• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Mufon ufo journal   1994 6. june

Mufon ufo journal 1994 6. june






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Mufon ufo journal   1994 6. june Mufon ufo journal 1994 6. june Document Transcript

    • M U F O N U F O J O U R N A LO F F I C I A L P U B L I C A T I O N OF THE MUTUAL UFO N E T W O R K SINCE 1967JUNE 1994 NUMBER 3 14GULF BREEZE UFO PHOTO ANALYZED Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D.LOSING A BATTLE WHILE WINNING THE WAR Budd HopkinsABDUCTION NOTES: PHOBIAS AND RESOLUTIONS John S. CarpenterCALENDAR, UFO CONFERENCES101213THE 1994 MUFON SYMPOSIUMTHE UFO PRESSMUFON FORUMREADERS CLASSIFIEDSTHE JUNE NIGHT SKYDIRECTORS MESSAGEWalter N. WebbWalter H. Andrus. Jr.14Forrest Crawford. Marc Davenport 16Kevin D. Randle, Michell LaVigne, Stephen M. Lewis 18212224MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin.TX 78155-4090Tel: (210) 379-9216FAX (210) 372-9439EDITORDennis StacyASSOCIATE EDITORWalter H. Andrus,Jr.COLUMNISTSWalter N. WebbJohn S. CarpenterART DIRECTORVince JohnsonCopyright 1994by the Mutual UFO Netuork. All Rights Reserved.No fart of this document mmi be reproduced in any form without the written permission ofthe Copyright Ownets. Permission is licnin/ granted to quote up to 2(10 words ot any one arti-cle, provided the author if credited, and the statement. "Copi/right 1994 (>v the Mutual UFONetwork. H.I3 Oldtowne Rd.. Seguin. Tevas 7S155." is includedThe contents of the MUFON UFO Journal are determined /i/ the editors and do not necessari-ly reflect the official position of the Mutual UFO Network. Opinions expressed are solely thoseot the individual authors.The Mutual UFO Ncluvrk: Inc is exempt from Federal Income Tax under Section 501 <c>(3) of the Internal Revenue- Code. MUFON is a publicly supported organization of the tupedcsctilcd in Section 509 (a) t2). Donors may deduct conlnliitions from their Federal IncomeTax. Bequests, legacies, devises, tiansfers 01 gifts arc also deductible for estate and gift purposes,provided they meet the applicable provisions of Sections 2055. 2106 and 2522 of the InternalRevenue Code.The MUFON UFO lonnial is published monthly by the Mutual UFO Network. Inc , Seguin,Tews. Membership/Subscription rates $25 pet year in the 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, W3 OldtowneRd., Seguin, TX 7S155-4099
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALGULF BREEZE UfO PHOTO ANALYZEDOnce again, Ed Walters finds himself in the right place at the right time—with camera in hand.by Bruce MaccabeeOn January 13, 1994 Ed Walters called me to saythat during the previous day he had pho-tographed a UFO and a militaryjet at the sametime. He recalled the incident as follows.On January 12, at about 10:20 AM CST, he wasworking at his desk in his office. There is a large win-dow facing north northwestward through which he cansee the southern shore of Gulf Breeze about a mileaway across the Santa Rosa Sound. As he happened toglance out the window he noticed a shiny object sta-tionary in the sky west northwest of him. After lookingat it for several seconds he realized that it wasnt an or-dinary aircraft. The center appeared to be a somewhatspherical or oval shape, or like a short vertical cylinderwith spherical caps at the top and bottom which had, atthe left and right, a collection of much smaller,similarly-shaped objects. It looked like a UFO he had seen oncebefore in November, 1993. He had, on two occasions inNovember, seen and videotaped a UFO that he sawthrough the window. On another occasion he video-taped one which he saw at Pensacola Beach.This time he was determined to get a good photo-graph. His Canon camera with a Soligor Autozoom 70-220 mm (f/3.5) lens was in his office and loaded withKonica XG100 film. He grabbed the camera and walkedquickly onto his deck where he pointed it toward theUFO. He twisted the barrel of the lens to the infinity fo-cus position and zoomed in on the UFO. Then he de-cided he should take a wide field of view photo first, sohe slid the barrel back toward a shorter focal length. Healways operates his camera on automaticexposure so hedidnt have to make any shutter speed or f/stop set-tings. (The film exposure adjustment on the camera —the ISO or ASA setting — assures that the camera willautomatically select a combination of shutter time andf/stop which will produce a good picture under the light-ing conditions of a particular scene.)As he was viewing the UFO through the lens andpreparing to take the first photo he heard the noise of ajet. He looked to the north and saw ajet that appeared tobe approaching the UFO from the northeast.He waiteduntil the jet entered the field of view of the lens and thentook the first photo. After the first picture he quickly"zoomed to the maximumfocal length setting on thelens while holding the focus at infinity. At first hecouldnt see the UFO in the field of view because hemoved the camera as he zoomed. It took several sec-onds, perhaps four or five, for him to relocate the UFOand steady the camera. Just before he pushed theshutterbutton he noticed the jet was again within the field ofview, approaching the UFO. He took the second picture.The jet appeared to bank somewhat and head west orsouthwest, past the UFO. Ed also saw that there weretwo other jets flying in the same direction but higher upin the clouds. They passed the UFO and continued intheir southwestwardtrack and then made a large turn tothe west and north and swung around until again theywere heading toward the UFO. The planes were nottraveling at an extremely high rate of speed. Rather,said Ed, they seemed to be traveling quite slowly. Edsaid he stood in awe. expecting to see the real Star Warsbegin any second if the jets attacked the UFO.The UFO wasnt moving and so Ed delayed takingmore pictures until a plane and the UFO were againwithin the field of view of the camera. But this didnthappen. Instead, the UFO zipped off at such a highspeed Ed could not be sure of where it went, although itseemed to him to travel to the east. (A high speed de-parture has been reported numerous times bywitnessesover the years. Sometimes the disappearance would beso fast as to make it seem that the UFO had "disinte-grated." High speed departure has been documented by"Martin Allen" in a video made in March, 1993, andagain by Ed Walters on November 28, 1993.) It ap-peared to Ed that the UFO did not move during thewhole period of time that he saw it until its sudden dis-appearance. The total sighting lasted several ( 2 - 3 )minutes.The jets continued southeastward and passed overPensacola Beach perhaps several hundred feet to thewest of Eds location. Then they turned again toward thenorth or northeast and departed, flying in a loose eche-lon. Ed said that they had what appeared to benumerousrockets under the wings and that the lead jet, which ap-pears in the pictures, had red-tipped wings. The bodiesof the jets were dark grey. (I wondered whether or notsomeone else might have at least noticed the jets. Edpointed out thatjets fly around a lot and people tend toignore them.)AFTER THE SIGHTINGSoon afterward Ed took some more pictures to use upthe roll and then had them developed at a "one hour"type of photoshop. He saw that he had the plane to theright of the UFO in the first picture and, to his great sur-prise, in the second photo the plane blocked from viewthe right side of the UFO. He then called Don Ware, aretired Air Force officer, to find out about the jets. DonJUNE 1994 NUMBER 314 PAGE 3
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALPlioic No I UIO (left) wiihappwaUimg F15 (right).told him that Eglin AFB might send up several jets ifthey detected a "bogey" on radar. Don then suggestedthat the airplanes could be F-15s, based on Eds de-scription of aircraft with swept-back wings and doublevertical stabilizer fins at the rear. Photos and drawings inJanes All the Worlds Aircraft (1992 edition) suggest thatthat the airplane in the photos could be an F-15 Eagleair superiority" fighter jet (built by McDonnell Douglas;overall length, 64 ft.) or an F-18 Hornet (built byMcDonnell Douglas; overall length, 56 ft.).Experiments were carried out with plastic models todetermine whether or not the shapes of the varioustypesof aircraft, as seen in perspective, would match theshape in the photo. These experiments showed that theF-15 made the best match. (Note: other aircraft thathave been suggested include the F-4 and the F-16.However, these do not have the double vertical stabilizerfins at the rear. All the fighter aircraft that have beensuggested as appearing in the photos have lengths in therather narrow range of 55 - 65 ft. and hence calculationsof distance to the airplane, which play an importantrole in the following analysis,can be based on any oneof them. This analysis assumes the plane was an F-15.)Don Ware said he was told by some Eglin personnelthat when F-15s carry camera pods on the tips of thewings, the tips look orange colored. This was confirmedby Bob Reid, also a retired air force officer, in a con-versation with other Eglin AFB personnel. The secondphoto does not show the wingtipswell enough to eitherprove or disprove that they are orange-tipped, althoughthere does seem to be a spot on the leading edge of thewingtip that is a bit brighter than the rest of the image ofthe wing. Ed reported seeing white objects under thewings which he assumed were missiles. Missiles arenot obvious under the wing of the airplane in the secondphoto, perhaps because of shadowing by the wing andbecause of the distance to the aircraft. However there aretwo faint, whitish "blob" images under the wing thatmight be missiles or some other devices.I tried to estimate the distance to the jet and hence tothe UFO. since the jet appears infront of the UFO in thesecond photo. Without actually seeing the photo I ini-tially assumed about 60 ft. as the effective length inperspective. I also assumed a 220 mm Effective FocalLength (EFL) for the lens, even though I knew that theactual EFL was a bit smaller. From Eds measurement ofthe image size on the photo I estimated the distance atabout 2 miles. Ed was surprised at the result of the cal-culation and stated repeatedly that he thought the UFOwas closer, possibly only a about a mile away over theSanta Rosa Sound. Subsequent analysis, reported here,caused me to revise my initial distance estimate down-ward to about 1 1/2 miles. Based on the sighting direc-tion recorded in the photo and the distance estimate itappears that the UFO was nearly over the southwesternshore of Gulf Breeze.PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS(Note: The followingcalculations have been done with1% accuracy or better. However, they are based onlengths and angles that are not known precisely.Consequently, azimuth angles aie given to the closest de-gree, lengths to the nearest toot and distances to thenearest 100 feet. The calculations are presented underthe assumption that this event really happened. A dis-cussion of the hoax hypothesis, which was rejected afterdue consideration, follows the technical discussion.Some readers may wish to skip ahead to that section.)Photo 1 shows the UFO and the jet approaching fromthe right and heading to the left. The angular size of thejet was calculated from the ratio of length of the imageon the negative (0.49 mm) to the measured lens focallength for photo 1 (about 91 mm): (0.49 mm/91 mm=)0.0054 rad (rad = "radians") or about 0.31° (.0174 rad =1 degree). The actual length of an F-15 from the front(nose) to the rear edge of the vertical fins is about 60 ft.(18.3 m). If the "projected length" of the jet (the size asit appears in the perspective view) were known, then onecould use this length with the angular size to calculatethe actual distance from the camera. Unfortunately theexact direction that the jet was flying relative to thesighting line is not known so an exact projected lengthcannot be determined. However, it is possible to make areasonable guess based on information provided by thesecond photo and an assumption about the directionthat the jet would have been flying.The second photo shows that the jet got very close tothe UFO. The analysis of the aircraft image in photo 2(see below) suggests that the aircraft was about 8,300 ft.(2.5 km) from the camera at that time. (NOTE: the fol-lowing calculations are based on a distance of 8,300 ft.to the jet in photo 2. The reason for this estimate of dis-PAGE4 NUMBER 314 |UNE 1994
