Mufon ufo journal 2005 11. november


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 2005 11. november

  1. 1. InissueThis photo was takenfrom the stern of aCarni-val cruise ship in May.The MUFON report be-gins on page 19.Animal reactions toUFO;encounters, Part 2,p. 8.UFO press, GrassRootsUFOs by Dr. MichaelSwords, Unnatural Phe-nomena^ Jerome Clark,p.:13."MUFON Forum, p. 14.Calendar, p. 22.UFO Marketplace, p.23.ColumnsDirectors Message 2Filers Files 15Ted Phillips 18Stan Friedman 20McLeods Night Sky 24November 2005No. 451$4.00Mutual UFO NetworkJOURCharles B. Moore, professor emeritus of physics at New Mexico Institute ofMining and Technology at Socorro, displays a radar reflector similar to those onballoon trains in the Project Mogul experiments. Moore was involved with theproject, which theAir Force says was responsible for debris at the Roswell crashsite. Author Nick Redfern has other ideas. The article begins on page 3.
  2. 2. November 2005 Number451MUFONUFO Journal(JSPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)Mutual UFONetworkPost Office Box 369 ,Morrison, CO 80465-0369Tel: 303-932-7709Fax: 303-932-9279International DirectorJohn F. Schuessler, M.S.Tel: 303-932-7709schuessler®mho.netEditor:Dwight Connelly,M.S.14026 RidgelawnRoadMartinsville, IL 62442Tel: (217) 382-4502mufonufojournal@ hotmail.comAdvertisingDirector:John F. Schuessler, M.S.Columnists:George Filer, M.B.A.Stanton Friedman, M.S.Gavin A. J. McLeodTed PhillipsMUFON on the Internet:http://www.mufon.comMUFON e-mail address:mufonhq@aol.comMUFON AmateurRadio Net:; 40 meters - 7.237 MHz .Saturdays, 8 AM CST or COSTDirectors MessageBy John F. SchuesslerSpecial Incentivefor NewMemberships now AvailableElaine Douglass, co-state directorfor Utah, sponsored a project during the2005 MUFON International UFOSymposium in Denver, CO, to rewardnew peoplej o i n i n gMUFON witha special gift-an audio cas-sette tape of ac-John Scliticsslertual de-classi-fied UnitedStates AirForce record-ings of a star-tling real lifeevent.This took place on the night of Oct.7. 1965, at Edwards Air Force Base inCalifornia. In this Samuel M.Sherman presentation, an F-106jet in-terceptor was scrambled to interceptluminous objects in the sky,and mili-tary personnel on the ground confirmseeing the strange flashing objects overthe Edwards runway. Run time of therecording is 54 minutes.MUFON is again offering this ex-cellent recording of actual UFOevi-dence as a gift to anyone joiningMUFON or giving a gift subscriptionto the MUFON UFO Journal. Thisoffer will run through the end of 2005,or until the supply is exhausted.Current MUFON members mayalso participate in this incentivepro-gram by giving a gift subscription tointroduce MUFON to a friend or rela-tive and receive a copy of the tape as areward for their gift. Only one tape willbe awarded per each new membership.Supplies are limited.Case Management SystemClarificationThere has been some confusionabout how to view the contents of the-MUFON Case Management System(CMS). It is not necessary to use apassword just to view the contents ofthe CMS. Simply go and click on"UFOCase Files" and then "LatestMUFONReports" and view the reports.State Directors (SD), Assistant State(Continued on page 22)Change of address and subscription/extra copies inquiries should besent to MUFON, P.O.Box 369,Morrison,CO 80465-0369.Copyright 2005 by the Mutual UFO Network. All Rights ReservedNo part of this document may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the CopyrightOwners. Permission is hereby granted to quote up to 200 words of any one article, provided the author is credited,and the statement, "Copyright 2005 by the Mutual UFO Network. PO Box 369. Morrison, CO 80465-0369" isincluded.The contents of the MUFON UFO Journal are determined by the editor,and do not necessarily reflect theofficial position of the Mutual UFO Network. Opinions expressed are solely those of the individual authors andcolumnists, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editor or staff of MUFON.The Mutual UFO Network, Inc is exempt from Federal Income Tax under Section 501 (c) (3) of the InternalRevenue Code MUFON is a publicly supported organization of the type described m Section 509 (a) (2) Donorsmay deduct contributions from their Federal Income Tax Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are alsodeductible for estate and gift purposes, provided they meet the applicable provisions of Sections 2055. 2106. and2522 of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a Texas nonprofit corporation.The MUFON UFO Journal is published monthly by the Mutual UFO Network.Inc Morrison. CO. SecondClass postage paid at Versailles. MO.Individual Membership $45/year U S.. $55 outside the U SFamily members $10 per person additionalStudent (18 years and under) $35 U S. and $45 outside the U S.Donor: $100/year. Professional-$250/year Patron. $500/yearBenefactor (LifetimeMember): $1,000First class Journal delivery (m envelopes) U.S and Canada only Si2/year additionalAir Mail Journal delivery to all other countries outside the United States $35/year additionalPostmaster Send form 3579 to advise change of address to MUFON UFO Journal. P.O.Box 369. Morrison.CO 80465-0369MUFONs mission is the scientific study of UFOs for the benefitof humanity through investigation, research, & education.
  3. 3. Redferns Roswell Body Snatchersa perplexing tale with little substancejvuuu iSNATCHERS||;:!;iNTHE::$M£iflMff LM jjjfr-:T ^ • r ^^^v ,IHE HOHBIILE lllTKflIHE DEIS] OFHE ROSWELL SIGHTNICK BEDFERNBy Gildas BourdaisA new theory on the Roswell crashhas been presented by British ufologistNick Redfem in his book Body Snatch-ers in the Desert. The Horrible Truthat the Heart of the Roswell Story.In a word, some"whistle-blowers"revealed to him that behind the "leg-end" of theRoswell UFOcrash washidden areal story of ex-periments onJapa-nese handicappedprisoners-so hor-rible that they hadto remain hiddenat all costs.Thecurious titleof thisbook will beexplained later.This new story, as strange as it looks,demands careful examination,giventhenotoriety of the author, who has writ-ten several good books on UFOs, in-cluding one on UFO crashes, CosmicCrashes. The incredible story of theUFOs That Fell to Earth (7999).2Hehas also produced many articles andconferences.Anothercomparatively recent expla-nation for the Roswell crash is that thedebris was that of a Mogol balloon.Both theories cannotbe true.Not surprisingly,a major promoterof the Mogul explanation, Karl Pflock,has already expressed strong disagree-ment-with his usual wit-in anopen let-ter entitled "Attack of the MutantMon-goloids!"I am going to plead here that thesetheories are both wrong,and that, con-sequently, the hypothesis of a UFOcrash, nearRoswell, in 1947, still holds.Roswell: a brief backgroundOn July 8, 1947, the base support-ing atomic bombers at Roswell, NM,issued a press release announcing therecovery of a "flying disk" in the area.But this spectacular discovery, in themidst of awaveof observations of theseNovember 2005Gildas Bourdaismysterious craft, wasdenied in the eveningby Gen.Ramey, com-mander of the EighthAir Force, in FortWorth, TX: the AirForce officers atRoswell had simplyfound a weather bal-loon and its radar tar-get, and had mistakenit for a flying saucer!The press acceptedat once this curiousexplanation, and theincident wasforgottenfor thirty years.However, in 1978, Americanufologist Stanton Friedman found al-most by chance a key witness, JesseMarcel, a former major who had beenin charge of security on the base, andwho had picked up debris at what iscalled the crash site.Marcel, who was at that time retiredin Louisiana, confirmed to Friedmanthat these materials were very strangeand did not look like anything known.Since then, several teams of research-ers have done considerable work andhave found many witnesses who havemade Roswell one of the best docu-mented cases inufology.The theory of a UFO crash is basedon three main elements: the press re-lease by the Air Force base, testimo-nies about strange materials found atthe site, and testimonies on the discov-ery of a craft and bodies near Roswell.A question quickly comes to mindabout the press release: how could theseofficers of an ehte corps not only makesuch a clumsy mistake, if we believethe Air Force, but also worsen theircase by making that dramatic an-nouncement, contrary to the rules ofmilitary secrecy to which they wereespecially well trained?If it had been such an incredible con-fusion withaballoon (oraballoon clus-ter in the Mogul story), they shouldMUFON UFO JournalAbout the authorGildas Bourdais is aleading French ufologist,.He isthe authorof UFOs:The Gradual Release ofSecrecy, otherbooks, andnumerous articles. He isalso a frequent presenterat UFO symposiums.have been severely reprimanded, yetthis was not the case.Col. Blanchard, who released thereport to the press, had a remarkablecareer with significant promotions.Maj. Jesse Marcel, given high marksby his hierarchy before and after theincident, was promoted to a post of re-sponsibility at the Pentagon.Furthermore, if Maj. Marcel hadmade such a blunder, would he havetalked about it 30 years later? It is in-teresting to note here that when Maj.Marcel was interviewed in 1982 by astudent, Linda Corley, he told her thathe had not revealed all that he knew,"for the sake of his country," Corley re-vealed twenty years later at the 2000MUFON symposium.3USAF "explanations"In 1994, the US Air Force, pressedby an inquiry which had been openedby the General Accounting Office(GAO) of the Congress at the requestof Steven Schiff, congressman of NewMexico, replaced the initialexplanationof the weather balloon with a morecomplex one.Now the Air Force claimed that thedebris was from the crash of a "train"of 20 to 30 weather balloons attachedto a line, code-named "Mogul,"launched at the base at White Sands.It was, they explained, a very secret
