• Save
Mufon ufo journal   2000 2. february
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Mufon ufo journal 2000 2. february






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   2000 2. february Mufon ufo journal 2000 2. february Document Transcript

  • M U T U A L U F O N E T W O R KUFO JOURNALFFRPIIAPV->nnn -^ MIIMRFP^Q? <t^FEBRUARY 2000 NUMBER 382 $3Giant UFO in Yukon Territory
  • ;:;n;:, MUFON•;.;;•;UFO Jpurnal; •: (USPS Q02-97Q) •(ISSN 0270-6822).;;103 Oldtowne Rd; ,•:"• Seguin, TX 78155-4099 !:Tel: (830) 379-9216FAX (830) 372-9439Editor:Dvyight ConneNy.14026 Ridgelawn RoadMartinsville, IL 62442Tel: (217) 382-4502e-mail: bookdc@ccipost.netEditor in Chief:Walter H. Andrus, Jr.103Oldtowne Road Seguin, TX 78155830-379-9216, ;Columnists:Walter N.Webb, RichardHall - . " • . George FilerDan WrightStaff ArtistWes CrumMUFON UFO Hotline:1-800-UFO-2166MUFON on the Internet:, http://www.mufon.comMUFON on Compuserv"Go MUFON"to access the Forume-mail address:mufonhq@aol.comMUFON AmateurRadio;Netf 40,meters .-7.237MHzSaturdays, 7 a.m. CST or COSTFebruary 2000The cover: Giant UFO in YukonTerritory.Number 382In this issueGiant UFO in Yukon Territoryby Martin Jasek 3Man visited by strange objectin Iowa 12Police helicopter interacts with light by Jim Kelly 13Filers Files by GeorgeFiler 16Not enough foil at Roswell by Morris & Regehr 17China has rash of UFO sightings 18MUFON Forum 19Perspective on January Journal by Richard Hall 20Readers classified ads 21The Night Sky by Walter N.Webb 22Calendar 22Directors Message by Walter Andrus 24MUFONs mission is the systematic collection and analysisof UFO data, with the ultimate goal of learning the origin andnature of the UFO phenomenon. » / v > :; •? :Change of address and subscription inquiries should be sentto MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin, TX 78155.Copyright 2000 by the Mutual UFO Network. All Rights ReservedNo part of this document may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of theCopyright Owners, Permission is hereby granted to quote up to 200 words of any one article, provided theauthor is credited, and the statement, "Copyright 2000 by the Mutual UFO Network, 103 Oldtowne Road,Seguin, Texas 78155" is included. The contents of the MUFON UFO Journal are determined by the editors, and do not necessarilyreflect theofficial position of the Mutual UFO Network. Opinions expressed are solely those of theindividual authors.The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Tax under Section 501 (c) (3) of theInternal Revenue Code. MUFON is a publicly supported organization of the type described in Section 509(a) (2). Donors may deduct contributions from their Federal Income Tax.Bequests, legacies, devises,transfers, or gifts are also deductible for estate and gift purposes, provided they meet the applicableprovisions of Sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is aTexas nonprofitcorporation.The MUFON UFO Journal is published monthly by the Mutual UFO Network, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscription ratesare $30 per year in the U.S.A., and $35 per year foreign in U.S funds.Second class postage paid at Seguin, Texas.Postmaster: Send form 3579 to advise change of addressto: MUFON UFO Journal, 103 OldtowneRd., Seguin, TX 78155-4099
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 3Martin Jasek22 witnesses reportgiant UFO in YukonBy Martin JasekUFO*BCOn Dec. 11,1996, an incredible "UFO event" tookplace along a 216 km (134mile) stretch of theKlondike Highway in theYukon Territory, Canada.The sightings occurred inthree major areas along thehighway: Fox Lake, TheVillage of Carmacks, andThe Village of Pelly Cross-ing, each having 6, 9 and 7witnesses respectively (seeFigure 1).This total of 22 people isa minimum number, andonly includesthose identi-fied to the investigator byname. There were other wit-nesses (or vehicles) reported on scene. All but one ofthe witnesses wish to remain anonymous. Betweenthe time period of February 1999 and September1999, 19 out of the 22 witnesses have been inter-viewed (only 2 of these were second handaccounts).This report documentsthe witnesses descriptionsresulting from these interviews.Fourteen of the wit-nesses have supplied drawings of the UFO.Comparing the size of the UFO observed to that ofa football stadium is not due to exaggeration on thewitnesses part. On the contrary, this comparison isconservative, as it will be shown in this report thatthe UFO was likely much larger.A reasonably accurate estimate of the size of theUFO (or UFOs) was accomplishedthroughamethodbased on geometry called "triangulation." (See "Cal-culation of UFO size" at end of this article.) Thismethod was employed 6 times to obtain 6 estimatesfor the size of the UFO. All revealed staggering re-sults: the UFO ranged anywhere from 0.88 km (0.55miles) to 1.8 km (1.1 miles) in length!For compari-son, the Toronto Skydome stadium is 0.21 km (0.13miles) at itswidestpoint.In order to keep witness identities anonymous,"Code Names" were developed consistingof thefol-lowing format.For those witnesses who observed theUFO near Fox Lake the witness code names givenwere FOX1,FOX2, FOX3..., for those nearBraebum Lodge34 Km (21 Mi) from Foi lakeFigure 1. The locale, Yukon Territory, Canada.About the AuthorMartin Jasek, Yukon representative forUFO*BC, is a civil engineer. He holds the Bach-elors degree in Civil Engineering and the Mastersdegree in Water Resources Engineering. Born inthe Czech Republic, hisfamilyemigrated to Canadain 1970.Carmacks, CRM1, CRM2, CRM3..., and for those nearPelly Crossing, PEL1, PEL2, PEL3...etc.The NarrativeWitnesses FOX2 and FOX3 were driving togetherfrom Whitehorse to Carmacks in two separate vehicles.As they were travelling northbound on the KlondikeHighway adjacentto Fox Lake, they spotted a huge UFOout over the frozen lake. Fox Lake is on the west side ofthe highway.Bothof them slammedon the brakes, stop-ping about 570 metres (1870 ft) apart from each other(refer to map shown in Figure 2).FOX2 got out of his vehiclefor a better observation.The UFO proceeded to slowly drift towards FOX2 andafter a few minutes he found himself almost directlyunderneath the object! FOX3 continued to observe hiscousin FOX2; both men were in complete awe! (Seedrawings by FOX3, Figures 3 and 4, and simulatedgraphic on cover).The UFO continued to move slowly across the high-way and out over the hill to the east and eventuallydis-appeared behind it. Also, see drawing by FOX2 (Figure5). Immediatelyafter the sighting,FOX3 noted that thetime was 8:30p.m.Both FOX2 and FOX3 coulddis-cern that the lights were attached to a smooth and solidobject.
  • Page 4 February 2000 MUFON UFO JournalAt the very same time that FOX2 and FOX3 wereobserving the UFO move across the lake, FOX4 andFOX5 were approachingthe southerntip of Fox Lakealso heading northbound (see map, Figure 2). Whatthey observed was a huge row, or rows, of lightsslowly moving across the lake. There were otherlightson and around the UFO as well. See drawings byFOX4 and FOX5 (Figures 6 and 7) and Fox4s esti-mated size compared to known landmarks (Figure 15).Their first thought was that it was a large truck inthe distance, but it couldnt be, since it was out overthe lake. Their next thought was that a Boeing 747was crash landing. But that couldnt be either, sinceit was moving much too slowly to be an aircraft. Ittook them about 2 seconds to process these thoughtswhen they realized that it must be a UFO! They be-came very concerned. They had a two-year-old sonin the back seat and they were travellingtowards thisthing!After some debate theydecided to continuetheirjourney. After all, they could no longer see the UFOas they approached a hill that obscured their view,plus there was some traffic ahead of them. FOX5looked at the car clock, it was 8:23 pm. None of thewitnesses heard any sound coming from the object.A few minutes later, when FOX4 and FOX5 werepassing the Fox Lake campground, they passed bytwo vehiclesthat were pulledover with two men out-side looking up at the sky. They turned around andpulled over to talk to them. It was FOX2 and FOX3carrying on a lively discussion, "What the heck wasthat?" After a few minutesFOX4 and FOX5 left andeventually stopped at Braeburn Lodge about 34 km(21 miles) furtherup the highway. FOX4 walked intothe lodge and said to Steve Watson, the lodge owner,"Steve, I really need a coffee!" Steve replied "Oh,you musthave seen what [FOX1] saw?" In fact FOX4recalled seeing FOX1 leaving Braeburn Lodge justas they got there.About half an hour before the sighting describedabove (about 8 p.m.) FOX1 was driving along FoxLake and had noticed a light in the distance whichshould not have been there. He did not think too muchof it, but as he got closer to the light, he could tellthat it was illuminating a long smooth curved sur-face. He then passed some traffic and after his eyesreadjusted to the darkness, the curved surface and thelight were gone.However, his eye caught a group of rectangularlights moving over and behind a hill to the east. Atthis point he got an "exhilarating feeling" and spedup in order to reach a less obscured location in thevalley so that he would have a chance to see the UFOagain. He pulled over and got out of his vehicle butpgroundScale (km)indicateswitness locationsFigure 2. Fox Lake area and witness locations.didnt seeanything more unusual. He continued hisjour-ney and pulledintoBraeburn Lodge where he gave Stevea description of what he saw, and also made drawingsfor him.FOX2 and FOX3 eventually pulled into BraeburnLodge and gave their description to Steve as well.There was also a 6th witness to the Fox Lake sight-ing, but it is unclear what time she had driven throughthe area. FOX6 was driving in the vicinity of Fox Lakewhen she noticed a glow on her dashboard that couldnot be accounted for by the interior illuminationof hervehicle. She leaned forwardto look up through herwind-shield and observed a large arrangement of multi col-ored lights. The interior lights in her car started to godim and the music from her tape deck slowed down.Between 8:30 and 9 p.m., the Village of Pelly Cross-ing (about a 2-hour drive to the north of Fox Lake) wasexperiencing its own truly incredible UFO sighting.PEL1 was tending his trapline northeast of Pelly whenhe observed in the distance to the southwest a long rowof lights slowlymovingover the hills.At first hethought
  • MUFON UFOJournal February 2000 PageS: /""•ves^^i^^jsj^iaMi*-" - StFigure 3: Drawing by Fox3 of overview ofUFO.Figure 4: Drawing by Fox3 of underside ofUFO.Lights movingcounter clockwiseLights movingclockwiseFigure 5: Drawing of UFO by Fox2.