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALPllOltt /Vc. 2. FJ5 tllMtiiiig Ut*O. "A iriu+l tirrui^irii; nnnLldenLt.tance will be described. It" the actual distance weregreater or less than this, then the calculated sizes, etc. inthe following will scale proportionally.) In order tocarry out useful calculations 1 have assumed that theUFO was only a few hundred feet farther away than thejet (from thecamera) in photo 2. I have further assumedthat the pilot did not fly exactly toward the UFO. butrather in a straight line from the location in photo I tothe location shown in photo 2, which is slightly south ofthe UFO.Finally. I have assumed that the UFO did not moveduring the time between the photos. (This assump-tion is consistent with Eds statement that it didnt seemto move atall until the very end of thesighting.) I haveused the secondand third assumptionsalong with the 9°angle between the direction to the UFO (300° a/imuth)and the jet (309° azimuth) and along with the estimateddistance of the jet in the second photo (8,300 ft.) tocalculate the distance of the jet in photo I. Enteringthese quantities into trigonometric relationship betweensides and angles of the triangle made by the camera, thejet and the UFO, 1find that the jet was travelingalmostdue south toward the UFO and was about 9.000 ft. (1.1mi, 2.1 km) from the camera. At that point it was alsoabout 1.500 ft. high and about 1,600 ft. (490 m) from the(stationary) UFO.The UFO image looks somewhat like a fat plus sign.However, there are slight "bumps" in the outlineof the horizontal portion which could be consistent withthe shapes which I refer to as "outboard fuel tanks"that are seen more clearly in the second photo. The topand bottom of the vertically oriented center portion mayhave a circular shape, similar to that shown in photo 2.If so, this would be consistent with Eds description.Unfortunately, the edges of the image are not sharpenough for me to be certain of the shape. The angularlength of the horizontal section is about Lufo = 0.0034rad (0.2°), the angular height of the vertical center sec-tion is about Hufo = 0.0022 rad (0.13°) and the angularheight of the side "wings" is about 0.0011 rad (0.063°).Unfortunately there is no way of determining how faraway the UFO was in photo I from the evidence inthat photo alone. However, we know from photo 2 thatit was farther away than the jet which (seeanalysis be-low) is estimated to have been about 8,300 ft. away.How closely would the jet have approached to the ob-ject? I do notknow this. However, theassumption usedpreviously, that the jet flew toward the UFO, suggeststhat the jet approached to within a few hundred feet. Inother words, using thejet distance as 8,300 ft. from thecamera in photo 2, the UFO distance may well havebeen about 8.500 ft. away in both photos. At this dis-tance the angular sizes measured from the film andcamera correspond to a length of about (0.0034 x 8,500= ) 29 ft. (9 m) and a height at the center of about (0.0022x 8,500 =) 19 ft. (6m). The height of the horizontalsec-tions at either side of the central section are estimated atabout half the height of the central section. For other as-sumed distances (any reasonable distance greater than8.400 ft.) the calculated size of the UFO will be larger orsmaller in proportion to the distance. The angular ele-vation of thejet is slightly greater than that of the UFO:0.165 rad (about 9.5°) vsO.152 rad (about 8.7°). At theabove estimated distance of 9.000 ft. the plane wasabout (9,000 sin(9.5°) =) 1,500 ft. (450 m) high. TheUFO altitude, assuming it was 8,500 ft. away, was about1,300 ft. (390 m) high. Again, if the distances were dif-ferent then the heights were proportionally different.At the bottom of the first photo is the Santa RosaSound and the shoreline at the southwest end of theGulf Breeze Peninsula.The photo shows a rather densemorning haze which diminishes in concentration with in-creasing elevation.The UFO seems to have glints fromthe upper portions of the curved surfaces, consistentwith illumination from the sun which was about 35 de-grees above the horizon and not quite due south of theUFO.THE SECOND PHOTOThe second photo was taken with the lens set at fullzoom. The photo shows the blue sky background withweak haze at the bottom of the picture which decreaseswith increasing elevation in a manner that is consistentwith the haze shown in the first photo. The secondphoto also shows a most amazing coincidence: the planeimage overlaps the UFO image. (Recall that Ed sawthe plane entering the field of view just before he tookthe second photo. He did not know where the planewould appear in the photo until after it wasdeveloped.)The oblique view of the plane shows that it wasturned somewhat toward the camera. In other words, theJUNE 1994 NUMBER 314 PAGES
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALPROJECTED LENGTH38 feetITO CAMERA60 ft. (18 m) long centerline of the jet was not 90° to thesighting direction. By comparison of the image of the F-15 with a scale drawing in Janes I determined that the(acute) angle between the centerlineof the plane and theline of sight was about 40°, which means that the ap-parent length along the center of the fuselage, as seen inperspective of the photo, was only about 60 sin 40° = 38ft. (11.5 m). The length of the image of the fuselage(centerline of the jet) on the negative is 0.98 mm.During experiments in 1990(related to the analysis ofUFO photos taken on Jan.8, 1990) I determined that theEffective Focal Length was about 214 mm. Combiningthe image size with the EFL yields the angular size,(0.98 mm/214 mm =) 0.0046 rad (0.26°). Dividing theprojected length of the aircraft by this angle gives adistance of about 38 ft./0.0046 = 8,260 ft. or about8,300 ft. (2.5 km) or about 1.6 miles. A consequence ofthe previous assumption that the UFO didnt move be-tween photos is that the angular elevation of the jet in thesecond photo is the same as the elevation of the UFO inthe first photo, 0.152 rad (8.7°). Thus the altitudeof thejet was about (8,300 sin(8.7) =) 1,300 ft. (400 m).Obviously the UFO was farther away than the air-plane, although I do not know the actual distance.Therefore, I have arbitrarilyassumed a distance of 200ft. which makes the UFO distance about 8,500 ft. Theapproximate vertical angular size of the visible portionof the central part of the UFO, as seen below the front ofthe airplane fuselage, is about 0.0018 radians. At adis-tance of 8,500 ft. this angle corresponds to a height ofabout 15 ft. (4.7 m). This is smaller than the total heightof the central portion calculated from the image in photo1 for the same distance, about 19 ft., because the airplaneblocked the view of the top part of the central portion ofPAGE 6 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MLJFON UFO JOURNALthe UFO in photo 2. The jet blocked the view of part ofthe right half of the UFO. leaving a little more thanhalf of it visible. The part which is visible appears tohave a horizontal row of shiny features which I havecalled "outboard fuel tanks" ("OFT") for lack of a betterterm. The length of the visible part of this row of OFT is0.002 rad which corresponds to about 17 ft. (5 m) at thatdistance. This is a bit more than half of the 29 ft. esti-mated total length as calculated from photo I. The an-gular height of the "OFT is about 0.001 rad, or about 8.5ft. at the assumed distance. This is smaller than theheight of the horizontal sections at the left and right ofthe center part as calculated from photo 1 (about 9.5ft).The difference is probably a result of the diffuseness ofthe edges of the images and their small size (especiallyin photo 1) which makes it difficult to decide just wherethe edge of an image really is.The width of an OFT would be about 4 to 5 ft. Thesecalculations establish that the UFO size estimates fromthe two photos are consistent and support the assumptionthat the UFO did not move between photos.The OFT appear to have bright oval sun glints ontheir upper surfaces. They also have lesser glints belowthe main glints indicating that they have "non-simple"shapes (not simply spheres, cylinders, ellipsoids, etc.)The upper and lower portions of the sphere surface alsoseems to have faint glints indicative of complex surfacesnot resolved by the photography. The upper glint, whichis almost completely blocked by the airplane, seems tobe whiter and brighter than the lower glint.Part of the fuzziness of the outline of the jet could beattributed to jet motion. Unfortunately there is noway of knowing exactly how fast the jet was going.However, a rough estimate can be made by combiningthe (estimated!) distance that the jet moved betweenphotos with the estimated time between the photos. Theangular distance between the sighting line to the nose ofthe jet (309°) and sighting line to the center of the UFO(300°) is about 0.154 radians or about 9°. Using thetrigonometric method referred to before along with thedistance to the jet in photo 2, 8,300 ft., 1have estimatedthat the jet was about 1.600 ft. from the UFO in photo I.Thus it traveled this far during the time between the pho-tos. If the time between the photos were 5 seconds thenthe speed was about 320 ft./sec. (220 mph); if the timewere 4 seconds, the speed was about 400 ft./sec. (270mph); if the time were 3 seconds the speed was about533 ft./sec. (36().mph).Ed said that he lost the UFO inthe field of view of the lens immediately after hezoomed and then had to reacquire it. This suggests that3 seconds is probably a lower bound to the time, whichmeans that the actual speed was probably not greaterthan about 360 mph. These low estimated speeds areconsistent with Eds claim that the jet was travelingquite slowly compared to the speeds of military jetsthat he often sees in the area. Clearly the plane was notbreaking the "sound barrier" (about 1,100 ft/sec, at sealevel).Could this speed account for some image fuzziness?In order to determine this it is necessary to know theshutter speed. At my suggestion, on January 13 Ed wentoutside, pointed his camera at the sky and looked atthe "light meter" in his camera. He mentioned that thesky was considerably clearer on the 13th than at thetime of the UFO photos the previous day when the skynear the horizon appeared almost white. He determinedthat for both of the focal length settings that he used, thecamera operated at f/8 or f/6.7 at 1/250 sec. when look-ing at the blue sky. Subsequent tests in April showed thatthe camera adjusts both the shuttertime and the f/stop asthe light level changes. Furthermore, it is sensitive tohaze. A hazy white sky with little or no overcast, simi-lar to the conditions on January 12, is brighter than aclear blue sky. Tests done on days when the sky wasvery hazy near the horizon, as it was on January 12.yielded camera settings ranging from 1/350 at f/9.5 to1/500 at f/l 1 and 1/750 at f/13, depending upon the di-rection the camera was pointing. (These exposure set-tings are all for ISO 100 film.) Based on these mea-surements I expect that the shutter time when the UFOphotos were taken was 1/350 or 1/500 of a second.If the camera shutter closed in 1/350 sec. and theplane traveled at, say. 400 ft./sec. (270 mph), then theplane would have moved about 1.1 ft., or about 1.9% ofits length while the shutter was open. If the camera op-erated at 1/500 sec. or less and the plane traveled at500 ft./sec. it would move only about 1 ft. or about1.7% of its length.The distance the plane moved wouldbe foreshortened by the perspective view to about(sin40° = ) 0.64 of the actual distance, just as the length ofthe airplane itself was foreshortened. These percent-ages are so small as to be barely distinguishablefrom or-dinary edge blur.However, a photoanalysis techniqueknown as "twodimensional Fast Fourier Transform" (2-D FFT). utilizedby photoanalyst Jeff Sainio, has found a small but no-ticeable difference between the spatial frequency spec-trum of the edge of the fuselage (parallel to the directionof motion and hence not smeared by motion) and thespectrum of the trailing edge of the rear wing edges(perpendicular to the motion direction and hencesmeared by motion). (The spectrum of the fuselage hasmore high frequencies than in the spectrum of the edgeof the wing.) Hence I conclude that the aircraft was nottraveling at a high rate of speed and, in fact, was proba-bly moving at a speed of less than 400 mph. The same 2-D FFT shows that the UFO was not moving.TRUE UFO OR HOAX?Certainly the UFO does not look like a naturalobject ora usual sort of man-made object in the sky. Hence onemight suggest that if it is not a TRue UFO (TRUFO —an unnatural, non-man-made object, possibly a space-JUNE 1994 NUMBER 314 PAGE?