  4. 4. project to develop a means of detec-tion of future soviet atomic explosions,and it is the reason why its discoverywas hidden at the time.But there is not the faintest bit of pa-per, telex,or archivednotewhichwouldprove thatthis was what had been foundin Roswell.On the contrary,theirdocumentationshows clearly that the balloon trainMogul number 4, the only one whichmight havecaused thatblunderbecauseit was equipped with radar targets, hadmost probablynever been launched!It is absent in the reports of NewYork University (NYU), in charge ofthe tests, and geophysicistAlbert Crary,who was the field manager,notedin hispersonal diary that it was cancelledbecause of cloudyweather.In fact, he launchedin the morning asmall balloon cluster like the NYUteam launchedevery day in June.It is likely that Brazel found one ofthem, on June 14, as he told the pressunder pressure from the military, buthe attached no importance to it, and ithad nothing to do with the finding ofthe big debris field at the beginningofJuly.4In any case,if the officers of Roswellhad found a Mogul balloon train, they,would haveeasily identified it as such.It would have been sufficient forthem to identify onlyone element ofthismundane gear to close the case, suchas one of the instruments attached tothe nylon line, which were: not moremysterious: ballast reservoir, electricbattery, radio transmitter, or"sonobuoy" which looked like a meremetallic can.None of these instruments werefound on the Foster Ranch, either bythe rancher Brazel or by the militarywho came to retrieve the debris.In 1997, the US Air Force publisheda second book to explain, this time, thetestimonies on alien bodies. It sug-gested that the witnesses had confusedmemories of parachute tests whichwere made with wooden dummies.But, as Walter Haut quipped, "Youhave to be a dummy not to recognize adummy!"Besides, these tests took place sev-eral years later, during the 50s. Thistime, the American press, which hadU.S. ARMY TO EXAMINE!A•" I LYING DISK " !fH H mum sWASHINGTON, Jinwell, New Mexico. iJui :m ohjoe[_lml he-en found ihere. UK-MOJCilic^e:i if!i Lcnlrc .<i( Wrs.^hL Fitld, Ohio.! f^srinmini*:«:r of Llir Li.isiKli Ailo-iii£lu Ilzi die ubjca wr^s hcir&£ scKThe Times of London.accepted rather easily the Mogul ex-planation, remained visibly skepticalabout this new story.The only positive aspect of the AirForce report was to have them discardother hypotheses, such as the crash ofa secret plane, or a rocket, or an atomicbomber.However, asnoted above, such isnotthe opinion of new Roswell researcherNick Redfern in his new book, BodySnatchers in the Desert.Following is a-summary of theRedfern story of Roswell, slightlyabridged, given by Redfern himself inthe conclusion of his book (pages 207and 208):The first crash"In May 1947, an experimental air-craft that was borne out of the revolu-tionary aviation research of the Hortenbrothers of Germany was test-flownfrom White Sands, New Mexico."On board the vehicle were a num-ber of physically handicapped peoplewho had been found in the remnants ofthe Japanese militarys Unit 731 labo-ratories and who were used in this darkand disturbing experiment-the purposeof which wastotry to better understandthe effects of nuclear-powered flight onan air-crew."The experiment ended in disasterwhen the aircraft crash-landed at WhiteSands, killing some of the crew.MUFON UFO JournalThe second crash"Two months later, in early1947," says Redfern, "a second aridsimilar vehicle was once again flownfrom White Sands. In this particular in-stance,the aircraft was affixed to ahugeballoon array that was based upon ad-vanced Fugoballoon designs developedin theclosing stages ofWW n by Japa-nese forces."The aircraft was piloted by a crewof Japanese personnel who had beenspecifically trained for the task andcrashed near the Foster Ranch afterbeing catastrophically struck by light-ning."The lifting-body-style aircraft, theballoon materials, andthe bodiesof thecrew were retrieved under cover ofoverwhelming secrecy and-either de-liberately or unintentionnally-hiddenbehind a smoke screen of crashed fly-ing saucer stories."It isthesetwoincidents (and, asthewhistle-blower testimony provided inthese pages suggests, possibly severalothers in the vicinity of White Sands inthe early to late summer of 1947) thatled to the legend of the Roswell inci-dent," says Redfern.A bizarre storyAfirstreaction to Redferns scenariomay be one of perplexity when con-fronted withsuchabizarre story, whichhe claims had been revealed to himNovember 2005
  5. 5. from 1996 to 2003by several insiders-who remain anonymousin the book.In any case, it seems to provide aglobal explanation of the Roswell case,encompassing as it does many aspects,even some of the most controversialones.The story of the alleged first crash,for instance, seems to explain the con-troversial story of the mysterious cam-eraman who,allegedly, sold the famous"Alien Autopsy Footage" to the Brit-ish producer Ray Santilli, released in1995.The "atomic" aspect is very impor-tant in Redferns theory. According tohis insiders, it included loading radio-active material on board for an awfulexperiment of irradiation in flight.In addition, it was supposed to bemade at a very high altitude in order toevaluate mysterious"mutation" effects.The victims selected for this dread-ful test were supposedly mentally re-tarded, severely handicapped people,formerly prisoners of the Japanese forhorrible bio-warfare experiments inManchuria during WW n.According to Redfern and his in-formers, itisthis "Japanese connection"which had to be kept secret "at allcosts."There was no balloon for this firstexperiment (in effect, the cameramandid not mention one). The weird craftwas supposedly towed on take-off by aDC-3 plane (or rather a C-47, the cor-rect military designation), but was self-propelled af-terwards (wedont learnexactly how).Can webelieve thatstory? Well,there are many big holes in it, as weare going to see. The first, and biggestone, probably, is that it was impossiblefor the American military to bring tothe United States prisoners from Man-churia. Here is, briefly, the history ofJapanese biological warfare experi-ments in Manchuria:5•1932—Japanese troops invadeManchuria. Shiro Ishii, aphysicianandarmy officer who was intrigued by germwarfare, begins preliminary experi-ments.• 1936—Unit 731, a biological-war-fare unit disguised as awater-purifica-tion unit, is formed. Ishii builds a hugecompound—more than 150buildingsover six squarekilometers—outside thecity of Harbin. Some 9,000 test sub-jects, which Ishii and his peers called"logs," eventually die at the com-pound.•1942—Ishii begins field tests ofgerm warfare on Chinese soldiers andcivilians. Tens of thousands die of bu-bonic plague, cholera, anthrax, andother diseases. U.S. soldiers capturedin the Philippines are sent to Manchu-ria.• 1945—Japanese troops blow up theheadquarters of Unit 731 in the finaldays of the Pacific war.Ishii orders 150remaining "logs" killed to cover uptheir experimentation. Gen. DouglasMacArthur isnamed commander of theAllied powers in Japan.• 1946—U.S. coverup of secret dealwith Ishii and Unit 731 leaders-germwarfare data based on human experi-mentation in exchange for immunityfrom war-crimes prosecution-begins inearnest. Deal is concluded two yearslater.No prisoners from Unit 731Lets turn now to the Redfern story.According to his inside source,"Levine" (p 85):"When the Japanese surrendered inthe wake of the atomic destruction ofHiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, anumber of these and a quantity of still-living people were found in the remainsof Unit 731 facilities (and also Germanlaboratories) by allied soldiers. Theseremains were subsequentlytransferredto the Los Alamos Laboratories, NewMexico, where this dark and disturb-ing research was continued."Other informers told Redfern a simi-lar story, but this is radically contra-dicted by all historical studies andsources.In his references, Redfern mentionsthe book of Peter Williams and DavidWallace, Unit 731:Japans SecretBio-logical Warfare in World War II.6It is a very complete history of thesehorrible experiments, and it clearly de-scribes what happened at the end of thewar.When the Soviet army began to in-vade Manchuria, on Aug. 9,1945, thenext day the Japanese destroyed allbuildings of Units 731 and 100, andkilled all the prisoners. They had or-ders to destroy every trace of the ex-periments, and never talk about them.This version is confirmed in thetimeline mentioned above, and in otherbooks, for instance The Pacific War bythe Japanese historian Saburo lenaga.7No handicapped prisonersAnother important difference residesin the alleged use of deformed andhandicapped people for all these experi-ments, according to Redferns insiders.This is an important element of thetheory since it is supposed to explainthe strange aspect of the victims of thecrash (at least the first one), and it isrepeated through the whole book (atleast 16 times, from page 6 to page207).But it is wrong! Actually, the Japa-nese experimenters at Unit 731 pre-ferred to have subjects in good health:"Unless you work with a healthy body,you cannot get results."8So the real story of the end of Unit731 seems quite different from the onein Body Snatchers.Sunshine and body snatchersIn 1994, President Clinton appointedan "Advisory Committee on HumanRadiation Experiments "(ACHRE)which uncovered a long history of se-cret irradiation experiments conductedduring the period 1944 through 1974.Redfern mentions this in his book,and it is all true, but he insists then on avery special project called "Sunshine"which was proposed secretly in 1955(pp. 164 to 166).It was a plan to collect skeletons forsuch experiments by all possible meansthrough certain "channels," and thiswas called "body snatching."Hence the bizarre title of the book.Redfern admits that this "body snatch-ing" project had nothing to do withRoswell, but he claims thatit was "verysimilar to the top-secret Roswell-re-lated events" described in his book.However, this argument of secretradiation experiments can be turnedagainst his book. The records of theACHRE commission, which counttherather staggering number of some3,000 tests of human irradiation, dontNovember 2005 MUFON UFO Journal
  6. 6. mention at all his alleged radiation ex-periments in White Sands!So there is a simple question: in thelight of the ACHRE report, why hidethese alleged White Sands irradiationexperiments at all cost, since the wholestory of similar experiments has beenmade public?When I asked Redfern this, hestressed again that it was the "Japaneseangle," withits horrible experiments inManchuria, which,was the cause of theextreme secrecy. But, as we havejustseen, it is an impossible argument.Regardless of its sheer impossibil-ity, another argument can be madeagainst this "Japanese angle."If these White Sands experimentshad been made with Japanese, theywould have been identified as suchwhen found in the areas near WhiteSands or Roswell-even if they werehandicapped.The second crash (Roswell)The second crash is the famous onenear Roswell.This time the craft is supposedly af-fixed to a hugeballoon cluster, derivedfrom advanced Japanese "Fugo"projects (Fugo is the name of the bal-loon bombs ofWW n), which is goingto be used to explain the famous debrisfield on the Foster Ranch.This time there is no "atomic" ex-periment. If youknow the Roswell casewell, you will remember that Maj.Marcel checked the debris at the Fos-ter Ranch with a Geiger counter andfound no radioactivity.Thus Redferns story seems to fitwell with the Roswell testimonies re-garding radiation. But a consequenceis that there was no "reason" to carryhandicapped people on that flight.So, explains Redfern, there werenormal Japanese for the second flight,trained as pilots to test this peculiarballoon and fast aircraft coupling.I debated this point with Redfern onthe Internet, and he did have an answerto it.9Contrary to a general impressiongiven in the book, in which he men-tioned handicapped people all the timeto explain the confusion with alien be-ings in Roswell, there were no handi-capped beingsin the second crash, nearRoswell. They were not identified asJapanese, says Redfern, because thebodies were found and retrieved se-cretly by the White Sands people.Thus, in Redferns version, the leg-end of alien bodies found in Roswellcame later from a merger with the ru-mors coming from the White Sandscrash and its handicapped victims.Thats an ingenious story, but whatisits credibility? As we haveseen, therewere no handicapped Japanese avail-able in the first place. In addition, thequestion remains whether there couldbe such a confusion with handicappedbodies, wronglyidentified as alien be-ings, whetherit was in White Sands orin Roswell.This is where Redfern throws in thefamous "Alien autopsy footage," as asort of visualproof of his