Mufon ufo journal 1991 10. october


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • 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 1991 10. october

  1. 1. Mufon UFO JournalOfficial Publication of the Mutual UFO Network Since 1967Number 282October 1991$3.00THE SUMMER 1991 CROP CIRCLESBy Michael Chorost
  2. 2. Mufon UFO JournalOctober 1991 Number 282CONTENTSTHE SUMMER 1991 CROP CIRCLES Michael Chorost 3SOVIET ICE RING Vladimir V. Rubtsov, Ph.D. 16PENSACOLA UFO Art Hufford 17ENTITY SIGHTING IN MISSOURI Duane and Susan Bedell 18LOOKING BACK Bob Gribble 21NEWSNVIEWS Fund Report, Barker Collection 23IN OTHERS WORDS Lucius Parish 24LETTERS Maccabee 25THE NOVEMBER NIGHT SKY Walter N. Webb 26DIRECTORS MESSAGE Walt Andrus 28COVER PHOTO: "Starburst" at Cheesefoot Head, Courtesy of Busty TaylorEDITORDennis W. StacyASSOCIATE EDITORWalter H. Andrus, Jr.COLUMNISTSWalter N. WebbRobert GribbleLucius ParishMUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, TX 78155-4099Telephone: (512) 379-9216Copyright 1991 by the Mutual UFO Network.All Rights Reserved.No part of this document may be reproduced in any form without the written permissionof the Copyright Owners. Permission is hereby granted to quote up to 200 words of any onearticle, provided the author is credited, and the statement, "Copyright 1991 by the MutualUFO Network, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155," is included.The contents of the MUFON UFO Journal are determined by the editors and do not necessarilyreflect the official position of the Mutual UFO Network.The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Tax under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal RevenueCode. MUFON is a publicly supported organization of the typedescribed in Section 509 (a) (2). Donors may deduct contributionsfrom their Federal In-come Tax. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers or gifts are also deductible for estate andgift purposes, provided they meet the applicableprovisionsof Sections 2055, 2106 and 2522of the Internal Revenue Code.The MUFON UFO JOURNAL is published monthly by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas. Membership/Subscription rates: $25 per year inthe U.S.A.; $30 foreign in U.S. funds. Second class postage paid at Seguin, TX.POSTMASTER: Send form 3579 to advise change of address to:MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, TX 78155
  3. 3. THE SUMMER 1991 CROP CIRCLESMichael ChorostThis is a condensed version of a report submitted to the Fundfor UFO Research. The complete 70-plus page report, con-taining additional text, diagrams, and thejull radiological data,along with a catalog listing dates and locations for over 200circles, will be published later this year by the Fund. Forpriceand further details, write: The Fundfor UFO Research,P.O.Box 277, Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712. To contact the authorpersonally, write: Michael Chorost, North American Circle,Box 61144, Durham, North Carolina, 27715-1144.I. Against TheoryMost crop circle theories these days resemble sink-ing ships. Launched amid fanfare and high hopes,they have come to grief against those sharp-edgedobjects known as facts.The hoax theorists are in trouble, because they have notexplained how the supposed hoaxers could create so manyformations in so many countries, nor how they could changethe biological and radiological characteristics of the plantsand soil. There is nowgood proof that extremely anomalouschanges do happen; it will be discussed in Section III, andpresented in detail in the large report availablefrom the Fund.The tabloid press has given much play recently to the an-tics of two senior citizens who claim to have constructedsome of the formations with ropes and planks. __^—Yet the two men have not produced a plausibleexplanation for anythingmore than a few crude-ly hoaxed formations. Their story is improbable,even taken at face value. For example, they toldToday that they wore wire gunsights mounted onbaseball caps to keep them moving in straightlines. But how could they use a gunsight on amoonless, or rainy, or misty night? One cant sight if onecant see. (The last crop circle I visited in England formedon a night so foggy it was like being inside a ping-pong ball.)Also, they neglected to explain how they made formationson hillsides. Its difficult even to walk in a straight line acrossa slope, let alone make an accurately delineated shape. Andthey have not explained why they made so many formationsin highly complex and counterintuitive ways; one particularlybaffling crop lay is shown in Figure 1. A hoaxer almostcertainly would have started in the center and worked out-ward, yet the formation clearly was made working inward.And they claimed that they had been hoaxing for thirteenyears without even their wives knowing. How two wivescould miss thirteen summers of late nights, chapped hands,bug-bitten skin, dirty pants, mud-encrusted boots and burr-filled, sweaty socks, is a mystery matched only by thephenomenon itself.When one adds the fact that in some crop circles the plantsallcurrent theoriesare at someriskare bent several inches above the ground, and that there arestriking biological and radiological anomalies in the plantsand soil, it becomes clear that the hoax theory is so inade-quate that the only appropriate response to it is laughter.However, the debacle has produced one sobering lesson.It is becoming clear to me that hoaxes are not always soeasy to distinguish from the real thing. When in England,I tried flattening a fewbunches of wheat myself. Where theplants were green and the ground was soft, it was not dif-ficult to bend them without breaking them. Hoaxers couldpresumably do the same, though it would be difficult to doon a large scale. Thus it is risky to assume that one cantell a hoax from visual inspection alone. We need morerigorous tests; and in Section III I will discuss how weAmericans have come a long waytoward developing them.Of course the hoax-theorists arent the only ones with atroubled theory. The alien-intelligence theorists are also introuble, because they can only support their theory negatively— "its not a hoax, its not a natural phenomenon,therefore..." Yetno one has actually seen or photographedan alien spaceship making the formations, nor has anyoneworked out what message they might be conveying.The plasma vortex theorists are in trouble too, becausethey have not publicly explained how natural confluencesof air and electricity actually make the formations. Nor have^__^_ they explained why they are occurring sodramatically at this particular time, and concen-trating in one particular area of the world.The earth-energy theorists are in trouble aswell, because they have not explained what suchenergies are, nor shown how they would flattenthe plants. Nor have they offered a well-designedstudy establishing the validity of their experimen-tal keystone, dowsing.All the theories are in trouble for another reason: thetheorists have produced no publicly available body of factswhich can be invoked in defense or rebuttal. Instead, eachtheoretical camp merely shoutsthat it is right, which convincesno one except the already convinced. Sadly, over the yearsthe theorists have become increasingly calcified, while thephenomenon has glided serenely through its many changes.American cereology must not go this way.1The way toavoid an acerbic, empty debate is to avoid theorizing untilsubstantial data has been collected and published. Beforewe propose complex answers, let us pose simple questions,and answer them thoroughly, in public. Here are some ofthe questions we should be asking:• What has actually happened to the plants?• Hasthe soil been altered chemically or radiologically?• Howare the formationsdistributed in space and time?• Can wecreate reliable tests to distinguish genuine circlesMUFON UFO JOURNALNo. 282 October 1991
  4. 4. from hoaxed ones?• Docircles correlate with certain geological substrates?• Do circles correlate to topography, and if so, how?• Do circles correlate to ancient monuments?• Could weaccurately reproduce these formations our-selves, in every significant detail?• Do the circles "relate" in any wayto earlier hoaxedformations?• What correlations do the circles have to weather pat-terns and solar cycles, and sightings of luminous aerialobjects?A program of asking basic questions would have been im-practical in America only a year ago, because there was nodata publicly available. That is now changing, rapidly.American scientists have begun analyzing plant and soilsamples harvested in the 1991 season, and have already madeseveral astonishing discoveries, which I discuss in SectionIII. In Section IV, I discuss several of this summers well-documented sightings of unexplained luminous aerial objects.Section II, which follows, prefaces this information witha brief history of the 1991 season, covering some of its mostinteresting and important formations.II. A Brief History of the 1991 SeasonThe 1991 season began dismally, with the worst cold andrain England had experienced in decades. Compared to 1990,very few formations appeared in April and May, and onlya handful in the first half of June. But the weather turnedwarmer and sunnier in mid-June, and at the same time, thecrop circles returned in their accustomed numbers. This ap-parent correlation between the weather and the phenomenonsuggests that the two are not unconnected. It makes sense,after all, to hypothesize that some climatic conditions aremore conducive to circle formations than others, regardlessof the ultimate origin of the phenomenon. Presumably, Dr.Terence Meaden, the meteorologist, has examined his datafor an explicit weather correlation, but he has not publishedhis findings. It would be most helpful if he did.Americans may think the 1991 season was disappointingcompared to the 1990 season, because there has beenrelatively little publicity compared to last year. But this im-pression is false, for the 1991 season easily matched the 1990season in terms of prolificacy and complexity. Final figuresare not yet in, but it was quite clear to me, a visitor, thatformations were appearing rapidly all over Hampshire, andin lower but also significant numbers all across the country.Toward the beginning of the summer there were manydumbbells, and at least four triple-circle formations (threecircles/rings connected in a line), and at least threequadruple-circle formations, each sporting a "claw." Therewas one double-dumbbell at Newton St. Loe, near Bath,and also five "insectograms," three of them immediatelyadjacent to Stonehenge. (The hoaxers claimed to have madesome of the insectograms, so for the moment I regard thoseformations with caution.)Photo 1. The Westwoods, Lockeridge, long oval formation. FormedJuly 29/30, 1991. Photo by Michael Chorost.Two significant new formation types were the long and shortoval formations, also dubbed "fishes" or "eyes" (photo 1).Though simple enough from the air, the ovals proved to betechnical and artistic masterpieces on the ground. Each wasmade in a complex series of steps, which are described atlength in Figure 1. The interiors of the ovals were extraor-dinarily beautiful, because the plantswere laid down in "brush-strokes" of varyingdirections and lengths. Each little area hadits own fascination, because different problems had been con-fronted and solved in its manufacture. Not only that, the plantshad been laid down in striking and counterintuitive lays. I feltlike an ant walking through the brushstrokesof an eyepaintedby Van Gogh (photo 3).Once the phenomenon had made its first oval, it evident-ly "liked" it enough to make four more in the next ten days.There were two kinds, a "long" oval with the circlesseparated from the main body, and a "short" oval with thecirclesjoined directly to its ends. It was stunning to discoverthat each long oval had a unique crop lay. The second longoval was laid lengthwise in one half and spirally in the otherhalf; the third long oval was laid spirally all the wayaround,and sported a magnificent "nest" of densely twisted stalksin the center (photo 4). It is quite a mystery why thephenomenon would makethe same shapes in different ways.The Barbury Castle formation was also new, but it wasanything but oval (photo 2). It promptly sparked agiganticdebate over its genuineness. On the minus side, it lackedthe ribs and complex layering usually present in complexformations. Terence Meaden argued in a letter to SheldonWernikoff that an early reconaissance of the formationshowed that it looked like "a thousand people had trampledit." One could suspect the army itself of carrying out a hoax,using rollers, theodolites, compasses, and night-vision gog-gles. But on the plus side, the plants looked the way theydo in most formations a few days old, still crisply laid andaccurately directed. The ratcheted spiral was especially im-pressive, since the plants were laid in numerous arcs andright angles without a single mess or miscalculation. Itsoverall precision was extraordinary. Many experts, includingMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  5. 