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALship), then it was either an unusual man-made object orthat the sighting is an outright hoax. The unusual man-made object that most nearly resembles the UFO is acluster of balloons, or "cluster balloon." A clusterbal-loon consists of a large cylindrical balloon with spheri-cal caps at the center of a collection of several (as manyas a dozen?) considerably smaller round balloons. Thesesmaller balloons would, presumably, account for thepresence of the "OFT" around the large central portionof the UFO.However, this identification contradicts Eds de-scription of how the UFO departed ("instantaneously").Even if a collection of large balloons were to explode allat the same time (unlikely), they would not fall soquickly as to seem to just disappear. Ed would haveseen them falling downward. Furthermore, balloonshave buoyancy and they are driven by the wind. They donot remain stationary unless they are perfectly counter-balanced against ascension or are tethered. For a balloonto hover at a fixed location in the presence of even agentle breeze would requirea tether, in this case a tethermore than 1,000ft. long. No indications of tethers or offilling apertures (usually on the bottom of a balloon)orof ropes, etc.,to tie the balloons together are seen in ei-ther photo. Clusters of large balloons, such as this wouldbe, typically are used to carry instruments to high alti-tudes. They do not remain at an altitude lower than2,000 ft. Finally, comparison with photos of balloonclusters shows that this object does not resemble a clus-ter of balloons. Therefore, for numerous reasons I rejectthe cluster balloon hypothesis. The UFO resembles nei-ther a blimp nor a helicopter, and neither of these can de-part instantaneously,so I reject them as well. The UFOdoes not resemble any fixed wing aircraft nor does it re-semble a hovercraft. Therefore the "unusual man-madeobject" must be rejected.Atypical hoax hypothesis assumes that a couple ofmodels were hung from a suspending frame usingthin thread and these were photographed against thebackground scene. An alternate suggestion which re-quires more sophisticated photographic techniques isthat these are double exposure photos or photos of re-flections of models in plate glass. These latter sugges-tions must be rejected since portions of the images, andespecially of the bottom of the jet in photo 2, are darkerthan the background sky. In a double exposure or re-flection on glass each point on the image must be at leastas bright as the background.Still more complicated photographic methods such asthe masked double exposure (usea mask to block thebackground in the area of the UFO model image) orcompound image rephotography (make two completephotos, one of the background and one of a model, cutout the model image and paste it on the backgroundphoto and photograph the combination) are rejected forreasons of difficulty and for the lack of any evidence inthe photos that these techniques wereused (mistakes inusing these methods tend to be obvious). Similarly,"high-tech" methods using computer imagecreation/combining is ruled out by the difficulty as com-pared with the minima] skills of the photographer. (Note:the last three are Hollywood-level techniques which re-quire experts.)The first hoax method, hanging models from strings,is the only one that is compatible with the equipmentand technical capability of Mr. Walters. I discuss thismethod in the following paragraphs, although I shouldpoint out that the discovery that the image of the jet wassmeared slightly by motion makes it difficult to imaginehow Mr. Walters could have hung a stationary modelUFO next to a moving model jet.I should also mentionthat in order to obtain satisfactory photographs using thistechnique the typical hoaxer would take a series of pic-tures and select the best ones. However, these two pho-tos of Eds were sandwiched in a roll between othernon-UFO photos. There are no "model UFO test photoson the roll of film.If these are small models they must obey the angularsize "rule" that the angular size of the jet in photo 1isabout 0.0054 rad which means that the size of the hy-pothetical model airplane must be 0.054 ft. = 0.64" foreach 10 ft. of distance, e.g.,0.64" if 10 ft. away. 1.28"if20 ft. away, etc.Hence at a reasonable hoax distance, say30 ft., the actual size of the model airplane (and of theUFO) must be about 2 inches. As the assumed distanceto the models increases the sizes of the models in-creases. The models could be suspended by a horizontalbar attached to a vertical bar that is stuck into theground, for example. In order to decrease the likeli-hood that a suspending thread would be visible in thephotos the hoaxer would want to have the models as farfrom the camera as possible.However, as the distance to the models is increasedthe height and length of the horizontal bar must in-crease since it must stay out of the picture (photo 1)which has a field of view of about 14° from the horizon(at the shoreline across Santa Rosa Sound, which ap-pears near the bottom of the photo) to the top of thepic-ture and about 11° from the center of the photo to eitherthe left or right side. Thus at 30 ft. the horizontalsus-pending bar would have to be more than 7.5 ft. abovethe camera altitude, which itself was about 13 ft. abovethe ground level. The vertical bar (or bars) supportingthe horizontal bar would have to be more than 6 ft. to theleft or right of the center of the field of view for thesus-pension system to be out of the picture. This makes itdifficult to imagine that large distances and modelswere used. Also, 140 or so feet beyond the locationwhere Ed was standing is the shore of the Santa RosaSound. A distance of 150 ft., for example, would put themodels over the water.PAGES NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALAt my request Ed carried out two experiments to de-termine what typical objects would look like ifsuspended from a framework. He used a variety ofsmall objects suspended from a horizontal bar that wasattached to a vertical pole that was about 30 ft. away. Inone experiment he used clear monofilament fishline tosuspend the objects (2" long pipe fittings!). The monofil-ament was easily detected as a faint dark line against thepale blue sky even when the focal length was 91 mm(not "zoomed in). In the second experiment he sup-ported the objects from a framework 30 ft. away usingpale blue thread in an attempt to match the sky colorbackground. This thread appeared as obvious whitelines above the suspended objects in the 91 mm and 214mm focal length photos.One problem with using a suspending thread becameimmediately obvious: unless the thread color andbrightness matches the sky color and brightness at eachpoint along its length it will be detected. This would notbe a problem if the sky color and brightness were ex-actly the same at all points alongside the suspension.However, the fact is that the sky brightness and colorchange with altitude, i e., there is a vertical color/bright-ness gradient ( i.e., the amount of change per change inheight). Hence, to remain undetected, any vertical sus-pension must match not only the color and brightnessatany point but also the color and brightness gradient.Another problem with the "hiding the suspension"scenario is that the sunlight on the suspension can createa sort of glint or variation in brightness (reflected sun-light) along its length. This problem would appear if ahorizontal thread were used to overcome the problemcreated by the vertical color/brightness gradient of thebackground sky. In this case one could pick a thread tomatch the color/brightness of the sky at one angular el-evation and stretch this thread across the field of view ofthe camera at that chosen elevation. (The thread wouldhave to be more than 12 ft. long if the models were 30 ft.away, and proportionally longer or shorter as the dis-tance is changed, e.g. 24 ft. at 60 ft. distance.)For this clever hypothetical method to work it wouldalso be necessary that the sky color and brightness re-main uniform across the whole field of view and that theapparent brightness of the thread be constant across thewhole field of view (i.e., that the brightness and color ofthe thread match the sky across the whole field of view).Unfortunately that isnt likely. In Eds photo 1 the skybrightness varies considerably in the vertical directionand also somewhat in the horizontal direction.Eds experimental photos were taken from the samelocation as the UFO photos and in the same direction.Hence they showed the nearby framework and the hang-ing models as well as the distant beach and houses thatappear in his first UFO photos. These photos were allanalyzed by Mr. Sainio who made an important dis-covery—the quality of the focus of the edges of theobjects hanging at 30 ft. was different from the quality offocus of the distant beach. In particular, using a 2-D FFTtechnique discussed above he determined that he couldtell whether objects were nearby (tens of feet) or faraway (hundreds to thousands of feet) by thedistributionof "spatial frequencies" in the edges of the images.Hence Mr. Sainio found that he could determine whetheror not Eds first photo was created by photographingnearby models. He discovered that the degree of focus ofthe UFO and F15 is similar to that of the beach, indi-cating that the UFO and F15 were distant objects.CONCLUSIONHence for this reason and the other reasons I have listedI reject the suspended model hypothesis. Since the dou-ble exposure and glass reflection hypotheses have al-ready been rejected, and since the UFO cannot be acluster of balloons, I conclude that the UFO is unex-plainable as conventional phenomena.These pictures prove two things: (1) UFOs are realand (2) the military knows it!© 1994 Bruce MaccabeePhoto No. 3: Enlargement of UFO.JUNE 1994 NUMBER 314 PAGE 9
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALLOSING A BATTLE WHILE WINNING THE WARA situation report by one of thefields leading abduction researchers finds both gains and losses.by Budd Hopkins"W" j will be exactly thirty years ago this summer sinceI | my daytime UFO sightingonCape Cod, an event.A. Iwhich forced me to rethink my conventionalno-tion of reality. From that time forward Ive studied theUFO phenomenon with increasing seriousness, and witha particular interest in the way the subject has beentreated by scientists, mental health professionals andthe media. Thirty years is a long stretch, and in thattime I have seen massive changes. This once lightlyregarded phenomenon has slowly but inexorablymovedtoward the mainstream of public awareness.With some hesitation Im using a military metaphorhere to deal with this profound social issue—the war weresearchers have been waging to force the UFO phe-nomenon into serious publicand scientificconsideration.And this is the war weve finally begun to win.Back inthe 60s and 70s, what little media or scientificattentionthere was was usually of the silly-season, why-bother-with-this-foolishness variety. Physicist Edward Condonsoutrageous misreading of the data his own committeehad assembled marked the high point of the mediasattention to the UFO phenomenon. After Condonsgrandiose dismissal of the evidence, if UFOs were dis-cussed at all, they were most often thought of as a weirdpsycho-social phenomenon, particularly by the mentalhealth community. If, as George Bernard Shaw oncesagely remarked, bad publicity is a contradiction interms, its corollary implies that no notice at all may bethe only truly bad publicity. Unfortunately,in the 60sand 70s there was little consistent mainstream attentionto the phenomenon, good or bad.But through the 80s and into the 90s that has beenchanging drastically. Press attention has become thenorm. Now, instead of UFO researchers having to pleadwith the media for a speedy squint at the accumulatingevidence, it is the aging squad of self-designated de-bunkers who have to beg for press coverage. PhilipKlass, for one, appears irate at his diminished circum-stances. In his ever rarer media appearances, he bares hishatred for UFO witnesses ever more nakedly, until, asone viewer recently remarked, he has become on the TVscreen a perfect blend of form and content. It must begalling to be viewed by strangers as an embittered crank,a dinosaur in the evolutionof public awareness.By contrast, my own personal experience of publicand scientific interest in, specifically, the UFO abductionphenomenon, has been thoroughly gratifying. If GBS isright and bad publicity is a contradiction in terms, it mat-ters less than one might think if the increasing volume ofmainstream attention is always supportive of the UFOevidence. A case in point involves Carl Sagans recentarticle on the abduction phenomenon in Parade maga-zine. Despite the generally negative conclusions of hispiece, the fact remains that a distinguished scientistwith a wide popular following was more or less re-quired by public curiosity to address the abduction issue,and, in the interest of fairness, to includeat least some ofthe evidence in support of its reality. When prominent,mainstream figures are forced to deal with the subjectwith some degree of respect, abandoning their earlierportrayal of UFO abductions as a loony idea of the hol-low-earth variety, then a major beachhead has been es-tablished for the practice of scientific objectivity. Andwhen the theories these skeptical scientistsoffer to dis-credit the UFO phenomenon are as weak as those Dr.Sagan presented, a large segment of the public will endup by reading the piece as an argument for UFO reality.The beginningof this basic change in public and me-dia attitude can be dated to the spring of 1987 whenthree major publishers—Atlantic Monthly Press,Random House and Morrow—published books on theUFO abduction phenomenon. The nearly simultaneousappearance