story.According to Redferns mysteriousinformers, the "Alien Autopsy Foot-age," released in August, 1995, wasactually showing one ot the handi-capped victims of the White Sandscrash!This idea has been already discussedin depth, and many experts have dis-carded the idea that this was a humanbeing suffering from a genetic illness.In addition, a very simple objectioncan be made: if it were a humanbody,there would have been no need for acomplete protection suit,suchas is seenin the film (unless the whole film is ascam, but this is not at all whatRedfernsays).Another look at Roswell crashLets quote again the final summaryof the second crash, near Roswell (pp.207, 208):Two months later, in early July asecond and similar vehicle was, onceagain, flown from White Sands."In this particular instance,the aircraft was affixed to a huge bal-loon array that was based upon ad-vanced Fugo balloon designs developedin theclosing stages ofWWnby Japa-nese forces."The aircraft was piloted by a crewof Japanese personnel who had beenspecifically trained for the task andcrashed near the Foster Ranch afterbeing catastrophically struck by light-ning."There is an obvious objection,fromthe start, to this second scenario.The risk that the experiment wouldbe exposed publicly would have beeneven higher, especially if the huge Fugoballoon cluster (much bigger than theMogul balloon train with its smallweather balloons) drifted in the windto an undesirable place.What about the risk of a crash land-ing in a populated area? But the ex-perimenters were lucky:theballoon andcraft, in the Redfern scenario, landedin the rather desertic area of Roswell.However, such a strange assem-blage, with the alleged huge balloonsand a weird plane attached to them,would have been almost impossible tohide from curious eyes in the WhiteSands area.The scenario of the crash seems alsovery acrobatic. According to Redfernand his mysterious informers, the craftand balloon were caughtin a storm andstruck by lightning. A part of the dis-abled plane and, presumably, most ofthe balloons, were torn away in the-storm, together with one of the Japa-nese who was ejected from the craft.They fell and landed together on theFoster Ranch, while the main body ofthe craft, carrying the rest of the crew,crashed some twenty miles fartheraway, where it was later retrieved se-cretly by the White Sands people.In this new explanation of Roswell,we find again the problem, like in theMogul story, of the people of Roswellnot being able to identify a balloon orballoon cluster.This question is now aggravated byadding the wreckage of a small craft,either wooden or metallic, or even afragment of it.The argument of balloons made ofaluminium-coated polyethylene, putforward by Redfern in his book, couldnot explain at all the description of thevery strong foil, impossible to tear, andyet scattered in a multitude of smalljagged pieces like the result of a vio-lent explosion.In addition, they were impossible toburn. They just dont correspond to aballoon envelope.In the debate on UFO Updates,David Rudiak pressed Redfern withembarrassing critiques aboutthe debris,as he had done previously on Mogul.Then Redfern came up suddenly withMUFON UFO Journal November 2005
  7. 7. a new finding from his informers: helearned that,for the Roswell flight,alu-minium foil, or "chaffe," had beenusedas a test to confuseradar.So this new, providential elementwould explain the aluminium-like foilfound on the Foster ranch! However,there was no logical reason to hide theflight on radar. On the contrary, therewas every reason to track it.Besides, in the scenario of an acci-dent in a big storm, the aluminiumfoilwould have been scattered over averywide area, not just on the debris fieldof the Foster ranch.Anyway, this aluminiumfoil, like theone used for cigarette wrapping, wasvery mundane, and did not fit the de-scriptions on the witnesses.The informersOne of the mostquestionable aspectsof Redferns story is that all hisinform-ers were, one way or another, linked tosecret services in Great Britain and inthe Unites States. Here they are, inchronological order:*In August 1996, in London, Mr."Levine" (pp.79-81), is an agent of theHome Office. His colleagues are Mr."T,"intelligence agentat the MOD,andMr. "D," aCIA"operative."Theyshowhim a long version of the "Autopsyfilm," first released a year before.*In July 2001, in Los Angeles, anold woman whom he calls the "BlackWidow" approches him at the end of aconference (Chapter 1). She says thatshe worked on "special projects" inOak Ridge, from the mid-1940s to theearly 1950s.The crucial year seems to be 2003,with:«The "Colonel," in November2003. He is the main informer(Chap-ter 10). He said that he had "spent 15years operating deep within the heartof American intelligence. In 1969, hefound a top secret document at theDefense Intelligence Agency which"laid to rest the tales about flying sau-cers and alien bodies recovered fromthe desert of New Mexico in the sum-mer of 1947 and told the true storyabout the Roswell events";*"Bill Salter," on Dec. 6,2003 (p.90). He is a former employee of thePsychological Strategy Board. He metin Oak Ridge "a man employed in acovert intelligenceposition," whohad"previously worked for the Central In-telligence Group" (CIG). Salter hadalso been informed by an "old friendfrom DOE";«A1 Barker, on Dec. 9, 2003. Heworked for the PsychologicalWarfareCenter (PWC) in Fort Bragg.There is a remarkable coincidencehere. Three separate informers ap-proached Redfern, separately, in lessthan two months at the end of 2003,and told him the same story! This doessuggest a concerted plan to disinformhim.The risk of disinformationThe questionof possible disinforma-tion has been raised, as could be ex-pected. Redfernadmitted that it was apossibility, but doubted it for severalreasons.Firstly, according to him, there hasbeen, indeed, a lot of disinformation,but in the opposite direction: it was allaimed atpropagating falsetales of UFOcrashes in Roswell and other places,such as Aztec. And this long lastingprogram of disinformation was imple-mentedjustto hide the horrible experi-ments in White Sands!In fact, the history of ufology in theUnited States shows, on the contrary, ahard line of denial of UFOs in general,and especially of UFO crashes."A second reason for not beingdisinformed, pleaded Redfern, is theconvergence of independent informers,telling the same story,and of documentsrevealing certain aspects similar to hisstory.Yes, several informers told him thesame story of prisoners from Unit 731:Mr. Levine in 1996 (p. 85), the Colo-nel in November 2003 (p. 108), BillSalter on Dec. 6, 2003 (p. 91), and AlBarker three days later! (pp. 91 and141).But this story is false, and this con-vergence raises the question of a kindof concerted disinformation.As for the documents, the examplealready mentioned of the "Sunshine"and "Body Snatchers" program showsthe weakness of this argument.It was not related at all to the al-leged experiments in White Sands, andthe same can be said of other docu-ments quoted in the book.Actually, there is not one piece ofdocumentation sustaining the story.NotesNick Redfern, Body Snatchers inthe Desert. The Horrible Truth at theHeart of the Roswell Story, ParaviewPocket Books, Simon & Schuster,NewYork, NY, 2005.2Nick Redfern, Cosmic Crashes.The incredible story of the UFOs thatfell to Earth, Simon & SchusterU.K.,London, 1999.3Linda Corley, "For the sake of mycountry," MUFON 2000InternationalUFO Symposium proceedings.4Descriptions of these properties andthe shape and size of the debris fieldfrom various people can be read, forinstance, at the web site of DavidRudiak: the web at and DavidWallace,Unit 731: Japans Secret BiologicalWarfare in World war II . London,Hodder & StoughtonLtd.,1989.7Saburo lenaga, The Pacific War,1931-1945. Iwanami Shoten Publish-ers, Tokyo, 1968. (American edition byPantheon Books, Random House, NewYork, 1978)."Quote from the text: "Unit 731. Ahalf century of denial," at (cited byJan Aldrich in a mes-sage of June 22 on the list UFO Up-dates).9UFO UpDates. See the archives at concurring opinionRedferns book is overly ambitiousand flawed. He dismisses too muchcontrary evidence to advance a thesissupported by limited testimony. Hisconclusion that the UFO crashes atRoswell and elsewhere are no morethan disinformation has no merit.Redfern is ingenuously promotingdisinformation fed to him by those ac-tively seeking to sow confusion in thestudy of the UFO phenomenon and theETH.-Michael E. Salla, PhDChief Editor, Exopolitics JournalNovember 2005 MUFON UFO Journal
  8. 8. Part TwoAnimal reactions to UFO encountersBy Joan WoodwardSightings withanimal reactionstendto be more complex than lights in thesky that simply zip by.Of 92 sightings with animal reac-tions, 63 of the reports had an estimatedduration for the sighting. Of these, 11percent wereless than 1minute,54per-cent were be-tween 1 minuteand 10minutes,30 percent werebetween 10minutes and 1hour, and 5 per-cent were morethan an hour.In 60 of the92 animal reac- J°anWoodwardtion sightings (65 percent), the UFO isdescribed as maneuveringin someway.Most common were hovering part ofthe time (27 times), landing or nearlanding arid departure (17 times), slowmoving, meandering, or repeatedpasses (11 times), and rocking behav-ior or falling leaf movements (5 times).In addition, UFOs not reported tomaneuver but described as flying byslowly and/or at low altitude were re-ported 11 times. UFOs that flew bywith no further description were re-ported 13 times. The remainder lackedany details aboutthe movementsof theUFO.This is not meant as an analysis ofmaneuvers, butonly todemonstrate thatcomplexity was a part of themajorityof the UFO eventswhere animals werereported to react.General Observation 4.-Relation-ship to reported sound: Sounds fromUFOs are often reported when animalsreact, and rarely reported whenthey donot. Because many animals hear bothlower and higher frequencies than hu-mans do, and because their hearing isoften more acute than human hearing,spund is harder to judge than someother featuresof UFO sightings.Nonetheless, when witnesses re-ported animals reacting to the UFOspresence, theyalso reported sound fromthe UFO 49 percent of the time. Whenwitnesses reported animals did not re-act to the UFO, they reported soundonly 8 percentof the time.Of the 92 sightings with animal re-actions, witnesses reported sound 45times. Of these 45 sightings, theani-mal reaction mostcommonly reportedwas fear (27 times) or alert-alarm be-havior (11 times). ..*..Interestingly, in the 12 reactionswhen all animals present seemed un-aware of the UFO, sound was reportedonly one time. Later, when looking athow particular types of animals reactduring UFO events, sound appears po-tentially important in the reactions ofdogs, cats, and ungulates, and will beexamined in more detail with each ofthese groups.General Observation 5.