  • Page 6 February 2000 MUFON UFO JournalX- B*-*1-"/ " A•a-jL_LJ_ ! I ~~-It - 2«.3.. ,oo - ?00» Aft-SearchBeamFigure 6: Drawing by Fox4.it was a large aircraft coming down. But it was movingmuch too slowly. "Its a UFO!" As he was walking,hisflashlight happenedto pointin the direction of the UFO.As if reacting to his flashlight, the UFO startedspeeding rapidly toward him.He instinctively cuppedthe end of his flashlight. As soon as he completed thisgesture, the UFO stopped in its track. In a matter ofless than a second, it was hovering an estimated 300yards (275 metres) in front of him! PEL1 had to turnhis head from one side to the other to take it all in.(See graphic Figure 8, based on witness drawings, andthe investigators interpretationFigure 9).Again there was no sound at all coming from theobject. A beam of light emanating from the bottom ofthe UFO swept the ground once directly underneaththe object. Was it a search beam looking for him? TheUFO then drifted slowly to the right.There were otherbeams emanating from the craft as well; a greenishphosphorescent color beam shone horizontallyout thefront (right);two beams at theback (left) rotated slowlyto a horizontal position. All the beams could be seenclearly as there were ice crystals in the air. PEL1 turnedaway from the UFO momentarilyandran across asmallclearing. When he turned back to look at it, it was gone.Figure 10 shows the location of the witness and hisestimated trajectory of the UFO.At about the same time, PEL2 and PEL3 were trav-elling northbound just south of Pelly Crossing, to thenorth when they spotted a huge row of lights slowlymoving from left to right. They pulled over at a gravelpit just south of the Village to get a better look and gotout of their vehicle. PEL2 noticed that the Big Dipperwas just above the row of lights and compared thelength of the lights to the widthof theBig Dipper. Theywere about the same length!This observation was veryBeam Scanningtowards and awayFigure 7: Drawing by Fox5.important, since it established a well-referenced angu-lar size of the UFO from PEL2 and PELSs perspec-tive, important for a more accurate triangulation andcalculation of UFO size. The map shown in Figure 10shows the location of witnesses PEL2 and PEL3 andtheir estimate of the UFO trajectory.The accounts of witnesses PEL! through 3 wereenough to complete a calculation of UFO size. Theobservations of witnesses PEL4, 5, 6 and 7 about thesame time provided a second triangulation. Their lo-cation is also indicated on the map in Figure 10. Thefour women were taking an evening course at a smallcommunity college in Pelly Grossing (a satelliteschoolof Yukon College). They were out on a break on thefront deck of the one-story building looking towardsthe west when they too observed the row of lights. Therow of lights was travellingslowly almosttowardsthemand slightly towards the north. They recall the objectbeing huge as well; there was no sound at all.Itmovedslowly over the hill to the north and disappeared be-hind it.Then there was the UFO sighting near theVillageof Carmacks by 9 witnesses. The UFO was observedby two groups of people. CRM1, 2, 3 and 4 were onthe highway northbound in a pick-up truckjust southof Carmacks; CRM5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 consisted of a hus-band, wife and their 3 children. They were watchingtelevision when they spotted the row of lights out oftheir window. The locations of the witnesses and esti-mated UFO trajectories are shown in Figure 10.The four men travelling together pulled over nearthe landfill at the southern edge of the Village to get abetter look at the UFO. They watched the noiselessobject move slowlyto the northeast, curve aroundthemto the south, and head up a valley adjacent to the mi-
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page?Figure 8: Artists interpretation of sighting based on drawing by PELl (trapper Don Trudeau).Figure 9: UFO observed by PELl (Trudeau).
  • PageS February 2000 MUFON UFO Journal• indicateswitness locationsFigure 10: map of Pelly area.crowave tower south of the village, where it just van-ished. At one point the UFO was partially obscuredbehind a nearby hill and one witness recalls the UFOslowly reappearing on the other side of it. He remem-bers waiting a long time for the last light to reappearfrom behind the hill; thats how slow and large theobject was!The object took up about a 60 to 90 degree horizon-tal chunk of the sky. See drawings by CRM.l and CRM2(Figures 13 and 14). CRM1 recalls hearing about theFox Lake UFO sighting on the radio the next day andsurmised that they saw the UFO about an hour and ahalf earlier, about 7 p.m.The family is not exactly sure what time it was whenthey saw the UFO, only that it was in the evening. Theyobserved the row of lightsjust to the northwest of themmoving slowly to the northeast. The lights were justover the treeline, and there was no noise at all. SeeFigure 11: Drawing by CRM7, 6 years old.Figure 11 ( drawing bythe eldest son, CRM7, six yearsold at the time). The lights continued to move untilthey disappeared one by one behind what appeared tobe an invisible wall. There was no mountain in that
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 9Figure 12: Carmacks area.direction that could account for this. With the UFOsighting occurringjust two weeks prior to Christmas,the three children thought that it was Santa Claus andhis reindeer in the sky.An estimate of the UFO size by triangulation wasnot possible for the Carmacks UFO sighting, as thegeometry of thewitness locations in relationto the UFOwas less than ideal (see "Estimate of UFO Size"). Fur-thermore, it was unclear whether both the family andthe group of four men in the truck observed the UFOat the same time. Perhaps the UFO made more thanone pass by the Village that night.There is also some evidence to suggest that this"sighting event" encompassed an even larger area, asUFO reports were heard on CBC North radio the verynext day mentioningsightings in the communities ofDawson, Mayo and Watson Lake. No witnesses fromthese additional communities have thus far come for-ward or been identified.- o-• _- oNumerous smallerwhite steady lightsLarge dark orange lightsflashing In synchFigure 13: Drawing by CRM1.Smaller white lightsLarger orange lights (street light color)Figure 14: Drawing by CRM2.Estimate of UFO Sizedetermined by triangulationBy Martin JasekA reasonably accurate estimate of the size of theUFO (or UFOs) was accomplished through a methodbased on geometry called "triangulation." Triangula-tion relies on the observation of an object (in this casea UFO) from at least two different vantage points atthe same time. In addition to this, it also relies on anestimate of the angular size from at least one of thewitnesses. Onewayto describe angular size is by com-paring the size of the UFO to something being heldout at arms length. An example would be "the UFOwas the size of a fist at arms length." Another way todescribe angular size is to compare the UFOs size tosomething else inthe scene. An example would be "theUFO was about twice the size of that mountaintop."Given the large number of witnesses and vantagepoints associated with this case, six separate calcula-tions of UFO size could be made.Calculation#l. A trip to the Fox Lake sighting loca-
  • Page 10 February 2000 MUFON UFO Journaltioh was made with FOX3. The witness showed thelocations along the highwaywherehe and FOX2 pulledover to watch theUFO. This distance was measured tobe 570metres apart. We knowfromFOX2s testimonythat he was directlyunderneath the edge of the UFO atone point in time. While on location, FOX3 was askedto hold out his arms and indicate the angular size ofthe UFO. This distance was measured to be about 1.2metres (4 feet) apart. The perpendicular distance fromhis eyes to the tip of his hands was measured to be 0.4metres (1.3 ft). Using trigonometry,this calculates outto be about a 113 degrees of angular distance. Project-ing this angle forward the 570 metres distance to theUFO one obtains a UFO size of 1710 metres or about1.7 kilometres (1.1 miles) in length (See Figure 2).It was also of interest to obtain the elevation of theUFO in this observation, especially since it was al-most directly overhead of FOX2. While on locationwith FOX3, the investigatorasked him to take a pho-tograph of the scene and hold his finger at the spotwhere the bottom of the UFO was when it was overhis cousin (FOX2). An angular height of 6.5 degreesabove the ground was determined from the photograph.Using trigonometry one obtains a height of the UFOof only 65 metres (213 ft) above FOX2! This is con-sistent with FOX3s estimate of4or5lamppost heights.Calculation #2 and #3. FOX4 was presented with aphotograph taken of the scene from his vantage point.He was asked to mark on the photo the length of theUFO. He was also instructed to hold the photograph 8to 9 inches away from him in order that the angularsize of the landmarks and actual scene was about thesame. He gave two estimates (Figure 15). The twoangles worked out to be 12.8 and 8.44 degrees angularsize for the UFO. Since it was established that FOX2and FOX3 were observing the UFO at the same timefurther up the lake, we know the distance to the UFOto be about 8 km (5 miles). Again, projecting thoseangles out to that distance, the UFO size for the twoestimates worked out to be 1.8 km (1.1 miles) and 1.2km (0.75 miles) in length respectively. (Figure 2)Calculation #4. As above, FOX5was presented witha photograph of the scene. She gave her estimate ofangular UFO size and this worked out to be 3.95 de-grees. Projecting this angle out towards the UFO 8 km(5 miles) away, one obtains a UFO size of 0.88 km(0.55 miles) in length.Calculation#5 and #6. These two calculations werebased on observations by witnesses near the .Villageof Pelly Crossing. PEL2 was very intelligent to com-pare the size of the UFO she observed to something inthe scene. She compared it to the size of the star con-FOX4s first estimate of the size of the.UFO.out over Fox Lake ^;--- :^;:- ~^i^FOX4s second estimate of the size of theUFOout over, Fox Lake••*••:., FOXSs estimate of the size of the UFOout over Fox Lake .Figure 15. Fox4s estimates of size of UFO.stellation, "The Big Dipper." This is more accuratethan estimating after the fact or from aphotograph.Since she perceived the angular length of the UFO tobe the same length as the Big Dipper, from the posi-tion of the stars we can deduce that the angle wasabout25 degrees. (See angle projected in map shown in Fig-ure 10).Since PEL4, 5, 6, and 7 were observingthe UFO atabout the same time from a different vantagepoint,we could triangulate a location of the UFO shown inFigure 10. The estimated trajectory of PEL2was alsoused for a second calculation.The second calculationwould not normally be considered a triangulationsinceit involves observations from only one vantage point.However, some weight has to be given to the estimatedUFO trajectory of witness PEL1 that is even furtheraway from PEL2. By projecting the angle of the BigDipper out to these two trajectory locations, one ob-tains two more calculations of UFO size. The first tra-jectory is 2.6 km (1.6 miles) away and yields a UFOsize of 1.2 km (0.75 miles) in length. The second tra-
