Mufon ufo journal 1991 9. september


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 1991 9. september

  1. 1. Mufon UFO JournalOfficial Publication of the Mutual UFO Network Since 1967Number 281September 1991$3.00GERALD ANDERSON:Truth vs. FictionBy John S. Carpenter
  2. 2. Mufon UFO JournalSeptember 1991 Number 281CONTENTSGERALD ANDERSON: Truth vs. Fiction John S. Carpenter 3TRACKING TRACES Irena Scott 8LOOKING BACK Bob Gribble 10THE UFO PRESS Stanton Friedman, W. Ritchie Benedict 13LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Hopkins, Beckjord, Good 19THE OCTOBER NIGHT SKY Walter N. Webb 22DIRECTORS MESSAGE Walt Andrus 24COVER PHOTOGRAPH: Gerald Anderson Photo courtesy of Springfield News-LeaderEDITORDennis 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 pan 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 Revenue Code. MUFON is a publicly supported organizationof the typedescribed in Section 509 (a) (2). Donors may deduct contributions from their Federal In-come Tax. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers or gifts are also deductible for estate andgift purposes, provided they meet the applicable provisionsof 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. GERALD ANDERSON: TRUTH vs. FICTIONJohn S. Carpenter, M.S.W.The following news should please quite a few readers.Gerald Anderson underwent an extensive six-hourpolygraph examination in Kansas City, Missouri onJuly 24, 1991. The highly-qualified, independent polygraphexaminer was strongly recommended by the AmericanPolygraph Association and backed by the Fund for UFOResearch. Regarding Geralds account of having seen acrashed saucer, alien bodies and a military retrieval in 1947,the examiner concluded that:• There was no evidence whatsoever of deception.• Mr. Anderson has an excellent memory.• Mr. Anderson is not a pathological liar.Not only is it significant that these conclusions establishadditional credibility to Gerald Anderson, but its also signifi-cant in that this may be the only first-hand crash/retrievalwitness to undertake and pass a polygraph.I would like to express much praise and appreciation forthe hard work and manyhours Kevin Randle and Don Schmittput forth to produce UFO Crash at Roswell (Avon Books,July 1991). It is always wonderful whenthe public gets anothergood dose of facts regarding the existence of UFOs —especially when it concerns the retrieval of one and subse-quent secrecy. Their tireless efforts are to be commended.However, I am startled and disappointed at their ^_^_quick and bold dismissal of the Gerald Ander-son/Barney Barnett saucer crash accounts on thePlains of San Agustin — which have very little todo with the Roswell case at all. The authors will bothtell you that they spent very little time themselvesinvestigating Geralds account, but yet they write asif they were well-informed and very much a part ofthe investigation. They have no business dismissingan account that they have not thoroughly or properly in-vestigated. As a major participant in the Gerald Andersoninvestigation, I would like to clarify, correct and present factswhich will hopefully set the record straight from my first-hand role in this case.I recently reviewed the article by Don Schmitt and KevinRandle entitled "Gerald Anderson and the Magdalena Con-nection," which appears in The RoswellReport: AHistoricalPerspective, published by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFOStudies, July 1991.1expected to find a careful considerationof the facts followed by probing questions and naturally, somekind of argument or challenging hypothesis. Instead I wasdismayed and disillusioned with the article because it con-tained many blatant errors, distortion of facts and conclu-sions based on assumptions. Therefore, any arguments posedagainst the credibility of Gerald Anderson are built on veryGeraldAndersonPassesPolygraphshaky ground themselves and must be considered now againsttrue facts in this case. I am not surprised that this articleis so misinformed and full of errors. This would naturallyoccur if the authors had had little or no contact with thewitness or the principal investigators. Don Schmitt has nevermet or talked with Gerald Anderson. KevinRandle has nevermet Gerald Anderson, but has talked with him by phone onetime for 26 minutes (verified by phone records), long beforeour investigation ever began. Neither Kevinnor Don has evertalked with me despite my conducting investigative interviews,hypnosis sessions, background checks, going to New Mex-ico, and countless other contacts with the witness. I under-stand that Stanton Friedman was rarely consulted either. Sotheir article is on very shaky ground from the beginning.Now lets take a closer examination of several points.1) "They (the bodies) were up under this thing. It wasnttorn up and they werent scattered around." "... This is con-sistent with the waythe discovery of the bodies was portrayedon the Unsolved Mysteries program."Here the authors imply that Gerald simply echoed whathe watched on TV. Gerald describes the four beings as lay-ing next to each other on metal sheets in the shade of thecrashed domed disc. "Unsolved Mysteries" portrayed thebeings as scattered in the grass around the disc. Note thatthis is unlike Geralds story and also one of the reasons why^^_ he called "Unsolved Mysteries" to correct them.2) "In fact, most of the discrepancies between whathe told us in February 1990 and what he rememberedand told to Stan Friedman under hypnosis sevenmonths later could be explained by his age."Neither one has ever met Gerald Anderson in per-son, but the article makes it sound like they bothsat down with him and had a long discussion.Secondly, Stan Friedman was in Canada whileGerald was recalling his details with me while under hyp-nosis in Missouri. There is no excuse for these obvious in-accuracies. The differences in the amount of detail simplyresults from the length and depth of our interviews in com-parison with Kevin Randles 26-minute phone call. Age haslittle to do with it. Hypnosis was more responsible for theobtaining of 20 per cent more detail to add to his consciousrecall.3) "First, according to Don Berliner, Anderson was ableto take them right to the crash site. He had to walk aroundfor a few minutes, but once he spotted a windmill, he knewhe was close. Even after 43 years, he was able to find thesite easily."Don Berliner will certainly verify my following statements.As Don and I sat talking in the restaurant portion of the EagleGuest Ranch, Stan, Gerald, Robert Bigelow and the helicopterMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  4. 4. pilot flew to the area designated byGeralds handwritten map made duringthe hypnosis session in Springfield,Missouri. Gerald was certain thattheyhad located the correct area but feltdisoriented and unsure as to the exacthill or ridge. He felt bothered that nightbecause the .rocky ridge he firstdesignated along the arroyo "did notfeel right" for some reason. He con-tinued to feel unsettled because hecould see the town of Horse Springsfrom this site and not enough of thePlains as he had remembered. Andthere had been no windmillto be seenanywhere.Late the next morning we droveto the area and suggested thatGerald retrace on foot the carspath and their hike down into the ar-royo. Without an invitationtoward anyof us or a desire for any kind of an au-dience to watch him, Gerald climbedover a barbed-wire fence and set outacross the desert, determined to find thelandmarks he knew must be out theresomewhere. For various reasons theothers chose to wait in the four-wheeldrive vehicle. However, I decided thatsomebody ought to follow and watchhow he finds the site, and since I wasfamiliar with the details of landmarksfrom the hypnosis session, I climbedover the fence to follow and photo-graphed him at each point in the search.Although the old rutted road could notbe found, Gerald finally saw the ridgewith big rocks where the family hadabandoned their car and continued onfoot. From this ridge Gerald reallyseemed to get his bearings because nowyou could look down into the arroyoclearly. The first hill he had selectedas the crash site was now obviouslywrong because it was readily visible atthis point and should not have been.The actual site is obscured by anearbysloping hill at this point. Walkingdowninto and along the arroyo toward thePlains brings you around to the otherrocky ridge (just like he had re-membered under hypnosis) where thecrashed disc would have been obscurednot only from the parked family car butalso from the town of Horse Springs.Now Bat Cave can be seen across thePlains and the terrain is "feeling right"for Gerald. Still no sign of any wind-mill. Assuming this was the correctridge for the crash, we returned to theothers and encouraged them to drive tothe approximate area where thereshould be an old windmill. When wefound it behind the trees, it was rightwhere it should have been in correla-tion with all the other landmarks. Thus,one can see that Gerald did not find itquickly, easily, or with the help of see-ing a windmill first!4) "Anderson remembered newdetails about the crash as he walkedaround the field."I was with Gerald as he walkedaround the crash site. There was notone utterance of any new data, recollec-tions or additional detail. Much of thetime he was deep in his thoughts, re-flecting on his childhood memories,and searching for desert terrain careful-ly so as to be certain of where the eventstook place. I was with Gerald in NewMexico for the next few days and trav-eled home seated next to him on variousplanes. Not once did he add or alter onesingle detail from the interviews andhypnosis session performed onSeptember 4, 1990. Since Randle andSchmitt do not acknowledge my inter-views, hypnosis sessions, or presencein New Mexico in their article, it isquite possible that they did not under-stand where this "new" informationsuddenly came from.Since they were notcommunicatingwith Gerald, Stanton or myself, it isquite understandable how confused theymust have become about the processofour investigation. When they apparentlythought they were hearing "new"details from Gerald, they were actual-ly just acquiring bits and pieces of ouroriginal interviewsover a period of timethrough the only means of acquiringknowledge they utilized — occasionalnews articles and radio interviews.Details regarding "50-foot diameter,""small dome," arriving "15 minutesbefore the archeologists," "girl namedAgnes," and captain named "Arm-strong" are described as newadditionsto his story. Again, all of these aspectswere fully included in the hypnosisses-sion performed earlier that month.5) "The next day, Berliner, whowastrying to find the site again, got lost.He had been there only about 24 hoursearlier, had flown over it in a helicopter,but still had trouble finding the rightplace."Don Berliner was never on thehelicopter! Don Berliner did not followGerald across the desert terrain and didnot know the landmarks that it took forGerald to find the site. Don only sawthe site after we drove up behind it andled him over several hills to it. I thinkI would have had trouble finding it fromthat direction also, because I wouldntbe following the storys landmarks.6) "In December 1990 he went far-ther, saying that one apparently wasuninjured and had been trying to helpits fellows."Again they use this December dateto imply that Gerald is once more ad-ding new details. December 9, 1990 wasthe date that the Springfield NewsLeader printed the first extensive arti-cle on Geralds recollection, obtainedin a three-hour interviewin which Iwasalso present. All the details were inkeeping with the original interview. Ofcourse this article would seem new toRandle and Schmitt since they had notbeen in communication with Gerald ormyself during the investigation. Thenews article would have been their on-ly method of learning anything aboutthe case. So:7) "In a newspaper account, Ander-son mentioned the news reports on Ju-ly 7, 1947, concerning the debris foundnear Roswell. In their 1980 book, TheRoswell Incident, Charles Berlitz andWilliam L. Moore report erroneouslythat the first stories appeared on July7. Later research shows conclusivelythat the first newspaper stories appearedon July 8. Anderson, since he gave thewrong date musthave read The RoswellIncident.I was with Gerald for the newspaperinterview. When the reporter asked forthe date, Gerald didnt know. I gave itto the reporter from what I hadremembered reading.8) "In later interviews Andersonadded still more detail." "More detailsare added, others are changed, ... "Here again, later in the article, detailsMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September1991
