, is Figure 1, which issometimes called the "Magnetic BodesLaw." This shows that the magneticfields of all the planets except theearth lie close to a straight line interms of magnetic field movementversus angular momentum. Contraryto Professor Swords assertion, it isthe Earth, not Venus, that is theexception. This observation has beenmissed by most researchers becausethey habitually draw the line throughthe values for Earth and Jupiter, thusputting all other planets off the line.This became glaringly obvious to mein 1986 when Voyager II measuredUranus magnetic field far below thisEarth-Jupiter line. This mystery willdeepen if, as I expect, the magneticfield moment of Neptune measuredby the Voyager II spacecraft this com-ing August falls on the line I havedrawn.In his article, Professor Swordsdoes not come to grips with the twocentral points of my paper — first,that we see no evidence of extrater-restrial intelligence, and second, theEarths magnetic field and its cap-tured moon are both 100 times biggerthan expected. The genesis of mypaper was to attempt an explanationof the first observation by the second.Professor Sword misinterpreted myviews, in that I am no champion ofthe "egocentric belief that we are thepinnacle of creation." Personally, I ama great fan of Isaac Asimovs galacticempires and I long for the excitementof extraterrestrial contact, lest ourspace exploration degenerate intonothing more than a sandbox forplanetary scientists and a battlefieldfor soldiers. But 30 years of SETIhave shown zero results, and wemust therefore entertain the notion,however unpleasant, that we areeither alone in the galaxy or we areamong its most advanced species.— Jerome PearsonFigure 1.L06(M/Me)-2JLDlterJSaturnEartfi-2MUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 19890 2LOG(L/L0)JOURNAL, continuedunder its original title. The journal willpublish only refereed articles of quality,issues forums of expert opinion andprofessionalism, and literature reviewsof intelligenceand insight.Editor Swords says, "We hope to beobjective, disciplined and rigorous. Wewelcome all viewpoints which can meetthe standards, and in fact, will activelyattempt to recruit valued scholars invarious disciplinesfor forums and researcharticles. Without objectivity and rigor,nothing scientific is worth the name."Other articles in this issue include:• A chemical analysis of the physicaltraces left by a UFO near Delphos,Kansas, in 1972, by biochemist Erol A.Faruk — perhaps the most completeanalysis ever undertaken of a physical-trace case in the United States;• A study of the extraterrestrialhypothesis for UFOs and the likelihoodof intelligent life in the universe, by edi-tor Michael D. Swords;• Anda special hypnotic regressiontechnique, developed by aviation psy-chologist Richard F. Haines, that redu-ces the possibility of biasing witnessesunder hypnosis.CUFOS is an international group ofscientists, academics, investigators, andvolunteers dedicated to the continuingexamination and analysis of the UFOphenomenon. Its purpose is to be aclearinghouse for a two-way exchangeof information: where UFO experiencescan be reported and UFO events canbe researched. CUFOS promotes ageneral public understanding of theUFO phenomenon through various activ-ities and projects. The International UFOReporter, published bi-monthly,reviewscurrent sightings and news and includesarticles on many different UFO topics.The Center for UFO Studies wasfounded in 1973 by astronomer J. AllenHynek, who became involved with UFOsas scientific consultant to the U.S. AirForce from 1948 to 1968. Dr. Hynekwas scientific director of CUFOS untilhis death in 1986.The 176-page 1989 volume of theJournal of UFO Studies (ISSN 0730-5748) may be ordered for $15.00 (plus$3.00 shipping for orders outside theUnited States) from CUFOS at 2457W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659.17
  18. 18. Looking BackBy Bob GribbleFORTY YEARS AGO- May1949: On the 27th, the witness wasflying his privately owned SNJ-typeaircraft from Red Bluff, California toBurns, Oregon. At 2:25 p.m., heobserved the sun reflecting on anobject, or objects. He continued towatch the course taken by the reflect-ing material, expecting it to material-ize into a conventional aircraft as thedistance decreased. As he came closer(5Y2 to 7l/2 miles), he observed no lessthan five objects and no more thaneight moving in a straight line forma-tion. They had a solid configuration,an oval-shape, perhaps twice as longas wide. The vehicles were consider-ably smaller than a fighter plane,probably less than 20 feet in length.No trail of smoke or exhaust wasobserved. The speed of the craft heldsteady as they went out of visualrange on the horizon.