Mufon ufo journal 2007 7. july

767 views
674 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
767
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 2007 7. july

  1. 1. In thisissueJuly 2007No. 471$4.00UFO JournalSearching forTruth:Roswell 3Photo/VideoAnalysisin the Electronic Age 6ETs Among Us 10Calendar 12State DirectorCMS Rankings 21UFO Marketplace 23Night Sky 24ColumnsDirector’s Message 2Book Reviews 13StanFriedman 14Ted Phillips 16Filer’s Files 19This July marks the 60th Anniversary of the Roswell Incident. Seearticles on pages 3 and 14.60 Years ofRoswellCover of MUFON UFOJournal from March 1994.(www.UFOPOP.org)
  2. 2. Copyright 2007 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 iscredited, and the statement, “Copyright 2007 by the Mutual UFO Network, P.O. Box 279, Bellvue, CO 80512-0279” is included.The contents of the MUFON UFO Journal are determined by the editor, and do not necessarily reflectthe official position of the Mutual UFO Network. Opinions expressed are solely those of the individual authorsand columnists, 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 in Section 509(a)(2). Donorsmay deduct contributions from their Federal Income Tax. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts arealso deductible for estate and gift purposes, provided they meet the applicable provisions of Sections 2055,2106, and 2522 of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a Texas nonprofit corporation.The MUFON UFO Journal is published monthly by the Mutual UFO Network, Inc., Bellvue, CO.Periodical postage paid at Versailles, MO.Individual Membership: $45/year U.S., $55 outside the U.S.Family 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 (Lifetime Member): $1,000First class Journal delivery (in envelopes) U.S. and Canada only: $12/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 279,Bellvue, CO 80512-0279.Change of address and subscription/extra copies inquiries should besent to MUFON, P.O. Box 279, Bellvue, CO 80512-0279.MUFON’s mission is the scientific study of UFOs for the benefitof humanity through investigation, research, & education.July 2007 Number 471Continued on page 22Director’s MessageBy James CarrionJames CarrionMUFONUFO Journal(USPS 002970)(ISSN 02706822)Mutual UFO NetworkPost Office Box 279Bellvue, CO 80512-0279Tel: 888-817-2220Fax: 866-466-9173hq@mufon.comInternational DirectorJames Carrion, M.A.P.O. Box 279Bellvue, CO 80512-0279Tel: 888-817-2220Fax: 866-466-9173jcarrion@mufon.comEditorSally Petersen, M.A.editor@mufon.comTel: 888-817-2220, 4-4-1Editor@mufon.comColumnistsGeorge Filer, M.B.A.Stanton Friedman, M.S.Gavin A. J. McLeodTed PhillipsStaff artistsJohn EgertonWes CrumMark MarrenMUFON staff photographerNick RoeslerMUFON on the Internethttp://www.mufon.comMUFON Amateur Radio Net40 meters - 7.240 MHzSundays noon EST or EDSTThe MUFON Symposium is almosthere and I hope you will attend thisimportant annual event at the DenverTech CenterMarriott inDenver, ColoradoAugust 10–12,2007. In additionto our excellentlineup of speak-ers like StantonFriedman,Richard Dolan,TimothyGood,KathleenMarden, Robert Salas, MichaelNelson, Dr. Rudy Schild, Sam Maranto,Brad Sparks, John Greenewald, andGeorge Knapp, MUFON will also haveon display for the first time ever, copiesof the negatives of the McMinnville,Oregon, UFO photos.Taken in 1950 by the Trent family,the photos are the only ones that havebeen authenticated by a body ofscientific analysts. The CondonCommittee concluded: “This is one ofthe few UFO reports in which allfactors investigated—geometric,psychological, and physical—appear tobe consistent with the assertion that anextraordinary flying object, silvery,metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters indiameter, and evidently artificial, flewwithin sight of two witnesses. It can-not be said that the evidence positivelyrules out a fabrication, although thereare some physical factors such as theaccuracy of certain photometricmeasures of the original negativeswhich argue against a fabrication.”Also at the 2007 Symposium wewill once again be running a silentauction. If you have UFO-relatedparaphernalia to donate to the auction,it would be greatly appreciated. Pleasesend your silent auction donation by2007 Symposium Coming Soon!
  3. 3. 3MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007Searching for the Truth of the Roswell Incident:Once a Non-believer, Facts Don’t MatterAt left: a Project Mogul train of balloons—over thirty research balloonsand experimental sensors strung together and stretching more than 600feet. Does this look like a flying saucer?With the approaching 60thanniver-sary of the 1947 Roswell Incidentupon us, I’ve noticed the internetUFO forums are active with discus-sions by those who dispute establishedinformation about two aspects of theincident, specifically pertaining to 1)the debris found on the Foster ranchby ranch foreman William “Mack”Brazel, and 2) the photographs takenin General Ramey’s office.Both of these key elements of theincident, in my estimation, have been“put to rest” several times with goodresearch and factual information, butthe critics and non-believers appar-ently don’t want to accept factualinformation, even though they have nonew or counter information to offer.The debate continues.Regarding the question of thedebris—was it from a weather balloonor something else?—I will rely on theresearch of David Rudiak (http://roswellproof.com) and a few otherswho devoted countless hours toresearch and documentation.Regarding the photographs takenin General Ramey’s office, I speakfrom first-hand knowledge frompersonal interviews of James BondJohnson, the photographer of all butone of the photographs. I was able toseriously question him about some ofhis statements and his embellishmentsof his involvement as expressed ininterviews done previously by DavidRudiak, Kevin Randle and others.Brazel knew weather balloonsOn June 14, 1947, a ranch fore-man, William “Mack” Brazel spottedsome wreckage on the ranch, whichhe later showed to Major JesseMarcel and counter intelligence officerS. Cavitt.Ranch foreman “Mack” Brazelwas familiar with weather balloons,having prior to July 1947 recoveredseveral and turned them in to theArmy-Air Force for the small rewardoffered. Would the top intelligenceofficer in the military at the time(Major Jesse Marcel), be asked to go65 miles away from the base with CICoperative Captain Cavitt to review thesituation on a ranch if the wreckagewas from a balloon? Would theythemselves bring debris back to thebase, and shortly thereafter haveMarcel fly some of that debris to 8thArmy-Air Force headquarters in FortWorth, Texas, for General Ramey toview if it appeared to be from aballoon? Would that same debris thenbe flown on to Wright Field at Dayton,Ohio, if it was only a balloon?And why in 1994—47 yearslater—would the Air Force publish areport indicating that what was foundon the Foster ranch in 1947 was not aflying saucer as reported by the mediaJuly 8, 1947—after the base pressrelease—nor was it a weather balloonas General Ramey reported in themedia the next day on July 9, 1947, butrather a Mogul balloon?Mogul balloons (see illustration)were intended to detect any futurenuclear testing being done by theRussians as observed from highaltitude, so the Mogul balloons werebeing launched to see if they could bekept at a constant high altitude level.To the critics and non-believers itdoesn’t matter that the Russians didn’tdo any nuclear testing until 1949, (twoyears after the Roswell Incident).Finally, if the Mogul balloons weresuch a secret, why was a phonyMogul launch carried out for the pressat Alamogordo on July 9, 1947, the dayafter the flying disc press release?We’re certainly due another excuse bythe Air Force, after the four we’vealready had.The Mogul 4 balloon, which someclaim was the debris found on theranch, seems to be the only unac-counted-for Mogul balloon launch thatfits the time frame. However, accord-ing to a diary kept by one of the Mogulscientists, Flight 4 was cancelled dueto cloud cover, which is also supportedBy Dennis BalthasarContinued on page 4
  4. 4. July 20074 MUFON UFO JournalJames Bond Johnson andDennis Balthaserby weather records of that time. Flight9 on July 3rdwas also cancelled.Neither Flight 4 nor 9 are listed in theMogul records kept for each launch. Ifa flight was cancelled, the balloonsalready filled with helium would besimply released because they couldn’tbe reused. Any reusable equipment(radiosondes, radar reflectors) usedfor tracking would have been removedfrom the balloon train before releasingthe balloons. Such a balloon releasewould have no value and would nottypically be tracked.Charles Moore, Mogul Engineer,claimed Flight 4 was tracked (basedonly on his memory), but has neverproduced any substantial documenta-tion to support it. As a matter of note,none of the equipment that would havebeen attached to a Mogul balloon wasever reported as being found at thedebris field either. David Rudiak andothers have re-calculated the trajec-tory of Flight 4, and Rudiak hasindicated that Moore’s calculations forthe trajectory would have missed theFoster ranch by 70 miles, while othersindicate 17 miles away from the ranch,either one being a long distance fromthe debris site.Besides Mogul balloons withoccasional radar targets, weatherballoons with radar targets were alsolaunched from a weather station atOrogrande, south ofAlamogordo, priorto the launching of V-2 rockets fromWhite Sands. But neither a singleballoon with a radar target nor a muchlarger Mogul balloon train with track-ing and other equipment would explainthe size of the debris field, describedas being several hundred yards wideby ¾ of a mile long.Over the years much has beensaid about the “flower tape” suppos-edly holding parts of the Mogul radartarget equipment together, but nonehas ever been seen in the photos takenin General Ramey’s office by JamesBond Johnson, strongly indicating thedebris in General Ramey’s officewasn’t even part of a Mogul balloonassembly.Photographer James BondJohnsonThat brings me to photographerJames Bond Johnson. There has beencontroversy over the photographs hetook in General Ramey’s office,reportedly of the Roswell debrisdelivered there by Major Marcel.Furthermore, in various interviews,Johnson apparently embellished hisinvolvement.I have made a few observationsabout the photographs that I want toshare with you. The brown wrappingpaper on the floor in several of thephotographs with the debris on top ofit appears to me to have been re-moved from a new roll of brownwrapping paper. Its flat surfaceindicates that the paper was never apart of a wrapped up package broughtto the General’s office by MajorMarcel, as it would have had creasesor been crumpled from being wrappedaround the debris material. Secondly,and again in several photographs,unopened packages are plainly visible,possibly being some of the debrisMarcel brought, and not yet opened. IfMajor Marcel went into the map roomwith the General when he arrived inFort Worth before the packages wereopened as I understand it, did Johnsontake it upon himself to open some ofthe packages? He told me he rear-ranged the pile of debris for the photoshoot.Part of my 2001 interview withJohnson is presented here. Thecomplete interview is atwww.truthseekeratroswell.com/interview_James_Bond_Johnson.htmlSearching for the TruthContined from page 3Photos taken by James Bond Johnson in General Ramey’s office. Atleft, General Roger M. Ramey and Colonel Thomas Jefferson.Continued on page 5
  5. 5. 5MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007DGB: Who asked you if you hadyour camera available and told you togo to General Ramey’s office?JBJ: I was assigned by my cityeditor, Cullum Greene… [He] wasquite concerned when he had justreceived a “flash” AP teletype alertmessage that a “captured” flyingsaucer was being flown from theRoswell Army Air Forces Base to theEighth Air Force headquarters ofGeneral Roger Ramey located at FortWorth Army Air Field and he wasvery eager to obtain photos of thecraft…DGB: For the record, I understandthat you took six photographs (threedifferent setups) on July 8, 1947 inGeneral Ramey’s office, includingGeneral Ramey alone, General Rameyand Colonel DuBose and Maj. JesseMarcel. Agreed?JBJ: Yes.DGB: You have indicated that youdo not remember meeting or takingphotographs of Major Marcel inRamey’s office, but rather believe youdid take them after looking at thenegatives at the library of the Univer-sity of Texas at Arlington [where theyare archived], based on the markingson the film that was used for the otherphotographs you did take. Agreed?JBJ: Yes, upon examination of theavailable four original negativeshoused in the Special Collections wingof the UTA Library I was able toconfirm that the films all have identicaledge coding and so would have comefrom the same “batch” of film. Also,the negatives are still filed in theiroriginal manila negative files whichinclude the original typed photocaptions. … It is believed that Ifurnished [the] fifth negative to aphoto service on the night of July 8,1947. The sixth negative—of Rameyalone that ran in the Star-Telegram on July 10, 1947—has not been located. Therehas been some speculationthat this negative was confis-cated by the government sinceit probably shows in clearestdetail the debris pieces in thephotos.DGB: The photograph ofIrving Newton (weatherofficer at Fort Worth Army AirField, at right) was not takenby you,… agreed?JBJ: Agreed.…JBJ: It has been widely specu-lated—and I have no reason tochallenge—that the Newton shot wastaken some time after my departure tobe released along with the official“weather balloon” explanation person-ally announced on Fort Worth radiostation WBAP by General Ramey ashort time after I had departed hisoffice. It was stated by ColonelDuBose shortly before his death thatRamey was ordered by his superiorsto announce the “weather balloon”cover-up story “to get the press offour backs.”When I asked Johnson about theunopened packages on the floor, hesaid, “there hadn’t been time to openSearching for the TruthContined from page 4them all, and what was opened was ina pile, so I rearranged it for the photoshoot.”Johnson had made a statementthat the paper in General Ramey’shand in the photographs was a pressrelease that he had handed to Ramey.In my interview with Johnson headmitted he was in error about that.Bottom line for James BondJohnson is that he did take six photo-graphs in General Ramey’s office, butnot the one of Irving Newton, and hehad no other involvement, although heembellished his involvement in variousinterviews he had done.Dennis G. Balthaserwww.truthseekeratroswell.comEmail: truthskr@roswell.netIrving NewtonSilent Auction Donations NeededDo you have any UFO paraphernalia you would like todonate Silent Auction to be held at the MUFON 2007Symposium August 10–12, 2007?Please send your donation of UFO paraphernalia by July30thto MUFON, PO Box 279, Bellvue, CO 80512.Thank you!