of Whitley Striebers Communion, with itscompelling cover illustration of a staring alien head,Gary Kinders Light Years, and my own Intruders ac-complished together what no single one of these bookscould have done alone: forced the abduction issue by thesheer weight of numbers into public consciousness. Tomy astonishment I found sources like The New YorkTimes, 20/20, and the Washington Post treating mybook, Intruders, seriously and respectfully. Importantlater books like Dr. David Jacobs Secret Life and RayFowlers The Watchers built further upon the publicsin-terest, and since then the momentum has never slack-ened.In the past year 1have been interviewed many timesby the mainstream media. Some of the resultingarticlesand edited TV appearances have been very supportive,some have been mixed, with attempts at fairness and ob-jectivity, and some, of course have been negative;onlyone has been unbelievablysloppy, inaccurate, and de-liberately destructive. But with that one exception, allhave brought at least some valuable, positive informa-tion about the UFO abduction phenomenon into thepublic domain. I cite the following examples, not for rea-sons of personal vanity—many other researchers havebeen as frequently interviewed as I—but to demon-strate the breadth of media interest in the subject. Overthe past months Ive been interviewedby Paris Match,PAGE 10 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALThe four witnesses were so naively unaware of the"shoot the victim" mentality of the debunkers that Idecided to maintain confidentiality for them, whetherthey asked for it or not.the New York Times and the German newsmagazineFocus; by correspondent Susan Spencer for 48 Hours,and by the BBC; and on two occasions for different ar-ticles by Time magazine, as well as by less obviouslymainstream publications such as Psychology Today andOmni.And on an even more personal note, as I prepare along, thoroughly documented book on the subject, pub-lic curiosity about the Linda Cortile case has beenfanned by extensive coverage in, among other places, themainstream British newspaper The Independent, inOmni, and, in a more marginal publication,Fate maga-zine. Shaw is right; despite some predictable swipestaken by authors woefully unaware of the extent of theevidence in the Cortile case, these articles have includedenough information to whet the average readers ap-petite for more about this extraordinary series of events.The response of the mental health community to theidea that UFO abductions are real, event-level experi-ences has been equally gratifying. Over ninety-fivethousand psychiatristsand psychologists have receivedcopies of the Roper Survey of Unusual PersonalExperiences, a booklet detailing what might be called theUFO abduction syndrome. Over one thousand, two hun-dred of these—more than one in a hundred—have sentthe publisherrequests for further information about ab-duction workshops, lectures and so on. Dr. DavidJacobs,psychotherapist John Carpenter, Dr. John Mack and Ihave addressed a number of these subsequent work-shops and I have also accompanied Dr. Mack on "GrandRounds" at Cambridge hospital. Ive spoken to othergatherings of mental health professionals, their numbersby now probably approaching one thousand individuals.Thirty, twenty, even ten years ago this kind of wide-spread professional interest would have been unthink-able.The level of serious scientific discussion of the UFOabduction phenomenon, at the Temple University andM.I.T. conferences, for example, has been increasinglyprofound and rewarding. As the "invisible college" ofconcerned scientists and medical practioners has in-creased its membership, the sophisticationof data gath-ering and analysishas also grown perceptibly. In this re-gard, it is of major significance that Dr. John Mack ofthe Harvard Medical school has just published a seriousbook on his work with UFO abductees. Though not yetprepared to go as far as he. other credentialed profes-sionals are now willing to admit publicly that an extra-ordinary phenomenon such as UFO abductions demandsan extraordinary investigation. Ignoring the evidenceis no longer intellectually respectable.The news that we researchers are beginning to winthe war is unfortunately tarnished by some bad news: weare slowly losing one important battle. In a kind of last-ditch stand, the dwindling band of self-annointed de-bunkers has intensified its campaign to intimidate wit-nesses, to create an a priori climate of ridicule and dis-paragement for anyone who dares to come forward todescribe personal UFO encounters—particularly ab-duction experiences. In the world of criminal law, the in-timidation of witnesses is a felony; in the court of pub-lic opinion there is no such stricture. It is perfectly legalfor someone like Philip Klass to describe nervous, trau-matized men. women and children, victims of UFO ab-ductions, as little nobodies, people seeking celebritystatus." In a stunning bit of unconscious self-description,Klass assured The New York Times that otherwise these"little nobodies" would never get to appear on OprahWinfreys show. His attack, cruel and self-revealingthough it was, was nevertheless effective. As a direct re-sult, I was contacted by four different abductees who hadread the article and now had second thoughts aboutcoming out publicly to help John Mack describe theabduction experience and its traumatic sequelae.Over the years, the hundreds of people Ive dealtwith who recalled UFO abduction experiences havecome from virtually every socio-economic and educa-tional level. A NASA scientist, nearly a dozen police of-ficers, six psychiatrists, many doctors, lawyers, busi-nessmen, military officers and so on, from various lay-ers of society have declined to come forward to de-scribe their experiences publicly. A first-hand account byany one of these people would lend great credence to themass of anonymouseyewitnessreports, but each has toomuch to lose by doing so in the present climate of wit-ness intimidation.My own experience in this area is deeply cautionary.When three virtually unknown individualson the fringeof UFO research decided to attack me by savaging thecentral witness in a case I was investigating—Linda"Cortile"—they not only revealed her name but alsopublished highly personal material she had once lent tothem. She had made the mistake of believing themwhen they said they intended to help her through their"special skills and expertise." Subsequently they ques-tioned her husbands colleagues at work and the door-men in her apartment building, again using the fam-ilys real name and detailingLindas UFO account. Theinevitable effect of these unwarranted intrusions andviolations of their promises of confidentiality was tosubject her, her husbandand sons to ridicule, and even toendanger her husbands livelihood.In a recent conversation with UFO Magazine pub-lisher Vicki Cooper. I realized that she—and conse-quently the public—did not know that it was I whomade the decision to withhold the names of four otherkey witnesses in this case. These four were so naivelyJUNE 1994 NUMBER 314 PAGE 11
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALunaware of the "shoot the victim" mentality of the de-bunkers that I decided to maintain confidentiality forthem, whether they asked for it or not. (Four morewit-nesses specifically asked me to withhold their names.One shudders at the thought of the names and phonenumbers of any of these eight innocents falling into thehands of such unethical "investigators.")Over the years it has been my general policy to rec-ommend witness anonymity, so I have never tried toper-suade any abductee to "come out" publicly, despite thepotential importance of such firsthand testimony.Science, the public and serious media sources havethereby been denied essential evidence about the UFOabduction phenomenon.What can we do to reverse the tide of battle and beginto create a climate more congenial to scientific research?Clearly, the issue is one of ethics. The problem is how toforce the fanatics on the other side to give up the tacticof intimidation which has served them so well. Oneway to help bring this about is to refuse—absolutely—to deal with anyone on the (thankfully) short list ofcharacter assassins who regularly practice this im-morality. No researcher, witness or abductee shouldever agree to participate in any mediapresentationwhich includes any of these people. They should becompletely frozen out of serious discourse, period. Theyare a block to research and a hindrance to any dialogueof value.I have amicable relations with many civilized and eth-ical people on the skepticalside. Carl Sagan coming im-mediately to mind. There are other good people whomwe must cultivate in order to establish a climate wheregenuine dialogue and the objective study of the evi-dence can flourish. Science can only be damaged by thepresent level of McCarthyite intimidation.Our side is clearly winning the war. The public andthe mainstream media know that the UFO phenomenonis here to stay. Our job. now. is finding ways to end thisone destructive battle. 1look forward to a time when nowitness, no abductee should ever hesitateto give testi-mony because of the fear for her reputation, for his ca-reer, for their children—just because a group of bulliesdo not want us to hear the truth.John Carpenter cir°"Phobias and Resolutions"Aphobia is defined as a marked and persistent fearthat is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the pres-ence or anticipation of a specific object or situation.The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or un-reasonable, and the resulting avoidance, anxiety,or dis-tress interferes significantly with the individuals normalroutine. Resolution of specific phobias comes fromdealing with the specific source of the fear by workingthrough the feelings and desensitizing the perceptionof the source. This may be accomplished therapeuti-cally through imagery, hypnosis, or actual exposure tothe source of phobic fear.The research and therapy involving UFO encountersand alleged abductions frequently include many inter-esting and often unique types of phobias. One of themost common fearful reactions in response to a UFO en-counter is the deliberate avoidance of a particular stretchof road or a specific area such as small city park or a cer-tain farm pasture. Many people find themselves dri-ving unusual routes way out of their way in order to cir-cumvent the feared area. The interesting aspect aboutthis is that they often do not know what they are avoid-ing or why. One woman that 1 worked with told methat because she was missing mysteriously for two hourswhen she was eight years old, she cannot drive beyonda five-mile radius from her home as an adult unless shehas very clear written directions and at least one detailedmap with her at all times on the front seat of the car.Many others will drive ridiculous and illogical routes inorder to avoid a certain area sometimes without con-scious awareness that they are doing so.Another common reaction is to objects which re-mind the participants of the entities themselves. One ex-periencer related how her daughter had been phobic at a. young age of certain pictures which had hung in herroom—cartoon drawings from the 1960s in whichgangs of dogs wearing big dark sunglasses are playingcards, shooting pool, or gambling at tables. The reactionwas so intense that the pictures had to be removed fromher room. It was those "big dark sunglasses" which re-minded her of the visitors who came at night—aslearned in a hypnosis session almost twenty years later.Budd Hopkins tells of a lampshade which caused fear inone of his subjects because the light created atriangulardesign reminiscent of the triangular-shaped head of thelittle gray beings. But the subject did not make thisconnection at a conscious level—only at an emotionaland subconscious level of awareness initially.One of my more interestingcases involvingthis typeof psychological response is that of Cindy Doraty(daughter of Judy Doraty, a case publicized by LindaHowe) who at the age of four developed a dread fear ofher own dolls because she thought "they moved aroundat night." The next day she asked her grandmother totake her dolls to the railroad tracks behind their homeand let the train run over all of them. That is clearly ahostile response which goes well beyond just throwingthem out with the trash! Thirty years later she still hadthe phobia and had not even let her own daughter haveany dolls. While we were working on her recollectionsrelated to her abduction experiences, we stumbled acrossa point in time in which a particular chair aboard thecraft caused her to flash back to the age of four when shePAGE 12 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALfirst had seen that memorable high-back swivel chak andhad been playing in it. She remembered being led by ataller gray "female" to a room full of "odd-looking chil-dren."They reminded her of cancer patientsbecause manyappeared sickly with very little or no hair at all. Whenone little child attempted to smile at her—as if it did notknow how, Cindy had a sudden and unexpected emo-tional response. "Thats my doll!" she cried, burstinginto tears. The queer little smile of the hybrid child wasvery similar to the painted-on "toothy" grin of dolls inthose days. As a four-year old Cindy had been unable toprocess these confusing images of the hybrid childrenand needed to avoid dolls which were reminiscentof thetroubling alien images of the hybrid children. This thengeneralized to all dolls until her unprocessed confusionwas only recently resolved. Through hypnosis she wasable to learn that the hybrid children were not scary,hurtful, or unfriendly. To her surprise she found herselffeeling a "sisterly bond" with the one that smiled.Because of the new positive feelings, she had a desire tofind