***THIRTY FIVE YEARS AGO —May 1954: In a lengthy article in theMay issue of TRUE magazine titled,"What Our Air Force Found OutAbout Flying Saucers," Captain Ed-ward Ruppelt, former head of ProjectBlue Book, stated that: "My ownopinion is that either the saucers areinterplanetary or they do not exist. Ido not believe there is enough evi-dence at hand to choose between thealternatives. You can argue eithercase indefinitely, and in the end youwill have only an opinion."About mid-afternoon on the 14th, a16-disc formation was encounterednear Dallas, Texas by four Marine jetpilots. Flying at 15,000 feet, MajorCharles Scarborough first spotted theformation as it raced in above hisair-craft. He immediately radioed theother pilots. An instant later CaptainR.L. Jorgenson, flying at 42,000 feet,sighted the craft below. Calling ordersto the other pilots, Major Scarborough18climbed swiftly toward the discs. Asecond later, diving steeply, Jorgen-son and Major E.G. White tried tobox the discs between Scarboroughand his wingman, Captain CharlesStanton. But with a sudden burst ofspeed the 16 craft raced from underthe diving jets. Still flying in formation,the discs moved out of sight.On the following day General NathanF. Twining, the Air Forces Chief ofStaff, said that the Air Force has thebest brains in the country working onthe flying disc problem. "If... there isa people and a world that far aheadof us, I dont think we have even toworry about it. Some very reliablepersons have reported flying objectsthat cant be identified. We are cer-tainly working on the problem andare not discounting all these reports,"he said. Twining made his statementto a large audience at an Armed For-ces Day dinner at Amarillo Air ForceBase, Texas.***TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO -May 1964: Michael Bizon, 10, ofHubbard, Oregon, came running tohis parents farm home shortly after7:30 a.m. on the 18th. He blurted outthat while running the cows to pas-ture he suddenly noticed a shiny,silver object with four prongs sittingin a wheat field not 200 feet from him.He told his mother that as hewatched the object — about the sizeof a kitchen table and five feet high —began to take off slowly, and makinga soft "beep beep" sound. At aboututility pole height, the boy said thecraft "zoomed up like a rocket" anddisappeared. That was enough forMichael. He took off, too — forhome.Mrs. Bizon and a neighbor, RoyMortensen, decided to take a look.What they saw was an almost perfectcircle about three feet in diameterwhere the wheat had been evenly flat-tened. Outside the circle they alsofound what they took for three"prong" marks, although Michael hadsaid there were four. An hour laterMichaels father saw for himself thestrange marks in the otherwise undis-turbed 40-acre wheat field. The wheathad been blown down "in all differentdirections" suggesting that some forcehad been brought to bear on it.***TWENTY YEARS AGO- May1969: Mr. and Mrs. Leo P. Chaputwere awakened in their home by thebarking of their dog two miles nor-theast of Pembroke, Ontario, Can-ada, at 2 a.m. on the llth. A brightlight was shining in their window.Chaput said the stationary light wasclose to or on the ground and was"illuminating the surrounding fields."The light was so intense the witnesshad to shade his eyes. The lightrevealed a dome-shaped vehicle witha flat bottom that was emitting "a softpurring." As Chaput turned his eyesaway the craft disappeared. Threelarge ring-like impressions, each measur-ing about 27 feet in diameter, werefound on the ground the next morn-ing. Within these impressions theground was scorched.***FIFTEEN YEARS AGO- May1974: During the week of the fifth,Sandra Hodgson, 36, spotted a mys-terious light moving at low altitudenear Grapevine, Texas. She and afriend, Debbie Carter, 17, got in theircar and pursued it. "It stopped downa small road over a patch of woodsabout a mile east of us and beamed astrong searchlight down into a clear-ing," Sandra said. "When we gotthere the light was still hovering in theair over a clearing where a Mexican-American family live in a convertedconstruction building. When theyarrived at the site they found Mr. andMrs. Lucio Perez and his brother,Leonardo Perez, standing in the clear-ing looking up at the light. ThePerezes indicated with gestures thatthe light appeared to come from thefield at the edge of the airport. Report-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 256, May 1989
  19. 19. ers who trudged through the highgrass and weeds to the fence linereported they found a circular area ofgrass and weeds about 20 feet indiameter twisted down in a clockwisepattern. It appeared something hadset down on them.On the 13th, a police officer and afarmer were astounded by a blinding-bright craft they pursued for 20 min-utes before it vanished in the nightsky over Maxton, North Carolina. "Itwas a triangular-shaped craft about asbig as a bus," said Caradine Brown,Jr. Brown was riding in a patrol carwith his friend Officer Russell Thomp-son when they spotted the vehiclehovering above the trees of a mobile-home park shortly after midnight. "Icounted 30 lights on it. They wereorange and yellow and were as brightas a welders torch," said Brown.Thompson, a 15-year veteran of thepolice force, recalled: "It was reallystrange. The craft gave off a realbright light, yet the ground wasnt litup at all. There were about 30 lights,each about one foot in diameter, andthey were so bright and intense thatthey blinded us from a block away."After landing near Browns house, thevehicle "just vanished."On the 30th, Ken Krogh, 17, wasdriving near Regent, North Dakotawhen he noticed a large craft hover-ing over a field about 1000 feet abovethe ground. The vehicle was about200 feet long and 75 feet wide. Afterobserving the craft for about a minutehe sped home to inform his family.He and his father then watched ithover about 500 feet from their houseand less than 500 feet above theground for about 15 minutes. Theyouth reported that when the vehiclepassed over his truck, it caused theradio to go completely dead, with noth-ing but a little static being emitted.Both could hear a humming noise,much like that of an electric motor.No air disturbance was created, otherthan static electricity, which theycould feel. The younger Krogh saidthe light from the craft lit up theground somewhat, but when he lookedat the ground,he could not see a shadow.***TEN YEARS AGO- May 1979:MUFON UFO Journal, No. 253, May 1989At 12:05 a.m., Jim Gallagher was fly-ing his aircraft at about 10,000 feetapproaching Hailey,Idaho. He observ-ed five orange objects in a horizontalformation in front of him. Then theytilted — like an airplane would dip itswings — and he thought it was somekind of aircraft. The objects thenspread out and "I knew damn well itwasnt an aircraft. Then the objectsregrouped and they got into a verticalline, then they just got all mixed up. Ithought I was going to get run over;they looked like they were comingright at me, the distance was closing.Then they lengthened the distancefrom me out front, then they wentover to my left and my magneticcompass started spinning and myADF started spinning. At that pointthey were in a straight line formationand then they just blinked out. I feel Iwatched the objects for 15 minutes. Idid have trouble receiving on theradio because of heavy static and myengine started running rough." Duringthe entire period that the objectswere observed by Gallagher, theywere being tracked by radar.At 2:40 a.m., the crew of a Braniffairliner flying at 35,000 feet from Seat-tle, Washington to Fort Worth, Texas,also observed the orange objectsbelow their aircraft. The pilot of a pri-vate jet flying from Boise, Idaho toSalt Lake City, Utah, and located justahead of the airliner, also observedthe orange objects in the Hailey,Idaho area. As both aircraft reached apoint about 50 miles southeast ofTwin Falls, Idaho, the objects whichwere being tracked by radar over theHailey area suddenly disappeared fromthe radar screen. At 2:53 a.m., theBraniff airliner — which was now 70miles northwest of Ogden, Utah —reported seeing the orange objectsagain at his one oclock position, 30miles west of Ogden. At the sametime, the objects were being trackedat the same location given by theBraniff crew. The crews on Braniffand the smaller jet observed the ob-jects until both aircraft were overOgden. At about the same time theobjects disappeared from the radar screen.Mars FeaturesReviewedEnclosed for review in the MUFONJournal is the volume Unusual MarsSurface Features, 4th edition, 1988,published by the Mars Research Pro-ject. The book is a straightforwardtechnical analysis of the "face onMars" and other anomalous featureson the Martian surface. UnlikeRichardHoaglands book, this volume is writ-ten by scientists and contains nounwarranted speculations. The analy-sis consists of conventional digitalenhancements and correlation studiesof the original NASA 1976 Vikingphotos. The results are completelyduplicatable by other researchers. Noultimate claim is made by the authorsother than that the Martian objectsare unusual and warrant further study.I am pleased to send you the volumeon behalf of the Mars Research Pro-ject, whose principals sought to adver-tise it in the MUFON Journal, butnow would welcome a review by youreditor.The surface features subjected todigital enhancement, with false color,include the well known Cydonia "face,"as well as two other possibly face-likefeatures discovered by the authors onother regions of the planet. Theenhancements reveal previously unno-ticed detail, such as an eyeball andpupil and teeth in the Cydonia face.The correlation studies show featurescommon to all three of the face-likeobjects, including notches in the cheeks,an indentation above the left eye, anda helmet or headdress.Other (non-enhanced) features dis-cussed in the book include severalapparent 5-sided pyramids, a tower-pyramid, and a water spout. Thewater spout was pointed out by aLowell Observatory scientist, but hasgone unremarked upon at NASA orin the technical literature.NASA acknowledges that thesefeatures exist, but calls them randomnatural formations or a "play of light."However, when the Cydonia regionwas subjected to a computer program19