  6. 6. July 20076 MUFON UFO JournalContinued on page 7Photo and Video Analysis in the Electronic AgeLast month’s Journal printedexcerpts of photo/video analystJeff Sainio’s symposium talks onPhoto Analysis, Video Analysis, andAnalysis, Fraud and Unseen Ob-jects. This month’s article coversThe Science Method vs. Pseudo-science. This is the second of threeinstallments.TThe Scientific Method vs.PseudoscienceAt the 2002 MUFON Symposium,Mr. Sainio gave a presentation onThe Scientific Connections inPhoto/Video Ufology. An excerptfollows:Assume two west-facing photos ofa beach at sunset, with an airborne diskappearing, are being examined. Thephotographer and friend claimed to seethe object fly by. What characteristicsabout the photos can be tested?1. People normally center an interestingobject in a photo. Is the disk cen-tered? If not, is there an explanation?2. Sunset sky behind the disk will giveglare, slightly reddening the edges ofthe disk. Theorize the disk is real, asopposed to an altered negative. Isglare found?3. People in the photos are silhouettedby the sun, making them appearblack regardless of clothing. Thus,the blackness is largely independentof actual color. The disk should besimilar, except for lightening due toatmospheric haze. The lighteningshould be dependent on distance. Arethe allegedly-more-distant diskimages lighter than the people?4. Both the people and disks should bedistant objects. Both should havesimilar focus. Is this the case?Except for the first, none of thesequestions have visually obvious an-swers. Scanning and measurement areneeded. Now assume a video issubmitted of a hovering object, whichzips off. The video is shot through awindow. The object is clearly not anordinary aerial object, but seems like itcould be a bobber hanging on amonofilament line off a rooftop fishingpole, which is then yanked. Whattheories could be tested?1. The window edge is a usable refer-ence. Does the UFO motion match acontrol experiment using a bobber/line/monofilament?2. Do the video control signals bestmatch the poor quality typical of ahome camcorder, or studio equip-ment?3. Is the focus appropriate for a distantobject? In this situation, the onlyother object for comparison is therelatively-near window edge. Thepoor quality of video makes thisexperiment unworkable. Detection ofthe monofilament would also probablybe pointless.Despite the (assuming real) irre-producibility of these cases, useful testsof unobvious characteristics of theevidence can be made. Other re-searchers may duplicate any of thetests, and should get the same results.Pseudoscientists abusing scienceThen there are pseudoscientists,who abuse science in the followingways (and probably more):1. Failure to perform control mea-surements:This is practically a universal ID ofthe pseudoscientist. Control experi-ments are tedious and boring, but arerequired to compare the testing of the“unknown” with similar testing of the“known,” unless the “known” test isso familiar as to be unnecessary.Many degreed Ufologists fail to docontrols, and as will be shown later,their stunning results become quiteordinary when controls are per-formed. For instance, a PhD ufologistpointed out that a UFO in a videowas larger than a mere point, andmade conclusions based on this largeangular size. However, a control wasavailable—the constellation Orionwas visible. Its stars, which are pointsources, appeared the same size asthe “large” UFO. The true source ofthe UFO angular size was therelatively low quality of the camerafocus. The researcher’s conclusionswere meaningless.2. Failure to perform any measure-ments or experiments at all:I happen to be an FCC-licensedbroadcast engineer, and the saying inthis field is “eyes and ears are notFCC-accepted test equipment.”Proper scientific reports are gener-ally filled with tables, charts, orgraphs showing the numeric mea-surements taken. If the data arenoisy, measurements are takenmultiple times, and “error bars” alsoappear in the graphs, to show theuncertainty of the measurements. Incontrast, the pseudoscientist oftendoesn’t know how to experiment ormeasure or analyze, or finds that theresult contradicts a pet theory. Hejust says “wow” to the data, ordoesn’t even have any data. Often,the pseudoscientist is simply lazy.3. Leaping tall buildings to conclu-sions:Pseudoscientists often display aheavy bias toward their favoritetheory (which may not even explainthe case), ignoring conventionalexplanations (which will explain thecase). For example, a distant airborneobject, which fades out of visibility, ispresumed to disappear into anotherdimension, rather than simply beinglost in haze. The bias often involvesselection of evidence (the bestexamples which support his case,contrasted with the poorest evidence
  7. 7. 7MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007Continued on page 8Continued from page 6Video and Photo Analysisfor the competing theory). Theancient Greek phrase post hoc, ergopropter hoc (after the fact, thereforecaused by the fact) which implies aleap to conclusions is often used.With great mysteries so easily solved,further conclusions about UFOorigins, construction, power source,and crew sizes are announced, withcompletely inadequate supportingdata.4. Use of science that they areinsufficiently trained in, combinedwith a failure to verify theirconclusions with somebody whois:At my first MUFON Symposium, acrop-circle researcher told of statisti-cally-significantly lower beta-radia-tion readings inside a circle, thenhypothesized that the lower pH ofthat soil provided more protons toabsorb the oppositely-chargedradiation. The statistics appearedimpressive, but any college-freshmanchemistry student would know thatthe lower pH translates to a trivialincrease in H3O+, and any juniorphysics student would know thatbeta-rays (energetic electrons) aremoving too fast to be significantlyaffected by molecular charge. Thestudy obviously wasn’t checked by achemist or physicist beforehand.Such sophomoric errors are common,and repel scientists from the field.Eminent scientific journals are peer-reviewed; a study is scrutinized byanother researcher prior to publica-tion. Peer-review has its own prob-lems of course, such as delay andpeer-bias.5. Misuse of the reducto ad absur-dum method of logic:Reducto ad absurdum, or reducingto the absurd, is a line of reasoningwhich has an absurd conclusion;therefore, one or more of thereasoning’s initial assumptions mustbe wrong. UFO “researchers” oftenfail to perform control experiments,and many absurdities result fromcontrol experiments based on their“logic.” Note that the absurdity doesnot tell which initial assumption iswrong. Debunkers often implicitlyadd assumptions to a case, then usereducto ad absurdum to debunk thecase. But the absurdity derives fromthe assumptions of the debunker!Such a “successful” debunkerdistorts the facts, attacks the distor-tion, and succeeds in proving himselfwrong. Do not assume thatUfologists are wild speculators, andthat debunkers are calm scientists.I’ve seen more nonscience fromdebunkers than Ufologists.6. Lumping independent casestogether.Readers have probably seen booksclaiming to have “the explanation”for all UFO cases. About half mysubmitted cases are of the planetVenus, and many others are clearlyairplanes.Asingle explanation forthousands of UFO cases is asludicrous as a single cause for everycar crash. Pseudoscientists are oftenmore interested in simplicity or theirpet theory, than in explaining theevidence.7. Utter nonlogic such as use ofemotion rather than logic:This includes circular logic (assumingthat a statement is true, to prove thestatement true); conclusions whichcontradict the assumptions or datathey are derived from; name-calling;or advocating double-standards,censorship, intimidation, or characterassassination of their critics. Charac-ter assassination, or personal attack,is used by pseudoscientists to divertattention away from their failed logic,and toward some alleged failure ofthe person with competing reasoning.The use of personal attack is a signalthe attacker’s case is inadequate.Attackers fail to understand that theircritic’s personal character is irrel-evant; if the competing reasoning isscientific, anybody may verify it.Scientific reports often use third-person writing, using “the experimentwas performed” rather than “Iexperimented” to emphasize thatscience methods, not people, are thecore of the work. The amount ofnonlogic in Ufology, and debunking, isappalling.8. In the field of video/photo analy-sis, inappropriate “enhance-ments” or blowups are often seenon TV shows:One must remember that TV produc-ers’ goal is not science, but ratings.(One of the videos in this paper wasTV-analyzed by actresses and pro-fessional wrestlers!) If such blowupsactually revealed more details, onecould do a blowup/enhancement toreveal Agent Scully’s face in theopen trunk of the getaway car.Another blowup would recognize theskin cells present. Another blowupwould sequence the DNA bases inthe cells, and another blowup todetermine the electron shells aroundthe atoms, with a final blowup to seethe quarks comprising the atomicnucleus. No electron microscopes orparticle accelerators would beneeded. Blowups only work that wayon TV. No enhancement of a photocan determine the three-dimensionalshape of an un-known object. Veryfew blowups on TV are meaningful.Nor are TV shows complete orunbiased. Typi-cally, an hour ofinterview is behind every minute inthe final edit. A researcher carefullycovering the pros and cons of a case,will usually find only one side surviv-ing to the airwaves; the more excitingside. However, such TV appearancesare essential in obtaining cases fromthe public.