and purchase some of those dolls after her session.Some phobias are quite unique. A 20-year old man ex-pressed a peculiar fear of "falling up" if he wereoutside in an open area. He preferred hanging on to afence or car door "to feel safe." Although unfamiliarwith UFO materials, his first session revealed a life fullof classic abductionscenarios, including the reportingofunpublished data of which he could not have known.Another woman admitted she had a puzzling fear ofbecoming pregnant. Both she and her husband are fun-loving people who adore children. Since she had nophysical fears of the pregnancy or birthingprocess, thisphobia seemed out of place. The woman knewnothingabout UFO research but was encouraged by a friend totell me about a strange and vivid dream in which shewas lying on a table surrounded by "bug people" in around room. They took something from her but wouldnot let her see it. Under hypnosis I tried to lead her andsuggest "wrong responses" to her, but she could not beinfluenced. She described a classic table exam with thelittle gray beings removing a fetus and showing it to her.She became very upset when they told her telepathicallythat it was hers and that she could not keep it. Thus, herphobia was actually not of becoming pregnant, but,rather that if she became pregnant, she would dread notbeing able to keep the baby. After working through hersadness and anger, she was able to comprehend herfears and move forward with her husband toward be-ginning their family by trying very hard to becomepregnant.Skeptics say that a strong belief alone can cure aphobia just as easily without dealing with the originalsource. After conferring with Dr. John Mack and otherpsychiatric professionals, it is agreed that such beliefs canbring temporary or superficial relief, but that a phobia isnot likely to be truly resolved unless one has dealt di-rectly with its original painful source. And in these cas-es the existence of UFO encounters serve as the realityfor each subjects pain, confusion and eventual relief.Next column: "Alien Mistakes: HumorousEvidence"JUNE 23-25 — 15th Rocky Mountain Conference on UFOInvestigation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. For informationcall (307) 766-2124 or 1 -800-448-7801 or write to P.O Box 3972.Laramie, WY 82071-3972.July 8, 9 & 10 — MUFON 1994 international UFO Symposium,Hyatt Regency Hotel, Austin. Texas Theme: "UFOLOGY: AHistorical Perspective." For details see Directors Message in thisissue of the Journal. For advanced registrations write to BobbyMacPherson, 10209 Venita Cove. Austin. TX 78733 or for informa-tion call (512)263-5211September 9,10 & 11 — Third Annual Midwest Conference onUFO Research. Hotel Radisson. Springfield, MO For Further infor-mation call (417) 882-6847September 10-11 —4th Annual New Hampshire MUFONConference, Yokens Convention Center, Portsmouth, NH. For infor-mation write to- N.H. MUFON. P O Box 453, Rye, NH 03870 or call(603) 436-9283 or (603) 673-3829.September 16-17 — 31st Annual National UFO Conference.Radisson inn near Cleveland. Ohio Airport. For information write toUAPA, P.O. Box 347032, Cleveland, OH 44134 or call (216) 826-1357.October 8-9 — "The UFO Experience" • Holiday Inn,North Haven,Connecticut. For information contact Omega Communications, P.O.Box 2051MJ, Cheshire, CT 06410-5051. U.S.A.October 14-16 — 2nd Annual Gulf Breeze UFO Conference.Pensacola Grand Hotel, Pensacoia, Florida. For information write toProject Awareness, P.O Box 730. Gulf Breeze. FL 32562 or call(904) 432-8888UNITED NATIONS VIDEOOn October 2, 1992, a UFO presentation was made at theUnited Nations in an effort to reopen Decision GA 33/426.The two-hour VMS video tape includes Mohammad A.Ramadan, Stanton T. Friedman. John F. Schuesslerand RobertH. Bletchman. Tapes of this monumental UN presentationmay be purchased by Postal Money Orders, personal checkmade payable through a U.S. bank or U.S.cash for $19.95plus $2 for p.&h. to MUFON, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, TX78155-4099. U.S.A.UFOs, MJ-12 AND THE GOVERNMENT:^A Report on Government Involvement inthe UFOCrash Retrievals (113 pages)by Grant Cameron and T. Scott GrainPrice $19 plus $1.50 for postage and handling.Order From MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, TX 78155-4099^^1JUNE 1994 NUMBER 314 PAGE 13
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALTHE 1994 MUFON SYMPOSIUM!Pack your bags and bring your Visa card!Because the annual MUFON Symposium in Austin this summer is out of this world and the Grays donttake American Express.Seriously ... do bring sunscreen, a parasol, straw hat or all three. Its usually hot and humid in south Texas this timeof year and temperatures have already reached the high nineties, as we expect the Symposiumto. Remember Richmondlast year? Youll find much the same heat and at least some (if not more) of the same Southern hospitality in sunnyAustin, the state capital, a city sometimes referred to as the San Francisco of Texas. Check out the University of Texascampus and the abundant night life along Sixth Street. Dont forget to try the enchiladas and margaritas while yourehere. They may not be as authentic as the ones in San Antonio, 75 miles to the south, but if youre from New Jerseyyou probably wont notice the difference anyway. A hearty welcome to one andall!Robert MutterMun. Airport208 Barton SpringsAustin, Texas 78704 USA512-477-1234Located on the shore of Town Lake in downtown Austin nearthe State Capitol and the Austin Convention Center.Outdoor heated poo) and spa; easy access to the Hike and BikeTrail along the Town Lake shoreline.Just minutes away from the University of Texas, RobertMueller Airport,the LBJ Library, and the 6th Street HistoricEntertainment District.Within walking distance of the citys shopping and financialdistricts.R E G E N C YV A U S..•-T I NO N T O W N L A K EPAGE 14 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MUFON 1994 INTERNATIONAL UFO SYMPOSIUMSPEAKING PROGRAM<D2SATURDAY, JULY 9 MORNING SESSION9:00 a.m. Welcome to Austin Ellen R. StuartTexas State Director and Host ChairpersonIntroduction, Master of Ceremonies Ed Surma9:10 a.m. Greetings from the Mutual UFO Network Walter H. Andrus, Jr.International DirectorSeguin, Texas9:15 a.m. "Expanding the Parameters of the Alien-Human AbductionAgenda" Karla Turner, Ph.DAuthor and Abduction ResearcherArkansas10:15 a.m. "MUFON-A World Leader in Ufology" John F. Schuessler, M.S.Deputy Director, Administration and Aerospace EngineerHouston, Texas11:15 a.m. LUNCH (place of your choice)AFTERNOON SESSION1:00 p.m. "Alien Contacts and Abduction Experiences: A Look from theC.l.S." Vladimir V. Rubtsov, Ph.D.Director of the Research Institute on Anamalous Phenomenaand Editor of the RIAP BulletinKharkov, Ukraine2:00 p.m. "The Aerial Phenomena Research Organization andthe Future of Ufology" James A. Harder, Ph.D.Former APRO Director for ResearchBerkeley, Calif.3:00 p.m. BREAK3:30 p.m. "Insights From Studying Groups of UFOs" Richard F. Haines, Ph.D.Author and Co-Director of JointUSA-CIS Aerial Anomaly FederationLos Altos, Calif.4:30 p.m. "What the Russians Know About UFOs" George Knapp, M.A.UFO Documentary ProducerLas Vegas, Nevada5:30 p.m. DINNER (place of your choice)EVENING SESSION7:30 p.m. "Human-Alien Contact as a Meta-Leverof History" Michael P.LindemannAuthor, Lecturer, Videotape Producer, and Founder of the 2020 GroupSanta Barbara, Calif.8:30 p.m. "Budd Hopkins Linda Case: A Look Behindthe Experience" Linda CortileNew York, NY9:30 p.m. "UFOLOGY: A Historical Perspective" An Unexpected Treat!SUNDAY JULY, 10 MORNING SESSION9:00 a.m. "Anatomy of an Abduction" YvonneSmithAbduction Researcher and Certified HypnotherapistLas Crescenta, Calif.10:00 a.m. "UFOs and Religion: Of Things Visibleand Invisible" Rev. Barry H. Downing, Ph.D.Author and MUFON ConsultantEndwell, New York11:00 a.m. LUNCH/CHURCHAFTERNOON SESSION1:00 p.m. "UFOs and World History" Robert O. DeanFormer Arizona Assistant State DirectorTucson, Arizona2:00 p.m. "Crop Circles: Is There a UFO Connection?" George WingfieldCrop Circle Researcher and Editor of The Cerealogisl MagazineShepton Mallet, Somerset, England3:00 p.m. BREAK3:30 p.m. "A Scientific Analysis of the Videotape Taken by Space Shuttle Discoveryon Shuttle Right STS-48" John C. "Jack" Kasher, Ph.D.Central Regional Director and Nebraska State DirectorOmaha, NE4:30 p.m. Question and Answer Panel, Composedof All Speakers Moderator, Walter Andrus5:30 p.m. Invitation to MUFON 1995 InternationalUFO Symposiumin Seattle, Washington, hosted by Washington MUFON Judy Tuberg5:35 p.m. Adjournment Ellen R. StuartChairperson, MUFON 1994 Symposium
    • MUFON .UFO JOURNALThe Alien JigsawBy Katharina WilsonReviewed by Forest CrawfordIn the last few years we have seen the appearance of averitable sea of books about the UFO/alien abductionexperience. While they are all informative in one way oranother, they are not always enjoyable to read. "TheAlien Jigsaw" by Katharina Wilson, Introduction byBudd Hopkins, is a shiningexception. I found myself ea-ger to read about her next experience, hoping to getanother piece to the puzzle of her life.Katharina knew very little about UFOs and alien ab-ductions when she first came to realize the meaning of thestrange goings on throughout her life. She came to knowthat experiences like hers were happening to many otherpeople. She wondered how many others might be havingthese interactions and were asleep to the memories or.worse still, afraid to share or ask for help out of fear ofridicule. Because of her deep conviction to the truth shewanted as many people as possible to know about thealiens activities. The only story she knew well enough totell was her own, so she began speaking publicly and wrotea book about her visitations. Several times during thewriting of "The Alien Jigsaw" she debated whether to ex-clude some parts because of theirpersonal nature. Luckilyshe did not. She felt that presenting all details and accountswas more important than her reputation or pride. I com-mend her for her courage and conviction.Katharina, a meticulousdiary scribe since age twentythree, is easily able to reconstruct the pattern of events thatindicate a lifetime of interaction with other-worldly be-ings. She writes them in such a way that you do nothave to wait until the last chapter to understand the sto-ry. Each of her journal entries is preceded by the eventsshe now knows to be significant relativeto the alien en-counter. The verbatimjournal entry then shows her mem-ories, thoughts and feelings at the time of the experience.She then examines these memories as the lucid adultshe has become. She explains how each occurrencechanged her and how she now feels about them. The bookis written as if each journal entry was a whole story andyet, at the same time, a part of a larger story. An alien sto-ry. One that shows an alien influence interwoven intojustabout every person, place and thing in Katharinas life.Her family is not exempt from alien rendezvous andmany times she reports going on board with or seeing herhusband, friends, mother or father during an on board vis-it. She tells of many experiences that deal with hybrid oralien babies in nursery-likesettings and has had the fullrange of genetic interbreeding experiments run on her.Some of these experiences are very positive and emo-tionally fulfilling, others are hard for Katharinn to un-derstand given her intense love of all animals. This loveof animals has been tested many limes by the alienssometimes by asking her to choose between animalsand people. She feels these challenges are tests, perhapsso the aliens can better understand our emotional re-sponses. Occasionally she is given free run of the shipand finds herself strangely familiar with its layout. Someof the aliens she encounters are emotional, compas-sionate creatures and others are cold and even cruel.Many of the fifteen different aliens described work to-gether (the good, the bad and the ugly). Several of thesetypes are described here for the first time in print. Shealso reports the prescence of what appears to be U.S. mil-itary personnel working with the aliens. Her accountsalso include what she calls "teaching dreams" whereinshe was instructed and trained or shown what may be thefuture.As one moves through these experiences withKatharina you can sense the growth of her understand-ing and consciousness. 