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 11jectory is 4.4 km (2.8 miles) away and yields a UFOsize of 2.0 km (1.3 miles) in length.To summarize, «e have obtained the following sizesof the UFO by means of triangulation:FOX3 with FOX2: 1.7 km (1.1 miles) FOX4 withFOX2: 1.8 km (1.1 miles) FOX4 with FOX2: 1.2 km(0.75 miles) FOX5 with FOX2: 0.88 km (0.55 miles)PEL2 withPEL4,5,6,7: 1.2 km (0.75 miles)PEL2withPEL1:2.0 km (1.3 miles)This is consistent with witness testimony of the ob-ject appearing to be "huge" in the sky. Several wit-nesses gave size estimates of theirown, and these weregenerally smaller than those obtained through the moreaccurate triangulation:FOX2 0.5 km (0.3 miles) based on relative size tolake width; FOX3 0.21 km (0.13 miles)-comparableto a football stadium; FOX4 0.5 to 0.7 km (0.3 to 0.4miles)-direct estimate; PEL1 1.2 km (0.75 miles)-di-rect estimate; PEL3 0.5 km (0.3 miles); direct esti-mate.By any stretch ofthe imagination or calculation, thisthing was BIG!Frequently-asked questionsregarding the Yukon CaseBy Martin Jasek(Added to report - January 2000)Why has it taken almost 3 years for this case tobe madepublic?Actually, two of the witnesses (FOX2 and FOX3)did approach a local radio station (CHON FM) the dayafter the event (Dec 12, 1996), and their interviewsdid get on the air. However, that is as far as it went.The authorwas not aware of this broadcast at the time.In 1998, witness CRM1 placed an anonymous callto Lorraine Bretlyn, another YukonUFO investigator,and mentioned that his sighting in Carmacks occurredthe sameeveningas the Fox Lake sightingthathe hearddescribed on the radio. This was our first clue that alarge UFO was seen by multiple witnesses in multiplelocations. However, all we knew at that point was thatthe incident occurred in the past few years and in win-ter conditions.On Jan. 28, 1999, FOX2 called us to describe hissighting at Fox Lake. The call was spurred by a localnewspaper article describing some unrelated UFOcases. He mentioned that many of the Fox Lake wit-nesses had stopped in at Braeburn Lodge and describedtheir sighting to lodge owner Steve Watson. Watsonwas interviewed, and he confirmed that fact and wasable to give us about three additional witness names.These witnesses were contacted, and they in turn pro-vided additional witness names until we had a total of22.The time period between Januaryand October 1999was used to locate these other witnesses, interviewthem, obtain their drawings, and put this report to-gether. This was complicated by the facts that most ofthe witnesses live a 2 to 3 hours drive from the City ofWhitehorse where the investigationis based, and someof the witnesses did not have telephones.Why are the drawings and descriptions of theUFO different? Did the witnesses see the same UFOor maybe different ones?Yes, we agree that many of the drawings do lookdifferent. It could have been different UFOs, but therecould be other reasons for the differences in the draw-ings and descriptions:1. It was two to three years from the time the sight-ing occurred to when the witnesses were asked to maketheir drawings. Memories do change.2. Perhaps witnesses at different locations saw dif-ferent sides of the UFO that may have had a differentnumber/configuration of lights. The distance to theUFO also varied, so those further away would not seecertain details.3. Different witnesses spent different amounts oftime on their drawings. Some paid a lot of attentiontodetail, whileothersjust provided a quick sketch. Somedrawings were constructed injust seconds, while oth-ers-and one in particular-probably took more than 5minutes. Artistic talent varied.4. The UFO may have had certain lightsturned offand certain lightsturned on duringthat evening. It mayhave varied the "on lights" and "off lights" betweenthe times when various witnesses observed it.Note: Drawings by FOX2, FOX3, FOX4 and FOX5were very similar, with minor differences that couldeasily be attributable to points 1, 2 and 3 above. Allthese witnesses were aware of the time that their sight-ing took place, and it has therefore been establishedthat these four were observing the same UFO at thesame time. The differences in drawings of PEL2 andPEL3 could be mostly attributable to points 1 and 3.The differences between the drawing of PEL1and theother Pelly witnesses may be attributable to points 2
  • Page 12 February 2000 MUFON UFO Journaland 4.5. Points 2, 3 and 4 do not explainthe differences indrawings by witnesses who were together during thesighting. To provide some explanation for this, onemay consider the following.All the witnesses observedthe UFO anywhere from one minute to several min-utes. During their observation the UFO traversed aconsiderable distance across the sky, thereby chang-ing their perspective view of it. It likely looked muchdifferent from these different angles.Each witness was asked to draw the UFO. Onewould suppose that each witness would pluck one im-age from his or her mind that corresponded to one ofthese perspectives. They would likely choose the oneimage that made the largest impression on them. Thismay explain the differences between the drawings ofCRM1 and CRM2, and also between PEL6 and PEL7.How do you know that the witnesses are not mak-ing it up?The answer lies in the demeanor of the witnesses intheir interviews. Only two witnesses approached themedia or a UFO investigator-the remaining 20 had tobe sought. Once found, they were reluctant to talk.However, when they were assured that their identitywould not be made public, they opened up. As theywere describing their sighting, apprehension was re-placed by excitement. It was like reliving the experi-ence with them. This behavior is not consistent withsomeone making up a story.If it were an orchestrated hoax by all these peoplethey would not have sat around for someone to showup at their door untiltwo and a half years later. It is notlikely that they would have arranged to stop consecu-tively at Braeburn Lodge and tell a made-up UFO storyto the lodge owner.I have met several times with some of these wit-nesses, often being invited into their homes. I havegotten to know them fairly well and consider many ofthem as friends. Among the ones I have met frequentlyare FOX1, FOX2, FOX3, FOX4, FOX5, PEL1 andPEL2. . Even the ones I met on only one occasion,their demeanor was consistent with that of an honestperson confronted with something that they saw thatthey could not explainin terms of conventional means.Note: UFO*BC is producing a hard copy of thiscase, including 34 drawings and figures. It is avail-able for $12.00 Canadian (international money order)from UFO*BC, 11151 Kendale Way, Delta, BC, V4C3P7, Canada.UFOs in HistoryMan visited by strange objectwhile fishing in Iowa in 1920The following letter was received in 1974by LeRoyR. Latham, director of the Fayette County, IA, UFOResearch Group. The author of the letter was JesseClark Linch of Mt. Pleasant, IA, then 75 years old,who describes an experience he had in 1920 on his22nd birthday."On June 3, my birthday, Mother suggested I takethe day off and catch a mess of bull heads for dinner.Dinner on the farm was noon. I went fishing in thepond, was on the east bank-there was a maple groveon the west side of the pond, trees approximately 1200feet high. There were a few low willows along thenorth bank, and grass on the east bank where I was.There was no wind, no clouds, the sun shone on myback as I faced west, fishing."The bull heads were biting, and I had caught justabout enough by 10:30, approximate time, when at tree-top level out of the west came a strange object. It camein across the pond and settled gently on the grass about15 feet south of me. It was the size like a 5 galloncream can had been split lengthwise, rather flat on thebottom. Side view was a sky blue color. Completelynoiseless. It did not alarm me, but Iwas curious. After15 minutes or so I laid down my pole and thought toinvestigate the object."When I got up to pick it up, it left, slowly liftedover the trees in the west, and disappeared. Still nonoise."I never reported this, as there was then as now amental health asylum in Mt. Pleasant, and inthose daysif you heard voices or saw strange things you were putaway. I never told anyone until after Arnold saw thesaucers in the West."In a few days now I will be 76 years of age, but nota detail of that strange thing have I forgotten. Thismay or may not interest you, but it was no weatherballoon, it was real. I was neither drunk or asleepdreaming. In fact I dont drink, not even beer. I dosmoke cigarettes, but dont believe they hurt mymemory."Linch said the object was about 32 inches long, 18inches wide, and 10 inches high. It was flat on thebottom and curved on the top. He said it appeared tobe solid, but it had a semi-transparent effect.On a sighting form, he noted that there was a slightsouthwesterly wind, and that the object came and lefton about a 45-degree angle, moving with a "planingguide."