  5. 5. regarding "Buskirk," "Agnes," the"huge gash in the side of the craft, andthe military presence are portrayed asnew revelations and further additionsto Geralds account. I must again em-phasize that all details were acquiredduring four hours of tape-recorded con-scious as well as hypnotic investigationon September 4, 1990.9) "All those who have heard hisstory through the years are gone ... alldocuments have been supplied by thesame source, Gerald."Wrong again. Recently, Stan-ton Friedman interviewed aneldery friend of Geraldsfather from the familys church in Albu-querque. That man recalled Geraldsfather describing a strange saucer crashon the Plains of San Agustin and "notbeing able to examine it closely" forvery long. Stan also located Geraldsstepsister — whom Gerald had losttrack of for 33 years — and she toldStan that she recalled Gerald tellingofthe saucer crash on the Plains, althoughshe really couldnt remember any of theWhen we first interviewedGerald some seven monthslater, he still hesitatedand wasuncertain about seeing anyblood. He emphasized how"banged-up" they appeared.details. Geralds cousin Vallejean senther hand-written copy of her fathers(Uncle Ted) diary directly to Stantonin Canada along with her comments ina cover letter. Gerald had only beengiven a Xerox copy at his fathersfuneral in 1978. I asked Gerald if hethought Vallejean could have made herown written copy of her fathers docu-ment. He said that he doubted what wehad copies of was in her handwritingbecause hers was always neat and easyto read. Remembering that, I checkedthe cover letter sent to Stan and foundindeed her signature neat and easy toread —much different from the scrawl-ing style in the diary.10) "Under hypnosis, Anderson ex-*kJ£plained that only two were dead whenhe and his family arrived. One wasmoaning and died while they werethere."Neither under hypnosis nor in theDecember 1990 news article is thereever the slightest suggestion of anycreature "moaning." Even in thetranscript of their only contact withGerald, Gerald says "The creature nevermade a sound."11)"His description of the aliens doesnot match that of either other witnessesat Roswell or any other reliable accountfound in UFO reports involvinghumanoids."First of all, we are not talking aboutthe Roswell crash. Three bodies in somekind of canoe-shaped ejection pods werediscovered near Corona. At the SanAgustin crash site both Barnett andAnderson describe four beings withoversized heads, thin, small bodies, darkeyes, and hands with four long, slenderfingers, wearing some kind of grayclothing. Not only do Barnetts andAndersons descriptions match, butGerald went into much more depth andMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  6. 6. detail about them than has ever beenprinted. These details —despite my ef-forts with leading, suggestive questions— match anatomical descriptions andfeelings from abduction accountsperfectly! In fact, several of the ab-ductees Ive worked with get chills overhearing his description or seeing hisdrawing because its so close to theirown memories and feelings.12) "... Anderson told us that hecould see the cliff dwelling .. No suchstructure is visible from the claimedlocation." "Anderson watched them ap-proach from the east."There are cliff dwellings in the crashsite vicinity. Gerald had always des-cribed the "cliffs" and "caves" to us.Bat Cave, an archeological dig siteacross the Plains, would have offereda clear view of any fiery object com-ing down or reflecting sunlight in themorning. In Handles phone transcriptGerald assumed the dig site would be"three or four hours of walking" indistance. There are also cliffs withsmall caves just west of the site andmuch closer. Its interestingto notethatGerald originally recalled under hyp-nosis that the archeology group triedto get the military to let them return tothe west from which they had come. Hedidnt speculate why, but later we de-cided that if they had been just hikingit would not have mattered if they wereforced to go up to the road. But if theyhad driven across the Plains from BatCave on a road that runs up behind thecrash site to the west, then they wouldneed to retrieve their car and wouldin-sist upon returning to the west.13) "None of the archeologists men-tioned the eventto anyone." "All effortsto locate the archeologists have failed."If one has never ever located any ofthe archeologists, then how could oneinterview these witnesses to learnwhether they ever told anyone? It israther presumptuous to claim know-ledge of what the archeologists did ordidnt do when contact has not evenbeen made with them. If this statementis based on the assumptionthat peoplewould have come forth to tell thesaucer-crash story if they had been toldby an archeologist, then that in itselfis a rather naive assumption —and cer-tainly not sound enough upon which tobuild ones argument. We know thatplenty of people have remained silentdue to fear of reprisal, ridicule, orsimply a lack of knowledge as towhomto tell or trust.14) "According to one witness, the ar-cheology group had been rock hunt-ing."Anonymous WitnessWho is this one witness? Earlier Ran-dle and Schmitt state that none of thearcheologists ever told anything toanyone or could even be found. So whois this unnamed person? When Stantonasked Don Schmitt at our breakfast inChicago who the archeologist/sourcewas in their book, the answer simplywas, "An anonymous phone call." Noname. No verification. No credibility.But they use this unverified source todiscredit Gerald.I must agree with the following state-ment from their article: "An eyewit-ness, repeating a story he has lived, willmake minor changes in each telling ofit." This described Gerald perfectly!Not only was I with him through thefirst four hours of interviews, the planeflights to and from Albuquerque, andthe four days spent together in NewMexico but I have spent countless otherhours with him on the phone and inperson, including local UFO gather-ings, several radio interviews, anewspaper interview, a local TV inter-view, and at the 1991Ozarks UFO Con-ference in Eureka Springs, Arkansas.His story remains consistent despitemany opportunities to elaborate and"fill in the blanks" posed by manyprobing questions from others. Evenwhen we placed him under hypnosisforLinda Howes television documentary,he relived the experience again with re-markable accuracy and detail. Only afew new details emerged which is notsurprising when under hypnosis for a"second look." Their claim of "majorrevisions" and an ever-changing storyare untrue and unfounded.A few other researchers have madesome noise about the idea that Geraldis seeking publicity or financial gain.First of all, Gerald has always beencautious as to with whom he wouldshare any information. He turned downthe TVprogram Hard Copy becausehe felt it was too sensational. He turneddown an all-expense paid trip back tothe crash site and a $1,000honorariumthat the Japanese offered him and onlyallowed them to film him (and myself)in Springfield, Missouri. He questionedme carefully about Linda Howe andBob Oeschler before he had any con-tact with them. The extensive Spring-field news article came about when thewriter read about my activities withGerald in our local UFO newsletter. Iencouraged Gerald to allow this writerto interviewus because I knewthis manhad written about UFO incidentspreviously in a factual and respectfulmanner. Knowing that the accountwould eventually get publicized bysomeone, I felt it was crucial that wetake the opportunity to have it doneright. Because the writer respected theimportance of the story, he offered forboth Gerald and I to proofread his workfor accuracy. So Gerald certainly didnot run out to the media or seek op-portunities to make money!So, is there any basis for which Ran-dle and Schmitt stake their claims? Theauthors state they have two taped inter-views with Gerald Anderson that arefull of contradictions and discrepancies.Upon finally receiving transcripts withhelp from Fred Whitingof FUFOR, Iwas surprised to find the short26-minute phone call on February 4,1990 with Handle as the one and onlycontact with Gerald Anderson. My first90-minute interview with Gerald wasoriginally transcribed in the same for--mat and spacing as theirs but occupies75 pages in contrast to the 12pages forthis phone call.The second "interview" is merely atranscription of Bob Oeschlers phoneinterview with Gerald Anderson forBobs national radio program on March24, 1991 — more than a year later andlong after our investigation, hypnoticsessions, and trip to New Mexico. Doesthis constitute a proper follow-up inter-view by Handle and Schmitt with GeraldAnderson? Gerald had alwaysstated hehad had only one relativelyshort phonecall with Kevin Randle. Therefore, theMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  7. 7. full extent of Randle and Schmitts in-vestigative interviewing adds up to thisone 26-minute phone call.TranscriptThere are many interesting thingsabout this transcript. First of all, I wasstruck by the many similar rather thancontradictory details —often describedwith the same vocabulary as in our in-terviews months later. No one hasdisputed the fact that the tape is of poorquality with many parts difficult todecipher. Linda Howe, author and TVproducer, told me she had much dif-ficulty understanding it. The transcriptitself contains remarks about the dif-ficulties with transcription. Never-theless, the authors claim that everyword is transcribed accurately. How-ever, I found some obvious mistakes thefirst time I read through it:"This vessel was not torn open.The side was torn out of it and therewas a lot of cables and junk like that(hanging out) ... this craft wasn t tornopen in the side ... You couldnt seeinside this thing .. There was some kindof material that resembled wires thatwere hanging out of this hole ..."Having transcribed many tapes my-self, I understand the difficulty in hear-ing the difference between "was" and"wasnt" or "could" and "couldnt."The inconsistencies in the above con-tent indicate something isnt beingtranscribed correctly.Another transcript error occurs withthe names "Ted and Dick." (Who is"Dick?") There is no "Dick" in anypart of this story. Its clear to me thatthe name "Victor" was heard as"Dick" since "Ted and Victor" arementioned in the next few sentences.But my point is that the authors claimthe transcript is free of any errors!If poor tape quality and subsequenttroubles with transcription arentenough, the authors clearly twist thewords of their own transcript severaltimes for their article.1) Article: "To Anderson .. it (thecraft) looked like a bomb lyingthere."Transcript: "My dad told me to stayright here. He kept saying, Well, itmightbe a bomb or something like that. "Anderson turned down the TVprogram "Hard Copy" becausehe felt it was too sensational. He turned down an all-expensepaid trip back to the crash site and a $1,000 honorarium thatthe Japanese offered him.2) Article: "When asked if he wassure they (archeologists) were from theUniversity of Pennsylvania, Andersonsaid that he was."Transcript: "Well ... I think so, butit has been a long, long time. Theyworked with the university and Imthinking Pennsylvania .. bear in mind,Ive heard this story so many times, andI know how people add things to them."3) Article: "One (creature) wasmoaning and died while they werethere."Transcript: "I never heard a soundfrom this creature."4) Article: "The side of its(creatures) face was abraded and ooz-ing red blood."Transcript: "... it wasnt oozingblood."Claiming that Gerald was certain thathe saw red blood is rather misleadingwhen one actually studies this firstphone contact with him. In their owntranscript Gerald says, "I cant recall... maybe ... there wasblood .. bruis-ing. Looked like bruising ... like hedbeen scraped. Like thrown againstsomething ..." Randle then asks aleading question, "Was it good redblood?" — to which Gerald ponders,"It seems to me that it was. Im tryingto visualize." But then Gerald continuesto emphasize that it was more "like ascrape." When we first interviewedGerald some seven months later, he stillhesitated and was uncertain about see-ing any blood. He emphasized how"banged-up" they appeared. Underhypnosis he never saw any blood at alland now feels quite certain that he hasremembered correctly.They also stated that he claims thealiens had "big, milky-blue eyes" —which is in the transcript as well. Butalso in the transcript Gerald states, "notblue like blue in human eyes ..."Whenhe told us on tape that the eyes were"almost black," we asked him againlater (while he was making drawings)what he meant. He stated (unfortunate-ly not taped) that the black eyes had abluish tinge, giving a "murky-blue" ap-pearance. This might resemble the blu-ish shine of black satin or the iridescenceof a butterflys wings. Its quite con-ceivable that the transcriptionistmisunderstood "murky-blue" as "milky-blue." With further questioning of awitness these difficulties in comprehen-sion vanish because of spending manyhours and days clarifying various points.Neither Randle nor Schmitt everfollowed-up with Gerald to clarifyanything!It wasnt that Gerald added orchanged details; it was the fact that Ran-dle and Schmitt did not make contactto learn anything further about what wehad obtained and researched.Recently, another claim is send-ing a premature shock wavethrough researchers. Accordingto Fred Whiting of FUFOR, KevinRan-dle called, claiming he now had "ir-refutable evidence" that Gerald Ander-son took an anthropology course fromthe archeologist Buskirk at AlbuquerqueHigh School. This is a curious claimespecially after reviewing these facts:1) Federal law prohibits the releaseof information without signed consent.School officials refused to give Randleinformation.2) School transcripts do not indicatethe teachers for the classes. Officialsindicated it would be nearly impossi-ble to learn who taught a particularclass in 1957.3) There is no absolute proof that anyBuskirk from Albuquerque HighSchool is the same Buskirk from thecrash site.Although each of these points mightseem trivial to take the time to clarifyor correct, their accumulative effectserves to distort the facts of this case,Continued on page 12MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  8. 8. TRACKING TRACESIrena ScottState Section Director Scott is aMUFON Consultant in Physiology.Crop circles and other traceshave been of intense recent in-terest in UFOlogy. Many ofthese crop circles are in Englandand are composed of bent over grain.Other traces are similar to the one inIntruders: "The main area was a cir-cle, eight feet in diameter, in whichallthe grass had turned brown and wasnow crumbling away. Extending outfrom this circle was a 49-foot-longswath which ran perfectly straight andwas nearly three feet in width. Here,too, the grass was dead anddisintegrating. This long track ended ina nearly perfect arc, and seemed ab-solutely artificial. Two smaller jogsappeared to emerge from the main cir-cle, and one of these contained a deepcrack which looked, superficially, as ifit had been caused by intense heat."These traces are rarely seen beingmade; however there are often reportsof UFOs in the area. I investigated atrace similar to, but larger than, the oneBudd Hopkins described. I first foundout about it in August of 1984, whileconducting the survey described inOhio Jr. Sci. 87(l):24-26, 1987, anddescribed it briefly in the MUFON UFOJournal (May 1986). Budd Hopkinssubsequently expressed an interest init to my sister. Because of the currenthigh interest in such "circles," moredetailed information might be helpfulin comparisons and studies of this kindof particular physical trace. As in manyother such reports, there were no im-mediate eyewitnesses; however, therewere some related UFO observations(including an extreme close encounterin which the UFO "was followed byajet-like rocket propellant, which wasabright white rocket exhaust," and whichleft, or came down, in theapproximatedirection of the burn) within a monthof the approximate time of the tracesappearance and within a mile of itslocation. The trace was located in anarea that was not visible from anyhabitation.DiscoveryIt was discovered by a farmer, in June1984, in a field of green, knee highalfalfa. He believed that it had not beenmade much before then. This field hadbeen in alfalfa for several years andhad shown no previous damage in thisor any other area. The field was notplowed or replanted for four more yearsand the trace remained devoid of alfalfa.There was a large high-tension powerline, about 1/4mile south of the burn,that was near a freeway. Several timesthese power lines had broken and comedown, creating a highly dangeroussituation because of the freeway. Thefarmer was worried that people mighthave trespassed on his property andshot the power lines down. Because ofthis he kept the only lane to the fieldblocked by a steel cable locked to apost. He kept the only key himself. Noone could have taken machinery on thisproperty without his knowledge. Thefarmer was mystified about the causeof the burn. He said that he had neverseen anything like it in 70 years of farm-ing. He had reported it to the firedepartment. When asked abut UFOs,he did not think that they existed, anddid not link the burn to UFOs. I knowthe farmer well. Neither he nor his wifewanted attention; in fact, they didnt tellme about the burn, another neighbordid.The traces appearance was that of astanding green alfalfa that was black-ened and charred to its roots. The areaof the burn was very localized; plantsnext to the burned area were un-damaged. I obtained this descriptionfrom the farmer and his two workers,who also saw the burn before the haywas cut. All of them said that nothinghad been applied (e.g. no fertilizer orpesticides) to any area of the alfalfa.There had been wet weather during thistime and water was standing in thefields.When I first saw the area in August1984, several cuttings of hay had beenmade. However, no alfalfa grew in thearea of the trace. It was around 130feetlong and around six feet wide. Like thetrace described in Intruders,it consistedof a central circular area (the farmerreferred to this as a "blast area"). Butthere wasalso a secondary smaller cir-cular area beside it. The largest wasaround 6-7 feet in diameter. Extendingfrom it to the south was a swath, whichran straight for around 20-25 feet. Ithad a clear-cut strip of vegetation downthe center. Extending in the other direc-tion from the circular area was a distinctswath that curved over the hillside andslowly became less distinct. As in theIntruders trace, the central area contain-ed deep cracks.1discussed the burn with the farmer,his wife, and his two farm workers,the fire chief and a senior in-dustrial chemist. The farmer and hiswife could not think of a way for theburn to have been made. They did notbelieve lightning would make this pat-tern. If a hot air balloon had landed andblasted its burners sidewise, it wouldhave mashed the hay. Also it is doubt-ful if the gas would blast for 130 feet(over the side of a hill) or leave twodiscrete traces. If an airplane haddumped gasoline it would need to haveflown higher than the power line andwould most likely not be able to makesuch a discrete mark either, because thegas would disperse in the air. There isno evidence that helicopters burn theground. Both the farmer and the firechief said that green alfalfa does noteasily burn. The fire chief said that inorder to burn green alfalfa it has to havehad the water vaporized first since it ischiefly composed of same. It would bealmost impossible to set a fire in thearea and burn this vegetation withoutthe use of special equipment. The areawas on the other side of a very long,steep hill from the freeway. It wouldhave been a very poor site for anyonehoping to perpetrate a hoax.For one thing, the slope was ear-marked by a lot of thick vegetationand topped by a tall fence. AnyoneMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  9. 9. hauling a liquid or other chemical com-ponent would have required a con-siderable amount, necessitating severaltrips up and downthe hill, all within fullview of the freeway. Moreover, therewere no visible tracks, either comingfrom the freeway, or in the field.I was reminded of certain other ef-fects associated with the trace casementioned in Intruders: "The hedge inthe immediate area of the bird feederalso began to wither and ... (they)hadto cut the plantsback almost to the rootsto force new growth. In the spring theDavis family had planted a fewtomatoplants in the general vicinity of whatbecame the burned circle. The fruitthese plants eventually produced wereabnormally large and so mealy as to beinedible." They believed the area hadpossibly been effected by microwavesor some other form of radiation.In order to investigate further, I tooka sample of the soil and of nearby soilfrom an undamaged area. Seeds grewin both samples. Thus, there was noth-ing in the soil that interfered withplantgrowth. Later on, however, as a fewdandelions began to grow in the area(possibly from seeds that had alreadybeen in the soil), an unusualnumberlooked somewhat deformed. A morethan normal numberof dandelion stemsseemed to grow together so that therewould be large-diameter dandelionstems with numerous flower heads.Many of these crept along the groundinstead of growing up. So while theredid not seem to be anything in the soilthat damaged new seeds, some of thesealready in the ground seemedsomewhat abnormal. I noticed this onlywith dandelions. Not much else grewthere. Several years later I noticed thatportions of the soil, the clay-like parts,and some of the rocks in the area werered. This red color was not visible inother areas.AnalysisFor further analysis, I sent a sample(taken in August) of the soil to thechemist. He analyzed it using massspectrometry. (For separation, he useda fused silica capillary column. He in-jected vapor from the heated soil sam-ple into it, heated the column from 50to 300 C. at 15.c/min. to drive off theseparate compounds, and then collectedthem. For analysis of the separatedpeaks, he used electron impact andchemical ionization spectronometry.Since we wondered about gasoline, healso analyzed for gasoline