5. Photo 2. The Barfoury Castle formation. Formed July 16/17, 1991.Photo by Busty Taylor.Busty Taylorand George Wingfield of the CCCS, believedit genuine. I myself thought that if it was a hoax, it was avery skilled one.Ultimately, the wrangling of the experts failed to settlethe question. Every verdict had a political motive. HadMeaden given a positive verdict,he wouldhaveshipwreckedhis own thesis of natural causation. Had Wingfield givena negative verdict,he would have shored up the hoax theory.As long as hoax-detection is a matter of aesthetic judgementand political exigency, there will never be a commonly ac-cepted way of identifying the "bad apples." However, if wehad an established set of radiological, botanical, andchemical litmus tests, we could end such wrangling. WeAmericans have made great strides toward creating such abattery of tests. In fact, we performed some of them on theBarbury Castle formation. Those results will be discussedin Section III.The number of formations increased dramatically towardthe end of the summer, whenthe harvest was imminent. Oneof the most interesting formations was a representation ofthe Mandelbrot set, a two-dimensional graph made famousby chaos theory. Could it be a hoax? I cant judge, becauseit appeared after I left the country, and we haveno samples.If its genuine, its implications are obviously extraordinary,but no one is quite sure whatthey might be. The Mandelbrotset is a mathematical construct often associated with chaostheory; it is a plotting of various solutions to a set of equa-tions in complex and real numbers. It is special because itsparts exhibit self-similarity at any level of magnification.Any given section is composed of an infinitenumber of tinycopies of itself. But obviously the -Mandelbrot set meanssomething different in the wheatfields than it does in thetextbooks, or, to put it more accurately, it acquires new mean-ings there. What they could be, I have no idea. But I wasamused to see it, because I had been reading James Gleicksbook Chaos during my last two weeks in the country.Though there were formations all over England (and theworld), they appeared to cluster densely in the area aroundthe Avebury stone circles, a close cousin of Stonehenge. Ididnt know what to make of the rough correlation until Iread Terence Meadens new book, The Goddess of theStones.2Meadens book is an ambitious attempt to explainEnglands numerous stone circles and other ancient construc-tion in terms of crop circles. Meaden theorizes that cropcircles had appeared in England five thousand years ago,which stimulated the awed Neolithic tribes to make copiesin stone. I find this an intriguingthesis, especially in lightof the fact that the last two seasons of crop circles haveclustered densely in a tiny area containing Europes mostremarkable ancient constructions: Avebury, Silbury Hill,Windmill Hill, Barbury Castle, Adams Grave, the WhiteHorses, and the East and West Kennet Long Barrows. Ona gross scale, there is a manifest, unmistakable, hit-you-between-the-eyes spatial correlation.However, Meaden assumes that the circles are naturallycaused, and I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps there werecircles then, but not naturallycreated ones, which were im-itated in the ways Meaden describes. Or perhaps there wereno circles back then, and the modern phenomenon is relatingitself to what is in the area, for unknown reasons. If so, theancient structures themselves might form a "social context"within which the circles could be interpreted. But in orderto fulfill this hypothesis, we would have to know a greatdeal more about that society. Sadly, it is exactly this we donot know. Many theories have been proposed to "explain"Avebury and Stonehenge, but none have been generally ac-cepted. So much of the past has been lost: we are likeamnesiacs wandering around a city we ourselves built butcan no longer remember. Unless we somehow recover ourcultural memory, we probably cannot use Avebury itself tosolve the mystery.But I invite readers to consider the fact that the mysteryof the crop circles is very much like the mystery of themegaliths. Each consists of compelling geometric forms. Noone knows why either were made, nor why they are wherethey are. Nor do we know how either were made. Perhapsthe two mysteries are deeply intertwined. Not that eitherone "caused" or "inspired" the other, but that the twophenomena somehow "talk" about the same thing, a thingstill unknown to us, or "do" a single thing, taken togetheras a total system. It could be that solving one mystery willautomatically solve the other.The rest of the history of the 1991 season consists not somuch of what was flattened, but of what was found in thelabs afterward. We(meaning the scientists working in con-junction with myself) have some remarkable findings toreport.III. Scientific ResearchI will discuss the work of three Americans: Marshall Dudley,who has tested soil samples for their radioactive emissions;Dr. W.C. Levengood, who has examined plant samples look-MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  6. 6. The Construction of the Westwoods, Lockeridge Long OvalFormation 910730a, formed July 29/30,1991By Michael Chorost, in consultation with Stanley MorcomIt is often possible to deduce a crop circles order of construction from theplant layering. Here, Morcom and I offer an analysis of the first long oval.Step 1The "fins" were laid down. We infer this because the plants in the ovalextended slightly over the plants in the fins. This is somewhat speculative, becausethe ovals plants could have blown over into the fins after the formation was made.However, Morcom has observed that the phenomenon characteristically starts byforming the minor elements, so we think the fins did go down first.Step 2The major and minor axes of the oval were sketched out with ribs. Each ribwas sixto eight inches wide (this is characteristic.) The central minor-axis ribs plantsbent into the outline of the oval, suggesting that the phenomenon did the next stepimmediately after laying the centralminor axis. (Parts of the central minor axisseemed to lie on top of the circle rather than below, suggestingthat not all of it wentdown at the same time.)Step3The outline of the oval was drawn. We know the outline went down beforethe interior because the plants in the outline lay underneath the ones in the interior.Step 4The right and left sides of the oval were flattened in brushlike strokes,working outward from the center. Where the oval narrowed into the spurs, theplants were densely clustered, often plaited together.StepSThe central circle and outer rings were constructed. We know the centralcircle went down at this time, because its plants overlay those in the ovals right andleft sides. The ringswere clearly made after the spurs were formed, because theirplants lay on top of the spurs on one side.Upon completion, the formation was 346 feet long.Does the Phenomenon Work in DiscreteSteps?This analysis assumes that the formationwas made in discrete steps.However, it is possible that the steps overlapped, so that plants in different areas ofthe formationwent downjust in time to make wayfor other plants being laid down inanother direction. Evidence from videotapes, eyewitnessreports, and Levengoodsplant analyses suggests that crop circles are made with this kind of rapidity.Diagrams adapted from J.F. Languishs survey of the formation.MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  7. 7. 1l i tFigure 1.MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  8. 8. Whatever the truth is, the important thing isthat Levengood and Dudley have generatedpublicly available observationsthat can be ex-amined and debated. This, even more thantheir hypotheses, is a magnificent contributionto for differences from the controls; and Sheldon Wernikoff,who believes he has reproduced the quintuplet-form in aplasma chamber. I will briefly mention the work ofChristopher Church, an American meteorologist workingwith Terence Meaden, and finish by discussing the workof Brian Grist, an Englishman who is investigating a pos-sible correlation between the crop circles and Englandsgeology.7/7/4. Marshall Dudleys radiation measurements of soilsamplesMarshall Dudley is a systems engineer for Tenne-lec/Nucleus of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. His em-ployer manufacturesgas flow counters, which areinstruments designed to detect extremely minute amountsof alpha and beta radiation. They are much more sensitivethan ordinary hand-held Geiger counters. He volunteeredto use this equipment to examine soil samples from Englishcrop circles, if I could get him some.I got him sets of samples from five crop circles, and healready had a sixth sample set from a crop circle in Ten-nessee. Each consisted of at least two samples from insideand one control, taken between 30 and 300 feet away.The first set of samples, from a formation at Jaywick(July16/17, 1991), seemed relatively uninteresting. They variedfrom the control by 12% or less in all cases. Dudley regardssuch variations as not likely to be significant, because soilis a fairly heterogeneous substance. The presence of a smallrock with traces of an alpha emitter could explain variationsin that range, for example. Or the soil itself might be lessamenable to radiological alternation than soils in other areasof the country (the formation was about a mile fromEnglands eastern coast). Another possibility is that it wasa hoax, though I inspected it with Montague Keen of theCCCS shortly after it was made, and it appeared genuineto us. Quite simply, we do not yet know how the Jaywickformation fits in, relative to the other five formations.The second set of samples is from the controversial Bar-bury