  8. 8. July 20078 MUFON UFO JournalVideo and Photo AnalysisContinued from page 7Continued on page 9Fact, Faked or FooledAt least the theories about a UFOcase are generally categorized as:1. The UFO is “fact,” a real, perhapsmetallic, unconventional flying objectwith extraordinary speed, accelera-tion, lack of wings, etc.;2. The UFO is “faked,” by a personattempting deception;3. The UFO is “fooled,” a sincerewitness is misidentifying an ordinaryphenomenon.Categories 2 and 3 may be com-bined; a faker may launch a lightedballoon, and sincere witnesses mayreport it. Note that this list does notcontain a category involving UFOsappearing from the future, from otherdimensions, etc. Since there are nocurrently known methods of time travelor going to other dimensions (whateverthat means), such “explanations”replace unknowns with other un-knowns, with no advancement ofknowledge. Researchers making suchclaims are probably too tangled inunknowns to make any meaningfuladvances.As the MUFON Staff Photo-analysts, colleague Bruce Maccabeeand I have the luxury of analyzing the“hardest” evidence available, at leastuntil a UFO crashes into the lawn ofMUFON headquarters. Photographsand videotapes allow repeatablemeasurement, and contain a wealth ofinformation, much of it not immediatelyevident, and some of it not even visible.Applying the Scientific Method toUFO casesIn this paper, I will demonstratethe scientific method as it applies tothe analysis of UFO cases. Perhaps aquarter of my submitted cases containtoo little information for useful analysis.For the rest, analysis of the physicalevidence involves these steps:1. Observe the UFO photo/video in ameasurable, usually numeric way. AsLord Kelvin said, “If you cannotexpress it in numbers, your knowl-edge is of a weak and meager sort.”UFO position, size, brightness, color,or contrast, are all examples ofnumerically measurable characteris-tics.2. Observe conventional objects in thesame manner, if possible. Sinceatmospheric haze and lighting is oftenimportant, this should preferably bedone with the same camera, lighting,direction, weather, etc. Such controlexperiments may seem difficult, butthe photo/video itself often containstree branches or hills that provideusable control objects. Or witnessesmay be asked to perform controlexperiments with the equipment/location/time of day in question. Thereason for the request isn’t given orobvious, minimizing the chance thewitness could fake the test. I’veanalyzed results of a witness video-taping himself throwing a basketballin the air (measuring camcorderexposure times), a yardstick video-taped at max zoom at 100 feet(measuring field of view), hingeshanging on strings (focus affectingthe string’ detectability), or a brief-case on a dock (focus of the brief-case versus the opposite shore). Asincere witness will happily help thecase despite these odd requests,being only interested in the truth; afaker, knowing the truth and facedwith bewildering requests potentiallyexposing the fake, will usually give upon researchers and concentrate onpublicity or profit.3. Compare the UFO measurementswith the conventional measurementsto determine if the UFO measure-ments indicate an unconventional orimpossible result. (Not all UFOmeasurements should be unconven-tional, as will be seen later!)4. If the UFO’s characteristics areconventional or impossible, the caseis probably “fooled.”Acommonexample of an impossible result is anunseen object appearing on film. Ifthe unseen object has extremelysharp focus, better than near or dis-tant objects, it cannot be a realobject. Dirt from the developing solu-tion is the probable culprit; it will givea very sharp shadow on film. In thiscase, the unseen object is usuallyextremely black, often the blackestpart of the image. A real, distantobject in daytime sky will have somehaze or glare brightening its image; ifnone is seen, a UFO is impossible,and dirt is indicated. The 110 formatfilm, with a small negative, is particu-larly troublesome for this problem.About 70% of my cases are“fooled;” about 50% are the planetVenus. Most Venus cases involvebad camcorder focus. The resultantimage is not of Venus, but of thecamera aperture, and often resem-bles the “Batman” searchlight. OneUFO magazine showed cases of badfocus taken around the world, andMUFON hosts an online message board where photo and video evidencesent to MUFON for analysis can be discussed and debated by photo andvideo experts. If you consider yourself to be such an expert, and would liketo participate in this forum, please email your qualifications tojcarrion@mufon.com. Select qualified analysts will be invited to participatein the forum.James Carrion, MUFON International DirectorDiscuss photo and video evidence at Online Forum
  9. 9. 9MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007concluded the same model UFO wasappearing worldwide. Of course, nocontrols were done. If they had, theywould have reached the properconclusion: Sony sells camcordersworldwide! The collage above showsthe variety of shapes achieved whena point-source of light is out of focus,from a variety of camcorder models.The rightmost, asymmetrical imagesare achieved when a point-source isoff-center.5. If the characteristics are unconven-tional, are they better explained by a“fact” or “results public (subject towitness privacy) and wait months oryears for other cases to corroborateor contradict the new evidence. Thepublished results should include anyobservations that may appear to haveno relevance to the conclusion. Forinstance, a lens flare may indicatethe direction of the sun, although thesun angle has no apparent bearing onthe case. Other researchers may usethis apparently-irrelevant informationto test their own theories. This laststep is not limited to the “fact” cases.The psychology of “fooled” wit-nesses or the technology of “faked”cases, is useful, for example, forstudy of future cases.Non-Optical GuidelinesSome non-optical, not-precisely-scientific guidelines are useful:1. The higher the number of witnesses,the lower the chance the case is afraud. “Three people can keep asecret if two of them are dead,”Poor Richard’s Almanac. Stories getmixed up, or somebody starts gig-gling, with too many fakers. Themore witnesses the better the chanceof recognizing an ordinary object, orof accurately determining the char-acteristics of an extraordinary object.Children, heard on videotape audiotracks, often make good witnesses,reporting “just the facts, ma’am”with little attempt to pigeonhole thesighting into some interpretation.Independent verification is a hall-mark of science, and although avisual sighting isn’t exactly anindependent verification of what isrecorded on film, it is corroboratingor contradicting evidence. The mostcompelling cases are those where allthe unobvious evidence contradictsthe witness testimony, suggesting afraud, or where the witness testi-mony appears to contradict theobvious evidence, but the unobviousevidence corroborates the witness.2. Humans are imperfect witnesses,but the camera or camcorder has itsown imperfections. When witnessessaw nothing, but an anomalous objectappears on film or tape, equipmentmalfunction must be carefullychecked. Fortunately, equipmentimperfections are far better under-stood than human imperfections!3. Photos are easy to fake, but videosare hard to fake. A 30-second videocontains 1800 fields that needediting! The ordinary witness has noaccess to a production lab. The videocontrol signals of a cheap homecamcorder are distinct from theresult of a studio, and the differencescan only be made in a studio byVideo and Photo AnalysisContinued from page 8 tampering with equipment worththousands, often tens of thousands ofdollars. Anything can be faked withenough time, money, motivation, luck,and skill. For an impressive video,the question is often whether thewitness has the resources to fake theevidence at hand.Next month, Mr. Sainio’s 2002paper is continued with “Investi-gating a Typical Case,” plus anupdate by Jeff Sainio on the“Effects of Computer Technologyon Photo/Video Analysis.”Jeffrey Sainio has been MUFON’sStaff Photoanalyst for over 15years, getting about 1 case per dayfrom MUFON, SSDs, individuals,and international organizationssuch as KUFORA (Korea). Sainioperforms image-analysis for a majorprinting company, and his name ison 6 patents in the field. Oftenasked if he “debunks UFO cases”or “proves they’re real,” his favoriteanswer is “if Sherlock Holmesarrived at the murder scene, got offhis horse, and instantly said ‘thebutler did it,’ would you trust anymore of his investigation?” Heresides in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Allow your work to live on. . .Please remember MUFON inyour will. In addition to monetarybequests, you can also donateyour UFO case files, books, peri-odicals, etc. Don’t let your valu-able research end up at a fleamarket or estate sale.Contact MUFON Headquartersat 1-888-817-2220 for moreinformation.Leave a Legacyto MUFON
  10. 10. July 200710 MUFON UFO JournalAre Extraterrestrials Already Among Us?A Review of Historical AccountsBy Warren P. AstonContinued on page 11Warren AstonThis is the third of three parts thatexplores the idea of extraterrestrials onearth. Aston deals not with “contactee” or“channeling” claims, nor “abduction”phenomena, but instead. examines theevidence that some extra-terrestrials maylive among us in our communities,appearinghuman. Thismonth’s segmentconsiders themore credibleevidence that ETis already here,humans livingwith extraterres-trials on theirplanets, and ETstrategy.More credible casesBritish researcher Timothy Goodhas documented a number of othercases that can be summarized here. Oneinvolved a friend of his for over thirtyyears, “Joelle.” Stumbling across asaucer landing in 1963, Joelle wasaccepted into a small group of peopleworking with several extraterrestrials onscientific matters. She was present withthem on a number of occasions atvarious locations including her Londonflat where she cooked meals for themand assisted them in various ways. Themen were described as normal inappearance and, interestingly, confirmedthat Adamski had indeed been aboardtheir ships, but they had fed himdisinformation after he revealed sensitiveinformation.25In 1946, Allan Edwards wasadmitted to an army hospital in Virginiaprior to his discharge from the army.Here, and again six weeks later on astreet, he encountered an unusual man inarmy uniform he believes was extrater-restrial due to his perfect features andability to heal. The following year, whilein a Seattle hospital, Edwards encoun-tered two hospital attendants who hadthe ability to read his thoughts, awaken-ing a desire in Edwards to also helpothers. He had a number of UFOsightings in various places in the yearsthat followed and seems to have seen hisencounters with these strangers inreligious terms, as “angels.”26In 1957, Hubert Lewis, a smalltown newsagent in England angry overhis lot in life, very unexpectedly encoun-tered what seemed to be a projectedbeing, who rebuked his language andthen reassured him concerning hisdeceased wife and sons. The followingyear the contacts resumed in a moreconcrete, physical, manner and Lewismet with another man and his femalecompanion who drove him to Londonwhere they visited various sights and atea meal. Tall, dark-complexioned and veryhealthy looking, the couple claimed to befrom Venus. Lewis was told that “manyare living among us, and one cannot tellthe difference. Medical men could,however, so I understand.”27In either 1957 or 1959, Italianengineer Luciano Galli claimed to havemet two men in Bologna who invited himto go by car into the countryside wherethey boarded a craft. Within minutes theyhad left earth and arrived at a hugedirigible-shaped mothership in space. Hewas shown through the mothershipbefore being returned three hours later.Galli claimed this visit