residue.) Hefound no trace of gasoline in the area.I took the chromatograms to severalagricultural experts. They said therewas no trace of any products ordegradation products of pesticides orherbicides. Most of what they foundwere common organic chemicals fromfarm plants and weeds. They thoughttwo of the chromatograms mighthavebeen from DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide).Therefore there is no indication thatthe burn was made by any commonlyused or known chemicals.I used a Geiger counter (August1984) to look for radioactivity in somesamples, but if there was any it wasclose to background and not enough todetect that way. I was not able to usea gammaor scintillation counter atthattime, but still have the samples.Although the seeds that I planted grewin the burn and in the control soil,several weeds grew in the control soilonly, again suggesting that seeds in theburn area might have been damaged.When I wateredthem, seeds in the con-trol sample only sometimes floated tothe top and needed replanting. Laterafter a rain, algae grew in the controlsample soil, but not in the burn areasample.One thing I was curious aboutwas lightning. I have seenlightning hit an open field, buthave not noticed that it leaves a trace,except when it starts a fire. However,several weeks ago lightning hit myneighbors transformer. Severalneighbors, myself and my husband sawthe fireball. Others saw it short downthe ground wire. This ground wirehadpoison ivy climbing it. This poison ivystill looks alive and healthy. Thus, it isunlikely that lightning or an electricalfield would have produced the stuntingeffects mentioned above.Budd Hopkins suggested microwavesas a possible cause for such burns.Others have, suggested an electro-magnetic force or some still un-discovered energy, such as a plasmavortex, might be related to the forma-tion of crop circles (MUFON UFOJournal, 8/1991).I placed alfalfa, some of which wasgreen but growing in dry ground, andother of which looked somewhat dryand desiccated, in a microwave oven.It did notproduce a charred appearancein either after several minutes ofmicrowaving on high. The somewhatdesiccated alfalfa looked pretty muchthe same after seven minutes (stoppinga few times to check it) of microwav-ing. Neither looked charred severaldays later, but they both looked desic-cated. The stems remained stiff and didnot bend or fall over.Thus it appears that it would takequite a bit of energy to produce this ap-pearance in that type of vegetation. Italso appears that this trace was madefrom above, because of the lack of anyother pressed down vegetationanywhere in the area. There was noevidence that the trace was made withchemicals. Therefore, although cropcuries maybe the best knownand mostcommon kind of trace, this type of tracealso is difficult to explain, or repro-duce, and needs further study.1971 Midwest UFO ConferenceProceedings Still AvailableTheme: UFOs — Defiance toScience, 115 pagesSpeakers: Walter H. Andrus, Jr.,Hayden C. Hewes, Sherman J.Larsen, Ted Phillips, William H.Hunkins, Stanton T. Friedman andLeonard H. Stringfield.(A limited special reprint.)$8 plus $1.50 for postage and han-dling. Order from: MUFON, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, TX 78155MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  10. 10. Looking BackBob GribbleSeptember 1951 • Two AirForcejet pilots chased a mysterious, roundflying object over the state of NewJersey on the 10th. Lt. Wilbert Rogerstold Mitchell Air Force Base authoritiesthat he and Capt. Edward Ballardsighted the object over Sandy Hookwhile they were on a routine flight ina T-33 jet training plane. "I dontknowwhat it was, but it sure was somethingIve never seen before," Lt. Rogers,pilot of the plane, said. Rogers des-cribed the object as disc-shaped, thesize of an F-86, and shiny silver in col-or. "I pointed it out to Capt. Ballard,who suggested we try to follow it." Lt.Rogers followed the object in a divingturn to the left, "but we soon found itwas no use. It was going too fast."The object moved in arc from San-dy Hook at Redbank, then headed outto sea at Ashbury Park. Rogers esti-mated it traveled the 30-mile course intwo minutes, or at a speed of 900 mph."This couldnt have been a balloon,"he said, "because it wasdescending andno balloon goes that fast." Both pilotsalso watched it make a 90 degree turnto the left. The encounter with theunidentified object occurred at 11:35a.m. At 11:10 a.m. the same morninga radar station at Fort Monmouth, NewJersey tracked two unidentifiedobjectstraveling at over 700 mph in approx-imately the same location where Rogersand Ballard were flying their jet. (TheDaily Gazette, Berkeley, CA, 9/11/51;Two declassified Air Force Intelligencereports, 9/21/51)1956 • Early one morning, whiledozens of employees of Holloman AirForce Base were driving to work onU.S. Route 70 in New Mexico, adomed, disc-shaped craft landedalongside the highway. This was at apoint approximately 12 miles west ofthe base. The closest eyewitnesses werewithin 25 yards of the disc. Associatedwith the landing of this craft there ap-peared to be a strong electromagneticenergy field, because the ignitionsystems and radios ofthe vehicles closeto the disc ceased to function. Thestalled engines caused the morningcommuter traffic to back up for severalmiles. The craft wason the ground for10 to 15 minutes. Eyewitnesses notedthat there was a whirring soundassociated with the landingand takeoffof the disc.The landing was the "talk of thebase" that day and within a few hoursAir Force Intelligence officers and Cen-tral Intelligence agents arrived fromWashington, D.C. Employees wereassembled in a hangar, questioned, andsworn to silence regarding the incident.The veil of secrecy forced upon allwitnesses was not a directive from theAir Force; rather, it was the instrumentused by the CIA to enforce a policy ofabsolute silence. Their conclusion wasthat the UFOs origin was unknown.The report containing the above infor-mation includes the names of 10 per-sons having knowledge of the landing,including two Air Force sergeants andtwo colonels. (San Francisco Bay AreaSubcommittee of the National In-vestigations Committee on AerialPhenomena (NICAP), Paul C. Cerny,Chairman; The Register, Santa Ana,CA, 11/23/72)H A young couple wasdriving on theroad from Argent-sur-Saulne to Serdon,France one night when the engine oftheir car stalled. The youngman got outto check the engine, suddenly lookedup and shouted, "Hurry! Theressomething around us." They jumped in-to a ditch near a field of maize, and hidthere. An enormous silent mass wasstationary about 200 meters abovethem. After about five minutes a lightflashed onboard the machine. "Thebeam of light did not come straightdown like the beam of a projector, butit unrolled like a rope ladder! It camedown quite slowly, yes, just like a ropebeing uncoiled. Once it had reached theground you would have said it wasjustan ordinary beam of light from a lamp:And we had the impression it was look-ing for us. That is to say, every timeanything stirred, the beam movedtowards it."At one moment my hand, outsidethe field of maize, was caught by thebeam and my hand became a lemon-yellow color! I felt a slight tingling inthe hand. Westayed there a good hour-and-a-half. The machine remained sta-tionary above us all that time. Therewere lots of rabbits and birds aroundus, and they did not seem to be affectedby what was going on. Suddenly themachine rose up vertically; it did aperfect right-angle turn; then it van-ished towards the river Loire, in thedirection of Les Bordes." The nextmorning it was learned that thedairyman had the same experience. Hesaw the craft at Les Bordes when hewas doing his rounds picking up themilk. The engine on his truck stalledand he was delayed for 25 minutes. Hecrawled under his truck, and sworethat"he had never been so frightened in hiswhole life." (The Crack In TheUniverse, by Jean-Claude Bourret)• Shortly after lunch on the seventh,a farmer and his wife saw a small, egg-shaped object with a flat underside des-cend vertically and land on their farmat Moneymore, Northern Ireland.Cautiously the farmer approached thered object which had dark red bandsrunning horizontally around its girthand gingerly kicked it over. Immediate-ly the object righted itself and began tospin. Moving rapidly, Thomas Hutchin-son grabbed the object and picked it up.In the center of the flat base wasa smallprojection, by which the farmer heldthe two-foot by three-foot object whichspun rapidly in both directions. Dur-ing the spinning, however, he ex-perienced no pulling away of the objectwhich he took for some new-fangledgadget of the Air Force ormeteorological office.He proceeded to his home with theMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  11. 11. object and on placing it down momen-tarily to make room for himself and theobject to pass througha hedge, he andhis wife were amazed to see the objectsuddenly spin at great speed, take ona fluorescent glow and speed vertical-ly skyward, disappearing in a fewseconds through the low cloud layer.Both witnesses were adamant thatalthough it was raining very heavilyatthe time of the incident, the object atno time showed any sign of becomingwet. A high ranking British Air Forceofficer said he was nearly certain thatthe strange object was an escapedweather balloon that had broken awayfrom some station. (Flying Saucersmagazine, New Zealand, April/June1957; The Times, Shreveport, LA,9/9/56)• A Twin Falls, Idaho attorneyreported that a UFO swooped downonhis ranch on the afternoon of theseventh and apparently made off witha 400-pound steer. E.L. Rayburn said"I was at my ranch about 40 milessouth of Twin Falls when I saw astrange object about 200 feet indiameter flying overhead. It had awhirling effect on top and gave off anorange glow. It came in fast overheadand swooped to the ground near a spotwhere a 400-pound whitefaced steerwas standing. Then the craft sped offlike a streak of light and the steer wasgone." Rayburn said two employees onthe ranch, Joe and Dick Parker, alsosaw the object. (The World-Telegramand Sun, New York, NY, 9/14/56; OR-BIT Newsletter, 10/5/56)1961 • On the 21st, two jet-airlinercrews flying over the Pacific Oceansighted a large, circular UFO whichquickly out-distanced their Boeing 707s.Reports were radioed to Federal Avia-tion Administration (FAA) towers atWake Island and Honolulu, HawaiibyCapt. R.F. Griffin, commanding aBritish Overseas AirwaysCorporationplane, and by a Pan AmericanAirwayscaptain. Capt. Griffin said the BOACjet was at 37,000 feet, in a gray, pre-dawn sky, when the UFO appeared."Suddenly we saw this bright ring inthe sky, about 50 degrees up." TheBritish pilot described the object asround, with sharply outlined edges anda "very clear hole" in the center. "Itwas traveling in our direction but at fargreater speed. There appeared to bereflected light coming down from it.The object went over the horizon inseven minutes. In a surprise press state-ment on the 25th, Air Force Head-quarters admitted being flooded withreports of "flying objects" near WakeIsland. (The UFO Investigator,[NICAP] October 1961)1966 • Acone-shaped UFO des-cribed as "a good city block" long com-pletely shadowed and paced a smallprivate plane piloted by James J.OConner at approximately 10:00 a.m.on the 20th, on "a beautiful clear day"over Sebring, Florida. Flying at analtitude of 9500 feet, the pilot — whospent eight years with the Army Securi-ty Agency — first saw the object "about500 or more feet above me." He thenbegan an ascent and leveled off at10,000 feet. The UFO "began to getbigger, taking 37 seconds for it toenlarge from the