-Relation-ship to secondary UFO features: Asdata concerning the UFO itself wascollected for this study,certain aspectsof the UFO intuitivelyseemed to havepotential in terms of havingeffects onanimals. These are referred to as sec-ondary features of the UFO.In order from most often to least of-ten reported, these are: sound (dis-cussed above); light beams and/or ter-restrial lighting; physiological effectsduring the sighting; EM effects; windgeneration; vapor/mist production;andodor. • - . . •UFO sound aside, the other second-ary features of UFOs did not have anapparent relationship to animal reac-tions, but their collective, near-totalabsence is notedin sightingswhereani-mals did not react.Light beams and terrestrial lightingarefairly commonly reported, but theirimpact on animals appears associatedwith nighttime ungulatereactions.All of these will be -discussed lateras specific animal group reactions areaddressed. Otherwise, a variety of thesesecondary featuresare scattered amongsightings in low numbers, but no indi-vidual feature appeared to correlatewith particular animal reactions.However, in sightings whereanimalsdid not react or did not react fearfully,all of these secondary features werelacking.Secondary features,includingsound,distance of the UFO, and altitude of theUFO may have a circuitous relation-ship in terms of animal reactions. Dis-tance may be the determining factorthatresults in secondary features beingnoted and reported by witnesses, andin the reaction or non-reaction of theanimals that are present.The secondary features may not beEditors NoteThis article, Part Two in a series, is abridged from Ms. Woodwards fullpresentation, including charts, case descriptions, and other material, whichisincluded in the MUFON booklet Animal Reactions to UFOs. The full reportis also included in the 2005 MUFON Symposium Proceedings. (See UFOMarketplace, page 23.)About the AuthorMs. Woodward worked with the Na-tional Investigations Committee onAerial Phenomena (NICAP) in the1960s, assisting with the original UFOEvidence (1964). She returned to ufologyin 1996 as a field investigator forMUFON and the Fund for UFO Researchafter retiring from the U.S. GeologicalSurvey as a research technician.She assisted Richard Hall in devel-oping an index of James E. McDonaldscorrespondence in the Donald E.KeyhoeArchives, and worked on data compila-tion for Halls Alien Invasion or HumanFantasy?Ms. Woodward later took over theanimal reactions section of FrancisRidges special evidence section of theNICAP web site. She also has extensiveexperience with both domestic and wildanimals.8 MUFON UFO Journal November 2005
  9. 9. heard or seen by a witness when theobject is at greater distances. However,in closer encounters, the secondaryfea-tures may be more obvious to wit-nesses, and at least some of themnotedbyanimals.For the 92 sightings with animal re-actions, a very roughcalculation of al-titudes and distances based on whetheror not secondary features were reportedsuggest this may be true.Where a rangeis given for distanceor altitudein a sighting, an average isused for the calculationsbelow.• Where animals reacted,and one ormore secondaryfeatures were reported,the average UFO altitude was 238 feet,based on 57 sightings with altitude es-timates. The average UFO distance was319 feet, based on 55 sightings withdistanceestimates.• Where animals reacted,but no sec-ondary features were reported, the av-erage UFO altitude was 354 feet, basedon 20 sightingswithaltitude estimates.The average UFO distance was 838feet, based on 15 sightings with dis-tance estimates.(A questionable animal reactionsighting withanestimated 12-mile dis-tance to the UFO (AR104) was notused in this calculation.)Carrying the distance hypothesis onto the 12 sightings with no animal re-action, and which also haveno second-ary features reported, the average alti-tudes and distances become greater.Where there were no animal reac-tions and no secondary features (exceptone sightingwitha soundreported), theaverage UFO altitude was 886 feet,based on 10sightings with altitudees-timates.The average UFO distance was1,620 feet, based on 5 sightings withdistance estimates.The closer encounters are morelikely tohave witnesses report second-ary features of the UFO and animalreactions.Slightly greater distances and alti-tudes may be associated with no sec-ondary features noted by witnesses, butanimals may still react, quite possiblybecause of their excellent hearing orother sense.UFO events at greater distances andattitudes have neither secondary fea-One ofufology sclassic cases, that of Betty andBarney Hill, involved the actions of their dachund,Delsey, during their-encounterwith a UFO in 1961.tures nor animal reactions reported.Much more data is needed for furtherevaluation, particularly in sightingswhere animals do not react.Generalization Observation 6.-Relationship to UFO Shape: The re-ported shapes of UFOs are variable,and generally do not seem to relate toparticular animal reactions.This report contains 107descriptionsof UFO shapes. These were comparedto a much larger Worldwide UFO Da-tabase (WUFOD) compilation table of1,694 reported shapes as of Jan. 30,2004 (online categories were combined forsimplicity because shapes are sodepen-dent on angle of vision. As one wouldexpect, UFO shapes in the animal re-action reports were a subset of UFOshapes reported in general.With the rather small sample size inthis report, no relationship was foundbetween UFO shapes and specific ani-mals or animalreactions.One possible excep-tion involves sightingswith ungulates. Of the21 sightings wherehoofed mammals arepresent and reported tobe uneasy to fearful, 24percent involve sug-gested or clearly de-scribed hemisphereshapes. The remainderof the sightings involve9 or 10 othershapesrep-resented by only 1 or 2sightingseach.Another possibleex-ception involvesangularUFOs and their associa-tion with relativelymild,less fearful animal reac-tions. Although sizesand exact shapes vary,six sightings describeboxy, rectangular, orsquare objects.In 4 of 5 sightingswith dogs present, thedogs were described asnot reactive, calm, or in-terested (AR19, 61, 85,95). The most intensivereaction was a dog thatbarked (AR20).In the final sighting a cow was reportedfrightened by the boxy object (AR10)Data sets for differenttypes of animalsBecause the senses and behaviorbetween animals differ, and because in-formation about the UFO event is re-layed through human senses, a com-parison of the perceptual worlds ofvari-ous animals and humans is worth not-ing.Visual acuity is ameasure of the abil-ity to see details. Only birds have bet-ter vision than humans. The acuity ofthe others animals is not as good as hu-mans, but they are all extremely sensi-tive to motion.All of the animals have a much bet-ter sense of smell and of hearing thanhumansdo, withthe exception of birds,who have little sense of smell, andwhose hearing is more restricted thanthat of humans.The temperament of dogs varieswidely. One behavior problem withNovember 2005 MUFON UFO Journal
  10. 10. many dogs is sound sensitivity. Thismeans the dog has a very fearful reac-tion to a non-threatening, commonly en-counteredsound.Examples would be fear of thunder,fear of a flag snapping in the wind, fearof electrical transformerson poles, orfear of the noise of a garage door. Thisbehavior may become worse with age.Six sightings report reactions ofchickens (4 times), ducks (2 times),geese (2 times), and pheasants(1 time).Five of the six describe birds that aredisturbed, and the remaining incident(AR95) describes calmbirds.All sightings with disturbed birdstook place at night, and witnessesre-ported bird reactionsby hearingthem,rather than by seeingthem.When birds were disturbed, theUFO altitudes ranged from 80 to 2,000feet. In the sighting withcalm animals,the altitude was 100 feet. Among thebirds that were disturbed, the consis-tent overhead position of the UFO atsome point duringthe sightingisinter-esting.Only one sighting (AR47) clearlystates that the animals reacted as theUFO passed overhead. In the remain-der the overhead position is relative tothe witness, and only arough approxi-mation for the animals.Unfortunately, none of the sightingreports give details as to the exact lo-cations of the birds (in a chicken coop,bam, or outdoors) or whetheror not thesky was visible to them.If they could see the sky, their reac-tion may havebeen a typical visual re-sponse to an aerial predator.Anotherinteresting possibility isthatbirds may havefelt the UFOs presencethrough a series of "touch" receptorsscattered through their bodies."Herbst" corpuscles are highly de-veloped in birds, and are sensitive notonly to touch, but also to pressurechanges and low frequencyvibrations.Finches, experimentally deafened,were trained to detect vibrations from100 to 3200 Hz through Herbst cor-puscles along the backs of their upperlegs (Welty, 1962).If the birds were responding to vi-brations or pressures that they felt, thismight explain the importance of theoverhead position of the UFO. If they10were responding tosound or vision, theoverhead position maybe of much lessimpor-tance.Ackerman (1989)suggests a sideeffect ofUFO propulsion maybe a magnetic fieldaround the UFO, whichis interesting in thatthere is speculation thatbirds usegeomagneticclues in migration.Exactly how themagnetic field is de-tected and usedby birdsand other animals is asubject of much specu-lation.The two leading pos-sibilities are (1) tiny In tne1976 case in Kentucky involving the ab-crystals of magnetic par- duction of three women from an auto, one of thetides (magnetite) have women, Mrs. Smith, discovered that her four-year-been found in the olfac- old parakeet would have nothing to do with herfol-tory tract in the brains of lowing the abduction.some birds that act as acompass and/or (2)a chemical reactionthat involves certain eye pigments thatbecome weakly magnetic when theyabsorb light (Levy, 1999).This is a complicated explanation forbirds reacting to nearby UFOs, but athought to be tucked away for futurereference.Questions to be answeredabout barnyard birdsMore informationis needed to verifyor refute the overhead position of theUFO relative to bird reactions.If verified as aconsistent factor,thenan interesting next step would be toevaluate sound versus feeling versusvision asafactorin thebirds reactions.Quite possibly the birds willrespondto more than one thing, such asanti-hawk reactions when outdoors inthe daytime, and to sound or vibrationswhen confinedat night.If the UFO is reported to be silent orhigh-pitched by the witness, birds willnot hear it, as their hearing is more re-stricted than that of humans. All of thesightings in thisreport occurred atnight.Does the excellent vision of birds be-come a factor in daytime and/or out-door sightings?Are geese present? Barnyard geeseMUFON UFO Journalare great "watchdogs," andtheir alarmscould cause other birds to react.Sightings withnon-reactivebarnyardbirds present would be of great inter-est.Reactions by catsThe presence of cats was reportedin nine sightings. Eight sightings oc-curred at night, and one in predawnlight. The cats reactions fall into thefollowing categories: fearful behavior(5 sightings), interested/approach (1sighting) and no reaction (3 sightings).Altitudes in the nine sightings rangedfrom 150 feet to 1,600feet, withno realdifferences between the behaviorgroups. The distances, sound, and sec-ondary effects did differ.In the sightingswherecats were fear-ful, the UFOs tended to be closer, tomake noise, and to demonstrate othersecondary effects. This contrastsstrongly with non-fearful cats, wherethe objects are generally farther awayand no secondary effects were reported.The weakest fearful cat reaction isdescribed in AR60. The cat was de-scribed as "fearful," but further de-scribed only as "fussing to get into thehouse" as the witness watched a UFOat least 500 feet away.Possibly the catsNovember 2005