Castle formation. The first time Dudley counted them,the differences were not significant. However, Dudley re-counted the samples two weeks later, and got strangelyanomalous results. The total emission levels were higher,but expectedly so, since as samples dry out there is less waterto block alpha and beta particles. However, one sample,previously 3% lower in alpha count than the control, wasnow 31% lower. The other sample, previously 10% higherin alpha count, was now 17% higher. These disparities — onesample lower —present a perplexing challenge to anyone tryingto decide if the Barbury Castle formation is genuine. Thedisparities from the control appear to be significant, but theyare significant in opposite directions. To put it another way,the anomalies are themselves anomalous. Further analysismayshow how they fit into the general pattern, or fail to. Later,when we have more complete data, we may be able to returnto this set and settle the issue for good.The third set, from Alton Priors, also yielded low alphacounts. (Dudley had only one sample and one control fromthat formation, since one of the samples was accidentallyrendered unusable.) The sample emitted alpha particles ata rate of 26% below the control; recounted two weeks later,it emitted at 17% below the control.We have seen low alpha counts before, in a set of samplesfrom a doughnut-shaped formation at Dandridge, Tennessee,formed May 17,1991. There, a sample from the ring registeredalpha emissions 27% lower than the control. Dudley hashypothesized that something changes the soil chemically insuch a way that it absorbs or retains more water, which ab-sorbs alpha particles. The target samples would dry out moreslowly than the controls, so they wouldyield consistentlylowercounts.Dr. Levengood has suggested another possible explanationfor the low alpha counts. Alpha particles are positive heliumions. Their positive charge is one of the criteria a gas flowcounter uses to identify them. (The other is their mass.) Butif something adds two electrons to an alpha particle, the par-ticle becomes neutral, and the counter will not detect it. Itcould be that something added negative ions to the soil, whichdonated electrons to alpha particles as they were emitted. Thecounter then would have failed to "see" the alpha particles.However, Dudley is chary of this hypothesis. He points outthat alpha particles typically movequicklyenough to have theirelectrons knocked off by surrounding air molecules. Even ifelectrons were added, they should have been removed again.Im not qualified to adjudicate between these competinghypotheses, of course, but in time I hope the scientific com-munity will do so.If Levengood is correct, then the data could be interpretedas supporting Dr. Terence Meadens plasma vortextheory. Onepossible source of negative ions is a plasma vortex, since thatis exactly what a plasma is: a dense collection of charged par-ticles. I should point out that even if Levengood is absolutelyright about the plasma vortex, it still does not necessarily sup-port Dr. Meadens contention that the plasma is of naturalorigin. All it would suggest is that there is a plasma. No fur-ther positive conclusion would be warranted.Whatever the truth is, the important thing is that Levengoodand Dudley have generated publicly available observations thatcan be examined and debated. This, even more than theirhypotheses, is a magnificent contribution to cereology.The fourth and fifth samples, from the second and thirdlong ovals, were extraordinarily interesting. There were nolow alpha counts here. Instead, there were very high ones,both in the alpha and beta ranges. The fourth groups samplesMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  9. 9. iKi^d^^SMw:^?Photo 3Artist ChristianSchiess exploring thefirst long oval. Notethe sheer size of theformation: 346 feetfrom end to end.Photo by MichaelChorost.Photo 4A beautiful swirlednest inside the fourthlong oval (Aug. 9/10,1991). Note that inorder to make thisarea any hoaxer wouldhave had to go aroundbackwards. Photo byMichael Chorost.MUFON UFO JOURNAL ,No. 282 October 1991
  10. 10. Iregistered alpha counts 198% and 45% above the control,and beta counts 48% and 57% above the control. Ah1of thesecounts are far outside the ranges of normal soil variation,statistical variation or instrumental error.The fifth set of samples also yielded very high relativecounts. Here, there were four samples, two from inside theformation and two controls. The two controls, harvestedseveral hundred feet apart, yielded alpha and beta countswithin 2% and 4% of each other, respectively. On the otherhand, the samples from within the formation yielded alphacounts 45% and 27% above the averaged controls, and betacounts 25% and 22% above. These, too, cannot be attributedto normal variation or error.Dudley hypothesizes that something either adds a minuteamount of radioactive material to the soil, or bombards itsnuclei with neutrons and/or protons. This latter process iscalled neutron (or proton) activation. The extra particleslodge in the atomic nuclei and render them unstable andprone to eventual radioactive decay. Initial analysis of spec-trographic data seems to suggest neutron activation, but itwill take much more research and analysis to confirm this.Do Dudleys findings imply any health hazard? No — aslong as people enter circles several hours after they form,since by then the residual radiation would have dropped somuch that only extraordinarily sensitive equipment coulddetect it. At that point, the crop circle is less radioactivethan the basement of an ordinary cinder-block building.However, Dudley advises that people who actually witnessa crop circle forming should stay away from the immediatearea for several hours as a precaution. It may not benecessary, but until we know more about the radioactiveenergies involved, we should err on the side of caution. Ofcourse, this warning is moot most of the time, since mostcircles form at night and are not discovered until morning.It is puzzling that two sets registered abnormally highcounts, while two others registered abnormally low ones.Obviously, one possibility is that normal soil is moreheterogeneous than we realize. The fact that the controlsfrom the fifth set registered very similar counts mitigatesagainst this, but we need more soil samples from the regionto make sure. Another possibility is that it matters when thesamples are collected and analyzed. Some samples were col-lected promptly after the formation was made; others werecollected after several days delay. Rain in between mighthave washed away radioactive elements (or added them!)Another possibility is that it matters where the samples arecollected within the formation; some areas of a formationmay be more strongly affected than others. Yet anotherpossibility is that different formations are made with dif-ferent "techniques," some affecting the soil chemically,others affecting it radiologically. Wedont have the answersyet, but we do have many more ideas for further research.For example, next year I plan to take multiple samples fromseveral formations, to see if radiological or chemical "con-tour lines" emerge from an analysis of the data.If nothing else, the results suggest that the hoax theoryis seriously inadequate. Radioactive phenomena involve,byDamage on the microscopic level implies thata lot of energy was involved, much more thancan be generated by macroscopic techniquessuch as foot-stomping. These findings con-stitute powerful evidence that thephenomenonis not a hoax, or at least not a common hoax,perpetrated by pranksters with strings andplanks.definition, processes energetic enough to split atomic nuclei.Foot-stomping, no matter how vigorous, is not energeticenough by many orders of magnitude. Something far moreinteresting is at work.1IIB. Dr. W. C. Levengoods analyses of plant samplesDr. W. C. Levengood is a biophysicist living in Michigan,who specializes in plant and seed development. He holdssix patents, among them a seed germination and vigor se-lection device now in commercial production around theworld. Among his 49 publications are five papers in theprestigious journal Nature and one in Science. Dr. Lev-engood expressed interest in examining plants from cropcircles, so Pat Delgado and I sent him samples throughoutthe summer of 1991.Dr. Levengood made some remarkable discoveries. One wasthat the growth nodes on the plants had become significantlylarger than those of the controls. Growthnodes are the bulblikeswellings one sees on wheat stalks; typically there are threeor four. Dr. Levengood measured the ratio of the node widthto the stem width, and found that it was significantly largerin the target plants than in the controls (95% probability ofsignificance) (photos 5 and 6). He hypothesizes that someenergy input, possibly heat, caused the cells in those nodesto swell, causing lasting but not fetal damage.A layman might try to explain the anomalous swellings asan artifact of the plants horizontal orientation, thoughLevengood says that would be a completely inadequatehypothesis. It would be even more difficult to explain anotherof Dr. Levengoods discoveries that way. When he examinedseeds from a formation at NewtonSt. Loe, he found that about40% of them were malformed, whereas all of the control seedswere normal. This was also seen at Lockeridge, where 32%of the seeds were abnormal, and at Alton Barnes, where 20%were abnormal. The visible abnormalities were most pro-nounced in formations made early in the season; later in theseason, the seeds looked more normal to the eye, probablybecause they were more mature and less susceptible to in-jury. However,Levengood has been runningmore sophisticated"redox" tests on the mature seeds. The results will be madeavailable when the tests are completed.His third finding was one of the most dramatic and ex-citing. His microscopic examination of the node cells re-MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  11. 