size of a silver dollarto the size of what I would estimate (as)a football field," the shadow of whichcompletely engulfed the small plane.OConner said he was in the shadowofthe object for about three minutes."I thenpulled power off on my craft,"he said, "and dropped to 3500 feetbefore I looked up again, and thatswhen I was frightened; that thing hadnot changed size at all, but was stillwith me and pacing me. It was still asbig as a football field; I banked to theleft, it was still above me, or beside me... I banked to the right —same thing.I pulled up in a power stall, and peeledoff.. the thing was with me all this time..." Just as he was ready to shoot at theobject with a .38 caliber pistol, the ob-ject moved away. (The UFO Investi-gator, [NICAP] October/November1966)1976 • "Radar operators of the 754thRadar Squadron at Port Austin,Michigan Air Force Station, reportedtracking five unknownobjects for about30 minutes early on the morning of theseventh," according to Major WilliamFrensley, an information officer atNorth American Aerospace DefenseCommand headquarters in ColoradoSprings, Colorado. He also confirmedthat two police officers and a civilianwho observed the UFOs from theground were questioned by NORAD.The UFOs were first reported to thepolice at 9:30 p.m. on the sixth by CarlBailey, 28, one of the witnesses ques-tioned by NORAD. He said the objectswere "shaped like bat wings. Therewere a lot of them. It seemed like awhole fleet. It was amazing."Bailey said he got a phone call athome from the radar base at about 2:30a.m. on the seventh. "They asked meto go outside and see if I could still spotsomething. I took a look and they werestill up there. When Bailey reportedwhat he saw,he was connected with thesenior officer in charge at the 23rdNORAD Region Headquarters inDuluth, Minnesota. "He asked mewhat the objects looked like. I told himand he asked a couple more questionsand then said: Well, the Air Forcedoesnt investigate UFOs anymore, Mr.Bailey, and he thanked me." ButHuronCounty sheriffs deputies Greg Gordonand Gary King were also interviewedabout what they saw. Gordon, 24,reported: "We observed one object ..It woulddescend very rapidly, lookingas though it was going to land. Itwouldthen return to its original height."At 5 a.m., two men from the 754thRadar Squadron came out to the scene.Major Frensley said its not unusual forNORAD to question people whovereported seeing UFOs. "We like to talkto as many people as possible so we cancorrelate these sightings ..." But thePort Austin UFOs remain a mystery."Wedont knowwhatthe objects were,"Major Frensley admitted. MajorRichard W. White, stationinformationofficer, later said, "Our scope covershundreds of square miles. At any timeof day, we may have as many as 100to150UFOs on the screen." (The HuronDaily Tribune, Bad Axe, MI, 9/8/76;The News, Saginaw, MI, 9/25/76; Na-tional Enquirer, Bob Pratt, 11/9/76)• Atabout 10:30 p.m. onthe 18th,Hossain Perouzi, veteran air trafficMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  12. 12. controller at Mehrabad Airport beganto receive telephone calls from citizensliving in the Shemiran area of Tehran,Iran, saying that they had seen strangeobjects in the sky. Shortly after mid-night, Perouzi notified the Air Forceand General Abdulah Youssefi,: seniorofficer on duty, responded by phone.Said Perouzi: "He went out on theporch of his house and on the telephonesaid to me: Yes, I can see something.It isnt a star. " He decided to scram-ble an F-4 jet fighter from ShahrokhiAir Force Base to investigate.At 1:30 a.m. on the 19th,.the F-4 tookoff and proceeded to a point 40 milesnorth of Tehran. Due to its brilliancethe object was easily visible from 70miles away. As the jet approached arange of 25 miles he lost all instrumen-tation and communications (UHF andIntercom). He broke off the interceptand headed back to Shahrokhi. Whenthe F-4 turned away from the object andapparently was no longer a threat to it,the aircraft regained all instrumentationand communications. At 1:40 a.m. asecond F-4 was launched. Thebackseater acquired a radar lock-on at27 miles, in a 12oclock high position,with the VC (rate of closure) at 150mph. As the range decreased to 25miles the UFO moved away at a speedthat was visible on the radar scope andstayed at 25 miles.The size of the radar return wascom-parable to that of a 707 tanker. Thevisual size of the object was difficultto discern because of its intensebrilliance. The object and thepursuingjet continued on a course to the southof Tehran when another brightly-lightedobject, estimated to be one-half to one-third the apparent size of the moon, waslaunched from the original object. Thissecond UFO headed straight toward theF-4 at a very high rate of speed. Thepilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 misrsle at the object but at that instant hisweapons control panel went off and helost all communications (UHF and In-tercom). At this point the pilot initiateda turn and negative G dive to get away.As he turned the object fell in trail atwhat appeared to be about three to fourmiles. As he continued in his turn awayfrom the primary object the secondobject went to the inside of his turn,then returned to the primary object fora perfect docking.Shortly after the second objectdocked with the primary one, anotherobject was launched from the other sideof the primary object, descendingstraight down at a rapid speed. The F-4crew had regained communicationsand their weapons control panel andwatched the UFO approach the.ground,anticipating a large explosion. This ob-ject appeared to come to rest gently onthe ground and cast a very bright lightover an area of about two to threekilometers. The crew descended fromtheir altitude of 26,000 to 15,000 feetand continued to observe and mark theobjects position.During daylight the F-4 crew wastaken out to the area in a helicopterwhere the UFO landed. A verynoticeable beeper signal was detected.At the point where the return wasloudest was a small house with agarden. They landed and asked the peo-ple withinif they had noticed anythingstrange last night. The people talkedabout a loud noise and a very brightlight like lightning. (The Journal,Tehran, Iran, 9/20/76; The Kayhan In-ternational, Kayhan, Iran, 9/21/76; TheUFO Investigator, November 1976. AUnited States Department of DefenseDocument confirming the above inci-dent was declassified on August 31,1977)ANDERSON, Continueddiscredit Gerald Andersons character,and destroy the importance of this in-cident. I have every right as a majorparticipant with first-hand knowledgein this investigationto come forth withthe truth and set the record straight. Ineeded to put these distortions and un-founded remarks to rest. I had no desireto stroll into the midst of this heatedcontroversy, but I must do so topreserve the truth and correct therecord.. Randle and Schmitt havedemonstrated much effort, time anddedication to the Roswell incident andshould be praised for their hard work.Their book will help raise the publicconsciousness. Weare all on the sameside working toward similar goals.In conclusion, the authors presenttheir argumentsbased on one first-hand26-minute phone call on February 4,1990 and no follow-up effort to clarifyany concerns until August of 1991 —after their book and articles presentpublicized conclusions! Results of ourinvestigative efforts have reached themin bits and pieces which would easilycreate the effects which they label as"major revisions" and "additions to anever-changing story." Lack of com-munication and the hurry to reach con-clusions not only harms the credibilityof the case but the reputation of Mr.Anderson, himself. Please, let us pro-ceed with the caution of scientists, col-lecting all the data, and not rushing tohasty pronouncementswithout verify-ing the sources. If Gerald Andersonsstory is somehow proven to be phonyin a credible and convincing manner,then so be it, and we shall have learnedsomething from it all. But prematureconclusions and nasty public debatesreflect a war of egos rather than thework of researchers with a scientificapproach.UFONEWSCLIPPING SERVICEThe UFO Newsclipping Service willkeep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOreports (i.e., little known photographiccases, close encounters and landingreports, occupant cases) and all otherUFO reports, many of which are carriedonly in small town and foreignnewspapers.Our UFO Newsclipping Serviceissues are 20-page monthly reports,reproduced by photo-offset, containingthe latest United States and CanadianUFO newsclippings, with our foreignsection carrying the latest British,Australian, New Zealand and otherforeign press reports. Also included isa 3-5 page section of "Fortean" clip-pings (i.e., Bigfoot and other "monster"reports). Let us keep you informed of thelatest happenings in the UFO and For-tean fields.For subscription information andsample pages from our service, write to-day to:UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICERoute 1 - Box 220Plumerville, Arkansas 72127MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September1991
  13. 13. The UFO PressBy Stanton T. FriedmanI am publicly on record as appreciating the substantial research effortsof Don Schmitt and Kevin Handle in extending Bill Moores and my inten-sive investigation (mostly 1978-1986) of the recovery of crashed saucers inNew Mexico in July 1947 by the U.S. government. I know they made a greatmany trips to New Mexico and elsewhere in search of new witnesses andwhile going over old ground. I have cooperated with them especially withregard to activities sponsored by the Fund for UFO Research. The Fundin consultation with Randle, Schmitt and myself, had a conference for whichten witnesses plus the investigators were brought to Washington, DC, fora fewdays and also sponsored trips by Randle and Schmitt to visit a numberof witnesses unable to make it to Washington. I was present on a numberof those, though my expenses were not paid by the Fund. In all, FUFORhas spent $49,000 on this research.Now it is possible to evaluate the results of the Schmitt-Randle efforts sincethey havepublished their book, UFO Crash at Roswell. In addition they havewritten supplementary articles published in a strange new report, TheRoswellReport: a Historical Perspective, published by the J. Allen Hynek Center,for UFO Studies (CUFOS).Unfortunately, both the book and the report are fatally flawed by pettiness,by selective choice of data, by false reasoning and by serious errors of omis-sion and commission. The tools of the propagandists seem to have beenused far more than those of investigative journalism or science. These arestrong words and I regret having to say them, but because of my closenessto the whole question of serious research on crashed saucers for more thana decade, I feel it necessary to express them.One of the most serious acts of misrepresentation is the incredible attemptto place Civil Engineer Barney Barnetts experience in the Plains of SanAgustin (many maps have San Augustin or Saint Augustine) at the sameranch northwest of Roswell and southeast of Corona that was visited by thenMajor Jesse Marcel, the Intelligence Officer of the 509th Bomb group sta-tioned at Roswell Army Air Field. Marcel had responded to a visit to theRoswell site by rancher Mac Brazel, who had discovered a large area strewnwith relatively small pieces of very strange material and had eventuallyvisitedthe Sheriff at Roswell, who in turn called the base, setting in place a chainof events described in some detail in UFO Crash. It adds many details andmany new witnesses to those presented by Moore and Berlitz in TheRoswellIncident, and by Moore and myself in a subsequent series of papers. I hadbegun the research and was a consultant to Moore for the latter book.Barney Barnett had either on the way to or from his work activity in thePlains come across an almost intact saucer which had plunged into the ground.Alongside the vehicle, which had a major gash in it, were four small alienbodies. The five members of the Anderson family were already there. Soonthere were also a team of archaelogists and the military who took chargeand threatened everybody that bad things would happen if they ever spokeabout the experience.I was the first to find out about Barney (who died in the 1960s) from hisfriends Jean and Vern Maltais who spoke to me in Bemidji, Minnesota, Oc-tober 25, 1978, after a lecture I had presented a Bemidji State College. Ishared the information with Bill Moore, then living in Minnesota, the verynext day. I was also the first to talk (Feb. 21, 1978) to, and later meet with,UFO CRASH AT ROSWELLBy Kevin D. Randle &Donald R. SchmittAvon Books, NY, paper,photos, 327 pp., $4.95MUFON UFO JOURNALNo. 281 September 1991