was very similarto Adamski’s case, including the men’sclaim that they were from Venus. Thismay discredit it in the eyes of many, buthe insisted that it happened nonetheless.28The long-running, intriguing case ofGerman-born Ludwig Pallman beganwith his 1964 encounter on a train inIndia with an unusual man whomPallman gradually accepted was indeedextraterrestrial. He also met the man’ssister but after leaving India he did notencounter them again for several years.While working in Peru he was takenaboard one of their ships and spent sometime with them at a jungle base wherethey experimented with hybrid plants.His hosts claimed to have been visitingearth since 1946. Pallman also traveled inthe craft with them to Columbia andback in search of new plants. Followinga two year break in contact he encoun-tered them again in El Salvador in 1969.His present whereabouts is unknown.29One strange story from Brazil in1977 investigated by Brazilian intelligenceservices involved a young woman withlong blonde hair who dressed all in blackand lived alone on a small island. Firstnoticed by locals for her frequent largepurchases of fish, she became linked tothe spate of UFO sightings in the areabecause of strange lights seen near hercabin. The UFO sightings ended whenshe vanished.30This has some similaritywith a case from Puerto Rico in the late19thcentury involving a strange lady withunusual powers. This case resulted in aCatholic site of pilgrimage rememberedto this day. In both cases, of course,other more mundane explanations remainpossible.31Author-researcher Timothy Goodhimself claims that he has encounteredpeople he believes are extraterrestrialsliving among us on at least two occa-sions. During a restaurant stop on a longbus journey from Tucson to Los Angelesin 1963, Good observed a girl withunusual features who acknowledged histelepathic question asking if she wasfrom another planet. Then, in 1967,Good transmitted a mental request fromhis New York City hotel lobby for anyextraterrestrials in the area to meet him.About half an hour later a man respondedin the precise way Good had specifiedand then confirmed a second silentidentifying request. British reserve beingwhat it is, Good did not pursue anyconversation however and the maneventually left after giving him a “long,penetrating look.”32Others have made
  11. 11. 11MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007Extraterrestrials Living Among Us?Continued from page 10Continued on page 18the same experiment, sometimes claim-ing success.33Numerous other encounters over theyears also hint at the ability of someextra-terrestrials to move freely amongus undetected due to their similarity inappearance to humans.34Humans Living on Alien PlanetsLuciano Galli and Ludwig Pallmanare two who claimed that they weretaken on board spaceships, and traveledelsewhere on earth or to a mothership,but some experiencers claim to havebeen taken to the aliens’ home planets.In 1940, Udo Wartena declined aninvitation to go with the two extraterres-trials he met, later commenting that hedidn’t know why he had done so. Hementions a young man who had earliervanished without trace in the area andwondered if he had perhaps also metthese people and gone with them. Thisintroduces a small subset of casessuggesting that on a few occasions atleast, the reverse seems to have hap-pened—instead of aliens living amongus, some humans may have been able togo and live with the aliens.In my opinion, the least credible ofthese was the claim by South AfricanElizabeth Klarer (1910-1994) that shehad a romantic liaison with a handsomespaceman. She claimed that in 1956 shespent 4 months on his planet near AlphaCentauri where she gave birth to theirson. Klarer offered little by way ofevidence.35A young French woman, Rose C.,in 1952 encountered a landed craft withthree very tall extraterrestrials accompa-nied by a normal-looking man who actedas their translator. The man claimed tobe a former teacher who had met thesebeings in 1932 and, without any familyties, had accepted their offer to live withthem on their planet. Despite the passageof twenty years he had hardly aged. Heasked her for some reading materialwhich she provided before he and the“giants” re-entered their ship and flewaway.36From the Caribbean comes the 1972case of a motorist who was flaggeddown on a lonely road in the DominicanRepublic by a well-known man, FreddieMiller, who was thought to havedisappeared at sea fifteen years earlier.Miller claimed that he had been rescuedfrom drowning by an alien craft andshowed the driver a strange craft andtwo tall men standing some distanceaway. The conversation lasted onlyabout five minutes before the man bidthe driver farewell and departed with hisalien colleagues.37Finally, a number of cases involvingmissing aircraft and pilots have leftopen the possibility that they may havevoluntarily “gone” to join extraterrestri-als. In at least one case, a flight leaderclaimed exactly that, prior to finallydisappearing without trace over theAtlantic in 1959.38Extraterrestrial strategy and ourfutureLet us for a moment reverse thesituation and consider what our strategywould be if, in years to come, weencountered a planet whose less-developed inhabitants were largely givento war and material pursuits. Whatwould we do to encourage them towarda fundamental change in their attitudesand a greater awareness of their environ-ment? Would we stand by and watchthem export these dangerous tendenciesbeyond their planetary cradle as theirscience advanced? Our greatest interestwould surely be to monitor their scien-tific and military progress. Surely ourcontacts with their people would be low-key, grass-roots style, intended to slowlyacclimatize them to the fact of ourpresence without causing fear anddisruption. I suspect that we wouldessentially quarantine them to their worldand engage in efforts on multiple frontsto stimulate responsibility so that thebehavioral changes necessary would beinternalized by their society. Only thenwould they be ready to take their placeand join us in the great adventure ofinterstellar and intergalactic travel.This process is exactly what I seeunfolding in the UFO phenomenon. Inmy own lifetime I have seen ufologymove from a focus on unknown lightsflying in the sky, to an acceptance oflandings and eventually, an acceptancethat these craft can be piloted by beingswho sometimes interact with us. Con-comitant with that understanding hascome the awareness that “the aliens” aredemonstrably not a single race, but aremany, numbering perhaps in the dozensat least. The pervasiveness of the basichuman form throughout the cosmos isclearly communicated in all of thesecases, with all that this may imply aboutour own ultimate origins.I believe that a solid core of genuinehuman-extraterrestrial interaction existsin the plausible cases I have brieflypresented here. If we combine this withthe many thousands of reported encoun-ters with UFOs and their occupantsworldwide over many years, we see astaggering level of alien activity, espe-cially when we consider the low per-centage of sightings and encounters thatare actually reported.Increased awareness of thesethemes has come only gradually over thelast four decades or so in the UFOcommunity. Obviously the generalpublic is much less aware of the evi-dence and is also greatly influenced bypopular media portrayals of the subject.Ours is the responsibility to teach moreand to teach better the facts as theyhave accumulated, even as we advanceour own front-line toward the daywhen open disclosure of the alienpresence on earth can becomes areality. That will come, I believe, notwhen military-industrial power elitesand governments are somehow forcedto end the cover-up, but only whenearth’s awareness of the need for peaceand a change in our society’s funda-mental assumptions reaches a criticalmass. Ultimately, disclosure is con-trolled by our visitors to earth. They
  12. 12. July 200712 MUFON UFO JournalMarch 8–Aug. 15—Alien Images:UFOs, Photography and Belief.Photographic Exhibit atArizona StateUniversity, Tempe,AZ. 480-965-6224.www.asu.edu/clas/shesc/asuma;anthro.museum@asu.edu.July 5–8—60th Anniversary of theRoswell Incident, 2007 Roswell UFOFestival. Roswell Museum & ArtCenter, Roswell, NM. FeaturingDennis Balthasar, Donald Burleson,PhD, Nicholas Redfern, PeterRobbins, Guy Malone, Richard Dolan,John Greenewald Jr., Steven Bassett,Michael S. Heiser, PhD, Dr. RogerLeir, John Rhodes,Adam GoRightly,Greg Bishop, Paola Harris, Tom Horn,Rob Simone. 1-888-ROS-FESTwww.roswellufofestival.com.Aug. 10–12—MUFON InternationalUFO Symposium. Marriott DenverTech Center, Denver, CO. Theme:“An Estimate of the Situation: TheExtraterrestrial Hypothesis.” Speak-ers: Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan,Kathleen Marden, John Greenewald,Sam Maranto, Timothy Good, MichaelNelson, Robert Salas, more. Seewww.mufon.com/symposia.htm.October 27—Mysteries of Space &Sky IV: 60 Years of UFOs! FeaturingDon Berliner, Rob and Sue Swiatek,Carl Feindt, Richard Hall, Dr. BruceMaccabee and Dr. S. Peter Resta,near Annapolis, MD. Contact Dr.Resta at 410-544-4927 X 8, or atspr100@aol.com.Submissions for the August 2007issue of the MUFON UFO Journalshould reach us by June 25. Submitarticles to: editor@mufon.comMUFON MembersMessage Boardmufonmembers.proboards55.comPassword: Hynek1947(case sensitive) 1-888-817-2220MUFONOfficeBy Nicholas D. RoeslerThe Smoking Gun ResearchAgency (SGRA) was counting on theirlong-standing working relationship withMutual UFO Network to attract mem-bers to the group’s yearly ParaConconference, held June 9–10 in Milford,Connecticut.The 9th Annual Paranormal Confer-ence, known as ParaCon, drew inexcess of 300 attendees this year, anall-time high for the conference. Thewebsite of the sponsoring organization,The Smoking Gun Research Agency,drew an additional 250 visitors to its“Virtual ParaCon” section, ostensiblydoubling the attendance figures.The theme of this year’s event wasA Window to the Unexplained. Thistheme was chosen as being representa-tive of the goals of not only the SGRAas an organization, but also the researchcommunity as a whole.The group panel discussion,featuring the full slate of guest speakersand workshop presenters, showcasedmultiple fields of the group’s research,ranging from UFO research to govern-ment investigation.Workshops held at the eventincluded a presentation on the impor-tance of paperwork when conductingfield investigations, conducted by JillO’Malley, as well as a presentation onthe types of equipment used during fieldinvestigations, conducted by SGRADirector Jon Nowinski.Nowinski, as a consultant toMUFON in the field of Parapsychology,was a speaker at the 2003 MUFONInternational Symposium at Dearborn,Michigan.Since that time, the SGRA andMUFON have enjoyed what Nowinskiterms “an open drawer relationship,”with regard to case investigations andcase data. During its ten-year history,SGRA has amassed a large number ofUFO case reports, many of them oldercases that, for various reasons, mayhave gone unreported to other organiza-tions. In the spirit of cooperation,Nowinski opened the SGRA’s UFO filesto MUFON, forwarding material on toMUFON headquarters for inclusion intoMUFON’s Case Management System.Along the same line, SGRA has alsoreceived cases via direct assignmentfrom MUFON, on a case by case basis.SGRA members and MUFONmembers from the northeastern statesattended the 2007 SGRA ParaCon forpresentations on not only UFOs, but allmanner of paranormal phenomena.2007 is the third year that MUFON hashad a representative on the speakerpanel. Wisconsin MUFON memberNick Roesler has spoken at the eventsince 2005, and Michigan’s DavidTwichell was a featured speaker in2006.For further information on theSmoking Gun Research Agency andthe 2007 ParaCon, go towww.sgra-media.org or emailSGRA@sgra-media.org. DVDs of theSGRA ParaCon will be available in thenear future.SGRA ParaCon draws support from MUFON