1 have been lucky enough tomeet Katharina and found a person very diffferent thanthe one at the beginning of the book. She is confidentand kind, eloquent and strong. There is a peace abouther. The power of her conviction is evident in her actionsPAGE 16 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALand words and I respect this greatly. As always these ex-periences, good, bad or neutral, are transformative.When you read her book you will find that she is notfighting a war—she is fighting a sleep. A sleep that weall must awaken from whether we.are having face toface alien experiences or not. She poetically expressesher deepest feelings about this limited view of realityinthe "Epilogue" with a verse called "The Painting".This book is enjoyable for the casual reader wantingto know more about the alien abduction/contact phe-nomenon and the avid researcher with a hunger for de-tails. I think "The Alien Jigsaw" is one of the best bookswritten by an experiencer about alien experiences. Thisbook should be considered a "must have" for the re-searcher because it contains details about a wide varietyof aliens and their business, many of which have neverbeen published. The chapter that details the differenttypes of beings tilled "The Guys" is worth the purchaseprice alone. Looking through the lens of Katharinasexperiences one can get a clearer view of the large andcomplex picture of human-alien interaction.The Alien Jigsaw." a hardback with 59 illustrations, is avail-able direclly from the author for $26.95, postage paid. Thisinformation was regrettably omitled from Katharinas adwhich ran in the last issue of the Journal. Make checks ormoney order payable to Katharina Wilson, P.O. Box 230023,Portland, OR 97281-0023.Lost Was the KeyBy Leah A. HaleyGreenleaf Publications.P.O. Box 9386, Columbus. MS 39705Hard Cover, 160 pages. $19.95Reviewed by Marc DavenportUntil an idle conversation with relatives triggeredpanial memories of encounters with "chalky-col-ored creatures," Leah Haleys life was as conservativeand mainstream as it could be. Her Southern Baptistfamily had certainly not prepared her for "alien abduc-tions." Neither had her masters degree in education, norher experiences as a CPA and as a university instructor.The partial memories were so compelling that Leahwas unable to function in her oh-so-normal environ-ment. She went to see John Carpenter, MUFONsDirector of Abduction Research, hoping to be diag-nosed as insane, so that she could be treated and curedand continue her life as before.Carpenter hypnotically regressed her 14 times duringthe next 18 months. He found no evidence of mental ill-ness (although Leah did exhibit post-traumatic stressdisorder, which results from real experiences). Leah re-membered being laken aboard UFOs as a child and as anadult. Memories recovered under hypnosis implied thather ova may have been used to produce some of the hy-brid fetuses she was shown in a bright room she de-scribed as a "baby greenhouse." They also indicatedthat she had been abducted several times by human be-ings in military-style uniforms who used brutal methodsin an apparent attempt to extract information from herabout the chalky-colored creatures.On one of these occasions—and this is something thatmakes this case unique—Leah had apparently been ab-ducted and was aboard a UFO when it was shot out ofthe sky and crash-landed on a beach.Leah resisted the idea that her experiences could bereal. She argued that she must not have been hypnotizedand that she must be insane, regardless of what hercounselor said. Like hundreds of other abductees, shewas not ready to let go of her old paradigm. But eventsthat happened while she was fully conscious conspiredagainst her assertions. She had conscious memories ofbeing in a beam of light and of being interrogated bymilitary types. Her house was broken into, she was fol-lowed, and she caught someone who worked for aNASA subcontractor snooping around her car. She wasinvited to photograph a space shuttle, only to discoverlater that guards around it had orders to shoot to kill. Shebegan to receive enigmatic telepathic communicationsfrom an unknown source. She found physical evidencethat verified her encounters were real. And so on.Lost Was the Key is the clearest and most credible ofall contact accounts. Its precise, easy-to-read languageand absorbing, page-turning story takes the readerthrough the processes of discovery, denial, acceptance,the shattering of personal reality, investigation of everyfacet of the abduction experience, and reflection onhow the authors experiences changed her. The authoruses no unnecessary words, but simply tells her story.And throughout the book, she steadfastly refuses tojump to unwarranted conclusions, always qualifying,always questioning,always considering all the possi-bilities. As John Carpenter states in his introduction:"...her own careful documentation and tireless inves-tigative efforts reflect a determination to find the truthobjectively with several clever and bold attempts toverify informationretrieved from hypnotic regressions."Leah Haleys astonishing courage moved me and Iheard the ring of truth in her words. And her meticulousdocumentation of her unique experiences has sinceproved invaluable in my own research. I recommend thisbook as an absolute must for anyone interested in UFOsand abduction phenomena.Marc Davenport is the author of Visitors From Time:The Secret of the UFOs and the editor of CONTACTFORUM. He currently devotes all his time to investi-gating and writing and lecturing about UFO and ab-duction phenomena. Davenport and Haley have justannounced that they are about to be married.JUNE 1994 NUMBER 314 PAGE I 7
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALLetters to Mufon UFO JournalROSWELLIn regards to the Journals review of our The Truthabout the UFO Crash at Roswell. I think there are a cou-ple of points that demand clarification. First, the testi-mony suggesting that one of the beings survived thecrash is all second hand. Frankie Rowe provided someof it, based on what her father, Roswell fire fighter DanDwyer told her. Ruben Anaya provided other testimonythat he said came from then New Mexico LieutenantGovernor Joseph Montoya. Barbara Dugger said that hergrandmother, Inez Wilcox, wife of sheriff GeorgeWilcox, said that Inez told her one of the "little men"had survived. There have been some other hints as well,but we have yet to find any solid first-hand corroborationof the story. We included these testimonies in the bookbecause that was what the witnesses were saying. Wefelt an obligation to report, accurately, all that we hadbeen told. But the point is, the testimony about a sur-vivor is second hand without the necessary corrobora-tion. That point should not be overlooked.Second, there is a point that may not be very clear.The press release issued by Walter Haul on July 8 wasnot a mistake or a military SNAFU. It was part of thecarefully constructed cover that was an outgrowth of theevents of the weekend. According to Frank Joyce, hehad interviewed Mac Brazel on the radio on July 6, be-fore Major Jesse Marcel and Captain Sheridan Cavitt ac-companied him out to the debris field. That interviewwas broadcast, to the best of Joyces memory, on Sundayafternoon.The military, having found the impact site the day be-fore, and having silenced the military participants aswell as the civilianwitnesses there, were probably sittingaround congratulating themselves on having containedthe story when the next thing they know, a story aboutstrange debris is broadcast on KGFL Radio. Suddenlythe story is no longer buried. Now they must do some-thing to contain thatinformation.The press release, then, was designed to stop thespread of the rumors begun on Sunday. If it is analyzedcarefully for how it is worded, that becomes clear.According to the release, the object has been recov-ered. It is on its way to Fort Worth. The rancher isntidentified, but Marcel is, but hes unavailablebecause heis on his way to Fort Worth, too. No exact location isprovided, but they do mention a site 75 miles northwestof Roswell. So, we have a news story telling the publicthat a saucer has been recovered and its on its way to an-other location. There is nothing to see, for those whowant to drive 75 miles northwest of Roswell to search.It seems that this is misdirection. The important findwas much closer to Roswell, had already been removed,and now that rumors were spreading through Roswell, anewspaper story in the afternoon paper claimed thatthe "real" site was 75 miles from Roswell. Then, threehours later, word is released in Fort Worth that what wasfound was nothing more than a weather balloon with aradar target.Art McQuiddy, editor of the Roswell MorningDispatch, said that by the next morning, July 9, thestory was dead. No time for the curious to drive out tosearch for the site, especially on a Tuesday night.Besides, the press release said that it was already re-covered so there was nothing to see.The press release and then the discussion at FortWorth effectively killed the story for more than thirtyyears. According to some of the witnesses, that was thewhole purpose. It was designed to put an end to the ru-mors, and it must be admitted that the stories of July 8and 9 did exactly that. When Roswell was mentioned atall, it was suggested that it was nothing more than amisidentified balloon. (For the purists, it must be men-tioned that Frank Edwards, in Flying Saucers—SeriousBusiness, did mention Roswell but he provided nothingthat would enable anyone to investigate.)The question that must be asked is if we want to be-lieve that there were military officers so bright that theycould conceive the cover story. Were they bright enoughto have planned this thing that well? We know that theballoon explanation worked to hide the Roswell story.That is what were saying. The military officers on thescene were that smart. The conclusion then, is that thenews release was made on purpose to divert attentionand then kill the story.You are absolutely correct that there are some in-consistencies in some of the testimony and I believe, asyou said, that much of it can be attributedto old mem-ories. Others are between first-hand memories and sec-ond-hand stories. In those cases we side with the first-hand sources. However, I believe we have an obligationto report all the data, not just that which we believe.Otherwise we would not have reported, for example, thatDr. W. Curry Holdens wife and daughter hadnt heardthe story from him. Given the situation and the circum-stances, I believe that Holden told me the truth, not tomention that his story was corroborated by others in-cluding Dr. C. Bertram Schultz and Dr. W. Frankforter.There are gaps in what we know, certain bits of datato which we have no access. If we had all the answers,then some of these problems would quickly be elimi-nated. There is still work to be done because there arequestions that we still have, too. But, if we eliminate thestories that have plagued this case from thebeginning,the idea of a crash on the Plains of San Agustin, the taletold by Gerald Anderson, and the hoax of MJ-12, thepicture of what happened outside of Roswell becomesclearer.But these minor problems do not explain the largebody of eyewitness testimonies about the impact site, thePAGE 18 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALcraft and the bodies. It must be remembered the storyabout the impact site is told by several witnesses inde-pendently. There is no evidence that they have been incommunication with one another. But they do tell, ba-sically, the same story, providing us with the same basiclocation and same basic shape of the craft. These first-hand witnesses include Jim Ragsdale, Albert Duran,Lewis Rickett, "Steve MacKenzie," Edwin Easley, JohnMcBoyle. W. Curry Holden, and a couple of others whodont want their names associated with this. There areothers who saw something happening, the military cor-don or the craft coming down, including E.L. Pyles,William Woody, C. Bertram Schultz, the Franciscannuns, and the archaeological team.The one thing that we all must do is concentrate onthe big picture. Sometimes we become so busy steppingon the ants that we overlook the elephants.—Kevin D. Handlewere afraid to be labeled "crazy." We know that everyopen door of opportunity in our life can slam shut if thepeople we work with find out about us. Many of usmay never build up enough courage to come forward toanyone with our experiences. Countless abductees liveday after day in loneliness and isolation. Still, the pain ofisolation seldom equals the fear of telling someonewhos likely to reject you for it.When you think of all the effort and risk each expe-riencer has to go through in order to find self-confi-dence and credibility, its a shame so many peoplechoose to focus on the negative, destructive miscon-ceptions about the experience. Maybe theyve forgotten,every abduction account they hear is not just a story, it isthe very real facts of someones life. No wonder thereare so many ET encounter experiencers stayingquietlyhidden. And thats a shame, because we have so much togive to the world.—Michelle La VigneNashua, NHFALSE MEMORIESWith all the recent talk about "false memory syndrome"and therapists using hypnosis to make people believesomething happened to them that really didnt, I feel it isimportant to let people know that this doesnt seem toapply to the world of alien abductions.A fact that many people arent aware of, and oneseldom addressed in the media, is that just about allabduction experiencers remember things about their ETencounters before any hypnosis or regression. Quite afew are never regressed at all, but still have recall of ab-duction episodes. These events can date back to a time intheir life before they ever understood such a thing as"ETs" even existed.Most of us have memories that go back to earlychildhood, events we remember long before we soughtout help. Memories from childhood are often less stress-ful or dramatic than adult memories so they are rarelyaddressed in the media. Because of this, its far lesslikely these memories are coining from outside influ-ences such as books or TV.Its been suggested that people are being led lo be-lieve they are experiencing encounters with ETs andthen allowed to fantasize the details, which they do toplease their doctor or to get his attention.The idea thatsomeone will make up alien abduction stories for thisreason doesnt really hold water when you think of theincredible stress involved in coming forward with ac-counts of abduction.Its important for people to realize that because of theconfusion and trauma associated with first discoveringyou are interacting with aliens, few want to believe thisis happening to them. People having encounters withETs dont just wake up one day and say, "Wow, Ivebeen abducted by aliens. Cool! Now I can get onOprah." We go through months, often years, of selfdoubt and fear. We fight the desire to find help becauseJUNE 1994 NUMBER 314MUFONI would like to respond to issues raised in MUFONsApril Journal. Both Mr. Jeffreys and Mr. Brethwaites"Call to Anns" could have dramatic implications for thefuture of UFOlogy and Anomalies Research. Whileboth authors make important points regarding the level-headed scientific investigation of UFOs and related phe-nomena, I feel the need to voice my own concerns.First, American UFOlogy is constantly being fac-tionalized by the search for the "case of the century."From Lazars tales of reverse-engineering alien tech-nologies, to the supposed "authentic" MJ-12 documentsoffered as proof of an all-powerful government con-spiracy. From the controversial Ed Walters UFO photosto the Linda Cortile "High-Rise Abduction" case. These"cases of the century" have resulted in angry mud-sling-ing and the resignations of certain researchers fromtheir respective organizations.The Roswell, New Mexico crash is a case in point.While I am the first to admit that something of extreme in-terest happened out in the desert during that Summer of47,1 am concerned about the increased rallying behindthis case. I have signed the declaration included withMr. Jeffreys article and will be sending it lo MUFONsSeguin headquarters, yet I cannot shake the feeling, thatsomehow we are being "set up." It has become all tooclear that certain agencies of the government and militaryare bent on manipulation of UFOIogys belief in UFOs(read Extraterrestrials). UFOIogys penchant for disin-formation proliferation has also been demonstrated (wit-ness Bill Moores Las Vegas Symposium revelations).How can we be sure that any information released on theRoswell Affair is "the truth"? Those involved in theCover-Up Paper Chase have failed to note a most salientpoint. If this supposed grand cover-up exists would theyPAGE 19