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 13Police helicopter interactswith strange green lightBy Jim KellyMaricopa County, AZ, State Section DirectorOn a cool, clear night on Oct. 12,. 1999, a Phoenixpolice helicopter pilot and his observer on a routinepatrol over their city encountered something that theycould not explain. At approximately 2:20 a.m. (MST),the two officers, one an experienced helicopter pilot,the other an observer being trained as a pilot, departedDeer Valley Airport in their McDonnell Douglas, 520N helicopter.The aircraft was flying "without doors," a commonprocedure for pilots who are flying in warm, non-tur-bulent air space. The wind was calm, and visibilitywas unlimited as the helicopter ascended to approxi-mately 2000-ft. msl (mean sea level) on a routine south-bound police patrol. The helicopter was 3 miles southof Bell Rd. and 7th Avenue when the pilot (both pilotand observer wish to remain anonymous) sighted a"single brilliant green light" moving northbound overthe western edge of North Mountain, located at 19thAvenue and Thunderbird Rd. in Phoenix."I first thought that it was an aircraft," the pilot said."Its common to see aircraft entering the area of DeerValley Airport, even at that hour of the morning. Sincethe control tower at the airport closes at 2100 hourseach evening, the in-coming and out-bound aircraft aresupposed to clear themselves on the common air traf-fic frequency 118.4, for safety reasons."The pilot then attempted radio contact. It didnt re-spond. The fast-movinggreen lightcontinuednorth-boundand was on the helicopters right side at about 30 degreesabove the horizon at an estimated 5000 ft. msl when thepilot turned his helicopter to an ascending right-handedclimb in an attempt to identify the aircraft.The green light suddenly stopped as the helicopterbegan its ascent. The green light then began a counterclock-wise orbit around the helicopter from above. Thepilot now suspected that what he and the observer hadjust witnessed was notconsistent with any general avia-tion aircraft.Not only was the green light moving in abizarre manner, the pilot and observer noticed anotheralarming feature: the pilot and the observer both statedthat they saw no structural architecture to the light; itjust appeared to be a round, green light that never wa-vered or changed in intensity or brilliance as it pro-pelled itself through the early morning sky. The pilotestimated that the green light was twice the size of theplanet Venus if you were looking at it from the ground.Excited, the pilotbrought the helicopter into a hoverMcDonnell Douglas Model 520N Helicoptermode at about 2200 msl. The pilot now wondered ifthe light could somehow be a reflection from their in-strument panel. He turned his helicopter to place thegreen light outside of his open door by tilting the heli-copter to the right inorder to obtain a clear view of theobject outside of their rotor dish. The pilot and theobserver confirmed that they were in fact seeing thegreen light in clear, open airspace.As the pilot turned his helicopter to the right, thegreen light suddenly stopped again, then immediatelybegan a "clock-wise" orbit around the helicopter inthe same fashion as before, only now it was circling inthe opposite direction. The pilot commented to the ob-server that the light seemed to be reacting to the move-ment of theirhelicopter. The observer agreed. The lightnow continued to orbit the helicopter, the observer es-timated between 8 to 10 revolutions in all.The light suddenly stopped again, then "shot straightup through the air like a high-speed elevator; hundredsof feet in just a few seconds," the observer reported.Thepilot and observer were now witnessing somethingthat neither one of them could believe. The movement,plus maneuverability, was baffling to both of the po-lice officers. The helicopter was still in a hover, andnow facing north, when the occupants watched help-lessly as the green light "dived" very rapidly from itsposition to a south-westerly path before again chang-ing its direction to an east to west path, now at about45 degrees above the horizon.The pilot estimated that the green light was now inthe area of Yorkshire or Beardsley Road in the vicin-ity of the Interstate 17 highway. Meanwhile, the pilotcontacted another Police helicopter pilot that was ap-proaching Deer Valley Airport for landing, and askedhim if he had the green light in view. The pilot repliedthat he did not. It was then arranged that the pilot of
  • Page 14 February 2000 MUFON UFO Journalthe other helicopter would check the area when helanded. The pilot in the sky directed him to the exactarea to check after he exited his own helicopter. The:helicopter pilot on the ground informed the pilot thathe still did not see the light.Air Evacuation Helicopter # 12 was also enteringthe area to land at Deer Valley Airport from around7th Street and the Pointe, just south of ThunderbirdRoad. The pilot of that helicopter cleared himself intothe airspace and was immediately contacted by thepolice pilot and asked if he saw the green light maneu-vering northwest of the I-17 Interstate. The pilot of theevacuation helicopter replied that he did not.When the evacuation helicopter was in the vicinityof the Deer Valley Airport,the police pilotagain askedhim if he could see the green light, and the evacuationpilot was directed to the exact area of the sighting.The evacuation pilot replied that he just could not seethe green light. It is interesting to note that the greenlight was still moving in all directions over a very popu-ated area, and over Interstate,1, a busy highway.As the pilot and observer continued to watch thelight, the pilot then contacted the Phoenix Sky HarborTower and asked if they had "painted" the green lighton radar. The operator replied that he had the tran-sponder return and the primary target (police helicop-ter) on his screen, but nothing else. FAA ApproachControl was also notified, and replied that they alsohad the helicopter on radar, but the green light was notshowing up on their radar track either. As the pilot andobserver watched the green light move east to west,then north to south, they then were dispatched to a calland had to depart the area. When they returned to thearea later that night, the UFO was gone. The estimatedduration of the event was 10 to 12 minutes.How did this story break?Some unknown person or agency submitted an au-dio tape of the pilots actual conversation with a sec-ond, unidentified source (i.e. tower or other aircraft)to a local radio station, KFYI. The station then playedthe edited clip on their morning newscast a couple ofdays after the incident. By Oct. 16, the story was cir-culating on numerous web-sites on the Internet. Thefollowing week a local television station dida story onthe incident without interviewing the witnesses. I firstspoke to the pilot on Oct. 16, and he then agreed to beinterviewed. Two weeks later I interviewed the ob-server. MUFON was the only investigative UFO orga-nization to interviewthe police officers. Thepilotlaterinformed me that they were only comfortable withspeaking to MUFON.Pilots backgroundThe pilot of the police helicopter has extensive fly-ing experience in both civilianand military circles. Heinformed me that he has a total of 2,300 hours of flighttime in the helicopter that was involved in this inci-dent. He also advised me that he has had over 600hoursof fixed wing flight time and 4000 hours of militaryaircraft experience. After interviewing the pilot andthe observer, I contacted Phoenix Police Public Infor-mation Officer Sgt. Jeff Halstead, who confirmed thatthe UFO sighting did occur, and that he did speak tothe officers involved in the incident. Jeff also gave mepermission to talk to the witnesses.I then contacted radio station KFYI, the stationthathad played the audio clip of the pilot talking to theunidentified party about what he and his observer hadjust witnessed. The station eventually told me that thetape had been given to Sgt. Halstead. I then contactedJeff and received a copy of that tape. Here is the tran-script of that tape:Pilot: "We saw it come over the mountain, NorthMountain, right around (sounds like Turf) Paradise,and it went right down the right-hand side. Id say itwas, like, about 3000 feet-extremely difficult tojudgealtitude. I made a turn up and into it. Thought it was anaircraft or (unreadable) with no lights on it. It maneu-vered around us, circled around us, went straight up,straight down, east, west; it did a variety of things."Second voice: "Thats pretty weird."Pilot: "Yeah it was."Second voice: "Well, given your second occupa-tion you should be quite familiarwith that kind of stuff,huh."Pilot: "Well, Ive seen St. Elmos Fire many, manytimes, you know; obviously this was not St. ElmosFire. It was really amazing to both of us." (End ofscript.)I attempted to make contact with the tower operatoron duty that night, but found out later that he did notwant to talk to anyone about this incident. In talkingtothe Approach Control Center for Sky Harbor Airport,I was transferred to the FAA.I requested that the audio tape from frequency 118.4and frequency 118.7 be checked and listened to sothatI could verify the conversations reported by the wit-nesses. I was told that I would have to use a Freedomof Information Act request to receive informationfromfrequency 118.7 (Sky Harbor Tower), while frequency118.4 (Deer Valley Airport) could be checked. Thenext day the FAA notified me that there was nothingon the audio tape ftom Oct. 12 at the time the incidentwas reported! I was perplexed by this answer. Did theFAA actually check the tape from frequency 118.4, ordid they simply wish not to tell me that the conversa-tion had occurred?Questions not answeredJust what did these two Phoenix police officers see