  11. 11. behavior was coincidental to the UFOevent.The overhead position of the UFO(3 of 5 sightings) is interesting in thatcats whiskers are embedded inhighlypacked, sensitive nerve endings.Through their whiskers, cats arethought to detect small changes in pres-sure, air movement, and temperature.Possibly cats not only heard the UFO,but also, like barnyard birds, may havefelt its presence.Cats can hear high frequencies bet-ter than either humansor dogs, so it isalways possible that cats hear soundsto which humans are oblivious. Hu-mans can hear low-pitched sounds thatcats do not hear, but possibly cats canfeel them.The sightings with fearful cats tendto have sound associated with them,and unfamiliar, harsh, and/or loudsounds are the leading inanimatecauseof startle or fear responses in cats. Atleast two of the sounds reported abovefit into harshor loud category, and noneare described as high pitched.A theoretical thoughtabout cats andsounds: we know harsh and loudsounds frighten cats. Low or moderatehumming sounds may also be threat-ening if one thinks about the similarityof that sound to the growl of a dog, forinstance.On the other hand, cats can, as al-ready noted, hear very high-pitchedsounds, and can pounce on amouse byhearing its ultrasonic squeak. Thus,within some loudness parameters,high-pitched sounds (i.e., prey sounds)may not be disturbing to cats, or maybe interesting to them, and deep, lowpitched sounds may be perceived asthreatening.Questions to be answeredby investigators about catsDoes the overhead position of theUFO occur frequently in sightingswhere cats react fearfully? Does thewitness detect any vibration, pressurechange, or air movement during thesesightings?Is the sound low, moderate, orhigh-pitched? Is it harsh and loud orsoft? Is it steady or cyclic? To whatmight the soundbe compared? Do catsreact fearfully when UFOs are silentor high-pitched?November 2005UngulatesThe most common reactionnoted forungulates in UFO events was fear.Of the 22 sightings in which cattle(14 times), horses (10 times), goats (2times), and sheep (1 time) werepresent, sometimes in combinationsthereof, fearful reactions were reportedin 20 sightings, nervousreactions once,and calm reactions once (AR95).No sightings were found that men-tioned ungulatesthat did not react, soacomparison cannot be made betweensightings with and without reactions.Because cows, horses, and sheep arefrequently out in fields or in bams atsome distance from witnesses, theirreactions are probably not noticed un-less they are eye or ear catching.Seven sightings took place in day-light or twilight, 14took place at night,and one took place after sundown withlighting conditionsunknown.Distances and altitudesWhere estimated, the UFO altitudesranged from landed or near landed (6times) to a maximum estimate of 450feet (1 time). The most common alti-tudes reported were between 25 and200 feet (8 times).The distances ranged from overhead(4 times) to 3-5 miles away (1 time),although I am suspicious that the horsein AR02 was reacting to the distantlight. Next farthest was about 1 mile,and appropriately, the cattle were notreported fearful, onlynervous.The most common distances wereevenly distributed from overhead (4times) and from roughly overhead to200 feet away (4 times), with fartherestimates being 300 feet away (2times), 600 feet (1 time) and a quartermile(l time).Referring again to the study of wildanimal anti-predator reactionstohumanvehicles (Frid and Dill, 2002), cattlewill react fearfully to an unfamiliarpiece of equipment or unfamiliar ve-hicle, so possibly the existence of theUFO vehicle itself would be disturb-ing to them.Wild cattle have a flight zone, thepoint where they break and run, ofabout 300 feet (online, comparing fa-vorably with UFO distances of 200 feetor less to 300-500 feet.MUFON UFO JournalSecondary UFO effectsPutting aside AR02 and 28, withtheir 1-mile or greater distances to theUFO, 19sightingsdescribe fearful un-gulates, and all of these had some sec-ondary feature described.AR87 is an atypical sighting with anatypical secondary effect: a 30-foot,brilliant blue ring was observed over afield containing cattle that were racingaway from it as power lines wereswinging in a 6 foot arc.The remaining 18 sightings all haveone to 4 secondary features. Many ofthese secondary featurescould theoreti-cally affect animals, but occur so er-ratically that they do not seem to be ofoverall importance.Possibly windor air generation fromthe UFO, mist or vapor escaping theUFO, and odor could all be connectedin terms of transporting a scent fromthe UFO that animals can detect.Witnesses rarely report an odor, butthe animals sense of smell is far supe-rior to ours.Possibly microwave or electromag-netic waves cause the feelings of heat,electricity, and immobilization reportedby witnesses as well as EM effects onmachinery-all of which could poten-tially affect animals.These secondary features may befactors in a given sighting, but they donot appear regularlyin sightings whereungulates react fearfully, while othersecondary featuresdo regularly occur.Sound and terrestrial lightingThe more consistent secondary fac-tors in these sightings are sound fromthe UFO and terrestrial lighting. Bothof these are considered fear triggers.In the 18 sightings above, all haveeither sound or terrestrial lighting re-ported, and four sightings report both.Sound is reported by the witnesses 14times, and its presence is unknown inAR45, where a mower with the enginerunning during the sighting preventedthe witnessfrom knowingif the objectsmade sound.Terrestrial lighting is reported in 6of 12 nighttime sightings and is sug-gested in AR37, where the UFO is de-scribed as the size of two rooms and"bluish-white... like the glow aroundawelders arc."Unfamiliar sounds, particularlyloud11
  12. 12. and/or high pitched, stress and scarecattle andhorses, supporting the impor-tance of sound in ungulate reactions.Even whensound is not reported bywitnesses, ungulates may be hearingultrasonic sounds, although they can-not hear as high frequency sounds ascats and dogs.In AR44, the witnessreported that aflat-bottomed oval object about200 feetin altitude remained directly overheadas he ran to his house. Only when theobject was directly overhead could hehear an eerie high-pitched sound, buthis dog and cattle were reacting whenthe object was at distance from them.Lights and shadows are disturbingto ungulates. One way to stop cattledead in their tracks and possibly sendthem stampeding in the opposite direc-tion is to throw an unexpected light (orshadow) across their path.Safety suggestions for handling ormoving these animals at night or in dimlight involve solid board fences (solights will not shine between theboards), frosted/dim bulbs that cast noshadows, and avoidance of any bright,glaring light (Grandin, 1989, updated2002; online into a UFO scenario, imagine afield swept by lights and shadows aslights on a low flying UFO sweepthrough the area.AR 11 is an excellent example be-cause this object was moving slowly,did not land,and had no sound reported,but the cattle stampeded as its brilliantred light lit up their field. A bonus inthis report is the observation that the50 cows calmed down once the UFOdeparted.When prey animals such as ungu-lates are confined in barns, they are ina vulnerableposition because they aretrapped. If something frightens them,their instinct is to run, but if they aretied or penned in a bam, they cannot.So unfamiliar sounds and/or lightsand shadows that sweep through thecracks and windowsof abarn could beextremely disturbing. Witnesses willhear vocalizations and hoofs hittingwood as the animals startle and try toescape.Of four sightings with animals inbarns, three had UFO sounds reported,and one, possibly two, had terrestriallighting. Animals in bams could be rea-sonably expected to react to either un-familiar sound or unfamiliar lightsflashing through the barn, or to both.UFO ShapesAs mentioned inthe generalized sec-tion on UFO shapes and animal reac-tions, dome-shaped or hemisphericUFOs are presented in greater numbersthan other shapes among the sightingswith ungulates, being reported in 5sightings (AR03,40, 44,45, and 52).For comparison, the nextmost oftenreported shapes are domed discs (3times). Football-shaped, Saturn-shaped, round, angular, and lightonly(no shape)are allreported 2times each.Comparing the domes reported in thefive sightings, four havea solid, clearlyseen structure, and one (AR40,Delphos) was reported tobe sobrightlyglowing that the surface could not beseen.Only AR45 was a daylight sightingthat involved five hemispheric objectsnear the ground, and it is also the onlysighting where sound was not reported.The witness had a mowing enginerun-ning, so did not know if the five hover-ing domes made any noise.Of the other four sightings, hummingwas reported one time (AR03) andrumbling,high-pitched soundswerere-ported for the remaining three.Size estimates fell into two catego-ries: 25 feet in diameter or length(AR03 and 52) and 8-12 feet. In allcases the objects were reported to lin-ger, hover, or land.Years of the sightings were 1953,1971, 1974 (February and then Sep-tember), and 1980. Whether the domeshape has any significance to sightingswith ungulate reactions remains to beseen, and is pointed out with hopes ofgathering more information.Questions for investigators toanswer about ungulate reactionsThe reactions of these animals maybe in response to all aspects of the UFOsighting, to some of them, or to onlyone part. Without sightings involvinganimals that do not react, it is muchharder to theorize about which part ofthe UFO experience is disturbing.To help withthis process of elicitinginformation on non-reactive animals,the witnesses might be asked:1. Were any animals present duringthe sighting? Were they indoors orout-doors?2. Could the witness seethe animals?3. Did the animals remain unawareof the object or did they react to it?4. How did they react? What exactlydid they do?5. Where was the UFO relative toyour location and the location of theanimals?6. Are the animals accustomed tolow-flying aircraft?7. If the animals reacted, when didthey calm down?And, another helpful piece of infor-mation would be about the qualityandharshness of the sound of the UFO, ifany. Wasthe sound soft, medium,loud,or harsh; was it low-pitched, mediumpitched, high-pitched? Can the wit-nesses thinkof anythingtheyhaveheardto whichtheycould compare thesound?If terrestrial lighting or light beamsare reported, helpful informationwouldbe what terrestrial areas were lit?Wasit the field with horses/cattle present,the adjoining field, outside of the barn,or some more distant area?(Continued next month)Space ships maybe made of plasticNASA scientists have invented agroundbreaking, polyethylene-basedmaterial called RXF1thats even stron-ger and lighter than aluminum. Thisnew material is a first in the sense thatit combines superior structural proper-ties with superior radiation shielding.The safest way to go to Mars maybe aboard a plastic spaceship. Protect-ing astronauts from deep-space radia-tion is a major unsolved problem be-cause a round-tripcould last as long as30months and be outsideEarths mag-netic field. Some scientists believe go-ing to Mars now with an aluminumspaceship is undoable.Plastic is an appealing alternative,since polyethylene is 50% better atshielding solar flares and 15% betterfor cosmic rays. Plastic-like materialsproduce far less secondary radiationthan heavier materials like aluminumor lead.12 MUFON UFO Journal November 2005