  13. 13. 13MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007Book ReviewsCaptured!The Betty and Barney HillUFO ExperienceBy Stanton T. Friedman and KathleenMarden, Career Pr Inc., 320 pages.AvailableAugust 2007Reviewed by John F. SchuesslerMany books have been written aboutpeople being abducted by aliens, butCaptured! tops them all. It is powerful,detailed and personal.Authors Kathleen Marden andStanton Friedman are uniquely suited forthe task of documenting the Betty andBarney Hill UFO experience. While this isnot the first book written about the Hillcase, it is the first one written drawing onfirst-handknowledge of theincident and all ofthe eventstranspiringafterwards. Ms.Marden is BettyHill’s niece andthis relationshipprovided her witha unique view ofthe case fromwithin the familysetting. Becauseshe is now thetrustee of the Hill UFO ArchivalCollection, she has been able to draw onnew and never before released informationfrom Betty’s personal diaries, tapes andwritings. Nuclear physicist Stanton T.Friedman combines his detailedknowledge of the case, a long history ofwork in the UFO field, and his scientificbackground to assure the technicalaccuracy of the book.The Introduction by Ms. Mardenrelates her special connection to the Hillsand how she became the most knowled-geable person in the world with respect tothe case. As a result she was able toexpose an abundance of inaccurate andmisleading information written by others.She researched the complete medicalrecords of Betty and Barney and gene-rated a chronological collection of infor-mation that spans a forty-year period.Chapter 1, A Glimpse into the Lives ofBetty and Barney Hill, alone is worth theprice of the book. It tells how they met,where they worked, what had happened intheir lives before they met, and how theyeventually married. This is a refreshinglook at the real people involved in thisfrightening experience.While previous books related howthe case was investigated and howhypnosis was used by Dr. BenjaminSimon, this book presents this informationin a new context based on the details Ms.Marden obtained through her familyconnections with Betty and Barney andfrom the historical archives now preservedby Ms. Marden.Few people know of the close tiesbetween the Hills and personnel at PeaseAir Force Base. This background isfreshly presented, along with copies ofthe official government records of theevents occurring during the time of theHill experience.New details of the incident itselfshow that a real event occurred and justhow wrong some of the material presentedby debunkers writing about the case hasbeen. The debunkers’ prosaicexplanations have been destroyed by thefacts that have been uncovered andpresented by Marden and Friedman.For the reader seeking technicalinformation, the sections on the sessionswith Dr. Benjamin Simon, the details ofBetty’s meeting with the alien leader, thestar map analysis, and the laboratoryanalysis of the dress worn by Bettyduring the incident, are a real treat.At the end of the book the reader isgiven insightful information about Betty,her many talents, the things she deemedto be important and how her healthdeclined leading up to the end. Alsoincluded is a bizarre occurrence that tookplace while the family was awaitingBetty’s fate. I was made aware of theoccurrence right after it happened and Iam pleased it is included in the book. Itleaves the reader with more food forthought.No single book could contain all ofthe archived information about the Hillcase, but this book does an excellent jobof presenting fresh details along with thebasic story already known by manypeople. Highly recommended.Dark Cosmos: In Searchof our Universe’s Miss-ing Mass and EnergyBy Dan Hooper, Smithsonian Books,Harper Collins, New York, 2006Review by David SealsDr. Dan Hooper is a Fellow with thetheoretical astrophysics group at theFermi NationalAccelerator Laboratory inBatavia, Illinois,where he investi-gates dark matter,supersymmetry,neutrinos, extradimensions andcosmic rays.DarkCosmos is hisfirst book, afterstudying at theUniversity ofWisconsin and atOxford. He’s mainstream, orthodox,establishment. He makes no comparisonshimself of the “completely unknown”nature of the entire “empty space” of ourCosmos to UFOs, but I couldn’t helpbeing fascinated with the possibility ofthe comparison.Most of the Universe is black, afterall. Physicists are finally admitting it.Fritz Zwicky, an astronomer at theCarnegie Institute, first suggested in 1933that large amounts of dark matter mightexist. This idea was ignored until VeraRubin wrote her master’s thesis in 1950.Rubin’s measurements suggested thatgroups, or clusters, of galaxies might berotating around a previously unrecog-nized central point within each cluster, notjust expanding outward as was believedby the scientific community. To explainthis motion, a huge quantity of masswould have to be present to keep thegalaxies in their orbits. In fact, she foundthat the quantity of mass needed toexplain the motion was greater than thetotal mass of the stars within the galaxies.The stars were simply not numerousenough to explain her observations, andshe concluded that some sort of invisiblematter must also be present.Continued on page 18
  14. 14. July 200714 MUFON UFO JournalpperceptionsBy StantonT. FriedmanStanton FriedmanContinued on page 15I recently received an email froman 18-year-old student bemoaning thepoor quality of the anti-UFO literatureavailable to him at school. The articlethat bothered him the most was writtenin 2000 by Dr. Robert L. Park,Professor of Physics at the Universityof Maryland. Iagreed thatthere was notenough pro-UFO literatureavailable anddecided toreview thearticle. Dr.Park has beenattacking manyaspects of theso-called paranormal, but as might beexpected, is not bothering to do hishomework first, so sure was he of thecorrectness of his opinions. I had seena very similar article in his book,Voodoo Science.The article is entitled “AnAlienSpaceship Did Not Crash in Roswell.”In common with other UFO debunkersand propagandists (sometimes thereisn’t much difference), he makes surehe lets us know how smart he iscompared to an average Joe. On theway to Roswell in 1954 as an Air Forceofficer he had two sightings which heeasily identified. Park claims thatRoswell at the time was the hub ofmany speculations about the UFOsightings that seemed to make thenews almost daily. (I seriously doubtthis). He then does some amateurpsychology about people knowing whatsaucers are supposed to look like andshaping observations to fit theirpreconceptions.Park makes the extraordinary claimthat “The current fascination withaliens can be traced back to thestrange events that took place nearRoswell, New Mexico, in the summerof 1947.” This is completely absurd asthere was only one mention of Roswell(inaccurate and less than a page inFrank Edward’s Flying SaucersSerious Business between 1947 andthe publication of The RoswellIncident in 1980. Aliens certainlyweren’t mentioned in connection withRoswell until the 1980 publication.Park says, “On June 14, 1947,William Brazel, the foreman of theFoster Ranch, 75 miles northwest ofRoswell, spotted a large area ofwreckage about seven miles from theranch house. The debris includedneoprene strips, tape, metal foil,cardboard and sticks.”This is a commonly repeated lieabout the event. It appeared in thefront page July 9 article in the RoswellDaily Record titled “HarassedRancher who Located ‘Saucer’ Sorryhe Told About It.” By that time, Brazelhad actually been brought back to townand fed a new, false, story. The articlealso includes the comment that thewreckage covered an area 200 yards indiameter. Park, of course, seems to beunaware of the fact that the July 8articles on the front pages of eveningpapers from Chicago to points westnoted that the wreckage was found“last week”—hardly June 14.Park says, “weeks later he[Brazel] heard about reports of flyingsaucers. The next day he drove to thelittle town of Corona to sell wool andwhile there he whispered kind ofconfidential like to the Lincoln CountySheriff, George Wilcox, that he mighthave found pieces of one of those flyingdiscs people were talking about.” Moreslices of baloney. The rancher—whoaccording to witness testimony, foundthe wreckage about July 2 or 3—wentinto Corona to do his usual Saturdayshopping on July 5. While in Corona heheard about flying disks at the generalstore and also that rewards were beingoffered. Brazel hadn’t heard this beforebecause he didn’t have electricity nordid he get a newspaper. The peoplethere suggested he go to the sheriff’soffice which is in Roswell (NOT inCorona) in Chavez County. He did soon Sunday, July 6.Sheriff Wilcox called the local baseand talked to Major Jesse Marcel, whothen came to the sheriff’s office andchecked out the small amount ofmaterial Brazel had brought in. Hefound it was very unusual indeed andcertainly not a weather balloon. Thearticle notes that Brazel had previouslyfound balloons and collected smallrewards for them. Marcel was theninstructed by ColonelWilliamBlanchard, the base commander, totake a counter intelligence officer (S.Cavitt) with him and check out thelarge debris field observed by therancher.Marcel and Cavitt followed Brazelout to the ranch (which was in themiddle of nowhere—no GPS backthen), had a can of beans, and stayedovernight in their sleeping bags. Thenext morning, Monday, they viewed thedebris field and collected some more ofthe debris, leaving most of it behind, andthen returned the long way to Roswell.Marcel stopped at his home andRoswell Critic Exposed
  15. 15. 15MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007Continued on page 20showed some of the wreckage materialto his wife and son (now a colonel,pilot, and medical doctor).The next morning, ColonelBlanchard, after reviewing thewreckage, ordered Marcel to have oneof the B-29s fly him and the wreckageto Wright Patterson AFB with a stop at8thAF headquarters in Fort Worth. Healso ordered Walter Haut to issue theinfamous press release. Of courseBlanchard and Marcel were quitefamiliar with weather balloons fromtheir air service in the Pacific duringWW 2. The 509that Roswell was, afterall, the most elite military group in theworld having exploded four atomicbombs. Marcel was also familiar withfoil and paper radar reflectors from acourse he had taken not very longbefore. Before he arrived in Ft. Worth,Colonel Thomas Jefferson Dubose(Chief of Staff to General Ramey,Blanchard’s boss), took a call fromGeneral Ramey’s boss in DC, GeneralClements McMullen, instructing Rameyto send the wreckage to DC with oneof his colonel couriers, to get the pressoff their backs any way possible, andnever to talk about it again. WhenMarcel arrived, General Rameyinstructed him not to say anything.Pictures were taken with phonywreckage and the cover story went outfrom Ft. Worth, NOT Roswell, withinhours.Dr. Park seems blissfully unaware.How do I know my version is moreaccurate? Because I got it first handfrom Major Marcel, from his son Dr.Jesse Marcel Jr., from retired GeneralDuBose, from Brazel’s son, fromBrazel’s neighbors, and fromcontemporary news coverage.Here is another silly quote fromPark, “The sheriff reported the matterto the nearby base. The army sentintelligence officer Major Jesse Marcelto check out the report. Marcel thoughtthe debris looked like pieces of aweather balloon or radar reflector, inany event all of it fit easily in to thetrunk of his car.” More silly nonsense.Marcel had stayed overnight on theranch, had observed a debris field morethan half a mile long and hundreds ofyards across. He noted to me in ourfirst conversation and said later oncamera that there was nothingconventional: no wires, or vacuumtubes or rivets or propellers etc. Hisson also noted there was nothingconventional. There were I-beams