  14. 14. Jesse Marcel at his home in Houma,Louisiana, in May 1979. As part of ourextensive effort Bill located and spoketo Barneys niece, Alice Knight, and hisboss Fleck Danley. Both placed thecrash in the Plains. Barney lived inSocorro but also worked out of the SCSoffice in Magdalena, 27 miles to thewest on the Eastern edge of the Plains.One of the new items turned upby Alice Knight in 1990 was adiary kept by Barneys wifeRuth (Alices aunt) during 1947. Thatsame year I also was able to locate aman named Harold Baca who had livedacross the street from Barney and Ruthin the 1960s prior to Barneys deathfrom cancer. He, too, testified thatBarney had told him briefly of the ex-perience that took place in the Plains.A retired local postmistress told me "inthe Plains." Alice had always thoughtof the crash location as being in thePlains, as she recently repeated toresearcher Linda Moulton Howe. Bacaalso spoke to"Howe about the Plains asthe crash site.For reasons which I cannot fathom,R/S have attempted to move the Barnettcrash site way east to the Brazel ranchas unfortunately portrayed on "Un-solved Mysteries," one of the fewmistakes made in that production. R/Stry to make the date the one thatwouldbe appropriate to a recovery of bodiesa couple of miles away, complete withhalf-canoe-shaped devices in whichthey had apparently crashed as des-cribed, for example, by MorticianGlenn Dennis of Roswell. His nursefriend at the base hospital had seen thebodies and told him about it. I was thefirst researcher to whom Glenn told hisstory in August 1989.Another witness, Gerald Anderson,came forth after the second broadcast(January 24, 1990) of the "UnsolvedMysteries" program and also describedin detail the scene in the Plains of SanAgustin, including a gash in the craft,four small bodies, an archaeology groupunder a tall bald professor namedBuskirk, and a nasty red-headed officernamed Armstrong who did the threaten-ing. Because of the timing of his fami-lys move from Indianapolis to NewMexico, and because of a copy of hisUncle Teds diary (given him in 1978 atthe time of his fathers funeral), the dateof early July was put forth. The hand-written diary said July 5, and also said"Adrian" Buskirk. Gerald had told meof the red-headed officer within twoweeks of when I had heard of a nastyred-headed officer being the one whohad threatened Glenn Dennis at Roswell.No one knew of that conversation.Checking Ruths diary, one finds en-tries for just about every day of the year,mostly dealing with various domesticactivities, visits to/from friends andfamily, the building of their new home,etc. On work days there was almostalways an entry indicating that Barneyhad been either in the field or in theoffice. Ruth seems to have always notedwhen Barney was outside of the im-mediate area of Socorro and when hecame home if it was later than usual.There are 40 entries mentioningBarney being at various locations in thePlains such as Magdalena, Datil, PieTown or in the High Country. Therewere a number of entries saying Barneyhad been to Polvadera, Lemnitar or SanAntonio, towns which are less than 15miles directly north or south of Socor-ro. Trips to Albuquerque straight northare also mentioned as are the manytimes that Ruth or Barney had car trou-ble. When he was in the field he oftenused an SCS (The Federal Soil Conser-vation Service) pickup truck. There isnot one entry in 1947 that mentions anysite East of Socorro such as Carrizozo,Corona or Capitan, all of which, in-cidentally, are at a lower altitude thanthat of the Plains, which are at about6800 feet.Further, note that, as describedby R/S and others who have beento the Corona site, such as avia-tion writer Don Berliner of the Fund,the roads are difficult indeed, startingwith a poor road followed by a gravelroad and then two tire ruts meanderingfor many miles during which an autosspeed wouldbe greatly limited evennowand certainly back in 1947. The R/Sbook has no map, so the reader cant tellhow far away and hard to get to the Cor-ona site really is.R/S acknowledge that the entries forJuly 2 and July 8 are as follows: July2 - "Barney went to the high countrynear Datil, came home from Datil at6 p.m." July 8 - "Barney went to PieTown for the day to do some work,home about 8:30."July 2 was the night when MacBrazell heard the loud explosion. July8 was very likely the date of the recov-ery of the bodies a few miles away afteran aerial reconnaissance.In order to get Barney to the Coronasite which is indeed a very long and dif-ficult haul from Socorro, Randle andSchmitt simply say in UFO Crash:"Because of the military officers, didBarnett mention Pie Town because itwas so far away? Was he covering histracks by suggesting he was more than300 miles from the crash site? Was heactually in Lincoln County on July 8?"There isnt the slightest evidence onwhich to base a yes answer.In an article in The Roswell Reportthey say "We believe that Barnett, re-turning to Socorro after discovering thecraft and being threatened by themilitary, was reluctant to give the cor-rect location. He told his wife he hadbeen in Pie Town because it explainedwhy he had not returned home until8:30 p.m., and he didnt want her toknow that he had been to Corona."Keep in mind that July 2 was aWednes-day and July 8 a Tuesday, both workdays for Barney. Repeatedly I have beentold by Vern and Jean, and by othersI have interviewed, including the formerMayor of Socorro and his boss, FleckDanley, in 1990, that Barney was verymuch a straight shooter who was total-ly trustworthy. Vern Maltais says thechances that Barney lied to Ruth are nil.Furthermore it is clear from other en-tries that normally Barney told Ruthwhere he would be prior to leaving,especially when he went out in thefield. Parenthetically, I should add thatalmost no ranches back then hadtelephones so Barney was out oftouchand could not call when he was leav-ing for home.R/S for obvious reasons also do notmention that the diary entry for July 9was "Barney went to the High Coun-try again this a.m. Got back mid-MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  15. 15. afternoon. I went to the office for B at5 p.m." Note especially again , whichoften appears in the diary when Barneywent to the same place two days in arow. Nor do they mention all the otherentries relating to the High Country andthe total absence of entries indicatingany trips anywhere near Corona (morethan 100 miles away) in all of 1947. Itwas out of his SCS district. There areno entries indicating he played hookyfrom work either, a not very likelyscenario for a straight arrow who was55 years old at the time.They also do not mention the en-try dated September 17 whenRuth wrote: "Barney wentto theL.B. Moore ranch at Horse Springs forthe day,didnt make it home." The L.B.Moore ranch is the location of thewindmill spotted by Gerald Anderson,John Carpenter, Don Berliner, myselfand our sponsor, Robert Bigelow, dur-ing a September 1990 trip to Ander-sons crash site and matching a draw-ing he had made earlier after a long ses-sion with psychiatric social workerJohnCarpenter. John is very skilled atmisdirecting people to see if they arereciting their own story or echoing whathe tells them.R/S are particularly distressing intheir attempts to discredit Anderson.They confuse the information in Tedsdiary with that coming from Gerald.Their story about Dr. Buskirk is il-lustrative of their trying to make asquare peg fit a round hole. Gerald had,with the aid of an artist, come up withsketches of Captain Armstrong, one ofthe students Agnes (the diary gives alast name of Shedlefski or Shedletski),and of Buskirk. He was tall, bald, inhis late 30s or early 40s. I had locateda Winfred Buskirk when I contacted theUniversity of New Mexico Anthro-pology department, but he claimed alltoo quickly that he had been in Arizonain the summer of 1947. Almost all ofthe manypeople I have discussed 1947with have had to think about it andfigure out what they were doing thatyear. Not Winfred.I went on to search unsuccessfullyand at considerable expense for Adrian.I was called by Tom Carey of thePhiladelphia area to whom I sent a copyof Buskirks sketch and told of Agnesbecause, according to the diary, she wasfrom Toms River, NJ. I had contactedthe high school there, but was unableto locate her or Buskirk at the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania which had comeup as his possible affiliation. Tomcouldfind no trace of a Buskirk connectedwith UP or of a Shetlefsky in TomsRiver. However, he discovered a 1986book by Buskirk, The Western Apache,made from Buskirks 1949 Ph.D. thesis.According to the man who wrote theforeword, this was Buskirks onlypublication. The book, as obtainedbyGeorge Eberhart of CUFOS, had ajacket on which was Buskirks picture.Clearly he was a round-faced, very baldman. I think almost everybody wouldagree that the picture stronglyresembles the Anderson sketch, espec-ially allowing for the difference in age.One would think R/S would presume,therefore, that perhaps Anderson wasright after all. I did some checking andfound that Buskirk was 39 in 1947, soAnderson was right again.Instead, R/S were guilty of grossmisrepresentation in their attempt tokeep Buskirk away from the crash scene.They spoke with him, got the "I was inArizona story" and bought it hook, lineand sinker. In The Roswell Report theysay "In his book The Western ApacheBuskirk states unambiguously that fromJune through September 1947 he was atthe Fort Apache Indian Reservation inArizona doing research for his Ph.D.thesis on the Apache. In fact, WinfredBuskirk must have been nowhere nearthe Plains of San Agustin during the firstweek of July 1947 because his book con-tains a photograph that he took at FortApache, captioned: A World War nveteran celebrates the Fourth of July1947. " This is, frankly, unambiguousnonsense.In fact the caption of the picture isfour lines long, not one. There is no in-dication as to who took the picture orwhere or even when it was taken andnobody said the Plains crash date wasJuly 4. A quick look at a map clearlyshows that Eastern Arizona is veryclose to Western New Mexico. Thedrive to Horse Springs is shorter thanthe drive from Socorro to the Coronasite. Much more important is whatBuskirk actually says in the book(p.xiv): "My field work was carried outon the Fort Apache Reservation inArizona in June 1946, June-September1947, and March-April 1948, a totaltime of five months." But Buskirkhimself notes a total of seven months:June 1946, June, July, August andSeptember 1947, and March and April1948.Therefore, he was not there all of thetime. It doesnt really matter since aquick trip to Apache areas in NewMexico near the Plains would havebeen no problem at all. As a matter offact our helicopter pilot for the trip tothe Plains refueled in Arizona. Whatis strange here is that throughout thebook R/S stress that crashed saucerwitnesses had been very strongly in-timidated, with several citing their morethan 40-year-old security oath as a basisfor not talking. Buskirk, according toRobert J. Drake who knew him whenDrake was a much younger UNM stu-dent, had been a navy officer during thewar and was in the Naval Reserve. Hecertainly could have been intimidated.It is strange that his actual thesis con-tains no background sheet and no listingof others with him in the field. I am do-ing further checking.R/S employ the typical propagandisttrick of "absence of evidence isevidence of absence" frequently iathebook and the articles in The RoswellReport. For example, they cite 91-year-old Francis Martin, who grew up onthe Plains and claimed she would haveknown about anything like a crash outthere, and therefore there wasnt one.I might equally and truthfully say thatmany of the people I contacted whowere based at Roswell in July 1947, saidthey knew nothing about the crash.Does that mean it didnt happen? R/Salso claim there were no other ar-chaeologists digging near the Plainsother than Herbert Dick who explorednearby Bat Cave, apparently based onsomebodys quick check. There certain-ly were brief exploratory visits search-ing for sites for later Ph.D. theses whichwere nowhere listed. Drake had told meyears ago of hearing in September 1947,MUFON UFO JOURNALNo. 281 September 1991