  13. 13. Alien videotapedin Mexico?Second video reportedA night watchmen at a power sta-tion in Altamira, a town in Mexicosstate of Tamaulipas, claims thatthe im-age of an alien was captured by hisplants security cameras.According to the Mexican newspa-per Hoy Extramex, "widespread panichas been unleashed in Altamira after astrange creature was videotaped in thesection containing theenergy-produc-ing turbines of that citys thermoelec-tric plant, spreading once more thetheory that there is an extraterrestrialbase in the area."Elsewhere in Mexico,aUFO report-edly flew over the eastern part ofRamos Arizpe in Coahuila state, andwas reportedly recorded between 3:07and 3:34 AM on Oct. 3 by the urbancameras of the Municipal PublicSecuritys O-60 security system.The 27-minute-long video shows aUFO described as "a round objectwitha grey-colored ring and a black circlein the middle, rotating.It was recorded at different times asit approached and withdrew.Mayra Gallegos Muniz, aradio opera-tor of the O-60 system, who was onduty at the time, said the object "ap-peared verylarge, four or five times thesize of a star."The video is being made availableto researchers.-Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales yDr. Ana Luisa Cid Fernandez y JesusJimenez pos esos articulos de diario.-Thanks to UFO ROUNDUP, Vol.10,No. 40, Editor: Joseph Trainor.NoticeThe December issue of the Jour-nal will be prepared and printed ear-lier than usual. Hopefully this willresult in faster delivery during theusual heavyholiday mailing period.The January issue willbeprintedat the usual time, with delivery formost U.S. subscribers occurringaround the middle of themonth.Raw material of ufologyGrass Roots UFOs—Case Reportsfrom the Timmerman Files by Dr.Michael D. Swords, 2005, Fund forUFO Research, Inc., Center for UFOStudies, P.O. Box 1621, Lima, OH45802,5 /z x 8 ¥2 soft cover, 251 pages,$22 (includingpostage).Reviewed by Dwight ConnellyJournal editorThis is an important book, not be-cause it thor-oughly docu-ments specific,fully-investi-gated cases,but because itindicates thegreat numberof ordinarypeople whohave had UFOexperiences.Like DickHalls UFO Sightings in the New Mil-lennium (reviewed last month), thecases reported in this book have notbeen investigated.As John Timmerman, who compiledthe cases, notes, "Our main purpose increating this book has been to capturesome firsthandtestimony for the ages,if not the hard evidence that Carl Saganonce told me was needed for usefulscientific analysis."He adds, "I call it the raw materialof ufology. They have for me the lin-gering taste of truth."Swords notes that each case repre-sents "a dynamic and natural conver-sation, not an Investigators Manualchecklist, and so some stuff gets leftout...The reports-in vast majority-seem particularly honest."The way in which Timmerman col-lected this material is a story in itself.It goes back to 1980 when the Centerfor UFO Studies (CUFOS) assembleda UFO exhibit for amall in Dallas, TX.An estimated 50,000 people viewedthe Dallas exhibit, and this encouragedCUFOS to expand it-eventually creat-ing two identical exhibits.These werethen displayed hi 92 malls, schools, uni-versities, banks, and otherfacilities overthe nexttwelveyears in locations rang-ing from Nova Scotia to Guam toPuerto Rico.At the first exhibit, in Dallas, view-ers freely talked about their sightings.Notes were taken, and these began topile up.From Dallas the exhibit went toGrand Island, ME, and a tape recorderwas set up to documenttheinterviews.By the time the exhibit had itsfinal en-gagement in Sterling, IL, in 1992, thetaped interviewstotaled 1,179.One of the traveling exhibits wassold to the International UFOMuseumin Roswell, and the other exhibit wentto the town of St. Paul, Alberta, in westCanada as a permanentdisplay to at-tract visitors.Those involved with the projectknew the reports shouldbe transcribed,and Timmerman was able to find an in-dividual to do this-a difficult job,sincenot all the speakers had clear voices.It was also difficult to make sure thenames of witnesses were spelled cor-rectly-which was not aproblem for thisbook, since names are not used. How-ever, some place names may be mis-spelled.The 22three-ring notebooks contain-ing the transcripts were taken to Lima,OH, and Swords, a retired natural sci-ences and environmental studies fac-ulty member atWestern Michigan Uni-versity, began the task of coding thecases and extracting what he felt wasthe most important information. Thisprocess took more than a year.Swords grouped cases into 40 sec-tions devoted to different categories ofUFO experiences. He comments,"Sometimes that may be puzzling.Well, dont worry about it. Just enjoythe stories."And finally, he added drawings ofthe cases. "Almost no one gave John adrawing of their experiences UFO,"says Swords. "Almost all of the simpleNovember 2005 MUFON UFO Journal 13
  14. 14. line drawings in this document aremade up out of my reading of thecase....As with the honesty and toneof the story condensations, I tried togive as unembellished a line drawingas the words in the case allowed."Within the 1,179 cases there were781 shaped objects, 291 with lights or"unseeable structures," 35 "classic"UFOs, and 72 cases with no UFO re-ported.Of the 781 shaped objects, 651 werediscs and "objects with radical symme-try," 85had "odd" shapes, and45 weretriangles or boomerangs.CE II reports include 14involvingvehicle interference, 14 with physi-ological effects, 16 leavingtraces withUFO present, and 18 leaving traceswithout a reported UFO.CE III cases feature 36 involvingentities with a UFO, and 35 with enti-ties but without a UFO reported.Interestingly, these cases reported toTimmerman over a span of 12 yearspretty well match what are generallyconsidered heavy(flap) and light yearsof UFO reports, as both Timmermanand Swords point out.The famous Edwin Fuhr sighting atLangenberg, Saskatchewan, on Sept. 1,1974, is treated at length in a reprint-ing of a 1991 interview involvingFuhr,Timmerman, and Canadian researcherChris Rutkowski.Section 44 of the book includes ahelpful alphabeticlisting of sightings bycities, towns, and locations, and Sec-tion 45 lists by date and location whereand when the exhibits were displayed.GrassRoots UFOs is unique, welldone, and timeless. It is great reading,and would make an excellent additionto anyones UFO library.The weird and interestingUnnatural Phenomena, A Guide tothe Bizarre Wonders of North Americaby Jerome Clark, 2005, ABC Clio, 7x10 hardcover, 369 pages, availablefrom Sheridan Books, Inc., 100 N.Staebler Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48103,$85.00.Reviewed By Dwight ConnellyJournal editorThis book by respected ufologistJerry Clark is the result of the authors14longtime interest in anomalies, and hisdecision to go back to 19thand early20thcentury sources to locate materialsimilar to what Charles Fort was fa-mous for documenting.Much of this research was done onthe internet, a process which took "asolid year of long days, usually sevenof them a week," according to Clark.The result is aninteresting collectionof "Fort-like" anomalies that are "notin Fortsbooks, and 90percent ormore havenever been be-tween bookcovers be-fore," saysClark, who isperhaps bestknown for hisexcellent UFOEncyclopedia.Those fa-miliar with Fort will know what to ex-pect-ghost lights, serpents, airships,objects falling from the sky, spiritualmanifestations, and much,much more.For the most part, the reports are "ex-actly as written" by a newspaper re-porter or editor.Clark is well aware that some ofthese reports are probably the resultofa reporter or editor needing to make upsomething to fill space or sell a news-paper.He also points out that "anomalousoccurrencesmay be experientially real,but it does not follow that all of themare real on an event level." In otherwords, humans may not always seewhat they think they see.The book is well organized, as onewould expect from Clark. The reportsare divided by states, and the table ofcontents lists all of the reports thatwillappear under each state.In addition, there is an excellent in-dex for those who wantto look up vari-ous types of reports, be it by subjectorgeographical locale.The 14-page Introduction is excel-lent, setting the stage for the reports,and providing insightand backgroundthat only someone like Clark could pro-vide.Those who enjoy Forts booksMUFON UFO Journalshould like this surprisingly expensive(yes, $85.00 is not a misprint) bookvery much,as should all thoseindividu-als who enjoy actual reports of strangeanimals, strange lights, and strange oc-currences.MUFON ForumDear Mr. Connelly,I would like to comment on the ar-ticle by Dan Wright in the August,2005, issue of the MUFON UFO Jour-nal. I think it wouldinterest anyonein-volved withmeteors and meteorites.Throughout my life I heard mymother speak of a meteorite that sheonce witnessed. Her description of theevent was always pretty much thesame, so I have no reason to doubt heraccount.When she was around age ten shelived with her parents on a farm in ru-ral Iredel County,NC.As she played around in the yard,not far from the house, she was startledby something impacting the groundnearby. She ran over to it to see what itwas.She described it as a red-hot rockpartially imbedded in the soil. It wastoo hot to touch, so she ran into thehouse and called her mother out to seethe rock. After it had cooled, they re-trieved the rock and put it to use as adoor prop.She described the appearance of therock as having imprints about the sizeof the fingers, which I took to be abla-tion marks caused by interaction withthe atmosphere.What this suggests to me is that theatmosphere can slow down what is leftof a falling meteorite from somethinglike seven miles per second at the timeit is captured by the Earths gravity untilit impacts the ground at only afractionof such a speed.I commented to my mother on morethan one occasion that she was ex-tremely lucky to have witnessed thefalling of ameteorite atclose range. Shelived to be 93 years old.Kind Regards,Robert D. NullNovember 2005