11. vealed that the pits in their walls had become larger andmore visible. Cell wall pits are tiny holes in the cells, whichcontrol the transport of ions and electrolytes into and outof the organism. In his photos (7 and 8), one can see thatthe pits have swelled from faint grayish dots to sharply de-fined trapezoid shapes looking a bit like caraway seeds. Thisis what would happen, Levengood thinks, if somethingheated the water inside the cells so rapidly that the cell wallsswelled and forced the pits to expand. In fact, one of thephotos shows "stretch marks" radiating from the pits, sug-gesting that the cell walls had been stretched. (His obser-vation can be duplicated easily: all one needs is amicroscope, magnification 450x, no stain.)Dr. Levengood tested his hypothesis about the cell wallstretching by putting some of the control wheat stalks in amicrowave oven for 30 seconds. Sure enough, their cellsswelled just enough to stretch their cell wall pits, exactlyas observed in the samples. It is very exciting to theorizethat some kind of energy heats the plants very rapidly inthe course of flattening them. Of course, we are not yet surewhat kind of energy it could be. It could be microwaves,negative ions, radiation, or something else altogether. Fur-ther research may tell. (Credit for the idea of microwavesbelongs to Jean-Jacques Velasco of the Groupe dEtudes desPhenomenes Aerospatiaux Non-identfies (GEPAN). It wasfurther developed by John Brandenburg in the April 1991issue of the MUFON UFO Journal.)3There wasone case where the cell membranes did in factbreak. In grass from a formation in Cornwall, the cell wallshad completely broken down. Not only that, some of thegrass blades had been coated with a black, nonreflectivesubstance which looked like soot. Dr. Levengood found thatit was carbon black, a substance which can be obtained byheating waxesor sugars. (Think of how a marshmallow turnsblack as it burns.) Plant leaves are covered with a wax, name-ly paraffin. If the grass had been heated just enough to charbut not catch fire, the paraffin would indeed have been re-duced to carbon black.The presence of the carbon black is irresistibly reminis-cent of the handful of "burned circles" which have beenreported in the U.S., Canada and England. The 1990NAICCR report notes that there were 15 burned circles outof a total of 86 North American "unusual ground markings"in 1990.4In his introduction to the report, Chris Rutkowskiasked, but could not answer, the question of whether burnedcircles are related to English-type crop circles. Now we canhypothesize that they are. Too much energy, relative to theplants "tolerances," burns them; too little leaves them on-ly partially flattened; just the right amount produces a stan-dard English-type formation.It is very interesting that every single one of the 15NorthAmerican burned circles was in grass, as was the Cornwallformation. Grass may be particularly vulnerable becauseof the thinness of its leaves. One can thus speculate that its"safe" region between partial flattening and burning is nar-rower than wheats.It gets even more interesting when we discover that thePhotos 5 (above) and6 (below). These are sections from wheat plantsharvested from a three-circle dumbbell at Lockeridge near Beck-hampton formed June 21, 1991. Note that the growth nodes on thetarget plants are larger than on the control plants. Photo by W. C.Levengood.Cornwall formation was not a simple burned circle. It wasa "Y" shape inscribed inside a ring, and the burns were locatedat the junctions between the "Y" and the ring. It could bethat junctions are critical sites where the formative force mustwork particularly hard or linger particularly long. Normallywe dont see any burning in complex formations, but this onewas in grass, an especially sensitive material. We canhypothesize that the phenomenon did not get the adjustmentquite right for the grass, and burned the shapes junctions.In a strange way,cereology is becoming like genetics: wecan learn the most from the phenomenons "mistakes."Whenever it gets it "wrong," we have a special opportunityto learn how it does it at all. It seems that whatever flattensthe plants usually delivers the right amount of energy to flat-ten them without bursting the cells or charring the paraf-fin. Not only that, but plants change as they mature, so theMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  12. 12. Photos 7 (above) and 8 (below). These are microscopic photographs of plant cells from the Maisey Farm triple-circle dumb-bell. Photo 7 shows control cells. Photo 8 shows that the cells have enlarged cell wall pits (the dark dots seen inside the cells).These suggest that the cell walls were forced to expand, stretching the pits. Photographs by W. C Levengood.MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  13. 13. amount of energy applied would have to vary with the time"of year. On top of that, even the same crop can differ fromfield to field, depending on the richness of the soil and theamount of growth regulator used. Since there are relativelyfew "mistakes," it could be argued that the phenomenon issomehow "tuned" to the specific characteristics of each field.This implicitly posits an intelligent agency, of course, butI would argue that it is not an unreasonable speculation. Dr.Levengood disagrees, preferring to posit a naturalphenomenon. However, we both feel that publication of factsmust precede theorizing about ultimate causes.It is of the highest importance that none of these effects— the node swelling, the seed abnormalities, the cell wallstretching — were visible in plants harvested from hoaxedformations. We have already effectively performed a blindtest. This summer, one of Levengoods plant sets revealedno particular discrepancies between the target plants andthe controls — and the formation was later found to be ahoax. We hope to conduct controlled blind tests in thesummer of 1992, to refine the effectiveness of our litmustests.The work of Marshall and Levengood points to a causewhich pumps energy into the plants, leaving themintact but causing damage within. This kind ofdamage is almost impossible to cause by trampling. Its likethe difference between breaking a radio by dropping it onthe floor and irradiating it in a reactor. When a radio isdropped, its transistors and resistors stay intact though thewhole item is damaged, whereas under irradiation, the piecesfry even though the whole may appear unharmed. The lat-ter kind of damage, though more subtle, uses much moreenergy. It takes very little energy to drop a radio, but a lotto irradiate it. So it is with plants. Trampling a plant damagesthe overall organism but leaves most of its cells intact,whereas baking or irradiating a plant stretches or rupturesthe cell walls while leaving the organism in one piece. Forexample, an ear of corn doesnt fall apart when its cooked,but most of its cells do.Damage on the microscopic level implies that a lot ofenergy was involved, much more than can be generatedby macroscopic techniques such as foot-stomping. Thesefindings constitute powerful evidence that the phenomenonis not a hoax, or at least not a common hoax, perpetratedby pranksters with strings and planks. They do not, how-ever, tell us what is making the formations — at least notyet.IIIC. Sheldon Wernikoffs reproductions of quintuplet-formsin a plasma chamberSheldon Wernikoff of Skokie, Illinois, has explored Meadensplasma vortex theory by trying to make laboratory-generatedplasma vortices duplicate the quintuplet shapes often seenin the English fields prior to 1990 (photo 9). He used aspherical glass chamber similar in principle to the electrical"sparkballs" often sold in novelty shops. A Tesla coilPhoto 9. A quintuplet-shaped laboratory plasma vortex. Photoby Richard Shapiro.generated high-voltage, low-frequency current which excitedthe inert-gas mixture inside the sphere, causing miniatureplasma vortices to form. (These are similar to the brightwavy lines one sees dancing inside sparkballs.) Given theright conditions, a set of five small circles form where eachvortex contacts the spherical anode inside the chamber.Wernikoff suggests that his work may help confirmMeadens plasma vortex theory. With due respect to Wer-nikoff, I would respond that his important and innovativework still does not bring us any closer to resolving ques-tions of "who" or "what." One can as easily argue that someintelligence generates and manipulates vortices (as Wernikoffhimself did) to create complex shapes as that a natural forcespontaneously generates them. Laboratory-generated vor-tices are, of course, anything but natural phenomena!Meadens own team failed to detect a single plasma vortexduring weeks of surveillance in a very active area. I willremain skeptical of an entirely naturalistic answer untilsomeone offers a cogent account of how a plasma, vortexactually forms the ribs and intricate layering effects seenin the most complex formations, explains why the shapesgrow more complex each year, and accounts for the recenthistorical provenance of the phenomenon. However, for allthat, I think Wernikoff s work is very important and worthyof attention and support.MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  14. 14. HID. Christopher Churchand the meteorological lay of thelandAccording to a recent article in Science,5ChristopherChurch, a professor of aeronautics at Miami University inOhio, has built a scale model of the Hampshire hills to testMeadens theory that lee turbulence from the hills createsthe crop circles. Science reports that his tentative conclu-sion is that horizontal flow alone is not sufficent; verticalairflow, such as thermals, would also be required. Yet, ac-cording to Meaden, crop circles appear most often in calmair (though Meaden has not published data to back up thisgeneralization.) Other possibilities, such as that high-altitudewinds drive the hypothesized plasma vortex, have not yetbeen tested.HIE. Brian Grists geological hypothesisBrian Grist, a bookstore manager in Bristol, England, anda former geography student, is working on a study to cor-relate the locations of the circles with the underlyinggeological substrates. Grists preliminary work has raisedthe exciting possibility that the circles may correlate positive-ly with water-saturated rocks (aquifers) like chalk andlimestone. If the phenomenon has an electrical component,which seems possible, ground water might play a criticalrole in attracting it. Grist hopes to publish his study laterthis year, possibly mThe Circular.FV. Surveillance Monitoring and CropwatchesNaturally, we all want to catch the phenomenon inthe act, preferably while we are holding camerasand tape recorders. Each year since 1989, we havehad some success. This year was no exception. In this sec-tion I will discuss the findings of three separate surveillanceteams.John MacNish and David Morgenstern of the BBC con-ducted a 24-hour surveillance watch with cameras and sen-sitive microphones from Morgans Hill. They camped closeto Terence Meadens Operation Blue Hill, which used acaravan-mounted radar and meteorological instruments. Ap-parently, neither team detected anything remarkable on thenight of June 27, 1991, when a dumbbell and two circlesformed in the plain below the hill. George Wingfielddescribes the event in his bulletin, which is worth quotingat length:The BBC team led by John MacNish and DavidMorgenstern had set up a surveillance operation onMorgans Hill using banks of expensive camera andinfra-red equipment to keep a 24-hour watchon a fieldbelow the hill where a magnificent quadruple-ringedCircle and a Celtic Cross appeared respectively on June1 and July 5, 1990 ... In addition to the video equip-ment they have a powerful directional microphonewhich digitally records all sound in the range 2 to 40000Hz, i.e. infra-sound, audible sound and some ultra-sound. The night of June 27/28 [1991] was cloudy andrainy and looked most unpromising. At about 3 a.m.some mist was in evidence and this appeared to bethickest right over the field being observed ... At 5:45a.m., an hour after dawn, the mist began to slowlyclear. The pall of mist over the field under observa-tion was the last to disperse and, when it did, thecameramen could just see markings in the crop. Theyrushed down the hill to seal off entry to the field inwhich they could now see with binocularsa large dumb-bell pictogram. Close inspection showed no signs ofhuman entry or footprints in the wet soil at entrypointsto the field. A playback of the tapes from the direc-tional microphone was found to be completely blankat all recorded frequencies ...Dr. Meaden and his 19Japanese scientists are alsoencamped on Morgans Hill and were thought to havethat field under observation as well ... he has onMorgans Hill a radar device and the other night [notthe night of June 27] this tracked an object whichmoved slowly and also at