thatcouldn’t be broken, burned or bent, thathad strange symbols, and foil likematerial that was a memory metal. Hefurthermore made clear that while heand Cavitt brought back what theycould in their cars, most of the debriswas left out there. If a trunk load hadbeen all there was, the rancher wouldhave brought it in and there would havebeen no need for a trip to the ranch.Park goes on. “By 1978, thirtyyears after Brazel spotted wreckage onhis ranch, actual alien bodies had begunto show up in accounts of the crash.”Really? I wonder where theseaccounts appeared. I first heard storiesabout bodies at the Barney Barnettcrash site in 1978. The first mention ofRoswell-related bodies came fromMortician Glenn Dennis to me in 1989in Lincoln, NM, on Billy the Kidd day.Park says, “Major Marcel’s story aboutloading sticks, cardboard and metal foilinto the trunk of his car mutated intothe saga of a major military operationwhich allegedly recovered an entirealien spaceship.” What was found wasall small strange pieces—hardly aspaceship. Most of it was left behind.Under the heading “A Full ScaleMyth” Park says: “Like a giant vacuumcleaner the story had sucked in andmingled together snippets from reportsof unrelated plane crashes (where withwhom??) and high altitude parachuteexperiment involving anthropomorphicdummies, even though some of theseevents took places years later and milesaway. And with years’ worth ofimaginative energy to drive their basicbeliefs, various UFO “investigators”managed to stitch those myths into afull scale myth of an encounter that hasbeen covered up by the government.”Does Park have any idea of thestupidity of what he is saying? It wasUSAF Colonel Weaver and CaptainMacAndrew in the two ridiculousvolumes of The Roswell Report whointroduced the crazy notion of crashtest dummies to explain the bodies—even though none of the dummies weredropped until 1953 and later, and were6’ tall, much taller than the reportedalien bodies. It was the USAF thatintroduced high altitude parachutejumper/pilot Joseph Kittinger as theredhead reported at the base in July1947—but who wasn’t actually thereuntil 1959.The UFO investigators inquestion were two Air Force officerslying through their teeth.Park then buys hook, line, andsinker into the Mogul Balloonexplanation as espoused by ColonelWeaver in The Roswell Report: Factvs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert(1995).He claims Mogul was stillclassified. This is false. He touts Dr.Charles Moore’s Flight 4 although Dr.David Rudiak’s careful work indicatesit wasn’t even flown and couldn’t havemade it to the ranch, because of theweather. Park says “The debris foundon the Foster Ranch closely matchedthe materials used in the balloon trains.”Yet another lie, as long as one notes thereports from such witnesses as MajorMarcel, his son, Brazel’s son, neighborLoretta Proctor, etc. There was, ofcourse, also the absence of any string(20+ balloons were tied 20 feet apart byFriedman: Roswell Critic ExposedContinued from page 14
  16. 16. July 200716 MUFON UFO JournalPPhysicalTracesBy Ted PhillipsSightings in Marley Woods, MissouriContinued on page 17Update: In the last column Idescribed events at a Missouri siteinvolving video and multiple witnesssightings of April 9th, 16th and May20thof this year. Since that timemultiple observations of similarobjects have been reported andvideo has been obtained. The latestsighting took place on June 5, 2007.The witnesses informed me that thereis about 45 minutes of additionalvideo following the April 16thsighting. I will be working thosetapes this date, June 13. Updates oftheir content and witness descrip-tions will be presented as compiled.This month’s column discussessightings at another Missourilocation, Marley Woods.As I have mentioned in this columnbefore, investigations continue at theMarley Woods site in Missouri.Considering the wishes of the manywitnesses the names and locations areall on file but cannot be released. Thethree primary sites have produced largenumbers of close encounters, types 1and 2 (CE1, CE2), since December of1998. I was invited by the peopleinvolved to investigate the sightings andcontinue to do so. With the formation ofthe SIU we are currently conductingresearch as a team.In the next few columns, I willpresent detailed information about themost significant Marley events alongwith updates on any new data fromother sites.December 15, 1998MarleyWoods, Missouri: Extendedaerial CE1 event. This was the firstmajor sighting reported in the Marleyresearch.The owners of Site 1, a 400-acrecattle ranch, were driving their truck tothe ranch along a farm road at 1900hours. They described the event asfollows:“My wife and I were driving to ourfarm to check the cattle. We were onCounty Road __, right before the Terry__ home. I viewed a large lit stationaryobject above a high hill behind the __house. I quickly alerted my wife,causing her to see it also.“I drove approximately another 100yards, just past the — home, andstopped. I got out of the truck and theobject immediately disappeared.“The best way of describing theobject is that it was tank-like in formwith at least three orange-colored lightsabout midway. These lights wererunning horizontally across the side ofthe object. It is possible that othersmaller lights were above and belowthe larger lights.“The object produced no sound andthen suddenly vanished.Also, nomovement was detected as it ‘hovered’above the tree line on the hill.”The witnesses added furtherdescription: “Three distinct orange lightsacross mid section, no blinking, notoverly bright, just distinctly orange. Boxor tank shaped. No movement, nosound, hovering. Numerous small lightsclustered around three orange lights (novisible colors noted). Small lights werewhite. Top and bottom of object maybea little more rounded (see witnesssketch). Color of body not visible.”The object was less than 200 feetfrom the __ house, hovering over atree-covered hill across the creek fromthe house. The __ family reported thatjust after 1900 they were alerted by thefarm dogs barking, ran outside to seethe farm animals running in panic downthe hill (where the object had hovered),across the creek toward the house. Thedogs were reacting with panic also(these are very large guard dogs). Thefamily did not see an object that nightbut did on subsequent evenings.“We continued our drive to the gateof the farm (about 1,500 feet) and aswe sat in the truck my wife yelled,‘there it is again.’“The object was again stationaryand hovering without sound or move-ment in front of and above our cabin(site 1). [The object was hovering in thearea of the cabin which is located 700feet from the gate.] When we begandriving toward the object it againvanished.“We drove to my barn to get feedand again saw the large object hoveringabove the far northeast timber horizon.The object appeared to be very large,
  17. 17. 17MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007Missouri SightingsContinued from page 16tank-like in shape and with the sameorange lights around its mid section. Italso appeared to be moving very slowlyeastward until it suddenly vanished.“Shortly after it disappeared, twolarge orange lights came into view tothe right of where the object hadpreviously been. These two lights grewlarger in dimension and then disap-peared with no sound.“After seeing this, my wife calledour son and daughter who then came tothe farm also.“Nothing was seen for the nextforty-five minutes. While I was in thecabin I heard them call for me. When Iarrived at the car where they weresitting, they told me what they hadseen.“While gazing eastward, they allthree saw a ghostly glowing lightcoming up the hill from the creek in thedirection of where they were sitting.They equated the glow to that ofvehicular headlights coming up fromthe creek, however, neither beam norsource of light was seen—only itsglow. In essence, the glow appeared asvehicle headlights which had not toppedthe hill, yet the glow of approachingheadlights was seen precedingheadlights.”On my first visit on 1/16/99 wechecked the area where the glowwas observed. There is a rough andvery small lane used to drive to thecattle going down the hill into anextremely rugged area. There is noaccess to this area by vehicleswithout passing by the cabin wherethe witnesses were located. Based ontheir description the glow was within150 feet of the witnesses at the closepoint. The small lane cannot bereached from the opposite directionbecause of locked gates and lack ofany access. Nothing exists in thearea to generate a glow or light. TP“About thirty minutes later, I andthe other three saw the same beam orglow moving east across the open fieldfrom which they had originally seen thelight. It appeared as a faint spotlightsearching the field, but the light had nobright source. Also, there were novehicles in the vicinity and no soundwas heard.”It should be noted the area isisolated and extremely quiet; theslightest sound would be easilyheard. TP“At approximately 2045, whiledriving home, we again approached theTerry __ home. Illuminated by hisporch light, Terry stood in his yard withrifle in hand. We stopped and Terry toldus that his dogs had been barking so hecame out to see what had riled themup. His goats, sheep, and large guarddogs who usually spent the night on thehigh hill where we had first viewed thehovering object had come off the hilland were gathered around Terry’shouse. According to Terry, the animalswere very restless.”December 16, 1998The cabin owner describes theevents: “The next evening at 1845 Iarrived at the entrance gate to myfarm. I shut off the engine and as Ibegan to exit the vehicle to unlock thegate I saw a bright light appear abovethe northeast horizon. As I watched, sixmore lights appeared in a horizontal lineto make a total of seven lights. Afterseveral seconds they began to“squeeze” out. I immediately phonedmy son and he came to the farm.“After my son and I sat abouttwenty minutes watching the northeast,we saw a large bright orange lightappear. The field beneath the objectseemed to have a faint spotlight glowmoving around the field.About fifteenseconds later, a second orange lightappeared, and as we both watched, asmall silver object seemed to exit theorange object and began movingsoutheast. We both watched the silverobject as it flew out of sight. Over thenext forty-five minutes, three orangelights appeared. Both December 15and 16 were very clear with no moon.”December 17, 1998Eight witnesses observed “a smallbright light moving from south tonortheast at high speed. It suddenlymade an immediate hairpin U-turn andbegan traveling south.About fiveseconds after the sharp turn, a largeorange glow appeared where thesmaller light was located. When theorange glow was brightest, a very smallobject moved out of the orange glowand traveled out of sight toward thesouth.During the next thirty to fortyminutes, a total of sixteen orange lightswere observed. Ten lights in a continualsuccession were seen lighting up in aperfect horizontal line across thenortheastern sky. These lights werefollowed a few minutes later by threelights in a “spaced apart,” somewhatvertical arrangement.Nathan __ videotaped some of theten lights. As he attempted to tape thesmaller object, the camera ceasedfunctioning, however it did functionwhen turned away from the object.Thus the many sightings started inthe Site 1 area. It should be noted thatthe property owners had not beeninterested in UFO sightings and wantedno publicity. They were at the farmtending the large cattle herd eachevening for years before the initialevent of December 15, 1998 and hadnot observed anything unusual prior tothat date.Three nights after the December17th sighting, a neighbor and two of hisfriends would experience a truly remar-kable event just 2,000 feet southeast ofSite 1.In the next column: the firstphysical trace event at MarleyWoods.