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 15in the early morning sky of Oct. 12, 1999? We canrule out natural phenomena such as a meteor or bolide.They just cant maneuver with such skill and preci-sion as this light or object did. Did the Marines testsome new weapon on the unsuspecting citizens ofPhoenix? The pilot of the helicopter told me that anurban assault trainingexercise was conducted that weekin Phoenix. He said that he even talked to a Marinepilot on the radio and saw them fly frequently over thecity in formations of 3 and 4 helicopters at low alti-tudes.I contacted Williams Gateway Airport, which usedto house trainingoperations for fighter aircraft, but nowruns on just a small crew of aviation personnel. Anemployee of the airport told me that the Marines werelocated there in October conducting training exercises,and that they were using both air and ground support,including Cobra and Chinook helicopters. Unfortu-nately, there is absolutely no evidence that an experi-mental craft was being used or tested that week, eventhough it is an intriguing theory. It is hard to believethat any secret testing by the military would be doneso near and around a very large populace.Were there any electromagnetic effects to the heli-copter during the event? Both pilot and observer em-phatically stated that the instruments and mechanicaloperation of the helicopter were not affected in anyway during or after the UFO sighting.Why didnt the other helicopters in the area see thestrange green light? When I asked the pilot this ques-tion he told me that the helicopter landing pads havesuch bright lights illuminating the area that it wouldbe very easy for them not to have seen the green light.When the police helicopter landed, it is most likelythat it landed on the east pad. The pilot would havehad to exit his helicopter and turn almost completelyaround to view the green light. The green light wasmoving in the northwest when the other helicopterlanded.Was the Forward Looking Infrared System (FLIR)in use? The pilot told me that the FLIR was not in usebecause of the fact that "I could not raise the FLIRhigh enough to hit it with my light, due to the almostconstant 45 degree angle itwas moving in." The videorecorder was not powered on, but again the pilot statedthat the light was always above them, even when cir-cling the helicopter.So what are we left with?A light in the sky, movingat high speed, then stopping, starting up again, circling,and maneuvering as though it were intelligently con-trolled, apparently reacting to the movements of thehelicopter. In a sense, showing off to its audience. Novapor trail, no obvious propulsion system, and no ap-parent structure. Unfortunately, there were no groundwitnesses to support the pilots testimony,or none thathave come forth.Could this be a hoax? You must take into accountthe testimony of the two police officers. Would theyeach risk their reputations and careers to report suchan incident? Policemen are often ridiculed beyondbelief for reporting such incidents.It is highlyunlikelythat they would concoct such a story. Remember, theywish to remain anonymous, yet they risked so much totell their story.One of the most important aspects of this case is asimple one. If you assume that this light or object hadto put out an extreme amount of energy to move in itsstrange, erratic manner, then we should assume that itwould have been detected on the radar screens. That isunless some type ofstealth technology was utilized. Inthat case we might never discover the origin of thislight or object. It will most likely remain an unknown,just as the thousandsof other UFO reports and sightingshave been classified throughout the history of investi-gative Ufology.I will conclude my report with this statement by thepilot: "I feel confident that, based on approximately3000 hours of civilian flying experience, combined withapproximately 4000 hours of current military flighttime, that this object was not another aircraft. I basemy conclusion on my unobstructed observations of itsrapid heading, altitude changes, and aggressive ma-neuvering in relation to my aircraft."Police helicopter case report reviewBy Bob SylvesterState Director, MUFON Arizona1) All appropriate sighting forms are completelyfilled out and included.2) Witnesses (pilot and observer) were interviewedover the phone (theywould only agree to this method),and afterwards reviewed all forms and narrative forcorrectness. They then signed and returned same.3) Included with the this report is an audio record-ing of the pilots conversation with another aircraftduring the sighting.This was recorded by an unnamedindividual on the ground whowas listeningon his scan-ner at the time. Thisrecording was what kicked off thewhole investigation. The audio quality is poor, butunderstandable.4)Investigator Jim Kelly completed excellent fol-low-up with the FAA, Sky Harbor Approach Control,NORAD, Boeing -Longbow/Apache Proving Grounds,Phoenix Police Department,Deer ValleyAirport, LukeAir Force Base, and Williams Gateway Airport. Me-teorological and astronomical data for the evening inquestion was also examined. Of all the sources ques-(Continued on Page 16)
  • Page 16 February 2000 MUFON UFO JournalFilers FilesGeorgia shuttle viewer sees UFOWAYCROSS —Dan Coble writes: "I live about anhour north of Jacksonville, FL. During Shuttle mis-sions we often hear the sonic boom of the shuttle de-celerating for its approach toNASA. Most of the timewhen the landing is at night we go outside to try to geta glimpse of the shuttle reentering."On Dec. 27, 1999, my family and I were outsidelooking for the shuttle to reenter. My daughter and Isaw a very bright light at high altitude traveling east.It was too far north to be the shuttle. As a pilot, Imused to seeing commercial and military aircraft at vari-ous altitudes, satellites passing overhead, and theshuttle. The craft was traveling on a parallel coursePolice helicopter case review...(Continued from Page 15)tioned, only the Phoenix Police Department acknowl-edged that the incident occurred.5) Points on which pilot and observer agree:a) A bright green point light source without appar-ent structure approached them from the south at 1-3thousand feet above them.b) The object would not respond to radio hailingonstandard air frequency 118.4 Mhz. c) The light moved in a high speed, highly erratic,and non-aerodynamic manner.d) The lights movements seemed to be reacting tothe helicopters movements as if itwere aware of them.6) Points on which the pilot and observer dontagree:a) Pilot says that light was still performing strangemovements when the helicopter was called away toanother scene. Observer says the light seemed to justdisappear.b) Pilot says that the light approached to within 3-4nautical miles of the helicopter. Observer thought lightapproached to within 1/2 to 1mile.c) Pilot thought the lights size appeared to be 2times the size of Venus. Observer thought thatthe lightappeared to be the size of a compact car.Reviewers Conclusion:This case report should be classified "Com-plete." No further action is planned at this time.Both witnesses were highly credible, reliable, andtrained to make observations. The investigator wasvery thorough and should he commended for hiswork on what I consider a very important case.with what would have been the approach corridor ofthe shuttle over the Gulf of Mexico, and was visible atthe precise time of the shuttles return."We watched as the craft traveled almost out of sightto our east, then it made a sharp turn to the north, ac-celerated, climbed to a very high altitudeat high speed.The shuttle would have turned south. It was immedi-ately followed by high altitude aircraft, I assume weremilitary. Their speed wasmuch greater than commercialjet traffic."We watched as military air-craft converged from the northand from the south. I assumefrom the altitude the UFO atthat time there was no way theycould have caught it. It zippeda distance of a 100milesin theblink of an eye. My wife wasable to follow it until it ap-peared to slow and continuenorth. The craft was abouthalfthe size and brightness whenGeorge Filerwe first saw it, leading me to guess that this UFO hadclimbed to an extremely high altitude."There seems to be a lot of UFO activity duringnighttime shuttle launches and landings. I suggestpeople should spend some time looking up." Thanksto Dan Coble, tmray@accessatc.net.Missing time in New Jersey groceryGLASSBORO — "My husband and I had a strangeexperience just before Christmas. On Saturday we re-ceived a call from our son who called at 5:10 p.m. andtalked for a few minutes. We left the house to go gro-cery shopping at 5:20 p.m. It takes about 9 minutes toget to the Shoprite grocery store."We entered the store at about 5:30 p.m. and didour usual shopping. At one point I heard two menbehind the meat counter talking about UFOs. Just be-fore we checked out I bought ice cream. We pulled thecarts to the checkout counter, and I started putting thegroceries on the conveyor belt. When I put the icecream on the belt it spilled over. Strangely, the icecream had melted. We were surprised that it had hap-pened, because we had picked it up last. The cashiertold me to get another one, so I did."We took the groceries to the truck and loaded thegroceries in it. A friend pulled up in his car and wetalked for about 15 minutes and then we left. It was(Continued on Page 22)
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 17MOGUL Flight 4?Not Enough foilto go aroundBy Neil Morris & Ron RegehrRoswell Photograph Interpretation TeamThe 1995 United States Air Force report, "Roswell-Case Closed," gives great play to the alleged "MO-GUL" high-altitude balloon flights conducted fromAlamogordo, NM, in the summer of 1947 as being thesource of the Roswell debris.The fact thatNew York University Professor CharlesMoore, their key witness, states that "there never wereany Project MOGUL balloon trains launched fromAlamogordo in 1947" seems not to deter the Air Forcein their quest to explain away the Roswell debris asoriginating from a MOGUL launch. In particular, theAir Force designates in their report Flight #4 as theprobable cause of the debris found on the Foster Ranch.However, simple calculations and reasonable as-sumptions cause us to reach the conclusion that thereis insufficient quantity of physical materialavailablein Flight 4, or any other balloon launched in 1947 forthat matter, to produce the extent of debris describedby various witnesses to the Roswell event.NYU Flight 4 has no official record in the flightlog, and is known about only by inferencefrom a per-sonal diary kept by one of the members of the researchteam, Thomas Crary. The flight number and numberof balloons used is not given, and onlyminimaldetailsof the "train" makeup are listed in another portion ofthe USAF report. According to Crarys log, the origi-nal planned launch was scrubbed because of cloudcover, and instead a "service flight" to test systemswas launched. Ostensibly this service flight was as-signed the moniker "Flight 4."What does the USAF claim was found? They claimthe debris was from an ML307C radar reflector andportions of a neoprene balloon. ML307C was a flimsyarray ofpaper-backed foil and lightweightwoodensticksupports held together by yards of string and tape. Sur-viving research team member Moore provided the in-formation used by the AF in the preparation of their1995 report, based on Moores memories of the time.Moore believed two or three ML307C radar reflec-tors were used on Flight 4. Therefore, we conserva-tively assume three were used. TheML307C basic con-figuration was of three corner reflectors, each con-structed from three triangularsections having 24-inchsides. The total amount of foil for each ML307C canthen be calculated as 18 square feet. Flight 4 thereforehad three times this amount, or 54 square feet, as itallegedly carried three ML307Cs.How large was the debris field? Mac Brazel, in theJuly 9 issue-of .the Roswell Daily Record, claims thedebris field was approximately 200 yards in diameter.But it must be noted that many people believe this in-terview was conducted after Mac had been "coached"by U.S. government officials, hence the smaller re-ported size. In his visit to radio station KGFL, imme-diately after his visit to the Roswell Daily Record, hesaid as much to KGFLreporter/announcerFrank Joyce.Maj. Jesse Marcel, another witness, said the debrisfieldwas 3/4 mile long by 200 to 300 feet wide. Otherwitnesses includeBill Brazel Jr. (son of Mac Brazel)and Bud Payne (who lived on a nearby ranch). Theyindependently took investigators to the debris field,each from his own home location adjoining the FosterRanch. Brazel and Payne came to the site from oppo-site directions. Each stopped at what would have beenthe start of "their" end of the debris field.These points, when checked, were approximately3/4 of a mile apart, a good indication Maj. Marcelsfirst report was accurate, whereas Mac Brazels esti-mated size of the debris field was roughly 1/3 thatgivenby Maj. Marcel, Brazel Jr., or Payne. A minimum foildensity is required to produce the visual effect of a"defined" debris field as provided by the witnesses.This minimum foil density level must have beenreached to produce the descriptions given.Our calculations show we would have many piecesof foil half the size of a postal card. Each piece wouldoccupy a space biggerthanmost peoples living rooms-15 by 15 feet square. Worse yet, if one uses Maj.Marcels and Paynes description, these spaces occu-pied by foil debris would be bigger than a 2-car ga-rage!Given the amount of foil contained in three ML307Cradar reflectors-54 square feet, or if a single piece, itwould measure 6 by 9 feet-can we produce the den-sity reported by the witnesses? Can we make it lookcluttered with that small amount of material? Do youbelieve it would be so cluttered that Brazels sheepwould refuse to cross the field?Further complicating the issue are the eyewitnessaccounts of "clumps" of debris. Remember, witnessesstate the foil was of various sizes, many larger thanour uniform test pieces. We could achieve this effect(Continued on Page 18)