  15. 15. FILERS FILESDirector, MUFON Eastern RegionNote: These reports are presented in or-der to keep readers informed of some of thevast number of sightings being reported.However, these cases have not been officiallyinvestigated.California triangleSAN DIEGO — On July 4, 2005,at 9 PM a bright triangle with orangelights was spotted above MissionBay,so the witnesses parked on a hill to ob-serve it."Very high overMission Bay,"saysone of the witnesses, "I saw a verybright orange ball, and as it got closerit looked like a V.It had five bright or-ange lights on each arm of theV."It moved very fast to the left,stopped, thenmoved forwardand to theright. There also appeared to be sometype of drippingorange fire from it, likea flare, but this only happened twice."Then the lights went out one at atime on the arms, anditjustlooked likea star thatfaded out. I was sober as helland still pretty freaked out about it."I am an educated middle agewoman, and never saw anythinglike it.I just cant believe we were the onlyones to see it. Im watching the newsfor it. Most people were watching thefireworks." Thanks toPeter Davenport.Japanese crew films at Area 51Eugene Cuthbertson writes, "I go along way back in UFOlogy to NICAPand APRO. Ive had a few sightings,accompanied a Japanese NHK videoteam to Area 51, and had a very briefclose encounter."The Japanese NHK film crew gotsome good stuff, and Ihave acopy of iton video, which I am going to convertto CD and into this Dell computer, asan MPEG."The Japanese were careless, andworried me a great deal. This has beena few years ago, before Freedom Ridgewas closed. The Japanese monitoredGeorge Filerthe security patrols, and you can hearthe patrol radio back that his area isclear."When the patrol went back, theJapanese waited a short time, contin-ued to monitor security,illegally Ithink,then followed him back in, but I dontknow how close we actually were."On the video you can see a fairlylarge lighted craftemerge straightup. It either is-sued anothercraft or anothercraft which wasred went up withit, screened offfrom us, and ap-peared."Both maneu-vered for severalseconds or aminute, then went back down to thebase. We were on the backside ofGroom Mountain."On the VCR, if youpause the videoandpress thetracking buttons,the staticconfetti will be deleted and it is pos-sible to make out both discs for whatthey are."This was part of a six-hour mini-series in Japan, and I have the final twohoursofit.For years Ididnt thinkmuchabout the tape, assuming that mostpeople in Ufologyalready knew aboutit."New Mexico flashing objectALBUQUERQUE — A brightlyflashing object was seen in broad day-light at 12:50 PM on June 19,2005. Itrose suddenly,hovered, then dived andsped away after five minutes.The witnessreports, "I stopped andwatched it; the flashing continued in anirregular, fluttery fashion, and it con-tinued its southerly motion against thewind."After perhaps two minutes of ob-servation, the object was due south ofme. It suddenly rose very rapidly to aposition probably 70 degrees above thehorizon and stood motionless. It con-tinued to flash, and I could see a blackphase alternating between the brightones."There was no discernable shape,and the size wasjust sufficient to giveme the impression of angularity."Thanks to Peter Davenport, Director, discLAKE HALL — Blake reports toSkywatch International, "Last nightonJuly 1,2005,1was fishing whena lineof thunderstorms began to move intothe area. My back wasto the lakewhensuddenly there was this bright flash oflightning, but nothunder."There was still a bit of a glow leftin the sky. I turned around, and therewas this saucer-shaped thing hoveringover the lake! It didnt make a sound.It seemed tobe greenish yellow in colorand had a small protrusion attached tothe bottom."I was overcome with fear, andjumped into my truck and got the heckout of there! Ive been in combat, butIve never felt fear like that before!Today, after I calmed down a bit, Icalled a friend who suggested I call JimHickman, who studies UFOs."Thanks to Blake, Jim Hickman, andSkywatch International.Six spheres spotted in IllinoisCAROL STREAM — Last week,Im not exactly sure of the date, twofriends saw an orange glow above thebaseball park adjacentto the lake. Oneof the witnesses reports, "I thought atfirst there were fireworks, but therewere six spheres flying in formation,three in front and three in rear."The front formation was a diagonalNovember 2005 MUFON UFOJournal 15
  16. 16. line of three. The rear was a trianglepointing to the front formation.Itwouldhave seemed alarge single craft if theywerent oscillating freely.They movedslightly in and out in perfectformation."This formationcontinued across thesky, which was a clear dusk sky. Theindividual objects were an amber, blue,gray all put together. The light was aniridescent glow. They appeared veryhigh in the atmosphere, and were mov-ing over the horizon very quickly, butsoundless."They resembled amagnifiedhumanegg, roundwithan innercircumferenceand an outer. Only my friend and I sawit, that we know of. As the crafts con-tinued across the dusk sky, we both ob-served them vanish one by one, frontof the formation to the back. Pleasecontact me" Thanks toPeter Davenport.Idaho close encounter with discMERIDIAN — The male witnessstates, "I was approached by a strangeflying light whiledrivinghome onJuly8,2005.1was driving home to Merid-ian with my aunt and her grandkidsfrom Fruitland, OR, and we left closeto midnight."I took the Franklin exit off of Inter-state 84 by mistake. So I just headednorth till I hitCherry Lane Road,whichis a back road to Meridian. There wasno other traffic, and all we could seewas a lot of open unused fields."From out of nowherea strange lightapproached the side of the car at groundlevel and then flew right over us. Ithardly made any sound.All I could seewere four bright white lightsthat wereround in shape."It felt like I was being watched fora split second. After it flew over thecar it dove down into the field next tous and its lights went out. I saw that itdidnt look anything like a plane. Itlooked more like a long wingor saucershape."I saw one light come on after thebright ones went out. It was a smallblinking blue light. After it hadswooped down in the field, I saw itwhip around andjump back up into thesky."I felt lucky this thing didnt crashinto us, and Ijust kept driving. I lookedback in my rear viewmirror, and it wasjust hovering above the trees."The female witness states, "We weregoing back to Meridian, ID, and weredriving along west on Cherry Road. Allof a sudden a strong light from out ofnowhere beamed on us."It was a bright white light. The ob-ject flew right in front of us and passedus in to a field. A beaming strong lightshined on us as the object flew by. Thelights wentout,and a blueflashinglightcame on.The object stopped andturnedaround and went back up in the sky."New Hampshire cigar shapeEXETER — An Instructor FlightEngineer on the P3 Orion and EP-3Reconnaissance aircraft with 10,000hours of flight time called Peter Dav-enport to report "an enormous silver ci-gar-shaped object in the sky at about a40 degree angle above the horizonabout 3:15 PM on July 20, 2005."He reports he was shocked to see theobject hovering almost motionless,back-dropped by clear, blue sky inpartly cloudy conditions with a westwind at 9 mph.The witness states, "I am a retiredNavy chief with 22 years of service. Ialso worked for Boeing in Everett,WA,as a quality assurance manager lead-ing a team of 65 people in the SystemsInstallation Division on the Boeing 777Production Line."Fveflownoverthe entire globe, andnever seen anything like this cylinder.This object was about twice the size ofa modern day US Navy Nimitz Classaircraft carrier flying withoutsound."I thoughtit was between 2,500 and3,500 feet in altitude, because theclouds were at 5,000 feet. There wasalso a row of large windows evenlyspaced around the entire perimeter ofthe object a little bit higher than center."The object was moving from thewest directly toward me, heading in aneasterly direction and moving veryslowly at less than 100 knots."There was this strange lookingcloud of orange/red flames that startedgrowing and billowing underneath theentire bottom of the object."The billowing fiery clouds re-minded me of the way napalm rollsalong on the vintage war film footageof Viet Nam Ive seen on television,except that there was no smoke associ-ated with it. It looked as if the air itselfhad been suddenly ignited in a largebillowing cloud of flames."Just as I was about to turn and runinto the house due to fear, the fierycloud grew larger, and it seemed to bepushing back toward the western endof the object."Once it reached its peak (probablyabout half the diameter of the object),the object seemed to stretch out abouttwice its original size toward the east-ern end, thus filling the entire sky infront of me, and then in the wink of aneye the western end of the object caughtup with the eastern end and it simplydisappeared right in front of me."This was absolutely one of the mostamazing things I have ever seen in mylife, and in my opinion this was notsomething man made-and it was far toobig to be a blimp or an airplane. I be-lieve it was not of this Earth."Peter Davenport was impressed bythe demeanor, eloquence, and appar-ent sincerity of the witness. Thanks toPeter Davenport.Indiana object photographedROANN — The witness reports, "Isaw a silver diamond shape craft onJuly 1,2005, at 7:05 PM and thought itwas an airplane. It was still, then itflipped to its side and vanished."I had my digital camera, and juststarted taking pictures of where it hadbeen as I kept driving. I saw nothingexcept traces in the sky, like smoke orrocket trails."When I downloaded the pictures Ifound five or six photos of the UFO,with two pictures showing smokecircles and a zigzag pattern in the sky.It must have been traveling real fast,because thecamera caughtwhatIcouldnot see."It was a ball of fire with a black ob-ject inthe center. I am verypleased withthese photos." Thanks to Peter Daven-portUFOs sighted in the UKBRACKNELL NEWS — UFOswere sighted in the sky over CrownWood on July 19,2005, when Maurice16 MUFON UFO Journal November 2005
  17. 17. Jones looked throughhisbinocularsthathe uses to spot birds. But when he andsome of his family saw not one, but twoUFOs hoveringabove their house at 4PM, they knew something strange washappening.They got some neighbors to look aswell. Maurice, 50, a Parcel Net cou-rier, said his 12-year-old daughterAlaina spotted the strange object first.Maurice reports, "The first objectwas huge, and the shape of a plane fu-selage or a cigar tube. It was brownandrotating in the sky. When it caught thesun it had a metallic appearance. Itcame right over the top of us."Another witness, Mr.Jones, said theobject was in the sky for around 20min-utes before disappearing. But the groupcould not believe their eyes whentheysaw the second object a few minuteslater-a flying saucer spinning fast. Bothobjects were in the Heathrow Airportflight path.Missouri sphereST. LOUIS — A lit up sphere-shaped object was seen moving veryslowly southeast over the city on June17, 2005, at 7:08 PM.The family was outside cookingwhen the husbandpointed out aroundsilver metallic object that turned brightyellow, either lit up or reflecting thesunlight.It traveled very slowly from north-west to southeast. It went behind acloud, but witnesses could still see theyellow shining through.It thencame outof the clouds and continued in the samedirection that it had been moving, stillvery slowly.Ten minutes later the object was stillslowly movingto the southeast. Thanksto Peter Davenport.New York rectangleASTORIA — At 5:35 PM on June1, 2005, the witness saw a rectangu-lar-shaped grayish black object mak-ing a lazy circle over Queens at about1,000 feet.The object was thin when viewedhead-on. It appeared to be at least 500feet, but less than 1,000 feet, long, and100-200 feet wide. The object flewover Astoria Boulevard, then made awide circle and flew over theEast RiverNovember 2005to the island of Manhattan, turning tofly south down its spine on Manhattanswest side.The duration of the sighting was fiveminutes. It was similar to a banner be-ing towed. "However," says the wit-ness, "at no time did I see an airplanetowing it, and there was no writing oradvertisement on the grayish black ob-ject." Thanks to Peter Davenport.Wisconsin objectsGALESVILLE — The observer re-ports seeing dark circular objects at 9PM on June20,2005. They would