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALreally leave a paper trail?Dont these conspirators havepaper shredders? Any information released by a "cover-up" is most probably, at least partially, fictitious. AsOliver North said, cloak the truth between two lies andconvince your audience that that is the Truth. In this wayyour audience is always ignorant of the whole truth.Finding that kernel of truth is still a worthy cause and Iwill cease my criticism of these Paper Chasers.My point, as regards the push to find Roswells kernelof truth, is that we must not anxiously await our govern-ment to tell us of this supposed Truth. The "truth" behindRoswell may have been so deeply buried long ago thatwhatever explanationour government gives could simplybe one agencys best guess. Or worse, another agencysfurther disinformation.Worse still, it could end up as an-other Condon Committee; the GAO or another inves-tigative body announcingto America and the world that itwas just a weather balloon. As before, this would con-vince the skeptics (and perhaps a good deal of the popu-lace) that this is not a subject worthy of scientific inves-tigation. But this would, of course, not deter the believerswho will continue to cry Cover-Up and whose belief willonly be reinforced by such government assertions.For these reasons I caution MUFON members to pro-ceed in the fight to uncover the Truth and not to look toRoswell as the quintessentialcase which will "set therecord straight" as to the origins of UFO phenomena.The second issue I wish to address are certain sug-gestions made by Mr. Brethwaite. I respect his po-sitions on the problems of speculation and the need to im-prove the publics perception of UFOlogy. We do needto better allocate our resources with respect to investi-gation and publicitybut I am alarmed at some of his sug-gestions. The proposed "minimum education require-ment," as regards the MUFON political hierarchy, andthe suggested increase of membership fees to $50.00 (!)could be viewed as a trend towards elitism. I am not ac-cusing Mr. Brethwaiteof such elitism. I simply wish topoint out that by executing such changes MUFON couldbe ostracizing the very members it depends upon for sup-port. How many members would MUFON lose by dou-bling the membership fee? And while MUFON strives toattain greater mainstream academic acceptance it couldbe perpetuating one of the most dangerous andinsidiousaspects of the UFO phenomena: its affronting of thevery scientific institutions that ignore it. Dr. JacquesVallee and other researchers have noted the phenomenas"social deconstruction" aspect which creates an antag-onism between the witnesses and investigators. Vallee hasvoiced his fears that Sciences refusal to investigatethisphenomena could create a cultural backlash, from ex-periencers and believers alike, which could conceiv-ably topple those same "rational" institutions. So whileelevating the required education levels could raise cer-tain institutions opinions of MUFON, it could alsofur-ther exclude those people who already distrust theseacademic institutions for their lack of acceptance con-cerning UFO & Paranormal Experiences.Perhaps there is another option regarding the gener-ation of funds to support investigation and publicity.Perhaps it is time for MUFON to publish a specialnewsstand edition available to the general public. Thiswould generate both money and publicity. Editing to-gether some of the most informative past & presentJournal articles into newsstand editions would requirelit-tle effort and could be done on a quarterly basis. If suc-cessful, perhaps the periodicity could increase to a bi-monthly schedule.I hope you will consider these points and not takethem as an attack against MUFON or the Journal. In factthe May 1994 issue is one of the best I can rememberreading in quite a while.The sober chronology of events regarding theGuardian Affair was long overdue.Mr. Kulikowskis UFO volume speculations wereespecially intriguing.High Strangeness reports are always appreciated (es-pecially by subscribers of The Excluded Middle andCrash Collusion magazines).Roberta Puhalskis article on Abduction SupportGroups was excellent, though I would urge tolerance andinvestigation of New Age claims rather than patent dis-missal. Speculation can be healthy, while "belief is thedeath of intelligence."Also, Mr. LaMoreauxs letter regarding ScientificCredibility was appropriate, yet we mustnt forget thatscience has its place and need not remain the "cold andunfeeling" institution that some see it as.Finally, congratulations, Mr. Stacy, on The Anomalist!I will soon be sending a check for my order.—Stephen Miles LewisAustin, TX/ UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICE VThe UFO Newsclipping Service will keep youinformed of all the latest United States and World-WideUFO reports (i.e., little known photographic cases,close encounters and landing reports, occupant cases)and all other UFO reports, many of which are carriedonly in small town and foreign newspapers.Our UFO Newsclipping Service issues are 20-pagemonthly reports, reproduced by photo-offset, containingthe latest United States and Canadian UFO newsclip-pings, with our foreign section carrying the latest British,Australian, New Zealand and other foreign pressreports. Also included is a 3-5 page section of "Fortean"clippings (i.e., Bigfoot and other "monster" reports). Letus keep you informed of the latest happenings in theUFO and Fortean fields.For subscription information and sample pages fromour service, write today to:UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICE~ Route 1- Box 220 • Plumerville, Arkansas 72127 /""IPAGE 20 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MUFON UFO IOURNALTHE ALIEN JIGSAWBy Katharina Wilson, Intro by Budd Hopkins. 59 illustra-tions. Katharinas carefully documented abduction caseencompasses childhood experiences, teaching dreams, cam-ouflage, screen memories, visions & shades of military/gov-ernment involvement. $26.95 pp. Check or M.O. toKatharina Wilson, PO Box 230023. Portland OR 97281-0023. Hard cover: ISBN 0-9639916-0-4.AREA 51 PUBLICATIONS & PRODUCTS: Viewers Guide,patch. Aurora model, etc., relating to saucer claims. BlackBudget aircraft & govt secrecy in Nevadas Restricted Zone.Send SASE for catalog to Glen Campbell. HCK Box 38, Rachel.NV 89001.GULF BREEZE UFO CONVENTION: October 14-16, 1994.Jenny Randies. Dr. Arthur Horn, Dr. Richard Boylan, Dr. LeoSprinkle, Robert Dean, Linda Howe, Budd Hopkins. ForestCrawford, Katharina Wilson. Marc Davenport & all 4 men ofthe Allagash Abductions. Phone, fax (904) 432-8888 or writeProject Awareness, PO Box 730. Gulf Breeze,FL 32562.CLEVELAND UFO CONVENTION: September 16-17.Featured speakers Stanton Friedman, Frank Stranges, KevinRandle. James Moseley, Allen Greenfield, Cope Shellhorn &many more. Specialized workshops also offered. For completedetails & schedule write UAPA Convention, PO Box 347032.Cleveland, OH 44134.VIDEO/AUDIO TAPES on UFOs, crop circles, aviation mys-teries, near-death experiences. Face on Mars & other fascinatingtopics. Free list & sample newsletter from The EclecticViewpoint, Box 802735-M, Dallas. TX 75380. Future lecturehotline (214) 601-7687.LOOKING FOR CONDON REPORT INVESTIGATORS RoyCraig and James E. Wadsworth from the University of Coloradocirca 1968. to confirm research findings. Anyone knowing theirwhereabouts please contact Lindy Tucker at P.U.R.E. Research.PO Box 627. Sebring, FL 33871.UFO ENCOUNTERS MAGAZINE: New 32-page bimonthlyformat. Includes all aspects of the UFO phenomenon—the ab-solute best coverage! Dont miss out any longer. $19.95/yr U.S.,$36 foreign, $4.00 sample copy. Make checks payable to AztecPublishing. P. (). Box 1142, Norcross. GA 30091-1142. Stay in-formed!ALIEN ABDUCTIONS: Personal experiences with several girl-friends who have been taken and analysis of the field lead me tosuspect that 90% are mental abductions that take a "psychicbody," which when returned, causes scars in the real body. JonErik Beckjord, Box 9517, Marina del Rey, CA 90295.REGIONAL ENCOUNTERS: "The FC Files." Illustrated case-book. Investigations by the Indiana Group, authored by FrancisRidge, Director. 100years of close encounter UFO activity in re-gion. Allow 4-6 weeks delivery. Soft cover, 8.5x11, 170 pages.$20.00 includes First Class shipping. Make checks to: "FC Files,"618 Davis Drive. Mt. Vernon, IN 47620.END UFOSECRECY!Join Operation Right to Knows growing campaign. Helpend the governments UFO cover-up. Our activities havegained mainstream respect and recognition, includingOMNI, CNN, CBS. Minimum $15 contribution gets younewsletters, gels you involved. We are volunteers.Contributions go for expenses only. ORTK, PO Box 317M,Caithershurg, MD 20885.FLORIDA MUFON NEWS: The fastest growing UFO newslet-ter in the country. Complete Florida coverage & the real GulfBreeze story. Editor Bland Pugh consistentlyscoops Ed Walterslatest & most recent encounters. Dont miss out. Bimonthly.$12. PO Box 6111, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-6111.AREA 51 "EYES ONLY" VIDEOGUIDE: Only videotape thatguides you to Mailbov Rd & Area 51 from Las Vegas. Detaileddirections to Restricted Zone, White Sides Mtn., Bald Mln. &Little ALelnn. Map included. VMS only $15.00. RalphMcCarron. PO Box 6061-186, Sherman Oaks! CA 91413.JOIN UFOBIA! Unique member-supported UFO organizationassists investigations by use of electronic technology. Providesmembers with a source of archived UFO information. Free gen-eral membership & newsletter. We purchase used hooks. Forinfo send #10SASE to UFOBIA. POB 1494, Plaistow, NH 03865.ORIGINAL GULF BREEZE T-SHIRTS & posters. Severalcol-ors & sizes. Childrens to XXL. Excellent artwork. Fruit of theLoom pre-shrunk 100% cotton. Shirts $16.50+ta+$4.95 s&h.Posters $5.00+tax+$4.95 s&h. Phone (904t 934-8636. Fax: (904)934-9981. Maryjo Co.Ask for Mary.CROP CIRCLES: Correcting a previous ad, the 1992 HoaxingContest was my idea alone, given to the Cereologist 9/91, just af-ter D&D surfaced. As a result, hoaxing is now rampant, & nocircle is real unless you seeit made. Trust not. Jon ErikBeckjord, Box 9517. Marina del Rey. CA 90295.CONTACT FORUM, the Round Table of UniversalCommunication, is a newsletter that provides a forum for re-searchers, therapists,experienccrs (abductees, contactees, chan-nelers, etc) & others interested in actual contact to exchangeideas & information freely & without necessarily divulging theirnames. For info, call (800) 366-0264, leaveaddress.Your Ad can appear here, too. 50 words for $15 per issue (add$10 for bold box). Send ad copy, sample of merchandise & checkor MO payable to MUFON to Dennis Stacy, Box 12434, SanAntonio. TX 78212.THE ANOMALISTNew illustrated paperback. UFOs & cargo cults, dinosaurs& gravity, fire poltergeists & spontaneous human combus-tion, alien writing samples, astrology, mystery waves &more. Edited by Dennis Stacy & Patrick Huyghe. $10.00 +$2.50 p&h. Check or MO payable to Dennis Stacy, Box12434, San Antonio, Texas 78212.JUNE 1994 NUMBER 314 PAGE 21