  • Page 18 February 2000 MUFON UFO JournalChina experiencing rashof UFO sightingsThe past few months have been a boom time forUFO enthusiasts in China. Just before the start of theyear 2000, there were dozens of sightings. Strange shin-ing objects were observed scooting through the skybyhundreds of people, from former airport workers tocollege deans."Warning Wuhan! Warning Dalian! WarningXian!Jiangsu! Beijing! Shanghai!" exulted the JiangsuU.F.O. Research Societys Web site. "Frequent UFOvisits have enveloped all of China." Buoyed in part bythe sightings, the ranks of the research societies inmajor Chinese cities devoted to unidentified flyingobjects have grown to more than 40,000 members.More important still, the normally conservative of-ficial news mediahavebeen lavishingattention on UFOnews, with documentaries on the main governmenttelevision station, CCTV-1, and credulous newspaperarticles."The level of interest and acceptance is definitelyrising," said Sun Shili, a retired Foreign Ministry offi-cial who is president of the Beijing UFO ResearchSociety. "Because of the frequent sightings recently inBeijing, Shanghai, and other cities that have had manywitnesses, even the media-which are very serious andcareful-have been paying attention."Sun is MUFONs representative for China and aNot enough foil...(Continued,from Page 17)in our examples only by having a number of piecessomewhat larger, which would cause our debris fieldto be less defined; i.e., larger and larger spaces occu-pied by smaller and smaller pieces of foil. Recall weonly have 54 square feet of material to work with, notan iota more-thats all the foil there is!So if we assign some of the small pieces to make upour larger pieces this meanswe have a few large areaswith no debris at all!! Why? Because we had to usethose smaller pieces from those areas to make up thebigger pieces. The more and larger the concentrationon one place the thinner the distribution must be inothers. Conclusion: One must concede either the wit-nesses were wrong in theirjudgment of the size of thedebris field or the debris originated from somethingother than the 54square feet offoil in the three ML307Cradar reflectors, as proclaimed by the USAF.consultant in economics.Of course, in many ways itwould seem a most awk-ward time for fleets of extraterrestrials to be buzzingChina, what with the governmentjailing leaders of theFalun Gong spiritual movementand a few other groupsalso associated with the traditional Chinese practiceof qigong exercises, for "superstitious" and "anti-sci-entific" behavior.But, so far at least, the*government has decided totolerate the UFO craze, even if it does not financiallysupport it.Wildlypopular andpolitically unthreatening,UFO research is the kind of unorthodox pursuit that isallowed in China today, and government officials andcitizens alike tend to view UFO research as science.Officials of UFO societies are determinedto keep itthat way. "The study of UFOs is fundamentally differ-ent from other things like Falun Gong and qigong,which have come under criticism lately," said Jin Fan,an engineer who heads the Dalian UFO Research So-ciety in northeast China. "This is a purely scientificfield, whereas Falun Gong deals with cults and super-stition."Indeed, a large portion of Chinas UFO enthusiastsare scientists and engineers, not the sci-fi buffs orapocalyptic stargazers who are the stereotype in theUnited States. Many of Chinas UFO research societ-ies require a college degree andpublished research formembership. The Chinese Air Force attends impor-tant UFO meetings."If our conditions for membership werent so strict,wed have millions of members by now," said Sun, aforeign trade expert and cheerful intellectualwho sawa UFO nearly 30 years ago. "It was extremely bright,"he recalls, "and not very big. At the time I thought itwas a probe sent by the Soviet revisionists."In his cluttered Beijing study, he proudly displaysold photographs of himself interpreting for ChairmanMao, and a more recent vintage Alien Collection setcontaining models of a Nordic alien and of those re-portedly found in Roswell, N.M., for example.Applauding the Chinese governments "enlightenedand practical attitude," Sun said, "In the U.S., schol-ars investigating this are under pressure and have beenderided. But in China the academic discussion is quitefree, so in this area American academics are quite jeal-ous of us."Sun has atheory concerning the increase insightingsin China. "Its very possible that relatively rapid de-velopment attracts investigationsby flying saucers, andhere in China were becoming more developed," hesaid. "Generally, well-developed areas likethe UnitedStates have more sightings."
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 19Morphing not due to reflectionsIn your December issue, Mr. Jeff Sainio, aphotoanalyst for MUFON, expressed his surprise withour July 1999 article, "Two Photo Events May InvolveSame Object." Overall, Mr. Sainio concludes that themorphing noted in our second set of photos was mostlikely caused by reflections from an airplane Mr. Fisherobserved during the May 3rd incident. We feel thatMr. Sainios theory about reflections causing morphingmay be possible in some isolated observations. How-ever, we believe his use of it to explain our experienceis seriously flawed. Here are the reasons why:Mr. Fishers descriptionof that "plane"when viewedthrough binoculars was quite clear. Our article states..."Strangely, the plane was dark in color, totally si-lent, and no flashing lights, markings, motor/propelleror cockpit were visible." Dark planes do not reflectlight well (if anything they absorb it), there were nowindows to cause reflections,and Mr. Fishers descrip-tion clearly shows that it was not your typical airplane.Mr. Sainiomentionsthat during the video of theplanehephotographed that"A contrail was evident; with higherair temperature, lower altitude,or aprop plane, acontrailwould easily be absent." Mr. Fisher saw quite a bit ofdetail through his binoculars, and he could clearly seethat the "plane" had no motor/propeller.The similarity of photographing a "3-ball" shapedobject in incident 1 and a "3-ball" shaped object dur-ing incident 2 argues against reflection. The oddsagainst this morphological similarity occurring twiceare too high.Mr. Sainionever contacted us to examine the origi-nal pictures, nor does he mention visiting the web siteaddress in our article,which shows the photos in color,with more detail, as well as their computer enhance-ments. As aphotoanalyst,we would have expected Mr.Sainio to do more thanjust a cursory evaluation of thephotographic evidence, including makingthe same duediligence effort with hisphotos as we did, prior tojump-ing to conclusions.In the second incident, we mentioned that a fifthpicture was taken 1 second after the fourth frame wasmade. The object was no longer present in that 5thprint. If the reflection had ended just before the fifthframe was made the "plane" (object) would still bepresent and identifiable in the last photo of that se-quence. It was not... it had blinked out. In addition,Mr. Fisher could no longer see the "plane" in his bin-oculars after it quickly disappeared from view. If a re-flection had been present, Mr. Fisher would have seenthe "plane" when the reflection ended. He did not.Overall, we feel the above points make a convinc-ing argument that reflections from an airplane werenot responsible for the morphing phenomenon we ob-served during the May 3 incident.We invite Mr. Sainioto evaluate our photos.Nicholas F. Schmidt, Ph.D.Gregg FisherApparent size is importantThe December 1999 Journal arrived yesterday. Itupholds your fine standards and makes us proud to bemembers of MUFON.May I point out something I noticed particularly intheJournal this time?There were several fine accountsof recent sightings which were of high interest and wellwritten. However, in some of them there was no men-tion of "apparent size" of the skyborne object(s) asviewed by the witness.Like many of your readers, I am a visual person andtend to try to "see" in my inner eye what I am reading,from the point of view of UFO witnesses. When noestimate of apparent size is given, it is sorely missed.Without it, it is almost impossible to visualize whatthe witness was seeing. The general appearance of the"UFO" can be determined, but the size that it appearedto the witness is often of prime importance in under-standing what was seen.When I read the December 1999 Journal, it hap-pened that I was in the midst of updating my catalogof published works. From March 1973 to September1983 I wrote a column entitled "California. Report"for Skylook and, later, the MUFON UFOJournal whenSkylooks name was changed. Occasionally the workof other skilled investigators would be presented inmy column. I happened upon a "California Report"column in the July 1979 issue, guest-written by P.Wayne Laporte entitled,"UFOs; and Apparent Size."For his article, Wayne contributed an excellent "Ap-parent Size Chart." As Wayne pointed out, helpingthewitness to estimate the apparent size of the object(s) isuseful in visualizing what the witness experienced. Itis often useful in determining the true size of the ob-ject and its distance away from the observer by trian-gulation, provided certain other data are also available.I hope that this apparent size chart, and perhapsWaynes article as well, can be re-printed in an up-coming issue of the Journal.Ann Druffel(Editor in Chief note: This article is foundon pages225-228 in the MUFON Field Investigators Manual)