dis-appear and then reappear in a differentlocation."One object," says the witness,"seemed to have the shape of a domeon top. I saw one, then two and three,but there were usuallytwo."The odd thing is that as I was tak-ing pictures of these dark objects, I be-gan to notice the cloudschangingawaytoward the right of them. I took threepictures of the changing formation."Iwas using a digital camera, andwhen I took thepicture of the large con-figuration, my camera went totallyblack except for the normal informa-tion readout. I have never had this hap-pen before."I tried repeatedly to take a picture,and it just wouldnt work. Even theviewfinder was black. I had to turn itoff and on again. By that time the largeconfiguration wasgone."Thanks to Pe-ter Davenport.Florida bright orange lightWEEKI-WACHEE — Seven wit-nesses were on a fishing trip in theGulfof Mexico on July 3, 2005, when theysaw a bright orangelightjust above thewater at 2:48 AM.The witness says the object "tilted,stayed there for about a minute, andthen slowly wenthorizontal. It lookedlike it was spinning, and was almostalive with color."It was on the starboard side whenseven of us saw the object as it ap-peared in an instant in the dark nightsky. The light was a very brightbeauti-ful orange that was not an oil rig, spaceshuttle, aircraft, or vessel, since weknow what they look like out there atnight.MUFON UFO Journal"I reached for my camera, but thebattery was dead, even though it wasbrand new. They had been in the cam-era for a couple of hours, and the cam-era worked fine until we saw thelight."Even the lights on the boat dimmedbefore the object blinked out. Im stillbeside myself about this sighting, andhave felt different. Ijust want to knowwhat this was." Thanks to MUFONCase Management System.New York orange discBROOKLYN — On July 11,2005,the witness was walking home at 7:03PM looking at the sky. He states, "Iwatched ajet climbing at about 7,000to 10,000feet altitudeheading west outof JFK airport, making a slow, wideturn, and at the same time I noticed anorange/red balloon-shaped object fly-ing east at about 5,000 feet in front ofand below the jet."As thejet flew over the object, theobject made a slow tight circle under-neath and towards the jet as if it werewatching the jet make the turn south-east."I saw clearly this object was disc-shaped as it waited twelve seconds andstarted moving smoothly straight up to15,000 feet and through the top of avery large cloud bank and out of sight.It was about 1/20 the size of the 727."Thanks to MUFON Case ManagementSystem, spheres in thunderstormPORTLAND—Thirty-plus sphereswere observed flying in formation dur-ing a thunderstorm, due to large mul-tiple lighting flashes at9:46PM onJune19, 2005,The witness reports, "Multiple light-ing flashes illuminated a large forma-tion of bright white spheres travelingtogether in an oval pattern. They werevisible for about 11/2 minutes, andwere quite impressive."My apartment lights flickeredbriefly as we watched these large ships.This was not ball lightning. On thenextlarge lightning flash in the same area ofthe sky, the sky was clear."NUFORC Note: Peter Davenportspoke with this witness via telephone,and he seemed quite credible. Thanksto Peter Davenport.17
  18. 18. Physical TracesBy Ted PhillipsLTed PhillipsThe Ttiscumbia, MO, caseReport #196715Location: Tuscumbia,MissouriDate of Event: Feb. 14, 1967General Location: Miller County,MQ, south of Jefferson City.Astronomical Conditions: N/A •daylight-sunrise 07:04Meteorological Conditions: 22de-grees F, clearsky, very lightwinds fromnorth.P r i m a r yWitness:C l a u d eEdwards, 64,farmer, no inter-est in flying sau-cers orpublicity.He requested hisname not beused, but he isnow deceased. I learned of the casefrom a friend of his brother. After sev-eral weeks Imanaged to locate hisveryremote farm.Case DetailsI visited briefly with Claude at hismodest home, gaining his confidencethat I wouldnt reveal anyinformationabout the location or his name as longas he was alive. He didnt like talkingabout the event at first, but becamemore comfortable as we discussed theweather and world events.I asked him to relive the eventin realtime, and we began on his front porch,which facesthe largebam near theland-ing area.On the morning of the event he leftthe house at 07:00, four minutes be-fore sunrise. The area was alreadybrightly illuminated,as it was a clear,crisp day.As he walked down the long, rockyslope toward a large barn, he had cov-ered 258 feet of the 310 feet betweenthe house andbarn whenhe noticed thecattle looking toward a field to the east.18Through scatteredtrees to his left he saw .a gray-green object"like a giant mush-room" in the field eastof the barn. At thispoint he was 180 feetfrom the landedobject.When he reached thebarn, Claude placedthe feed bucket he wascarrying inside thebarn and latched thedoor.As he turned to look again at thedevice, he could see several small fig-ures moving rapidly under the object.Claude decidedat thispoint that some-thing very odd was in the field. He hada clear unobstructed viewof the objectresting on the ground70 feet away.Between him and the object werescattered cows and two fences. Heclimbed over the first gate, and as hereached the second fence the small fig-ures started moving around behind avertical central shaft under the object.The small figures were gray-greenin color, and less than 1meter tall.Theymoved around directly beneath the de-vice. As they moved, he could see armsor levers moving rapidly.They had either wide-set large eyesor goggles. He noted a protuberancewhere the nose and mouth would havebeen. He could see no legs or move-ment on the lower part of their bodies.He further described the figures asappearing "like a penguin, nothuman,with no visible neck."Claude picked up two rocks, "prettygood size they were," and went overthe second gate determined to "knocka hole in the thing and keep it on theground."In full sunlight, Claude reached apoint 15 feet from the device and wasstopped by an unseen force whichseemed to extend aroundthe object. Hecouldnt feel it or see it, "it wasjust aMUFON UFO JournalTuscumbia object sketched by Claude Edwards.pressure.He backed up about 10 feet andtossed a rock at the object, but the rockhit something at the 15-foot point andbounced back into the field. There wasno sound of impact. Determined, hethrew the second rock toward the areaabove the device. The rock skipped asif on water, withno sound,into the fieldbeyond the object. Claude was a bitupset, but felt compelled to stand there15 feet away watching it.The surface was seamless, likegray-green silk. Theobject, "just lookedlike a big shell, grayish-green lookingoutfit," said Claude."And underneaththere were oblongholes where the lights were coming out.They were so bright you couldnt seewhen you got up there."Around the lower rim were evenlyspaced oval openings. They were 12inches long and about 12 inches apart.They were displaying brilliant colorsfrom inside each opening. The colorschanged rapidly asif a color wheel wasturning inside the object.The central shaft was the same coloras the main portion of the object, tubu-lar in shape, extending from the under-neath section and positioned in the cen-ter of the circular base. The object hada diameter of 18 feet, and was 8 feetthick; the central shaft was 3 feet tall.There was no sound at any time.The object suddenly and silentlyNovember 2005
  19. 19. rocked back toward him slightly threetimes, and on the third time liftedquickly off the ground.The central shaftwas seen pulling up into the base untilit was flush and invisibleto the eye.The object gained speed rapidly, lev-eled off, and flew towards St. Eliza-beth to the ME, disappearing quicklyinto thedistance."The whole thing took over fiveminutes," explained Claude, "maybeten. I never seen anything like it."When I arrived at the scene morethan three months after the event, thesite was still quite visible. There was aone-meter slightly irregular circlewhere the shaft had rested.The soil was extremely dehydratedin contrast with the surroundingsoil.There wasadepression 20mmdeepsloping to 30mm at the central area. Inthe centerthere was an imprint,oval inconfiguration, 100 mm x 65 mm.The imprint extended verticallydownward to a depth of 100 mm withan extension 25 mm long,the depth ofthe imprint shaft.Desktop fusionreactor developedFor more than half a century,physi-cists havebeen tryingto harness fusion,the nuclear reaction that makes the sunshine and hydrogen bombs explode.But experimental reactors built so farhave been gigantic, expensive furnacesthat produce less energy than they con-sume.Now UCLA researchers havebuilta fusion reactor the size of a lunchbucket-and they say they can prove itworks.The reactor uses heat tocreate elec-tricity in a crystal bathed indeuteriumgas, an isotope of hydrogen.The result-ing charge strips electrons from thedeuterium atoms, repelling them andfocusing them into a fast-movingstream so energetic that it triggers fu-sion when it collides with a target.The device still produces lessenergythan it consumes. But the neutrons re-leased by the reaction could be usefulfor irradiating tumors, scanning bag-gage or even powering a spacecraft.-John Morgan, Newsweek.November 2005One of the photos taken by Troy Wallis on March 5 from a Carnivalcruise ship two to three miles off the coast ofBaja, on their way to PuertoVallarta, Mexico.Man, wife observe UFOfrom Carnival cruise shipInvestigator: Charles C. Reever, N.California MUFON, Chief Investiga-tor, State Section Director.Referred by: Ruben Uriarte, N.California State Director.Witnesses: Mr. and Mrs. TroyWallis.Date of sighting: May 5, 2005.Time of sighting: 11PMDuration of sighting: 30-40 min-utes.Other: Photos taken by witness.NarrationIn May of this year, Troy Wallis, 33,and his wife were on a Mexican cruise,three days at sea. At about 11 PMtheywere on the stern of the ship looking atstars whenan object which seemed faraway was seen flickering.Mr.Wallis had recently purchased aMinolta digital camera with 4 megapixel resolution and a zoom lens, so hebegan taking photos of the object, thefirst photo without zooming.He reports that the ship was steady,and he made an effort to brace himselfas he took the photos. He zoomed thecamera athigh resolution and took sev-eral photos from the same location.The object, which appeared to beinMUFON UFO Journalthe shapeof acircle, changed color, flut-tered, turned sharply, changed shape,and hovered. It appeared to be solid,and one photo shows a definite discshape with structure.The disc appeared to be about 70 %illuminated, but it is not known if thiswas self illumination,from lights on thecruise ship, orpartiallyenhanced by thecameras automatic exposure setting.Some of the photos appear to showjagged flight lines, and a star can beseen in two of those photos as a disc oflight and not fuzzy, indicating that thecamera was not moved and was in fo-cus.Mr.Wallis does not think the jaggedlight maneuvers were made by the disc-shaped object.He was not yet familiar enough withthe camera tobe abletotell the investi-gator the shutter speed at which he wasshooting. Althoughhe has Photoshop,he says the images were not enhancedin any way.The witness, who is manager of agraphic design shop, wasjudged to besincere and reliable. Although a hoaxcannot be ruled out, as the witness hasgraphics experience, this is unlikely.19