  16. 16. of an earlier crashed saucer and alienbodies on the Plains from a ranch handnear Datil.With regard to archaeologists,R/S pull an unforgivabletrick of trying to pass off ananonymous phone caller as a bonafidewitness (p. 115). They say "Afirsthandsource who was one of the archaeol-ogists came forward, but because hewas worried about professional re-percussions, he didnt want his nameused." This guy, if genuine, had to beat retirement age. They spend anotherpage reciting his story, noting he wasnorth of the Capitan Mountainswhichputs him where they wanted him to be.Then they give his testimony equalweight with Barnetts, and surprising-ly, with that of Cactus Jack, whose talewas told me as well, by Iris Foster whoheard him speak of a crashed saucer in1971. Cactus Jack is long gone. No oneknows his real name and there is noverification at all for his story, whichof course doesnt mean it isnt true.Jji Chicago, on July 7, 1991, in frontof several witnesses, I asked DonSchmitt if there was some way we couldget his unnamed archeologist to testify,perhaps privately, to a congressionalcommittee. Presumably he was a Ph.D.and after all a live witnessto bodies andwreckage. I, and the others present,were shocked to have him respond: "Hewas an anonymous caller. We dontknow his name." There is no hint ofthissmall limitation on legitimacy in thebook.Another example of false reasoningoccurs in their Roswell Report article.R/S say, speaking of the archaeologistsat the Barnett site: "None of the ar-chaeologists mentioned the event toanyone." Since they didnt know whothe archaeologists were, there is nopossible waythey could determine thetruth of this statement. Each of themmay havetalked to six or ten people forall we know. Presumably, R/S reallymeant that they have heard no scut-tlebutt from any associates of thearchaeologists.It is difficult to understand why it isso important for R/S to get rid ofAnderson instead of tracking down thefacts wherever they lead. Their articlein Roswell Report about him gets justabout everything wrong, which isperhaps not surprising since their on-ly contact with him was a single phoneconversation in February of 1990. Theytry to show he couldnt have found thesite by sayingthat Don Berliner got lostwhen he tried to take R/S there, despitehaving been there in a helicopter thedaybefore. The fact is Don wasnt on thehelicopter; only Gerald and BobBigelow and I were. They totally ignorethe very important involvementofJohnCarpenter and the fact we all spent threedays together in Datil, at the site, andin Albuquerque.They dismiss Ander-sons story partly on the basis that thereare supposed discrepancies betweenwhat he said initially and what he saidlater. They dont specify these. Twoother places in the book they say thatdiscrepancies indicate the witness istruly recalling rather than reciting astory. Which is it?R/S and CUFOS seem to havetakena strong anti-position with regard to theMJ-12 Documents but withoutvirtueofdoing any research. They say on p. 231:"There is no evidence that the docu-ment is authentic." Equally, there isntany evidence that R/S or MarkRodeghier, who reprints a verynegative, fast-pass attack on MJ-12 inthe Roswell Report, have done any ar-chival homework, or have paid any at-tention to the two very lengthy reports,one done by myself and the other byWilliam Moore and Jaime Shandera,which deal with MJ-12. Neither is listedin the 71-item bibliography in the book.But then none of the MUFON papersabout Roswell, including Moores49-pager of 1985 are cited either, noteven Schmitts own 1990 paper.There is very much an attitude ofdont bother me with the facts mymindis made up. Rodeghier, for example, ina good illustration of twisted logic,comments that a fraudulent documentshould have some fact that nobodyknew which will help people think itis genuine. He notes that the previous-ly unknown work by Dr. DonaldMenzel for various intelligence agen-cies was such a fact. He avoids deal-ing with the question of how any hoaxerknew about it before I discovered thiswork well after the MJ-12 documentswere received with debunker Menzelsname listed as one of the MJ-12members. Somehowthis fact makes thedocument a hoax? Of course, he doesntdeal with more than 30 other details inthe documents which turn out to be trueand previously unknown.Randle stresses that thedocumentis a fraud because the list ofMJ-12 members say AdmiralHillenkoetter rather than RearAdmiralHillenkoetter. He doesnt mentionthatit lists General Montague rather thanBrigadier General Montagueand that itis standard protocol to use General forranks of General, Colonel for Coloneland Lt. Colonel, Admiral for Rear andVice Admirals. This has been verifiedby numerous former military personnelsuch as now Colonel in the NationalGuard Dr. Jesse Marcel, and formerNavy Commander Tom Deuley, andformer Naval Officer Dr. Scott Jones.R/S try to put a double whammy onby saying the Plains of San Agustincant be a real site because it isnt men-tioned in MJ-12 and that MJ-12cant begenuine because it doesnt mention thePlains and that the date of the begin-ning of the coverup listed as July 7 iswrong. It is interesting indeed that theymention in passing that General Twin-ing went to Alamogordo Air Field aftercanceling plans for a trip to Seattle, onJuly 7. Alamogordo is much closer tothe Plains than is Roswell. They passthis off by commenting: "Twining wasjust a short drive from the Roswell Ar-my Air Field." I have made the drive.It goes over a mountainpass and is notshort (over 115 miles). Besides, Twin-ing was assigned his own plane, aB-17Gand crew, which could havebeen flowndirectly to Roswell.There is no evidence that Twiningwent to Roswell that week at all, buthe did go to Kirtland. There is noreason to expect that Roswell wouldhave been informed of a Plains crashretrieved with all witnessses effective-ly silenced on July 2 and 3. They hadno scientists, but Alamogordo, WhiteSands Missile Range and Kirtland andSandia Base and Sandia Labs did. R/SMUFON UFO JOURNAL Na 281 September 1991
  17. 17. know about.but dont mention that theAlamogordo newspaper took almost awhole front page on July 9 to describethe staged launch of a weather balloonradar reflector which the base claimedmust have been what people were call-ing flying discs. They clearly were pro-testing too much.Later the paper noted that Twiningand several other generals did a routineinspection of the base on July 11. It ob-viously wasnt routine since it hadntbeen planned in advance, included nopictures, and was much too highpowered. R/S will do anything to evadea crash site in the Plains, and thereforetwo crashes and two sets of bodies, eventhough Barnetts body description dif-fers significantly from the nurses toGlenn Dennis.They are also willing to changewitness testimony when it suits them.They use the word "Doctors" threetimes for the person(s) at the RoswellBase who called Glenn Dennis. Bothin person to me and on NBCs "ACloser Look" he alwaysused the wordmortuary officer ... less impressive butmore accurate.The book is loaded with pettiness.For example while R/S do mention TheRoswell Incidenttwice in passing, theymention none of Bill Moores papersand his major research contribution.They say of the book (p. 33) "A briefthough somewhat inaccuratechronology of events was constructedand a few of the participants had beenidentified." At least on p. 219they saythat "Moore and Friedman locatedmore than 60 witnesses who had someknowledge of the event." By 1985 thetotal was up to 90. Surely even 60 ismore than a few?One illustration of the pettiness is thefailure to even mention The Fund forUFO Research in the three and one-halfpage acknowledgements section despitethe fact that the Fund gave R/S morethan $10,000 for research expenses.When asked about this Schmitt at firstclaimed that the research wasntinclud-ed in the book. In fact the list of inter-views and dates of those interviewsclearly established that they were in-deed used in the book. "It wasjust anoversight." It seems strange thatCUFOS is lauded throughout the bookeven though R/S claim that they had nofinancial support from CUFOS.MUFON which has featured Roswellinformation in itspublished Symposiumproceedings for a decade is also nevermentioned, but then those papers arenteither, even though one was by Schmitt.Strangely the longest acknowledge-ment (8.5 lines) goes to RobertHastings, touting his 300 college lec-tures and giving his address. He isnowhere mentioned in the text! It is likea paid ad. I admit I amjealous. Theydont mention my more than 600 col-lege lectures and dont give my address.Perhaps I should stress that I amtreated well in the book, unlike Moore.Though one might think fromRodeghiers introductionto TheRoswellReport that nobody else besides theCUFOS group had done anything aboutRoswell research. My problem is to tryto understand why the book is so bi-ased, why the authors and associatesare so determined to stick with their in-Another Viewitial assumptions instead of carefullyreviewing all the evidence?I think I must settle for the simplefact that Randle bragged to me abouthaving published a total of 70 books,of which 67 are fiction, not exactlygood training for an investigativejour-nalist. Schmitt is best known as an il-lustrator and entertainer. The line be-tween what is and what might be seemsto be poorly drawn for artists and fic-tion writers. They seem to live in ablack and white world with nopossibility of withholding judgementfor items in a gray basket. It seems apity, since there is indeed overwhelm-ing evidence that at least two crashedsaucers were recovered in New Mex-ico in 1947. I hope the Paragon hard-cover book by Don Berliner and I aboutwhat happened will be more accurate,better reasoned and less easily rejected.It will certainly include details of thepolygraph test of Gerald Anderson, onJuly 24, which he passed with flyingcolors.ALIEN LIAISON: The Ultimate SecretBy Timothy GoodLittle, Brown & Co., NY, hb, 242 pp., illus.W. Ritchie BenedictThere is a scene in the 1968science-fiction movie "Planetofthe Apes" where Maurice Evanstries to deter an insistent CharletonHeston from further exploration. Hesays in effect, "You may not likewhatyou will find." I think the currentufological scene finds itself in a similarposition. We are like a dog who hasbeen chasing cars for years —he finallycatches one and the enormity andpowerof it frightenshim to death, leaving himto wonder what he can or should doabout it.Author Timothy Good is regarded asone of the two major authorities in Bri-tain on UFOs (the other being JennyRandies). His previous book; AboveTop Secret, topped the best seller listsin Britain, Australia, the United States,Canada, Germany and Japan. He hastravelled worldwide, gaining access toseveral thousand declassified in-telligence documents and has lecturedon the topic since 1967. In addition tohis other credentials, he is also a pro-fessional musician and photographer. Itis a measure of his personal integritythat this new book is prefaced by a com-mentary by Admiral of the Fleet, TheLord Hill-Norton GCB, who was Chiefof Defense Staff in Britain from 1971-73.The subject of this book is a highlycontroversial problem — have anyUFOs crashed with subsequent retrievalof alien bodies? And what, ifanything,do our governments know about all ofthis? Such a book would have beentreated with scorn in the early 1950s,but such a wealth of information hasMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  18. 