great speed. It was definite-ly not an aircraft and according to him must have beenthe elusive plasma vortex they are seeking. He and theJapanese scientist rushed to look for this object butnothing was seen in the sky.6As the June 27th experience shows, the phenomenon iselusive. It was also elusive on the night of July 16/17, whena single-dumbbell formed about 200 yards from a fish-and-chips shop and a row of houses in the town of Jaywick, onEnglands eastern coast. When Montague Keen and I in-vestigated the formation on the evening of the 17th, wetalked to six of the families living in the houses, and nonehad seen or heard anything unusual the night before.Apart from the BBC watch and Operation Blue Hill, theCCCS (Centre for Crop Circle Studies) coordinated a crop-watch through most of the summer. On June 22, 1991, threeCCCS cropwatchers observed a glowing orange ball, whichthey were lucky enough to videotape for a few seconds withthe moon in one corner. One of the cropwatchers, JohnHolman, notes in his CCCS report that the film shows theglobe remaining stationary just above the ridge of Milk Hill(at map coordinate SU 104642).7To my knowledge, no cropcircle has appeared in that precise location, nor on that night,though 1990s second double-dumbbell and 1991s "frying pan"were within a kilometer of the spot. The object vanishedseveralseconds later. A close examination of the film shows that itvanished in just two frames, which amounts to between l/17thand l/25th of a second.In the report, Hojman attemptsto estimate its size. He knowsthey were on the Ridgeway (at SU 120691), and they believ-ed the object was on top of Milk Hill, five kilometers away.Based on these locations, Holman comes up with a size of25-35 meters in diameter.A fascinatingaspect of Holmans report is his discovery thata hill three kilometers downthe ridge (at SU 128 640) isnamed"Golden Ball Hill"! (Figure 2) The possible historical con-nection is obvious; I hope to investigateolder Ordinance SurveyMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  15. 15. maps as far back as I can get them, tosee how long the hill has had this name.Later that night, Holman and hisfriends saw an object in the sky whichthey would have thought an aircraft butfor its complete silence. He writes thatthey saw "a single flashing white lighton its underside (much like any aircraft)but a single large rectangular blue greenlight/glow above this. Wecould not seeany wings or other lights or otherfeatures that could identify it" (p. 2).It flew very slowly past them eastward,turned south, then flew back in theirdirection, then once again headedsouth. They filmed it, but the camerawas on autofocus and the film shows lit-tle. Writes Holman, "I have a life longknowledge and interest in aircraft andcould not identify this aircraft, but I donot wish to make any claims as to whatit was, I simply dont know (p. 2).We should follow Holmans lead insticking to basic descriptions. Best notto theorize yet, but to keep watching thehand. We can learn so much if we willopen our eyes.V. ConclusionFigure 2. The Ordinance Survey mapping of Golden Ball Hill. The surrounding area is tradi-tionally filled with crop circles.skies, cameras in —and the conviction that nothing can keep the truth fromsimply consent to human beings who have the energy to work, and the pas-sionate, unquenchable will to know.We believe that the results of current research, ours andothers, are very striking. To summarize them:• The phenomenon induces radiation anomalies.• It appears to heat the plants both rapidly and briefly.• It can sometimes scorch theplants, particularly in grass.• It swells plant cell walls, elongating the cell wall pitsand leaving "stretch marks."• It often induces developmental anomalies in the seeds.• The circles maycorrelate with aquifers.• The circles do correlate, at least grossly, with ancientmegaliths.• The quintuplet maybe artificially duplicable.• We may be able to distinguish hoaxes from genuinecircles with laboratory tests.• Some formations mayrepresent or symbolize knownobjects.• Thecircles docorrelate geographically with some well-documented (i.e. filmed) sightings of unidentified luminousaerial objects.Cereology yields that golden thing, substantive results.Perhaps we will see a "cascade effect" as scientists and in-tellectuals gain confidence and venture into the field in in-creasing numbers. There is plenty of room for them, sinceso much remains to be done.I hope that we Americans and Canadians will mount ascientific expedition to England in the summer of 1992,equipped with sensitive instruments, keen eyes, alert mindsAcknowledgementsI wish to thank the following people for all the help and support theyhave given me: Colin Andrews, Richard G. Andrews, Don Berliner, JohnBredar, Marshall Dudley, Michael Green, Brian Grist, Montague Keen,John Komar, W. C. Levengood, Terence Meaden, John Michell, StanleyMorcom, Jennifer Moseley, Ralph Noyes, Jan and Ian Rendle, ChrisRutkowski, Christian Scheiss, Dennis Stacy, Rob Swiatek, Busty Taylor,Priit Vesilind and George Wingfield. I also gratefully acknowledge thehelp of National Geographic Magazine.My fieldwork in England was supported by a grant from the Fund forUFO Research.Notes(1) I prefer the older spelling, "cereology," to the newer spelling,"cerealogy." I hope it becomes the preferred American spelling of theword. The Brits let us get away with misspelling "colour" and "humour,"so I trust they will not mind just one more colonial perversity.(2) The Goddess of the Stones. Terence Meaden. Souvenir Press, 1991.(3) "Possible Physical Mechanism for Producing Crop Circles." JohnBrandenburg. MVFON UFO Journal, no. 276 (April 1991), pp. 10-11.(4) "North American Crop Circles and Related Physical Traces in1990." Released February 1991. 18pp. Conducted by NAICCR (NorthAmerican Institute for Crop Circle Research.) Available for US $3.00from NAICCR, 649 Silverstone Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2V8,Canada. Add $3.00 for overseas orders.(5) "Britains Crop Circles: Reaping the Whirlwind?" Alun Ander-son. Science vol. 253 (August 30, 1991) pp. 961-962.(6) George Wingfield, Bulletin 6, July 4, 1991, p. 1.(7) This report has not yet been published, to my knowledge.MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  16. 16. One of eightphotographsreceived withMr. Rubtsovsreport. Theindividualpictured is oneof Dr. Kutnyukshelpers; the staff: a safety measurein case the iceshould give way.Photo by Dr.Kutnyuk.•-. 4 • ;_;,• ••;. - . -, •* •* "^» " ~T -*r~~"e*^ - ™ *^~ ^~^_h.- _7. ."""^fr1^" ^"-e^sCilr-^-.-i^ ^53^ ; ., -. r -• U. -. .J..- •* - •- -^^5^^ t:-^*^?---^^ :*s--y-^V>X^- •^^"^^^r^-^F?-^^!pr *L; -;-" " ""x-»-x •-*."•*"*:.^ i--"^-^ c£r,>SSOVIET ICE RINGVladimir V. Rubtsov, Ph.D.Rubtsov is a MUFON Consultant in Philosophy andour Representative for Western U.S.S.R.On January 7, 1990, about 8:40 a.m., Mr. A. E. Voront-sov, a resident of the little town of Merefa, about 30kilometers SSW of Kharkov, went by bicycle to the bankof the river Mzha to inspect his baited fishing tackle. Whenhe was not far from the bank, he noticed a strangeluminescence over the river. As the witness came nearer,he saw a "saucer," or rather a big top-shaped object withthe diameter of its base approximately 25 meters, and theheight, including its spire, about 5-6 meters. The object wassituated on the ice or slightly above it in a small bay. Thespire and the base of the object were greyish-blue, and itsbody - orange or rose colored. The witness said it was"something like the color of the clouds in the sky at sunset."The base was pulsating "as if some balls were rolling aroundthere."The witness observed the object in astonishment for, ashe believes, about 10 minutes. Then the UFO suddenly tookoff vertically, to an altitude of some 30 meters, hovered forseveral seconds and then flew eastward. A big round pieceof ice on the landing site sank into the water, then it roseagain back to the surface.Thanks to a lucky chance, a member of the Kharkovregional UFO study group, Dr. Pyotr I. Kutnyuk, was ad-vised about this case only one day later. He promptly tookphotos of the landing site, when the trace was clearly visi-ble (photos 1-4, taken on January8) and informed the groupabout the event. I was able to visit the site on January 13,when the ring was less distinct, but still quite visible (photos5-8). A fewdays later the members of the grouptook samplesof the ice from the site. A month ago we obtained, at last,the results of its chemical analysis. No peculiarities werefound, except that in one sample there proved to be a slightlyincreased concentration of platinum (2.5 x 10~7grammesper liter, versus some 0.5 x 107in other samples).The diameter of the circle was 20.7 meters and the ringwas one meter wide. It is worthy to note that on January7 the ice was still rather thin due to a comparatively warmwinter, and it was not until January 13that it became thickenough to safely bear the weight of a man walking on ice.Thus, the traces could hardly havebeen hoaxed. The depthof water under the circle is about eight meters.The ring or rather the rings, as one will note on photos2 and 3, were very regular and clearly outlined, as if madeby a giant milling machine cutter. Three weeks after the dateof the event the rings were still visible, but when the icemelted this very interesting trace obviouslyvanished. (Dateof report filing: June 5, 1991)MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  17. 17. PENSACOLA UFOArt HuffordArt Hufford is the president ofPensacola MUFON.On June 20, 1991, fourteen peoplewere stationed at the South end of thePensacola Bay Bridge on a sky watch.The group included seven MUFONField Investigators (Marsha Athey, ArtHufford, Vicki Lyons, Anne and BruceMorrison, Gary Watson and PattiWeatherford) and four other MUFONmembers (Mary Hufford, Clopton andSue Jones and Ed Walters). At 9:49PM, a brilliant whitelight appeared for5-6 seconds in the East (100 degreesazimuth and 15 degrees elevation;estimated distance: 1-2 miles). I wasable to take one photograph before itturned red and blinked out. About twominutes later, a similar white light ap-peared for about eight seconds. It wasmuch closer and brighter than the firstlight (estimated distance: 1/2 to 3/4mile). I was able to take two photo-graphs of this second light before itturned red and blinked out. Duringneither of these brief sightings was anysound heard from the direction of thelight. No other lights or aircraft wereseen in the vicinity immediately beforeor after the sightings.The attached photographs are en-largements of two of the three photo-graphs taken that night. The firstphotograph shows two distinct rings ofwhite light circling the ball of whitelight; this photo was of the first lightwhich appeared at 9:49 PM. The sec-ond photo is one of two shots taken ofthe second UFO. Both of the photos Itook of the second UFO have a doubleimage, apparently caused by cameramovement; however, they clearly showan image similar to the first UFO photo.All three of these photographs weretaken with a Minolta SRT102 35mmcamera using 400 ISO Kodacolor film.All were one second time exposurestaken through a 58mm f-1.2 lens anda 2X extender. A diffraction filter wasalso in place between the lens and ex-tender; this filter diffracted the lightofTop photographwas taken at 9:49 p.m. on 6-20-91 and shows angled double-ring.Shot of second UFO was taken two minuteslater.Doubleimage due to camera shake.Both photos © 1991 Art Hufford.the UFO and a nearby street light into the color spectra. Nothing unusual wasidentified in the color spectra from the UFO. The rings of light circling the whiteball of light are very unusual; we have not seen anything like it in any of the othersightings this year. The source of this light remains unidentified.UFO sightings continue to occur on these evening skywatches, with over 70reported since the first of this year. The number of people attending these sky-watches has also grown. We are now averaging 15-30 people on week nights andas many as 70 people on a weekend. Most of the sightings have been within twohours of sunset. Visitors to the area will find someone at the South end of thePensacola Bay Bridge nearly every night of the week.MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  18. 