  18. 18. July 200718 MUFON UFO Journalcould, after all, end the “cover-up” atany time.I close with the words allegedlyspoken by Enrique Castillo Rincon’salien friend:You are made with parts from |eternityand from the stars, but you do notknow it,because you are asleep.39Whatever the origin of this gem, itseems an appropriate way to concludethis summary of information that sug-gests that both ufology’s and human-kind’s greatest days still lie ahead.Reference and Notes:25. Good, 248-257, Alien Base (London:Century, 1998): 30-39.26. Good, 50-5427. Good, 206-210.28. Good, 199-200.29. Pallmann, Ludwig F., Cancer PlanetMission (London: Foster Press, 1970), alsosummarized in Good, 301-326.30. Good, 357-358.31. Adams, Mia, The Excyles (Fort Lauderdale:Excelta, 1995): 287-290.32. Good, 153-155.33. Hughes, Meirion, “Aliens Amongst Us,”article available online atwww.btinternet.com/~meirionhughes/Pb/aliens.htm .The author also refers to a NASA scientistand a UK man whose lives changed afterallegedly encountering incognito extraterres-trials. Other cases are reported in MichaelSalla’s paper “Extraterrestrials Among Us,”http://exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-1/1-4-Salla.html . (October 2006): 7-9.34. An example is the ongoing Carlos Diaz casein Mexico; see www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmiccarlos.htm . The extraterrestrialsinvolved are described as blonde-hairedhumanoids, see “Return Trip” on thewebsite.35. Klarer, Elizabeth, Beyond the Light Barrier(Capetown: Howard Timmins, 1980).Despite finding some circumstantial sup-port for the Klarer claims, highly respectedresearcher and MUFON African coordinatorCynthia Hind remained ambivalent about thecase. Based on her book UFOs: AfricanEncounters (Salisbury: Gemini, 1982) andmy 1997 discussions with her.36. Mesnard, Joel, The French Abduction File,MUFON Journal 309 (January 1994) 5-7.Summarized in Good, 97-98.37. Good, 341-342.38. Good,Timothy, Above Top Secret: TheWorldwide UFO Cover-up (London:Sidgwick & Jackson, 1987): 266-269, 567-568.39. Castillo Rincon, Enrique, UFOs: A GreatNew Dawn for Humanity (Nevada City, CA:Blue Dolphin Publishing, Inc., 1997), 239.Author’s note: I’ve recently learned thatLeo Dworshak, mentioned in last month’sarticle, passed away this spring on April28th. He was born in 1920.Warren Aston is a researcher and writerwho divides his time between Australiaand the U.S. He has been a UFO re-searcher for more than 30 years and is aformer speaker at the annual MUFONSymposium and at other conferences in theU.S, UK and Australia.astonwarren@hotmail.com .Aston: Extraterrestrials Among UsContinued from page 11When Ms. Rubin first presented herresults in 1950 to the American Astronomi-cal Society, her conclusions were nottaken seriously despite her experimentalevidence.In 1970, Rubin (along with W. KentFord) published a paper in the Astrophysi-cal Journal. It described her detailedobservations of the motions of stars in theAndromeda Galaxy, and demonstrated thatfor the stars to be moving with thevelocities they had, there would have tobe as much as ten times more mass in thegalaxy than was visible.“To put it another way, roughly 90percent of the Andromeda Galaxy consistsof dark matter. Over the next years, thoseresults were confirmed by other groups ofastronomers. By the 1980s, much of theastrophysics community had come toaccept the conclusions of Rubin’s work.Richard Panek (author of The Invis-ible Century: Einstein, Freud, and theSearch for Hidden Universes) wrote aboutthis in the New York Times Magazine(March 11, 2007), saying: “Only 4 percentof the universe is made of the kind ofmatter that makes up you and me and allthe planets and stars and galaxies. Therest–96 percent–is... who knows?...This isnot ‘dark’ as in distant or invisible. This is‘dark’ as in unknown for now, andpossibly forever.”It reminds me of the take CaptainEdward J. Ruppelt had in his great 1956book The Report on Unidentified FlyingObjects, in which the director of the USAFProject Blue Book wrote, “In the summerof 1952 a United StatesAir Force F-86 jetinterceptor shot at a flying saucer... thepilot did see something and he did shootat something, but no matter how thor-oughly you investigate the incident thatsomething can never be positivelyidentified. It might have been a hallucina-tion or it might have been some vehiclefrom outer space…. It was a UFO.”Or take GeorgeAdamski, describing aconversation he had with an inhabitant ofa UFO (Inside the Spaceships, 1955) whosaid, “Speed to us does not mean what itdoes to you. For once a ship is launchedinto outer space, the speed of the ship isequal to the activity in space! Instead ofbeing artificially propelled, as are yourplanes, ours travel on the currents ofspace.”Is this any crazier than Hooper’stheory that “Dark matter halos aresignificantly larger than the visible part ofmost galaxies, and often extend well intointergalactic space?” Or ProfessorStephen Hawking’s statements that thereis a “finite infinity?”Dr. Hooper summarizes, cosmologistscall the energy contained in ‘empty’ spacedark energy. “Assuming that dark energyexists in the same quantity in every pieceof space and at all times, its presencewould have precisely the effect of acosmological constant. Dark energy doesnot act at all like the ordinary energy ormatter in our Universe, however. Whereasordinary energy or matter causes theUniverse to be pulled together by theforce of gravity, the presence of darkenergy has a sort of counter-gravityeffect.”Dan Hooper actually makes thisscience coherent and understandable to aguy like me who flunked 9th gradealgebra. Good read.Continued from page 13Book Reviews: Dark Cosmos
  19. 19. 19MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007ffiler’s filesBy George FilerDirector, MUFON Eastern RegionContinued on page 20Astronaut Buzz Aldrin Saw UFOon Trip to the MoonApollo 11Astronaut BuzzAldrin wason“Your World with Neil Covuto” onFox News on June 12, 2007, and said:“Listen, we just about, could havejust said, ‘Look, we see a UFO out thewindow going along with us.’“You know what would have hap-pened? The public would have gonecrazy. But we were smart enough tosay, ‘where is the upper stage rocket;we think we might be looking at thatout the window.’”Peru UFO Fleet Video on TVLima – UFOs were filmed over thecapital on May 21, 2007, and shownon national television. Excerpts fromthe TV report follow:News Anchor: “It is the first timethat something similar to this is regis-tered in our country. People living inLima are surprised due to strangesightings in the sky.”Male reporter Francisco Landauro(voice): “Dozens of “Limenos” wereleft more than surprised by what theireyes observed over our sky.”Witness #1: “There are more than20 flying saucers, friend, over there!Look over there! (Pointing) This ishappening right now and everybody isjust walking.”Witness #2: “No, I don’t know. Idon’t believe in the flying saucers but,it looks like it.”Reporter Landauro: “This strangeand surprising spectacle, registered inLima two days ago, was captured by ateam of ATV News. For more than 30minutes, a diversity of white pointswere observed that were formingshapes in the sky.”Peruvian Air Force CommanderJulio Chamorro: “This comes to be avery interesting subject, however, itcontinues to be an anomalous aerialphenomenon because it is not con-trolled and we [do not] have a techni-cal… appropriate, coherent explanationto say what it is.”Reporter Landauro: “The com-mander of the Peruvian Air Force,Julio Chamorro, was cautious inassuring [this as] possible extraterres-trials, but he did provide video of thissame phenomenon recorded in 1994and 1995 over multiple Mexicancities.”Commander Julio Chamorro: “Itneeds to be controlled, it needs to beknown what this is about. It even couldbe, although this has never happened,that this would jeopardize aerialoperations in general.”Francisco Landauro: “Thesesightings could, in fact, be studied byan office [group] that deals withaerospace systems, as they do exist incountries like Chile, Brazil,Argentina,and Mexico.”Pennsylvania Disc Illustration byWitnessBREEZEWOOD—I was sitting outsidewatching the clouds roll in on May 27,2007. The clouds were still just a lighthaze, and the stars were dimly shiningthrough, when a bright light appearedalmost directly above me at 11:30 PM.The light grew brighter and brighteruntil it became almost as bright as themoon. As it dimmed out, it began tomove slowly to the Northwest, passingone of the stars that I could still seethrough the haze. Twenty minutes later,Peruvian UFO Fleet covered on television;Astronaut saw UFOat 11:50 PM another green lightappeared heading north. This objectslowly pulsated; dim then bright, with abluish glow at its brightest. As itmoved, it began dimming out, whilestill pulsating.Visibility 3 Miles inGround Fog.Investigator’s Notes: The mostinteresting aspect of this sighting is theThanks to http://www.ufocasebook.com/limaperufleet.html,Peruvian TV and Rita Kanarek.The Peruvian TV video can be seenat http://youtube.com/watch?v=dkNdXncScmY
  20. 20. July 200720 MUFON UFO JournalFriedman: Roswell Critic ExposedContinued from page 15string) no mention of sonobuoys, radiotransmitters, etc. Park is trying tomake a sow’s ear into a silk purse.Park then talks about Vol. 2 CaseClosed as a massive report thatcollected every scrap of informationdealing with the Roswell Incidentreport published in 1997. It’s funnythat Vol 2 was much smaller than Vol.1 which covered the Mogulexplanation and which was publishedin 1995.Park then buys into the CIA liesabout many UFO reports in the 1950sbeing the result of observations ofsuper secret U-2 aircraft and later theSR-71. The CIA was glad to deceiveall by accepting those reports. Ofcourse Park provides no backup forthis baseless claim which Dr. BruceMaccabee has demonstrated wasclearly false. The number of UFOsightings did NOT increase when theystarted flying.Park’s last line is more true thanhe would like to know: “Concealmentis the soil in which pseudoscienceflourishes.” I fully agree thatorganized anti-ufology is indeed apseudoscience concealing and ignoringfacts and data and doing its researchby proclamation. His motto is “Don’tbother me with the facts, my mind ismade up.” It is of interest that Parkdoesn’t reference my book Crash atCorona: the Definitive Study of theRoswell Incident (with Don Berliner),though I am a member of the Ameri-can Physical Society with which hehad been closely associated. Hedoesn’t mention Weaver’s report orthe Randle and Schmitt books. Ofcourse he mentions the debunkerbooks by Klass, Korff, Schaefer,Peebles. This indeed is pseudoscience.Stan Friedman fsphys@rogers.comwww.stantonfriedman.comSee the review of Stanton Fried-man’s new book, with KathleenMarden, on page 13.Filer’s FilesContinued from page 19picture that the witness drew presum-ably depicting what he saw. I have notyet received a response from the wit-ness regarding some follow-up ques-tions. The witness’s drawing andverbal description certainly indicatethat he saw an unconventional craft.Colorado Dark TriangleDENVER—Our family was walkingthe dog in the middle of WashingtonPark on Saturday evening, May 26,2007 around 9:30 PM. Our eleven-year-old son pointed and asked,“What’s that?” There were eventsearch lights flashing on the clouds atthe time. At first we thought he wasasking about the lights but all fourfamily members quickly spotted a darktriangular or boomerang shape movingslowly across the background of lightand clouds that were part of a stormfront. The dark shape was clearlymoving independently of the cloudmovement.The shape was never illuminated bythe search lights and had no lights ofits own. It also did not appear toreflect light. It was evident primarilydue to the absence of light, like ashadow. It was distinct when the cloudbackdrop was solid and very hard tosee when it crossed a darker orbroken patch in the clouds. The shapemoved slowly to the southeast, andthen reversed direction back towardthe northwest without turning. Itbecame faint and then disappeared ina larger area of dark sky. We watchedit for 3 to 4 minutes. MUFON CMSreport.FOUNTAIN—On May 31, at 12:45PM. I was at Fountain Creek NatureCenter near my home doing yoga on aplatform out in the wetlands...when Inoticed swirling energy (not clouds)above me. I was relaxing, doingmeditation, while lying flat on my backlooking up into the sky. I was observ-ing the interesting energy swirls. Theyare difficult to describe. I’d neverseen anything like it before...but therewas an obvious energy disturbancetaking place directly above me in thesky. Then a small white cloud sud-denly appeared about the size of asoftball. An even smaller piece of thissmall white cloud separated from themain cloud. The main cloud quicklydisappeared...leaving this peculiar littlewhite triangular cloud in the middle ofthe blue sky. Then this little cloud, thesize of a big marble started spreadingout...and behind it I saw, a cylindricalshaped matte metal object. It lookedabout the size of half a ballpoint pen...and was rounded on both ends. Itscloud cover totally disappeared leavinga non-shiny silver grey object...it wasonly visible for approximately 15seconds or so...but I saw it clearly.Thanks to Elise Eagle and MUFONCMS.Ohio State Trooper SightingsGEORGETOWN—State Trooper andcommercial pilot Dave R. Burlilecalled to tell about his many sightingsthroughout his career in SouthernOhio. He and trooper R. D. Youngwere on patrol on August 28, 1958when they spotted a disc shaped craftat 4:20 PM east of town in BrownCounty. They notified the Dispatcherwho also saw the object. It washovering above the power lines forover ten minutes. Dave has flownover 35 different aircraft. He said, heand his partner took a lot of ribbingfrom other troopers about seeinggreen aliens.LONDON CORRECTIONAL—Daveindicated there are many sightingsover the correctional prisons in BrownCounty. A craft a hundred yards long(football field long) is frequently seen.