18. emerged in the past decade that it isnow a chilling possibility.This is no poorly documented tabloidreport — each chapter is heavily foot-noted as to source, which is absolutelyessential for a book that claims aliencontact is an accomplished fact and hasbeen for years. Good quotes SovietPresident Mikhail Gorbachev speakingto a group of workers in the Urals inearly 1990 that "the phenomenon ofUFOs does exist and it must be treatedseriously ..."Some cases are familiarto ufologists,but even in the older ones you will findnew and startling disclosures, such asthe checking of cattle on the Apache In-dian Reservation near Dulce on July 5,1978 using five different types ofultraviolet lamps. At least five membersof the herd were observed to havebrightflourescent splashes on their back andsides — as though they were beingmarked by someone in advance.It is refreshing that Good states hebelieves we are being confronted by adiversity of UFO beings, not just thelittle gray-skinned, black-eyed varietythat are so prevalent in the reports ofthe 1980s. He also maintains an openmind on the interdimensionalhypothesis. In the case of the now-famous Roswell, New Mexico saucercrash of July 5, 1947, he indicates thatthe evidence for the event isvirtuallyincontestable. There is no mention ofthe Keel Fugo balloon theory. A formerdeputy sheriff and police chief namedGerald Anderson has a vivid memoryof the crash even though he was onlyfive years old at the time. Thesememories, enhanced by hypnoticregression, suggest that one alien mayhave survived the crash withoutharm.Good examines the MJ-12 controversy,expresses some doubts and refuses toget bogged down in the pros and cons.A complete chapter is devoted to"Dreamland" — a highly restrictedarea in the remote Nellis Air ForceRange and Nuclear Test Site in Nevada.with particular attention to the GroomDry Lake area andsurroundings.I was surprised to learn that there isa precedent for statements issued byBob Lazar that the U.S. has a numberof alien craft under wraps. In April1953, journalist Robert Dorr, a formerAir Force veteran, claimed to havebeentold of a 30-foot saucer which wassomewhat the worse for wear (its pro-pulsion system had been totallydestroyed along with most of the in-strumentation and wiring). AlthoughDorr swears his informationis accurate,it is.almost impossible to determinewhether some government or CIA pro-gram of disinformation was in effecteven at that early date. Dorr did workfor a certain intelligence agency beforehis retirement. Lazar claims that oneof the reasons he went public with hisinformation is that the discs are beinganalyzed by a bunch of people who donot even have the proper facilities, andthe regular scientificcommunitycouldget to the bottom of the advancedtechnology much faster. Also, he feelshe had no other choice as a matter ofself-protection. Good reproducesLazars W-2 Wage and Tax Statementfor 1989 whichclearly shows MAJ for"Majestic" in the top right corner, giv-ing the lie to allegationsthat Lazar hadno connections with any top secretoperations. On the other hand, hiscredibility was dealt a severe blow byhis involvement in the ownership of alegal brothel, the "HoneysuckleRanch," in the early 80s.In the end, we are left with nothingconfirmed absolutely, but a lot of suspi-cions that something extraordinary isgoing on behind the scenes, and that theultimate disclosure could come at anytime. Good has delivered an enthrall-ing balanced treatment that leavesyoufeeling decidedly uneasy after youhaveread it. Not to be missedby anyonewhois concerned over excessive governmentsecrecy on UFOs.Calendar of UFO Conferences for 1991September 29 — New Hampshire MUFON UFO Conference • YokensConvention Center, Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Peter Geremia)October 3-6 — International UFO Congress - Sponsored by EuropeanUFO Network, BelguimOctober 12 & 13 — The UFO Experience - Holiday Inn, North Haven,Connecticut (John White)October 12 & 13 — Fourth Symposium on Ufology and Exobiology - SaoPaulo, Brazil (Phillippe Piet van Putten)October 19 — Shpw-Me UFO Conference III - Holiday Inn Airport-West,Bridgeton, Missouri. Near St. Louis Airport (Bruce Widaman)October 19 & 20 — First International Conference on UFOs in Franceand in countries of the South - Hotel Arcade, Marseilles, France(John F. Gille, Ph.D.)1991 Galactic Cross adjacent to Checkers near Butlers Cross.MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991
  19. 19. Letters to the Editor...Dear Editor:In his final Communion Letter, Mr.Whitley Strieber describes virtuallyallUFO researchers as "the crudest,nastiest and craziest people" he has everencountered. He further characterizesthese researchers as: "fanatic, looney,ignorant, cultists, brainwashers," and soon, adding that progress in the field isunlikely "until organizations likeMUFON and CUFOS disintegrate."He also makes several statementsabout himself, one of which brought tomind a famous Richard Nixon denial."I am not a skinflint," Strieber an-nounced. As if to demonstrate the ex-tent of his largesse, he adds, "EvenBudd Hopkins has been generouslytreated, and I havethe canceled checksto prove it."This claim of generosity is a bit dif-ferent than it appears. When Whitleyfirst called me early in 1986 for helpin dealing with his abduction ex-periences, he proclaimed an en-thusiastic admiration for my art. I ama professional painter, and paintingsales have been my main means of sup-port throughoutmy adult life. Whitleysaid that he had a modest art collection,and would very much like to own oneof my paintings; he brought his wife,Anne, to my studio to view the workand consider which one they mighteventually buy.After the first few weeks of our work-ing together, he announced that he hadbegun writing a book about his abduc-tion experiences and wanted to hire meas a consultant. I agreed to help himwith his manuscript (eventually titledCommunion; I had no input on his laterbook, Transformation), but I declinedany payment for my services. However,I suggested that if he truly admired mypaintings as he frequently claimed, hecould, as a personal friend, purchaseone directly from the studio withoutpaying the 50% gallery commission.He eagerly accepted this offer. He andAnne selected a large painting from myGuardian series, priced at the time at$6,000. He sent me a check for $3,000,as our 50%-off agreement specified,and proudly displayed the painting inhis New York apartment. (He laterbought a very small Guardianpaintingfor several hundred dollars for hisyoung son Andrew, who insisted hisfather buy it for him.)About seven months after I metWhitley and he first began to writeabout his experiences, he sold the ongo-ing manuscript to a publisher for$1,000,000. At that time I needed moneyto pay some overdue bills, so I askedWhitley for a loan of $2,000 for aperiod of three weeks; a substantialcheck was due me at the end of thatperiod, so the loan would be very shortterm. After some surprising delaysandhesitancies from Strieber, he decidedto make the three-week loan. I repaidhim the $2,000 a few weeks later, and,as Whitley would say, I have mycancelled check to prove it. (A photo-copy of the check with Striebers en-dorsement will be placed on file atMUFON headquarters, along with aphoto of the large painting he boughtearlier from me.)Since that time Ive been astonishedto hear that Whitley Strieber displaysthe $3,000 check he paid for my pain-ting, and the $2,000 check for a loanI repaid several weeks later, as evidenceof contributions to my work in UFO ab-duction research. It is demeaning forme to have to spell out such details, butthe record must be set straight. I havenever received so much as a nickel asa contribution to my work from WhitleyStrieber.I am frequently asked to give myopi-nion of Strieber and his alleged UFOencounters, so perhaps this is the ap-propriate place to do so. Whitley is anundeniably imaginative and inventivewriter of fiction, and his memory isconveniently flexible. But despite theattacks so many have made on histruthfulness, I believe he has undergoneharrowing UFO abduction experiences,and is not a deliberate self-aware liar.He has even described himself atvarious times as feeling suicidal, andthere is no reason to doubt hisgenuineemotional turmoil. In fact, his booksclearly demonstrate this deep personalanguish and confusion. I believe that,like thousands of others, he has sufferedprofoundly at the hands of UFO oc-cupants, and is perhaps coping less wellthan many (facts which may help ex-plain his odd and misplaced fury atUFO investigators). Despite his subse-quent behavior towards me and manydedicated fellow researchers, it is im-possible not to feel compassion for him.His life and mine were intimately en-tangled for nearly a year as I helped himand his family to begin the painful heal-ing process of discovery and integra-tion of their traumatic encounters. It hasalways been a matter of personalsatisfaction that Whitley inscribed hisbook to me with these words: "bu sav-ed my life."— Budd HopkinsNew York, NYDear Editor:I am flattered that editor Stacy hastaken some 1,155 words to respond tomy trivialities, as he seems to viewthem, concerning his article on circles(June 1991). First let me mention thatFrench circles researcher Thierry Pin-vidic, and his two associates fromFrance, are in agreement with me thatnobody who has not spent at leastseveral hours in the fields, constructingan actual circle formationor words, asfive of us did together July 24, inWiltshire, has any right to debate theissue of hoaxes, pro or con. It took fiveof us (including Englishman ArthurMills) four hours to use a cutter and cutout the 8 meter high words "TALK TOUS!" in barley. It was a ragged job, andit made us nearly come down with theflu, having done it in the rain.Regarding Stacys latest comments,he seems to have no solid view of whichtheory to adopt, but rather seems tohold an amorphous position, standingto one side, as it were, with no sidetaken at all, yet nitpicking and criticis-ing those who do take positions, par-ticularly those he regards as "miracu-MUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 281 September 1991