18. ENTITY SIGHTING IN MISSOURIDuane and Susan BedellDuane Bedell is a Co-State SectionDirector in Springfield, Missouri andSusan is a Field Investigator.An entity sighting investigationwas conducted on August 7,1991 in a mid-Missouri townfollowing a tip from Bob Gribble,MUFON Western Regional Director.The reported sighting took place at aprivate residence located in a quietneighborhood less than one mile fromthe town center. The investigationcentered on three young girls aged 12,11 and 10(Witnesses 1, 2 and 3, respec-tively) who had two encounters with anentity during the early morning hoursof July 21, 1991. All three girls are con-sidered reliable witnesses; they have nohistory of fabrication and evinced con-siderable consternation and fright con-cerning the encounter. The girls werenot interviewed separately due to thetime lapse between the encounter andthe investigation, and because they aretogether on an almost daily basis andhave discussed the encounter extensive-ly. However, each drew pictures of theentity independently and the similari-ty between the drawings themselves,and those from other documentedcases, is obvious. The investigationsummary follows in chronologicalorder.At approximately 2:00 a.m. onJuly21, 1991 the three girls were watchingtelevision in the den of Witness #2shome. The three adults who were in thehouse, Witness #2s parents and her18-year-old cousin, had retired for thenight sometime earlier. The programthe girls were watching concluded at2:00 a.m. and they went into thebackyard to jump on Witness #2strampoline.They had been outside only a shorttime when they saw a white, oval-shaped light move rapidly from the sideof the house into the corner of thebackyard near the tree where the en-tity was first sighted. At the time theybelieved the light to be car headlightsand took no particular notice of it. Be-tween one and five minutes after see-ing the light, they heard rustling noisesin the corner of the yard where the lighthad "descended." The next doorneighbors dog also began barking ex-citedly as the rustling began.At this point Witness #1 lookedtoward the corner of the yard and sawthe entity standing in front of the tree.Witness #1 described the entity assmall, white, very skinny with longskinny fingers, with a bald egg-shapedhead that was ridged on top so that thehead sloped upward to the ridge andthen continued to slope upward with amore pronounced egg shape, and withlarge dark eyes. She also described theentity as transparent in its abdominalarea because she could see what wasbehind it through it. She was frightenedand speechless as well as unbelievingof what she was seeing.Witness #1 continued to stare at theentity and Witness #2, who had not yetseen the entity, asked her what shewaslooking at. Witness #1 pointed to theentity and Witness #2 turned and sawthe entity just as it was beginning tomove toward the girls. At this point theentity was approximately 33 feet fromthe witnesses. The entity wasdescribedas moving very slowly as it advancedtoward the girls. At approximately ninefeet from the tree, and approximately24 feet from the witnesses, the entitymoved a low-hanging dead tree branchout of its way with its right hand. Thisbranch measured 53 inches from theground and showed no unusualattributes.As the entity advanced it hunched itsshoulders up in a slow shruggingfashion and opened its mouth widely,which was described to this point as aline with possibly very narrow lips. Itcontinued to advance with this aspect.Witness #1 turned and began to runtoward the house, which was approx-imately 20 feet from the trampoline,followed closely by Witness #2, whojumped down from the trampoline.Witness #3, who had not yet seen theentity, was left behind. She yelled afterWitness #1 and Witness #2 and theyreplied something to the effect of"Behind you!" and "Come on!"At this point Witness #3 turnedaround and saw the entity standing rightnext to the trampoline with its shouldersstill hunched and its mouth still open.She turned and ran, nearly falling asshe got off the trampoline. Once insidethe girls closed and locked the door.Witness #1 looked at a clock andremembers the time as 3:00 a.m. (It isinteresting to note that the drawingsdone by the girls reflect the distance andperspective at which each first saw theentity.)Missing Time?The observation of the time byWitness #1 raises the possibility ofsome "missing time" unrecalled by thewitnesses. The girls went outside at2:00 a.m. and saw the lightjust as theyhad gotten onto the trampoline, whichthey did immediately upon going out.The girls state that they saw the entityabout one to five minutes after seeingthe light, and also state that they wereoutside only five to ten minutes.However, it appears that approximate-ly one hour elapsed between the timethey went outside and the time theyreturned to the house after seeing theentity. All three girls are bright,,ar-ticulate and above average in maturityfor their age, and it seems unlikely thatthey would misjudgethe time they spentoutside by at least 50 minutes.Once inside the girls went to thebasement and awakened Witness #2scousin and told him that they had seena ghost. The cousin, obviously not find-ing their story credible, replied thatMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  19. 19. they should leave the ghost alone andwent back to sleep. The girls werescared and confused and decided thatthey would not awaken Witness #2sparents due to the lateness of the hour.However, they did not want to go to bedout of fear. Instead they returned to theden and began to watch more television.Shortly after they returned to the denthey heard Witness #2s cat meowingstrangely and scratching at the door.The girls were hesitant to open the doorto let the cat in, but eventually did on-ly to have the cat run from them. Thiswas atypical behavior for the cat andonly after considerable coaxing did thecat finally enter the house. The girlsthen resumed watching television.After some undeterminedamount of time the televisionwent blank with only whitestatic appearing on the screen. At thispoint the entity was seen by all threegirls as it looked through the windowat each of them in turn: Witness #3,Witness #1 and Witness #2 respective-ly. The witnesses stated that the entitymoved its head in ajerking, mechanicalmanner, not with the smooth motionone would expect from a humanobserver.The girls ran to the basement wherethey stayed for the remainder of thenight, periodically coming up the stairsleading from the basement to the dento see if the entity was still there, whichit was each timethey looked. The girlsdid not know how long this went on,or how many trips they made up thestairs. Curiously, when Witness #2sparents rose for the day and the girlswent upstairs to relate their experience,the television was turned off. The girlsmaintain they did not turn the televi-sion off and Witness #2s parents statethat the television was not on whentheyentered the den for the first time thatmorning.This discrepancy concerning thetelevision may also indicate some eventsunrecalled by the witnesses. Witness#1,in relating the events concerning thesighting of the entity at the window,stated that after the television wentblank, "we did something but I forgotwhat." This statement struck the in-The witness stated that the entity moved its head in a jerking,mechanical manner, not with the smoothmotionone would ex-pect from a human observer.vestigators as an odd usage of the pasttense, especially since it is not in-dicative of her normal (as observed bythe investigators) use of language. In"normal" (and we use the word ad-visedly) context, one usually wouldsay"I forget what we did." The signifi-cance of the statement is, of course,speculative, but we think it noteworthynonetheless. Who turned off the televi-sion, or possibly, how it was turned offremains unknown.A drawing of the entity looking in thewindow was done by Witness #2. Thewindow itself measures 54 and 1/2 in-ches from the ground to the bottom ofthe glass pane. Beneath the windowandagainst the house is (and was) a brokenbale of straw that measures 19 incheshigh and is stable enough to stand upon.The entity apparently was standingupon this bale of straw while it waslooking in the window. This would ac-count for the perspective of Witness#2s drawing and the difference inheight required to substantiate theperspective. (Given the height of thetree branch moved by the entity, theheight of the window, and the height ofthe bale of straw, the entitys height isbelieved to be about 4 and 1/2 feet.)An AddendumOn the morning on July 23, 1991, BobGribble telephoned this case lead toWalt Andrus for assignment and in-vestigation. The mother of Witness #2had obtained the telephone number ofthe National UFO Reporting Centerfrom the local police department. SinceMUFON did not have an investigatorin the city involved, and given thepotential significance of a multiplewitness entity case, Walt Andrus in-itiated a preliminary investigation bycalling the mother and conducting atelephone interview with Witness #2,aged 11 and 1/2 years.She described the entity in herbackyard in the following manner: shortin height, skinny, forehead protruded,had a dent on the top of its head andthe back of its head also protruded.Backyard trampoline in foreground. Tree where the entity was first observed is atthe center of the photograph.MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  20. 20. There was no visible hair on thecreatures head or elsewhere. The largeeyes were entirely black — no whitesof the eyes. She couldnt see the eyelidsat first, but later noticed that they cameout of the eye socket from the top.Thewitness could not discern a nose andthere was no indentation on the upperlip between the nose and mouth like ahuman. The mouth was not open in-itially, but when it opened it lookedblack.The entity was entirely white with noapparent clothing. It had long slimfingers, but she didnt know how many.She didnt look at the entitys feet,therefore couldnt providea description.