  21. 21. 21MUFON UFO JournalJuly 2007Field Investigator’s Corner: CMS RankingsMUFONField Investigators ManualThe official Mutual UFO Networkguidelines for in-depthUFO investigationPrice includes shipping and handling:Member U.S. or Canada: $28.50Non-Member U.S. or Canada $38.50Member Foreign:$49.50Non-MemberForeign:$59.50Orderonlineat: www.mufon.com/invmanual.htmRank State Director Weighted Assigned CompletedRank (50/50)By Chuck ReeverMUFON Director of InvestigationsHere is June’s CMS RankingReport for all State Directors. Con-gratulations to Cheryl Ann Gilmore(South Carolina), Tracey C. Smith(Kansas), Kenneth E. Cherry(Texas) for being 1st, 2nd and 3rdrespectively in the month of June. Thetop 10 State Directors are highlightedin yellow.The report is based on our twomeasures of UFO Investigationeffectiveness.Assigning reports within48 hours of receipt, and completing allinvestigations within 60 days of beingassigned. The Assigned column is asix month running average of thenumber of cases assigned within 48hours divided by the total number ofcases received in that six monthperiod. The Completed column is thenumber of cases completed beginningsixty-two (62) days back and goingback six months from there (for a totalof eight months back) divided by thetotal number of cases reported in thesame period. The Weighted Rank isjust the average of the two columnsexpressed as a percent.State Directors can improve theirscores by being sure to assign all caseswithin 48 hours, and to follow up withtheir Field Investigators to ensure allreports are completed within 60 days.To be considered complete a reportmust have been investigated andplaced in one of the three completedstatus codes (Unknown, Hoax or IFO)by you the State Director.If you have any questions or needhelp with your investigations pleasecontact Chuck Reever at 530-414-4341 or 530-582-8339 or via e-mail atwizard@telis.org .1 South Carolina Cheryl Ann Gilmore 100 % 4/4 3/32 Kansas Tracey C. Smith 95 % 11/12 12/123 Texas Kenneth E. Cherry 94 % 48/54 48/484 Wisconsin David J. Watson 90 % 12/15 12/125 New Mexico Donald R. Burleson 89 % 22/28 26/266 Florida Bland Pugh 86 % 39/53 63/637 Georgia Walter Sheets 79 % 15/24 22/238 Tennessee Kim Shaffer 76 % 10/19 20/209 North Carolina James (Jim) Sutton, Sr. 75 % 4/8 16/1610 California Georgeanne Cifarelli 73 % 59/77 57/8111 Iowa Jim King 67 % 3/5 3/412 Oklahoma Charles L. Pine 66 % 1/3 10/1013 Illinois Samuel Maranto 66 % 22/44 39/4714 Utah Elaine Douglass / 66 % 3/6 5/6Ronald S. Regehr15 Oregon Thomas Bowden 64 % 33/47 22/3816 Maryland Bruce S. Maccabee 54 % 1/12 9/917 Washington Laurence Childs 53 % 9/19 13/2218 Colorado Leslie H. Varnicle 52 % 33/41 11/4419 Delaware Ralph P. Flegal 50 % 0/0 1/120 New Jersey George A. Filer, III 50 % 10/20 9/1821 Hawaii Puuloa M. Teves 50 % 0/6 5/522 Nebraska John C. Kasher 40 % 0/8 4/523 Nevada Mark Easter 39 % 4/19 15/2624 Indiana Jerry L. Sievers 33 % 8/34 12/2825 California Ruben J. Uriarte 33 % 23/65 16/5226 Michigan William J. Konkolesky 32 % 3/38 29/5027 Minnesota Richard D. Moss 32 % 0/15 9/1428 Massachusetts Greg S. Berghorn 32 % 0/17 11/1729 Alaska J. Glen Harper 22 % 1/5 1/430 Arkansas Norman D. Walker 18 % 1/6 1/531 Wyoming Richard Beckwith 16 % 0/1 1/332 Washington Gerald E. Rolwes 12 % 0/6 1/433 Vermont Dan Lavilette 12 % 1/4 0/234 Pennsylvania John Ventre 11 % 3/23 2/2235 New York James G. Bouck, Jr. 10 % 9/48 1/3336 Connecticut Anastasia Wietrzychowska 5 % 0/9 1/937 Virginia Susan L. Swiatek 3 % 0/15 1/1538 Arizona George C. Parks 1 % 1/36 0/4039 Rhode Island Janet L. Bucci 0 % 0/7 0/540 Missouri Bruce A. Widaman 0 % 0/17 0/2341 Ohio William Edward Jones 0 % 0/33 0/3442 New Hampshire Peter R. Geremia 0 % 0/7 0/643 Montana Jeff W. Goodrich 0 % 0/3 0/344 Idaho Robert Gates 0 % 0/2 0/245 North Carolina George E. Lund, III 0 % 0/7 0/1046 Alabama William H. Weeks 0 % 0/15 0/647 Kentucky Earle T. Benezet 0 % 0/14 0/1448 North Dakota Jeffrey L. Wachter 0 % 0/0 0/2
  22. 22. July 200722 MUFON UFO JournalDirector’s MessageContinued from page 2July 30th to MUFON, PO Box 279,Bellvue, CO 80512. The funds raisedat the silent auction are added to ourgeneral fund and used for funding thePandora Project, MUFON researchteams, etc. This year the auction willbe run a little differently than last yearwith “Buy It Now” pricing for eachitem, and staggered auction closings tomake the closing process a little moreorderly.Rumor has it that Jesse Marcel Jr.will be at the Symposium this year topromote his new book.The MUFON Symposium hasbeen held four years in a row inDenver but starting in 2008 MUFONwill once again host the annual Sym-posium in different parts of the coun-try. State Directors interested inhosting a future Symposium in theirstate must attend a planning meetingon Thursday, August 9that this year’sA total of 59 new MUFON mem-bers were recruited in the 2007MUFON membership contest.Richard Moss, State Director forMinnesota won in the Benefactorcategory by recruiting three newMUFON lifetime members. Richardwill receive a paid Symposium regis-tration fee and paid hotel room forthree nights at the 2007 Symposium inDenver.There were no winners in the State/Assistant State Director or GeneralMembership categories.Our sincere thanks to all MUFONmembers who participated and wehope that you will participate againnext year.Symposium in Denver; only thosestates represented will be considered.Administrative MattersI wanted to remind all MUFONDirectors (State, Assistant State, StateSection, Foreign Representatives, etc.)to send a professional portrait photo ofyourself to hq@mufon.com along withyour MUFON ID # so we can issueyou a new photo ID card. The newcards are professional hard-plasticMembership DriveContest Results in59 New Memberscredit card size security IDs printed incolor and look like the card picturedbelow.Position AnnouncementsNew State Directors: JohnVentre is the new State Director forPennsylvania and also West Virginia.New Field Investigators: ChuckReever, MUFON’s Director ofInvestigations is pleased to announcethat the following MUFON membershave passed their field investigatorexam and are nowMUFON Certified FieldInvestigators: RobertNegley of Sacramento,CA, Brion Trainor of St.Simons Island, GA, Jo-seph Leto of Bondurant,IA, Jeffery Hahn ofAstoria, NY, DonnaGeller of Enid, OK, andPamela Rodriguez ofCedar Park, TX.In recent years however theirnumbers have begun to increase,leading to a spectacular shower in1994. Rates might exceed 100/hour(but in 1994 some observerscounted several hundred to a thousandor more during its one-hour peak).There is a wide variety of meteors,the fainter ones being white of yellow,brighter ones, green, orange or red.About one third leave trails. Occa-sional fireballs will be seen, oftenending in bursts. This is a very goodphotographic shower.The best time to view is aftermidnight in the early hours of themorning of the 12th. Look to thenortheast about 66 degrees above theThe Night Sky: August 2007Continued from page 24horizon. Fortunately the New Moonwill not be a factor this year.Lunar Eclipse:Atotal lunar eclipse on August28thwill be visible from the Americas,the Pacific, eastern Asia andAustralasia.Planetary Conjunction:Conjunction of The Moon, Marsand Mercury.Conjunctions and Occultations:August 7thMars 6 degrees southof the Moon.August 18th: Spica 2.0 degreesnorth of the Moon.August 22nd: Antares 0.7 degreesnorth of the Moon.

×