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALWalter N.WebbJULY 1994Bright Planets (Evening Sky):Venus (magnitude -4.1) glistens brilliantly in the W at dusk.It sets around the end of twilight, shortly before 10:30. On the10th the planet lies only Ix ahove the much fainter Ist-mag-nitude star Regulus. The lunar erescent is in the vicinity of thepair on the ensuing two evenings.Jupiter (-2.1), in Virgo, shines in the SW at dusk, now settingin the W about 12:30 AM in mid-July. The giani resumes east-ward motion on the 2nd and lies above the quarter Moon onJuly 16.Saturn (0.8), in Aquarius, rises in the E about 10:30 in mid-month.Bright Planets (Morning Sky):Mars (1.2). in Taurus, rises in the NE about 2 AM in mid-July.The red planet is below the Pleiades on July -1 Jitd above thestar Aldebaran on the 17th. The crescent Moon dwells nearMars on the 4th and 5th (especiallyclose on the latter date).Saturn stands in the S at dawn.Comet Collides with Jupiter:An unprecedented event occurs when Cornel Shoemaker-Levy 9 encounters Jupiter over a ? 1/2-day period from July16-22. Broken into 22 known nuclei by the giant worldstidal forces, the "string-of-pearls" comet was not discovereduntil 8 months later, in March 1993. The cornel nuclei are ex-pected to impact the far side of Jupiter near 44.x S latitude, oneby one. Each object is predicted to create a huge fireball andother atmospheric effects. Half a do7en satellites and spaceprobes, including the repaired Hubble Space Telescope, willview the phenomena either directly or indirectly. Amateur ob-servers equipped with large-enough telescopes may see thefar-side impact Hashes as glows around Jupiters E limb or re-flected briefly off one or more of the planets 4 largest moons.Within an hour or so after each impact, the disturbed region onthe planet should rotate into view and appear front and centerafter T 4 4 hours. (Jupiter spins once in less than 10 hours.)Although predictions are still being refined as of this writing,the largest comet nucleus is now expected to hit Jupiter about3:12PM EOT July 20.Meteor Shower:The annual July Aquands maximum is plagued this year by abright moon up all night on July 28-29. Theinterferencewashes out all but the brightest meteors. The promisingPerseid shower begins activity the last week of July.Moon Phases:New moon—July 8 ^fcFirst quarter—July 15Full moon—July 22 OLast quarter—July 30The Stars:The Summer Triangle high in the E nears the zenith of the skyafter evening twilight ends.Meantime, low in the southern sky, teapot-shaped Sagittariusthe Archer aims his arrow at red Antares, the stellar heart ofthe scorpion.In the N, the Big Dipper, its bowl downward, stands to the W(left) of Polaris the North Star. Use the two pointer stars on theend of the dippers bowl to find the surprisingly faint Polaris.Extend an imaginary line eastward from the pointers.DIRECTORS MESSAGE - Continued from Pa<;e 23Journal. Jacks address is 103 South Court Street, Suite116, Cleveland, MS 38732.NATIONAL UFO INFORMATION WEEKVirginia M. Tilly, Director of Public Education, has an-nounced that the National UFO Information Week hasbeen scheduled for August 13 through 21, 1994, whichincludes two weekends. Now is the time to start prepar-ing exhibits, information literature handouts, closedcir-cuit TV of UFO videotapes, and specifically makingreservations at local shopping malls and libraries. Thisis an ideal event to educate the public to the UFOphe-nomenon and its implications to the scientific futureof the world.FIELD INVESTIGATORS MANUAL OUT OF PRINTThe third edition of the MUFON Field InvestigatorsManual is temporarily out-of-print. It has been removedfrom the MUFON Publications List. Work is progress-ing very well on publishing an expanded version to beidentified as the fourth edition in the near future. Pleasedo not delay conducting Field Investigator trainingclasses due to the absence of the fourth edition. Somesections or chapters of the present manual are only be-ing updated, whereas new sections on abduction inves-tigations, animal mutilations, crop circles, and poly-graph will be new. Explicit instructions on completingForm 1 and Form 2 will also be new.An expandedsection on interviewing witnesses by Dan Wright will bean asset to the new manual.The availability date and price will be announced inthe Journal. Please do not back order the new manual,since it will be doubled in size, and the price has notbeen determined from the printer. We are excited aboutthe fourth edition, since it will be a state-of-the art pub-lication.MUFON 1994 INTERNATIONALUFO SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS"UFOLOGY: A Historical Perspective"Fourteen papers - 306 pagesPRICE: $20 plus $1.50 for postage and handling.ORDER FROM:MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, T 7X155-4099PAGE 22 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALDIRECTORS MESSAGE - Continued from Page 24Regency Austin Hotel in Austin, Texas, on July 8, 9, and10.Ellen R. Stuart, State Director, is serving as the hostchairperson. Special events are being planned to cele-brate MUFONs silver anniversary.Several of the speakers will reminisce by relatingfirsthand the history of the prevailing UFO groupstwenty-five years ago. They are James A. Harder.Ph.D. (The Aerial Phenomena Research Organizationand the Future of Ufology). Richard H. Hall (TheQuest for Truth About UFOs: A Personal Perspective onthe Role of NICAP), and John F. Schuessler (MU-FON - A World Leader in Ufology). Other confirmedspeakers are Robert O. Dean (UFOs and WorldHistory); George Wingfield (Crop Circles: Is There aUFO Connection?); Rev. Barry H. Downing. Ph.D.(UFOs and Religion: of Things Visible and Invisible):Michael P. Lindemann (Human-Alien Contact as a"Mela-Lever of History"); Yvonne Smith (Anatomyof an Abduction); Karla Turner. Ph.D. (Expandingthe Parameters of the Alien Human Abduction Agenda);Vladimir V. Rubtsov, Ph.D. (Alien Contacts andAbduction Experiences: A Look from the C.I.S.);Richard F. Haines, Ph.D. (Insights From StudyingGroups of UFOs); John C. Kasher, Ph.D. (A ScientificAnalysis of the Videotape Taken by Space ShuttleDiscovery on Shuttle Flight STS-48); Linda Cortile(Budd Hopkins "Linda" Case: A Look Behind theExperience): and George Knapp (What the RussiansKnow About UFOs). Richard Hall will be unable toattend and speak due to pending surgery, however hispaper will be published in the MUFON 1994International UFO Symposium Proceedings and beavailable for sale to the attendees.Start making your summer plans now to attend theMUFON 1994 UFO Symposium in Austin, Texas. Ablock of rooms has been reserved at the Hyatt RegencyAustin Hotel, 208 Barton Springs Road, Austin. TX78704, for the nights of July 7 through 10. 1994, for aspecial rate of a single or double occupancy at $72 pernight plus $10 for each additional person. Please makeyour reservations directly with the hotel at telephone(512) 477-1234, FAX (512) 480-2069 or writing to thehotel. Be sure to advise that you are attending the MU-FON 1994 UFO Symposium to obtain the special rate.Advance registrations for the symposium are now be-ing accepted for $50 per person for all sessions by writ-ing to Bobby MacPherson. 10209 Venita Cove, Austin.TX 78733, or calling (512) 263-5211 if there is a ques-tion. Registration forms were enclosed with the March1994 issue of the Journal for the convenience of allmembers/readers. A reception will be held from 6-9p.m. on Friday, July 8, 1994, at $10 per person for foodwith a cash bar. Musical entertainmentwill be providedfor your enjoyment. The schedule of speakers will startat 9 a.m. on Saturday, July 9, and adjourn at 5:30 p.m.after the Q. & A. Panel Discussion on Sunday, July 10.The last speaker on Sunday will finish at 4:30 p.m.Registrations made after June 25th will be $60 perperson for the entire symposium. Individual sessionswill be available at $10 per person except Saturdayevening which will be $15. Take advantage of the ad-vance price by making your registration as early as fea-sible. We look forward to meeting all of you at MU-FONs Silver Anniversary Symposium in the Lone StarState.American Airlines has been contracted to be the of-ficial carrier—Star File #S0974UG. Attendees or theirtravel agents can call the American Airlines MeetingServices Desk at 1-800-433-1790 for reservations.American will discount their lowest fare by 5%. (Be sureto give the Star File number.)Vendor tables will be available for qualified individ-uals at S10.80 per table. New Age paraphernalia will notbe permitted. Vendors sales must be directly relatedto Ufology. Interested people may write to Ed Newsom.3309 Oak Alley, Austin, TX 78745 for a vendor appli-cation request or telephone (512)282-4001. (Sorry, butall tables have been sold. Fees will be returned.)Other events on the symposium agenda areState/Provincial Directors Meeting on Friday, July 8thfrom 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. moderated by Thomas P. Deuleyand Dr. Jack Kasher; Press Conference from 1 to 3p.m.; MUFON Annual Board of Directors MeetingSunday. July 10th from 9 a.m. to 12 noon: and JointUSA-CIS Aerial Anomaly Federation Board ofDirectors Meeting on Monday, July 11, 1994. starting at8:30 a.m., hosted by the Mutual UFO Network. Dr.Richard F. Haines, Dr. Vladimir V. Rubtsov andVladimir G. Ajaja, Co-Directors, will moderate theUSA-CIS Board Meeting. The two board meetings areby invitation only.FREE TRANSPORATION FROM THE AUSTIN AIRPORTTO THE HYATT/REGENCY HOTELRecently, the Hyatt discontinued its free shuttle serviceto and from the hotel. The members of Austin MU-FON have graciously agreed to provide free rides forSymposium attendees. Look for their hospitality table atthe airport when you arrive on Thursday or Friday toarrange for free transportation to the Symposium.VIDEOTAPING OF SYMPOSIUMVideotaping of the speakers in the auditorium will not bepermitted by attendees or the use of flash cameras, sincea contract has been signed with John F. "Jack"Fletcher to videotape the entire speaking program.Audio tapes may be made from the participants seat inthe auditorium. Order forms will be available at thesymposium and also enclosed with one issue of theContinued on Page 22lUNE 1994 NUMBER 314, PAGE 23
    • MUFON UFO JOURNALWalter Andrus o ° y°NEWS FROM AROUND THE NETWORKNEW OFFICERSMichael D. Sandras (Westwego, LA), presently a StateSection Director, was appointed Assistant State Directorfor southeastern Louisianaby Walter L. Garner, Jr. S.Christopher Early selected David Michael Norris forhis Assistant State Director for northern Georgia. JohnR. Salter, Jr. (Grand Forks) recently resigned as StateDirector for North Dakota. Twelve new State SectionDirectors volunteeredtheir leadership talents this month:Michelle Despain (Provo, UT) for Utah, Emory,Wasatch, Duchesne, San Pete, and Carbon Counties:James A. Scheitel (Mandan. ND) for Morton, Burleigh,and Oliver Counties; Galen L. Sharp (Lakewood, CO)for Adams and Jefferson Counties: Casey "KC"Thompson (Pocatello, ID) for Bannock, Power, andCaribou Counties; Arthur L. Rife (Broken Arrow. OK)for Tulsa, Osage, Pawnee, Creek, Washington, andOkmulgee Counties; Thomas M. Patterson (Ringgold.PA) for Pittsylvania. Henry, and Halifax Counties:Susan Van Slooten (Randolph. NJ) for MorrisCounty:Tommy Briggs (Randolph,NJ) for Hunterdon County;Diane Stavaris (Leonia, NJ) for Bergen County:Michael G. Curta (Aurora. CO) for Arapahoe,Douglas,and Elbert Counties; Jerry G. Olivier (Lafayette, LA)for Lafayette Parish; and Kittye Miner, D.D. (Broaddus.TX) for San Augustine and SabineCounties.CONSULTANTS AND RESEARCH SPECIALISTSMargot L. White, J.D. (Charlottesville. VAi became anew Consultantin Law. Four new Research Specialistshave volunteered their specialized expertise. They areJeanne M. Szanto, M.S.W. (Holiday, FL) in ClinicalSocial Work; Fred D. Stein. M.S.W. (Melrose, NY) inSocial Work; John E. Oliphant. M.S. (Austin, TX) inMeteorolgy; and John L. Salisbury, M.S. (Mahwah.NJ) in Computer Science.ROSWELL DECLARATION 1994The response to the Roswell Declarationsupporting therequest for an Executive Order declassifying any U.S.Government information regarding the existence ofUFOs or extraterrestrial intelligence, mailed to the MU-FON headquarters office, has exceeded all of our ex-pectations. Many of our members have reproduced thedeclaration that appeared in the April 1994 issue of theMUFON UFO Journal and solicited their friends andcolleagues to support this very important program. TheJ. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) alsoreproduced the Roswell Declaration in their March/April1994 issue of IUR International UFO Reporter.This entire program has been the brainchild of KentJeffrey (Fairfax, CA) with the cooperation of MUFON,CUFOS. and FUFOR. Mr. Jeffrey is to be congratu-lated for this ambitious undertaking to capitalize uponthe current interest in the Roswell Case via books, arti-cles, videotapes, and motion pictures. He has also pro-vided significant financial support to other aspects of thisprogram in his own very modest manner. It is amazingwhat one person can do in Ufology when they applytheir minds, hearts, and determination to a specific pro-ject. Mr. Jeffrey is promoting a similar program inEurope through the Mutual UFO Network - CentralEuropean Section (MUFON-CES).CENTRAL REGIONAL DIRECTOR ELECTIONThree very qualified candidates were nominated for thevacancy on the MUFON Board of Directors for CentralRegional Director. They were Walter L. "Barney"Garner, Jr., State Director for Louisiana; William E."Bill" Jones, Ohio State Director, and John C. "Jack"Kasher, Nebraska State Director. A ballot was enclosedin the April 1994 issue of the Journal for all of themembers encompassing the central states in the U. S.A.John C. Kasher, Ph.D. was elected by hisconstituentsto this prestigious position by popular vote. In additionto his duties of supervising and assisting the state di-rectors, evaluating UFO sighting reports, just to name afew; he will serve as the host moderator with Jerold"Ron" Johnson, Deputy Director of Investigations,atthe State/Provincial Directors Meeting in Austin, TX onJuly 8, 1994, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.A special thanks is extended to Barney Garner andBill Jones for agreeing to be candidates and also toGeorge R. Coyne, the retiring Central RegionalDirector.ASSISTANT TO INTERNATIONAL DIRECTORIt is a distinct pleasure to announce that MUFONsCorporate Secretary, Thomas P. Deuley, has become apart-time employee of the MUFON headquarters of-fice, with the additionaltitle of Assistant to the Director.The MUFON Board of Directors approved the hiring ofMr. Deuley at their annual meeting in 1993. A veryknowledgeable man, skilled in many appropriate fields.Tom will make it possible for MUFON to accomplishprojects and programs that were on the drawing board,but in need of someone with his talent and expertise. Mr.Deuley will be an asset to MUFON as we continue togrow worldwide.tMUFON 1994 SYMPOSIUMThe theme for the MUFON 1994 International UFOSymposium "UFOLOGY: A Historical Perspective,commemorating MUFONs 25th anniversary and sym-posia. It will be hosted by Texas MUFON at the HyattContinued on Page 23PAGE 24 NUMBER 314 JUNE 1994