(Only the head and neck appearedthrough the window of the home in thesecond sighting.) When questionedabout the height of the entity in thebackyard, in comparison to herself atfive feet, two inches, she said it wasshorter. The three girls on the tram-poline watched the entity as it startedmoving toward them. Witness #2 saidthe entity walked like it was tiptoeingvery slowly although she couldntpro-vide any description about the feet. Shecouldnt remember any details con-cerning the arms but was very cogni-zant of the long fingers on the hands.The father of Witness #2 promptlymailed Walt Andrus a drawing of theentity made by his daughter. This ad-dendum is a preliminary interviewwithWitness #2 only. When Susan Bedellwas conducting the audio taped inter-view in Duanes presence with the threegirls, sometimes a second wouldmomentarily interrupt, or two wouldtalk simultaneously when they tried toclarify particular observations.Duane and Susan Bedell, formermembers of Bob Gribbles WashingtonState team, now live in Springfield,Missouri. After calling Walt Andrus,Bob thought of the Bedells in Missouriand called them immediately thereafter.With the advance notice, they were ableto respond before the assigned in-vestigator in the vicinity was geared tomount an investigation even though theyhad to travel a greater distance. BruceWidaman, State Director for Missouri,withdrew the assignment when hewasadvised by John Carpenter that DuaneSketch of entity by witness number two.Other drawings were similar.and Susan had conducted a personal in-terview and investigation. MUFON isindebted to these fine investigators fortheir prompt and complete investiga-tion. John Carpenter will be calledupon if hypnotherapy is deemed ad-visable to recover possible missing timeexperiences by the three girls.MUFONET-BBS NetworkElectronic Bulletin Board8-N-l 300-14,400 Baud901-785-4943MUFONAmateur Radio Net80 meters — 3.929 MHzSaturday, 9 p.m.40 meters — 7.237 MHzSaturday, 8a.m.10 meters — 28.470 MHzSunday, 3 p.m.All times Eastern Standardor DaylightMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  21. 21. Looking BackBob GribbleOctober 1951 • At1:43 p.m.onthe ninth, Roy Messmore, a CivilAeronautics Administration employeewas walking across the ramp in frontof the administration building atHulman Municipal Airport at TerreHaute, Indiana. He happened to glanceup at the sky —why,he didnt know—and out of the corner,of his eye hecaught a flash of light on thesoutheastern horizon. He stopped andlooked at the sky where the flash oflight had been, but couldnt seeanything. He wasjust about to walk onwhen he noticed what he described as"a pinpoint" of light in the same spotwhere hed seen the flash. In a secondor two the "pinpoint" grew larger andit was obvious to the CAA man thatsomething was approaching the airportat a terrific speed. As he watched, theobject grew larger and larger until itflashed directly overhead and disap-peared to the northwest. The UFO hadbeen in sight for about 15seconds andduring this time it had passed fromhorizon to horizon. It was shaped likea "flattened tennis ball," bright silverin color, and when it was directlyoverhead it was "the size of a 50-centpiece held at arms length."Two minutes later, at 1:45 p.m., apilot, Charles Warren,radioed HulmanAiport that he had seen a UFO. He wasflying from Greencastle, Indiana toParis, Illinois, when just east of Parishe had looked back and to his left, forno apparent reason. There, level withhis airplane and fairly close, wasa largesilver object, "like a flattened orange,"hanging motionless in the sky. He look-ed at it a few seconds, then maneuveredhis plane around in a tight left bank.He headed directly toward the UFO, butit suddenly began to move and pick upspeed and streaked off toward the north-east. (The Report on Unidentified Fly-ing Objects by Edward Ruppelt; TheHynek UFO Report by J. AllenHynek)• On the same afternoon of theIndiana-Illinois sightings, Clarence L.George was sunning himself in thebackyard of his Lodi, Ohio homewhenhe spotted a barrel-like object, silverand glittering and "going like hell"across the sky. "The object was abouthalf the size of a large airplane," Georgesaid. "I was following it, trying tolocate wings on it, when all of a sud-den it made a right angle turn withoutdecreasing speed. In about two or threeseconds it was out of sight. It wasshinyand glistening. I heard a peculiar soundand looked up. Then I saw this objecttraveling at a high rate of speed, fasterthan anything I have seen in the air indaytime. It was near the speed of a fall-ing meteor." (The Beacon Journal,Akron, OH, 10/11/51)1956 • Three pilots ofafour-planegroup in Marine Air Reserve Squadron241, stationed at the Naval Air Station,Los Alamitos, California, sighted asilver, disc-shaped object on the mor-ning of the 13th. Flying at 24,000 feetover WestOrange County, the flight ofF9F-6 Gruman Panther jets was in astraight line column. "I saw a shiny,definitely circular object pass aboveandgoing in the opposite direction,"reported Lt. Lawrence Ball. MajorHerman Bushong and Major LloydChamblin also saw the UFO. MajorBushong said: "It definitely had no ap-pendanges, was circular, like adisc,andgave off a reflection." Major Chamblinstated that the object was "silver anddefinitely circular. It had no appendagesof any kind." (TheDaily News, GardenGrove, CA, 10/15/56)• On the 28th, various missile-crewpersonnel at Minot, North Dakota, AirForce Base, as well as the crew of aB-52 bomber, reported observing theerratic flight of one or more UFOs bymeans of ground-visual, air-visual,and air-radar tracking. In addition, theB-52 bomber that tracked the objecttook scope photos of the target. Thetotal length of observation of the UFOby ground and airborne observers(combined) was four hours and forty-eight minutes. Some of the more per-tinent details of the sighting are con-tained in the following excerpts froma Project Blue Book Memorandum forthe Record, prepared by a Blue Bookstaff officer:"At about 3:00 a.m., a B-52 that wasabout 30 miles northwest of Minot AFBand making practice penetrationssighted an unidentified blip on theirradars. Initially the target traveled ap-proximately two-and-one-half miles inthree seconds, or at about 3000 MPH.After passing from the right to the leftof the plane it assumed a position offthe left wing of the B-52. The blipstayed off the left wing for approximate-ly 20 miles atwhich point it broke off.Scope photographs were taken. Whenthe target was close to the B-52 neitherof the two transmitters in the bomberwould operate properly, but when theUFO broke off both returned to nor-mal function."About this time a missile main-tenance man called in and reportedsighting a bright orange-red object. Theobject was hovering at about 1000 feetor so, and had a sound similar to a jetengine. The observer had stopped hiscar, but he then started it up again. Ashe started to move, the object followedhim, then accelerated and appeared tostop about six to eight miles away. Theobserver shortly afterward lost sight ofit. In response to the maintenance manscall, the B-52, which had continued itspenetration run, was vectored towardthe visual which was about 10 milesnorthwest of the base. The B-52 con-firmed having sighted a bright light ofsometype that appeared to be hover-ingjust over, or, sitting on the ground."MUFON UFO JOURNALNo. 282 October 1991
  22. 22. The Blue Book files contain thereports by 14 members of missilemaintenance crews from five differentsites at Minot AFB who claimed tohaveseen a similar object. Lt. Quintanilla,of Project Blue Book, advised Col.Pullen of the Strategic Air Commandthat it was his belief that the objectsighted by the B-52 crew on radar andvisually was "a plasma of the ball-lightning class." (The Hynek UFOReport by J. Allen Hynek)1961 I What began as a routinetakeoff for WaldoJ. Harris, a Salt LakeCity, Utah pilot, turned out to be oneof the most exciting and perplexingevents of his life. At noon on the secondHarris was preparing for takeoff fromthe Utah Central Airport when hesighted a large, gray-colored, disc-shaped object to the south. He was sur-prised to find the craft still in the sameposition when he became airborne.Curious, he changed his heading andflew toward the large disc, hovering witha rocking motion at an altitude between6500 and 7000 feet. Harris radioed theairport that he had sighted a UFO andwas going to get a better view. Sevenwitnesses on the ground also observedthe disc. Harris headed for the objectand got a good view of the crafts topportion at an estimated distance of threemiles. It had the appearance of "sand-blasted" aluminum. It appeared to beabout 50 feet in diameter and five to 10feet thick at the center. It had the ap-pearance of two shallow dishes joinedtogether at the rim. "I am sure it wasa controlled craft from the performanceduring my observation," Harris said.(The News & Telegram, Salt Lake City,UT, 10/3/61; The Tribune, Salt Lake Ci-ty, UT, 10/3/61)• Onthe 18th, a man andhiswifespotted a strange object over Coblemountain about 10 miles southeast ofFall River Mills, California. It wasabout 7:00 p.m. when they first sawthehovering, oval-shaped object against thehorizon. During their three-hour obser-vation the large oval-shaped objectlaunched two smaller oval-shaped craft.The first small object was launchedfrom the large "ship" about an hourafter the big ship was first seen. It wenttowards the Fall River Valley and re-turned about an hour later. As it dockedaboard the large oval-shaped ship, asecond small craft was launched fromthe opposite side. This object headedtowards Hat Creek and also returned inan hour and docked aboard the largecarrier. Immediately the large shipheaded towards Redding at a terrificspeed. (The News, Fall River Valley,CA, 10/26/61)1966 • Visible, tangible evidencefrom UFOs floated down over sectionsof Jonesboro, Tennessee, about fivemiles southwest of Johnson City, asmany residents witnessed streaks of silk-like substance jettisoned from objectshovering over their homes. The UFOswere sighted in broad daylight on theafternoon of the 12th by people who saidthey could see "silvery-white discs"maneuvering over the area. Several ofthe residents said there were at least 50of the craft with domes on top. Theywould hoverand discharge the substancein sheets which threaded into strandsbefore descending to the ground andwinding around trees and utility poles.Those who tried to catch the slowly fall-ing substance were burned; onewomanhad blisters on her face. Others claimeditching sensations.Mrs. Burnette Fox said: "I caughtsome of the substance ... in my hand... and it burned my little finger. I triedto get it off quick, but it was sticky andstuck to everything. We all got a littlenauseated and we all itched. Everyoneitched that came in the yard until itrained. I got real sick that night and thenext morning." Mrs. Melba Jones saidthe utility pole in front of her house waslittered with odd material. She "rolleda large amount of the sticky substanceon a stick" and saved it. Later, CharlesArmstrong, a reporter for the JohnsonCity Chronicle, stopped by the Joneshome and asked for some of thesubstance. "Even though the nightwasvery cold," Mrs. Fox reported, "thestick was so hot to touch that he wasforced to drop it when he picked it up.Mrs. Fox also stated her dog wouldntleave the house and her cows refusedto enter the field where the substancefell until it rained. Other farmers, shesaid, had similar experiences."Everybody that was there saw theobjects," Mrs. Fox said. "One camedown low and followed the transmis-sion line that runs behind the house. Itwas so low that it went behind the treesin the distance and was still visiblebehind them." At least one Johnson Ci-ty woman and two Johnson City busi-nessmen saw the UFOs. The silverysubstance was felling in the fields wherethe farmers were working in hay "andthey couldnt have helped but see thestuff falling." After duskthat night, twoEast Tennessee State University pro-fessors, viewing through a telescope,reported seeing more than one object.Professor Larry Miller and D.G.Nicholson reported a "doughnut-shaped" craft with a hole in its centerand a small, but easily noticeable, slitin the ring of the body. Miller said thelight of the object reminded him of aweak fluorescent tube. (The PressChronicle, Johnson City, TN, 10/13/66;The UFO Investigator, Oct./Nov. 1966)1976 • A brilliant golden UFO hunglike a miniature sun in the late morn-ing sky over northern Japan on the17th, dazzling observers at Akita Air-port including a veteran airline pilotand air traffic controllers. The shiningdisc-shaped craft hovered motionlessfor five minutes in broad daylight.Newspapers reported that about 50 peo-ple saw it. Kenichi Waga, who is a tele-communications officer at Akita Air-ports control tower, was one of the firstpeople to spot the disc at 10:40 a.m."It wassouth of the airport, about fivemiles away from it. I watched it forabout five minutes," Waga said. "It wasdisc-shaped, larger than a car, butsmaller than an airplane. It was verybright, golden in color, with whitelights. I immediately warned all pilotsin the area to watch out for the UFO."About the same time, Capt. MasaraSaito, 34, a ToaDomestic Airlines pilotwith 12years experience, was prepar-ing to take off in a passenger jet whenhe noticed "a strange looking disc-shaped object 5000 feet from theContinued on page 26MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  23. 