  • Page 20 February 2000 MUFON UFO JournalPerspectiveOn the January MUFON UFO JournalBy Richard H. HallAs we enter Y2K (not yet a new millennium;seeWalt Webbs column), it isgood to see some highqual-ity investigation and scientific work being done. Eventhe tests done on the dubious"Starchild skull" constitutegood science! Whether or notthey are a waste of resourcesis another question.The Missouri investigatorshave done very good work onthe magnetic particles found inthe crop circle that was formedlast July. A broader report onthe case would be helpful, tell-ing us a little more about thecircumstances of the appear-ance and discovery of thecircle and its description.Richard HallWere there any UFO sightings at that time? Have hoaxpossibilities been examined?I am skeptical about assuming a link between cropcircles (especially the geometrically elaborate Britishkind) and UFOs. But in many past cases visibly ob-served UFOs have left circular impressions or traceson the ground, so that if a link can be established in agiven case and physical evidence is present, it couldprove to be very important.Kudos to JoAnne Scarpelliniand Gary P. Hart.With regard to the Nova Scotia sightings reportedso well by Eugene H. Prison, I am curious to knowwhether that town name, Reserve Mines, has mineral-ogical significance.If so, that might add some evidenceto a correlation noted for 40 or more years betweenUFO sightings and certain types of mines and miner-als. Brazilianinvestigators back in the 1950s noted sucha pattern there, and so have others around the world.I dont know how many readers will fully appreci-ate it, but Rose Hargroves effort to define a Post Ab-duction Syndrome (PAS) is well worthwhile. I have abackground in editingbehavioralscience literature, andthis is the language these scientists speak. In fact, I amcurrently contributing to an NIH data base that makesfrequent reference to the Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in its various ver-sions. Recognition of a discrete PAS would be impor-tant in bringing scientific attentionto abduction reports.All I can say about the "Ufology Profile" interviewwith John Schuessler is, wow! If for any reason youskipped over it, I recommend that you go back andread it. John has always been a modest, quiet guy, soit is extremely interesting to hear his views on manycontroversial issues. It looks as if the leadership ofMUFON will be in very good hands come July. Hewill need the patience of Job to deal with the stronglyheld beliefs alluded to in the article (one pertinentexample of which appears in the MUFON Forum),and I think he is ideally suited by training and tem-perament for the position.Now for a comment (or a quibble) about the re-ported honeycomb structure shown in enhancementsof the Lubbock Lights photographs, with reference tothe letter by Dr. Burleson. His comment that "specu-lation produces hypotheses to be tested" is true in onesense, but misleading in another. I base this on myformal training in scientific philosophy and method.Charles S. Peirce, a philosopher, once said somethingto this effect (quoted from memory): "One can starestupidly at phenomena, but they wont arrange them-selves in any logical order without use of imagina-tion."In this sense, "speculation (imagination)" plays animportant role in the scientificprocess. However, it isfacts thatrequire the primary focus and that determinewhat are reasonable hypotheses to explore. Specula-tion can be, and all too often is, overdone in the UFOfield without regard to facts. I agree with Dr. Burlesonthat his speculations in this case are reasonable, and Idisagree with Mr. Young that it is "simply a waste oftime." That would be true only if the hypothesis (1)was not reasonable to begin with, or (2) could not betested. I hope he is willing to consider the argumentsmade in the letter. It appears to me that some goodscience can be done in this case.Similarly, the satellite photo taken Nov. 21, 1999,showing an apparent UFO image, reported in FilersFiles, is well worth objective study to determine itsnature. Filer also reports several other startling andpotentially highly important recent UFO cases whichI hope will receivethorough investigation by MUFONand others. As a final note, the historical 1953 radar-jet interceptor case adds considerable spice, and some-one ought to videotape a deposition from the witness.I see a few internal problems with his story, but if it iseven approximately accurate it will be important tointerview him in depth.Note: Readers are certainly invited to disagree withanything I say via letters to the editor. Dialogue (pref-erably civil dialogue) also plays an important role inscience.
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 21READERSGLASSIFJEDSDR. STEVEN GREERS NEW BOOK"Extraterrestrial Contact: TheEvidence andImplications" - De-tails meeting CIA Director, New Smoking gun documents, Per-sonal ET encounters, 525 pages! Order now: Crossing Point, Inc.$ 19.95 + $4.95 s/h (USA) -1 -888-DRGREER (credit card orders),send check or credit card: P.O. Box 265, Crozet, VA 22932THE ANDREASSON LEGACYRay Fowlers latest book The Andreasson Legacy (UFOs andthe Paranormal: The startling conclusion of the AndreassonAffair), hardback (463 pages) personally autographed, is nowavailable from MUFON for $24.95, P&H included. Send or-ders with check, postal money order, or cash to MUFON, 103Oldtowne Rd. Seguin, Texas 78155. (For orders in U.S.A. only)UFO SPECIALTIESUFO Specialties, P.O. Box 7477, Clearwater, FL33758.Telephone:(727) 376-9227, 24 hr. fax (727) 375-0929. Conferences, sightingareas, trips, news, internet reports, free merchandise catalog, recentpublications.UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEThe UFO Newsclipping Service willkeep you informed of allthe latest United States and World-wide UFO reports (i.e., littleknown photographic cases,close encountersandlanding reports,occupant cases) and all other UFO reports, many of which arecarried only in small town and foreign newspapers.Our UFO Newsclipping Service issues are 20-page monthlyreports, reproduced by photo-offset, containing the latest UnitedStates and Canadian UFO newsclippings, with our foreign sec-tion carryingthe latest British, Australian, New Zealand and otherforeign press reports. Also included is a 3-5 page section of"Fortean" clippings (i.e., Bigfoot and other "monster" reports).Let us keep you informed of the latest happenings in the UFOand Fortean fields.For subscription information and sample pages from our ser-vice, write today to:UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICE#2 Caney Valley DrivePlumerville, Arkansas 72127-8725ABDUCTED! The Story of the Intruderscontinues...By Debbie Jordan & Kathy Mitchellwith introduc-tion by Budd Hopkins. If you liked Mr. Hopkinsbook Intruders, here are the personal experiencesof DebbieJordan and her sister Kathy Mitchell.268pages, hardback for $10 plus $2. P&H fromMUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, TX 78155FLYING SAUCER DIGESTPublished since 1967, FSD is your source for no-nonsense cover-age of the UFO scene. Each quarterly issue contains recent UFOreports, thoughtful speculative articles as well as commentary andmedia reviews. Four issues for only $10.00 from: FSD, 377 RaceSt., Berea,OH44017.The Blue ManIs Coming!Factual Accounts fromthe "Inside"By Dr. J.A. ResnickTHEEXCYLESMia Adams true story about her contacts with ETs & romancewith intelligence agent. Included is the agents report outliningthe agendas of alien confederations on Earth & intelligence agen-cies network created to deal with them. Send $16.95 + $2.95 s/hto: Excelta Publishing,P.O. Box 4530, Ft. Lauderdale, FL33338.(Credit Card orders - Toll Free 1 -800-247-6553, $ 16.95 + $3.95s/h)CASH-LANDRUM UFO INCIDENTThree Texans are injured during an encounter with a UFO andMilitary Helicopters by John F. Schuessler, 323 page sottcoverbook now availablefrom MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin,TX 78155 for $19.95 plus $2 for postage and handling.BARGAIN PRICE ONSYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS$5 savings on 1991 through 1999 symposium proceedings. See"Directors Message" in this issue of MUFON UFOJournaJ fordetails. Here is your opportunity to add to your UFO Libraryand save $5 on each of the above symposium proceedings.YOUR AD HEREReach more than 4,000 readers and fellow ufologists. Promoteyour personal publications, products, research projects, local meet-ings or pet peeves here. Fifty words or less only $20 per issue.Add $10 for boxand bold heading. Send ad copy and check, madeout to MUFON, to Walt Andrus, MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, TX 78155-4099. Must be MUFON member or MUFONUFO Journal subscriber to advertise.
  • Page 22 February 2000 MUFON UFO JournalMarch 2000Bright Planets (Evening Sky):Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn may still be seen simul-taneously in the western early evening sky. Mars(magnitude 1.4), in Pisces, remains low in the Wand sets soon after 8 p.m.Above Mars is bright Jupiter (-2.1) and next dim-mer Saturn (0.3), both in Aries. The former planetsets shortly after 9p.m. in mid-month, followed some40 minutes later by Saturn. The 3-day-old lunar cres-cent joins the planet pair on March 9.Bright Planets (Morning Sky):Venus (-3.9) rises only about an hour before theSun early in the month, being visible briefly verylow in the ESE. After that, ourbrilliant neighbor dis-appears into the solar glare.Moon Phases:New moon—March 6First quarter—March 13Full moon—March 19Last quarter—March 27€OThe Stars:This month during mid-evening hours the brightconstellations of winter are sliding into the W, whilethe patterns of spring arrive on the celestial scene inthe E. Leo the Lion, Virgo the Maiden, and Bootesthe Herdsman all announce springs return in theNorthern Hemisphere.Look high in the S for a very dim patch of lightSE of the Twin Stars Pollux and Castor. With opti-cal aid, the patch is resolved into a "flying wedge"of faint stars called the Beehive or Praesepe (pre-seel-pee) in Cancer the Crab. Praesepe ("manger")reminded the ancient Greeks and Arabs of a mangerat which two donkeys (the two brighter stars aboveand below the cluster) were feeding.High in the NE the Big Dipper rums its bowl al-most upside down as it revolves about the celestialpole.Filers Files...(Continued from Page 16)only about 25 degrees and we were freezing so wedidnt talk long. We went straight home, and when Igot into the house I looked at the time, and I justcouldnt believe it. It was 11 p.m. How could 5 hourshave passed in an hour? It was impossible,no waywere we in that store for 5 hours."We checked all our watches, times,answeringma-chine, and Shoprite surveillance cameras. There is noexplanation." Thanks to Evelyn G.Giant flying triangle in BritainGLOUSCESTERSHIRE— Dave Cosnette writes,"On Dec. 7, 1999, at 6.30 a.m. I saw an incrediblylarge craft near my house while taking the dog for awalk. I first spotted a large white light that had manydifferent colors moving inside of it. On closer inspec-tion I noticed a star formation behind the craft wasmoving with it. The lights at the back were like a tri-angle, but flying backwards. The point was at the rearand a large white light was at the front. Others alsosaw it. I ran back home to get my brother,and webothsaw the craft was just moving over a hill, four milesaway. It was still three inches wide at that distance.Another witness said he couldnt believe how big itwas and that he couldnt hear anv noise.".CALENDARMarch 5-11- 9th AnnualInternational UFO Congress,Convention Film Festival & EBE Awardsto be held atRiver Palms Resort, Laughlin, Nevada. For informa-tion contact International UFO Congress, 9975Wadsworth Pkwy. PMB #K2-504, Westminster, CO80021 Phone: (303) 543-9443, FAX (303) 543-8667.April 7-9- 12th Annual Ozark UFOConference,Innof the Ozarks, Eureka Springs, AR. For informationcall 501-354-2558 or email ozarkufo@webtv.netMay 6- TheGreat Mid-Atlantic MUFONSymposiumat Holiday Inn, College Park, Maryland.For furtherinformation contact Bruce Maccabee atbrumac@compuserve.comJune 22-25- The21stRocky Mountain UFO Confer-ence at University of Wyoming, Laramie,WY.July 14-16 - MUFON 2000 International UFO Sym-posium at SheratonWest Port Inn, St. Louis, Mo. SeeDirectors Message for details.September 23-24 - 37thAnnual NationalUFO Confer-ence Corpus Christi, Texas. Hosted by Corpus ChristiMUFON. Contact Doris Upchurch at (361) 937-2381.