23. NewsnViews ...FUND DRIVEDear Fund Supporter:I invite you to join me in a fittingtribute to one of the giants of the fieldof UFOlogy: Donald E. Keyhoe.I was pleased to work with DonKeyhoe when he was director of the Na-tional Investigations Committee onAerial Phenomena — the largestcivilian UFO organization during the1960s. He was one of the first promi-nent individualsto call public attentionto the significance of the UFOphenomenon.Mr. Keyhoe was a retired MarineCorps Major who served as an aide toCharles A. Lindberghin 1927 when thefamous aviator made the first solo, non-stop flight from New York to Paris.During the 1930s, Keyhoe was a free-lance writer whose work appeared insuch publications as The Nation, TheSaturday Evening Post and ReadersDigest. He passed away on November29, 1988, at the age of 91.Last year, the Fund for UFO Re-search decided to institute ajournalismaward in Major Keyhoes memory, inorder to encourage quality investiga-tive reporting into the UFO pheno-menon. During the first year, we pro-vided a $1,000 cash award to GeorgeKnapp of KLAS-TV, Las Vegas,for hisdocumentary, "UFOs: The Best Evi-dence."This year, the recipients of the secondDonald E. Keyhoe Journalism Awardwere:• Sharon Santus, staff reporter fortheGreensburg (PA) Tribune-Review (forher article on the 25th anniversary ofthe Kecksburg UFO crash case), win-ner in the Print Category; and• George Knapp of KLAS-TV (forhis follow-up series, "UFOs: The BestEvidence?") in the Broadcast Category.Ms. Santus and Mr. Knapp eachreceived a $1,000 cash award for theirwinning entries.The Donald E. Keyhoe JournalismAward is open to anyjournalist workingfor a newspaper, magazine, radio ortelevision station whose story on UFOsmakes the most significant contributionto public understanding of thephenomenon, without regard to anyparticular hypothesis.We consider it vitally important toreward good investigative reporting ifwe are to solve the UFO mystery inourlifetime. Im sure you agree that weneed to encourage journalists to takethis subject seriously. Thats why Imasking for your help.The Fund for UFO Research wouldlike to be able to offer cash awardsinsimilar amounts to print and broadcastreporters this year; however, ourresources are already committed toother important projects, like theRoswell UFO crash investigation, ab-duction research, and investigationofhigh-quality UFO sightings.Therefore, I am asking you to makea special contribution — whateveryoucan —to support our journalism awardproject. Im sure Donald Keyhoe wouldbe proud.Sincerely,- Richard HallNational Board MemberP.S. Contributors of $50 or more willreceive a videotape of the 1990 award-winning KLAS-TV series, "UFOs: TheBest Evidence?" This outstandingpro-gram —which is being madeavailable(on VHS formatonly) through a specialarrangement with the producer — isnearly 90 minutes in length and focuseson some of the most controversialaspects of the UFO phenomenon.Youwill consider it a valuable additiontoyour library.BARKER COLLECTIONThe Gray Barker UFO Collection offlying saucer books, magazines,newsletters, newspaper clippings andcorrespondence opened September14at the Clarksburg-Harrison PublicLibrary in Clarksburg, WV, accord-ing to Ruth Yeager, collectionlibrarian.Those wishing to see the limited ac-cess collection, which also containsnow rare UFO accounts from the 1940sand 50s, can register by calling Yeagerat (304) 624-6512.The items pertaining to unidentifiedflying objects (UFOs) represent theholdings of controversial West Virginiaauthor, publisher and UFO buff GrayBarker. Barker died in 1984, leavingsome 300 books, 75 groups ofmagazines and journals, and 30 filingdrawers of correspondence on flyingsaucers and related paranormal topics.Self-deprecating humor and a fore-bearance for the ridiculous is evidentthroughout the collection, the librariannotes. One cabinet displays an oldbumper sticker that says "FlyingSaucers Are Real — The Air ForceDoesnt Exist!"Barkers interest in saucers beganwhen he investigated the 1952 Flat-woods Monster UFO sighting in Brax-ton Co., WV, and wrote a report forFATE magazine. In the 1970s he gain-ed a wider audience with his full-bookaccount of the collapse of the SilverBridge at Point Pleasant, WV, and the"Mothman" sightings that preceded thedisaster.For 30 years, says Yeager, Barkeredited six UFO newsletters, deliveredcountless lectures, published numerousworks by other authors, and penned fivebooks of his own, including They KnewToo Much About Flying Saucers, TheBook of Adamski, The Silver Bridge,Gray Barkers Book of Saucers andMen in Black: The Secret TerrorAmongUs.Some of his newsletter titles were"The Saucerian," "Flying SaucerMagazine" and "Saucer News," whichhe took over from fellow UFO en-thusiast Jim Moseley.Continued on next pageMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991
  24. 24. In Others Words ...Lucius ParishTwo recent articles in the NA-TIONAL ENQUIRER (July 30 andAugust 27) have presented the story ofArizona resident Robert Dean, whoclaims to have seen classified NATOdocuments relating to the UFO subject.Dean has also made headlines with hischarge that he was turned down for ajob promotion because he believes inUFOs. The August 13 ENQUIRERquoted Brad Steiger and Tim Beckleyas saying that some UFO visitors areactually time travellers from a futureEarth.Stanton T. Friedmans "UFOLine"service whereby telephone callers canobtain various types of UFO informa-- tion is the subject of the "Antimat-ter/UFO Update" column in theAugust issue of OMNI. The cost tocallers is $2.00 for the first minuteand49Cper minute thereafter. Thenumberis 1-900-446-8367. The Septemberissue discusses MUFONS FIELDINVESTIGATORS MANUAL, qual-ifications of UFO researchers, etc.Those who have followed the UFOsubject for many years will probablyrecall the late George Hunt William-sons second book, OTHER TONGUES— OTHER FLESH, which has beenout of print for many years. A newedi-tion, containing the original text, plusnew photos, is now available in soft-cover format from BE, Books — c/oBrotherhood of Life, Inc. - 110 Dart-mouth SE - Albuquerque, NM 87106.The author was one of the first toclaimcontact (by shortwave radio andpsychic means) with intelligences pur-porting to be of extraterrestrial origins.He was also one of the witnesses toGeorge Adamskis claimed contact inthe California desert in November1952. This event is discussed at somelength in the book, along with William-sons speculations on the meaning ofsupposed space visitations. The bookis priced at $15.95, plus $3.00 ship-ping for UPS delivery.One of the most difficult aspects ofUFO research is simply tryingto keepup with the many various UFOorganizations and publications aroundthe world. Due to the constant comingand going of both groups andperiodicals, any listing of this sort isusually out of date by the time it seesprint. However, one of the most recentsourcebooks of this kind is theALMANAC OF UFO ORGANIZA-TIONS & PUBLICATIONS, compiledby David Blevins. It is a comprehen-sive listing of over 200 groups andpublications which are actively in-volved in studying the UFO subject anddiscussing/disseminating their finds.All organizations are listed alpha-betically and again by country. In hisintroduction, Blevins stresses that hehas no editorial axes to grind, but issimply presenting basic information forthose who wish to learn more about thesubject. It is planned to update theALMANAC periodically, as war-ranted. In this regard, Blevins asks forreaders contributions of data for futureeditions. This neatly-done, spiral-bound softcover book is available fromBlevins (331 Firecrest Avenue #2 -Pacifica, CA 94044) for $19.45, in-cluding shipping/handling charges. TheALMANAC is especially useful forthose who arejust becoming interestedin the UFO subject, although "old-timers" will also find it very helpful.You say you dont want to pay$100-$500 for a used copy ofUFO...CONTACT FROM THEPLEIADES, Volume 1? No need to,as Genesis HI Publishing has justbrought out a beautiful reprint ofVolume 1, selling for only $55.00, in-cluding shipping charges. If you are atall interested in the photographic storyof the Eduard "Billy" Meier case, youwill certainly want a copy of this book.Only a limited number will be avail-able, so orders should be placed asquickly as possible. Orders should besent to Genesis HI Publishing - P. O.Drawer 25962 - Munds Park, AZ86017. The same address may be usedto request a flyer showing all the otherbooks, posters and videotapes whichare available from Genesis HI.NewsnViews, continuedBarkers files contain letters frompeople well known on the UFO circuit,including John Keel, Major DonaldKeyhoe, Jim Moseley, Carlos Allende,Ivan T. Sanderson, Morris JessupandMilton Cooper. Several files aredevoted to documents obtained pieceby piece through the Freedom of In-formation Act.Famous "contactees" like GeorgeAdamski and Howard Menger arerepresented, as are obscure religiouscults, fringe-interest advocates andnumerous UFO groups. Three of thebetter knownorganizations found in thefiles are the Mutual UFO Network(MUFON), the Center for UFOStudies (CUFOS) and NICAP, the Na-tional Investigations Committee onAerial Phenomena.There are Barker files on the Navysalleged 1943 "Philadelphia Experi-ment in ship invisibility using Eins-teins unified field theory; "MJ-12"(allegations of government collusionwith aliens and subsequent cover-ups);the "Roswell" or "Hangar 18" casein which small aliens were reportedlyremoved from a crashed UFO and per-manently hidden from the public;government Blue Book projects; theRendlesham Forest and Socorrosightings — and sightings from manyof the 50 states and other nations.Ms. Yeager notes that the term "fly-ing saucer" was coined by pilot Ken-neth Arnold, who reported seeing fly-ing disks near Mt. Rainier,Washington. In the 1940s, Scandina-vians reported seeing another type craftwhich they called "ghost rockets."(Press release)MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 282 October 1991