  • MUFON UFO Journal February 2000 Page 23Directors Message...(continued from page 24)Michigan-MUFON will host the 2003 Symposiumin Dearborn, MI, and MUFON-Rhode Island will hostthe 2005 Symposium in Providence.Bids are now open for hosting the symposium for2004 (Western Region). Please mail your written bidsto me in Seguin,TX, delineating your facilities andqualifications for hosting a symposium.Reduced prices for Symposium ProceedingsIf you have been tryingto add a majority of the pastyears symposium proceedings to your library, here isthe opportunity you have been waiting for. Due to thefact that we are moving the MUFON headquarters tothe Denver, CO, area, we have elected to sell the mostrecent proceedings at a five-dollar discount to reducethe cost of shipping the stock to Denver.Symposium proceedings from the years 1991through 1994 will now sell for $15, and those from1995 through 1999 will be $20. The shippingand han-dling charges will remain the same as on the MUFONPublication List: the first book in the U.S.A. is $1.75,and each additional book is one dollar. For foreign or-ders the first book is $2.75, and each additional bookis $2.00. This special price has been extended to May1, 2000 due to popular demand. Order now while it isfresh in your mind.MUFON Journal an Unprecedented ValueMUFON is very concerned about the gradual de-crease in the number of Journals mailed each monthover the past few years. We are fully cognizant thatthe web sites and e-mail communicationsare our mostserious competition, as with many other printpublica-tions, but there is much material in the Journal that isnot found on the Internet.We took a membership survey in 1997 in whichour members evaluated both the MUFON UFO Jour-nal and the organization itself. Based on this survey,many changes were made.The positive aspects of this survey are directlymea-sured in the reduced percentages of lost membershipssince July 1998. The Board of Directors is not satis-fied with the loss of any subscribers, however, sinceMUFON at one point had more than 5,000 members.When you receive the reminder to renew your sub-scription, stop to seriously consider the value you arereceiving each month in documented UFO informa-tion. Dwight Connelly, Editor and WaltAndrus, Edi-tor in Chief, are bringing you the finest UFO monthlyorganization magazine in the world. Personallyinviteyour friends and relatives to subscribe to the MUFONUFO Journal, or give them a gift subscription.Funds Needed for MUFON UFO MuseumIn 1994, when the Bigelow Foundationwas provid-ing financial help to all three members of the UFOResearch Coalition, MUFON obligated itself to ini-tiate specific new programs that we could not havefinanced otherwise. One of these was the MUFONUFO INFORMATION CENTER AND MUSEUMlocated in an office complex on the main north-southhighway Bypass 123 through Seguin, TX. This is aseparate facility only a few blocks from MUFONsbusiness office at 103 Oldtowne Road.The fundamental purpose of the "UFO InformationCenter" was public education for the general publicand media, as well as UFO enthusiasts. It is the onlyUFO museum in the United States east of Roswell,NM. MUFON members from coast to coast and bor-der to border have visited the museum, including visi-tors from eight different countries. We do not chargeadmission, but solicit donations only.Obviously, the donations do not cover the monthlyrent of $350 for the 500-square-foot facility.After the museum was assembled in 1994, BobBigelow abruptlywithdrewhis financial support inJuly1995, leavingMUFON with an additionalexpenditurethat exceeds our annual budget.Over the years MUFON has received donationsthatare I.R.S. tax deductible for the donor in their annualincome tax report. These gifts are very much appreci-ated; however, they are far from adequateto cover theannual rent of $4200 for the museum. This is the sec-ond time that we have solicited funds for this project,because the need still exists. Since income tax time isapproaching, this is an opportune time to secure a taxdeduction on your 1999 return. We thank those whowere so thoughtful last year.Those of you who have visited our museum recog-nize its importance and the uniquedisplays. We havehad photographs in the MUFON UFO Journal for thoseof you who havent had the privilege of seeing thisone-of-a-kind display. The MUFON office acknowl-edges all donations or gifts of any size with a letterthat you can attach to your income tax statement.If you want to see our UFO InformationCenter andMuseum continue to share its displays, exhibits, andphotographs with people interested in learning moreabout the UFO phenomenon, this is youropportunityto step forward and make a generous gift consistentwith your financial status. May we thank you in ad-vance for your consideration?
  • Page 24 February 2000 MUFON UFO JournalDIRECTORS MESSAGE^^"^i^s^NEWS FROM AROUND THE NETWORKNew OfficersRichard J. Dickison,B.S., (Kapolei) has been pro-moted to State Director for Hawaii, replacing MarcViglielmo, who moved to the mainland. "Rick" is aretired U. S. Air Force major who joined MUFON in1986. New State Section Directors are Dave R. Keel,M.A., Director of Heart of Texas Police Academy, forthe seven contiguous counties surrounding Waco, TX;William H. Tolson, Jr. (El Paso, TX) for El Paso andHudspeth Counties, TX; and Co-State Section Direc-tors Elaine Douglass andRonald S. Regehr (Moab)for four counties in Southeast Utah. Elaine isthe formerState Director for the District of Columbia.Seven Pass Field Investigators ExamSeven Field Investigator Trainees passed the FieldInvestigators Exam this month. Congratulations toDavid Gorman (Yonkers, NY), Mary Dee Jansen(Rome,GA), Fred Clausen (Lutz, FL), David M.Brown (Norcross, GA), Charles G. Reever (Truckee,CA), Thomas M. Ginther (Alton, VA), and RalphO. Howard, Jr. (Chamblee, GA). Each of these willreceive a complimentary MUFON lapel pin.People have asked, "How can I be promoted to aField Investigator?" If Field Investigator Trainingclasses are not beingconducted inyour immediate area,you may treat your study like a correspondence course;that is, by mail. First, you must purchase the fourthedition of the 315-page, 3-ring binder MUFON FieldInvestigator s Manual, the cost of which is $25 plus$3.50 for postage and handling.After studying the manual and you feel confidentwith the procedures, please contact the MUFON head-quarters office and request the 100-question open bookexamination, which will be mailed to you. A passinggrade is 80%.Dan Wright, Deputy Director, Investigations, hascomposed a new 100-question Field InvestigatorsExam designed around the MUFON FieldInvestigator s Manual (Fourth Edition). It was intro-duced Jan, 1,2000.Kathleen Marden will continue to accept the cur-rent examination indefinitely.However, we encouragethose who have not submitted theirexam answer sheetsto do so in the near future. Both Kathleen and Iscreenedthe new test and made appropriate revisions for clarifi-cation purposes. The format still consists of multiplechoice, true-false, and "fill in the blanks."NBC-TV Program Titled "EXTRA"In preparation for "ratings month," when UFO pro-grams draw the highest ratings on television, the newsand entertainment program "EXTRA" will featureWalt Andrus in February on one of its segments.Check your TV guide for the local channel and time.In SanAntonio, TX, "EXTRA"followsthe 6p.m.newson NBC Channel 4. It was filmed in Seguin on Jan. 13.Rick Schwartz conducted the interview.St Louis UFO SymposiumThe MUFON 2000 International UFO Symposiumwill be held July 14-16, 2000, at the Sheraton WestPort Hotel (Lakeside Chalet), 191 West Port Plaza, St.Louis, MO 63146. Confirmed speakers are: John S.Carpenter; Stanton T. Friedman; Irena Scott, Ph.D;Ted Phillips;John F. Schuessler; Gerald E.Rolwes;Linda G. Corley, Ph,D.; Kevin D. Randle, Ph.D.; andStan Gordon.Room reservations may be made directly with thehotel by calling (314) 878-1500; FAX (314) 878-2837or 1-800-822-3535. Special room rates for the sympo-sium are $89 per night for a single, double, triple orquad. All reservations must be received on or beforeJune 13, 2000. Be sure to advise the hotel that you areattending the MUFON 2000 UFO Symposium to qualifyfor the special rates. Start planning your family vaca-tion now to attend the symposium and to see the manyvisitor attractions in St. Louis. (As the old song says,"See you in Saint Loueee.")Future MUFON SymposiaThe 2001 MUFON symposium will be held inIrvine,California, at the Hyatt Regency Irvine Hotel on July20-22,2001, coordinated and hosted by JanC.Harzan.The event for 2002 is scheduled for Atlanta, GA,under the directionof Walter "Tom" Sheets, GeorgiaState Director.(Continued on Page 23)