8/14/2019 Number 120

1/21

http://www.mufon.com/http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/

8/14/2019 Number 120

2/21

The M U F O NUFO JOURNALN U M B E R 120 N O V E M B E R 1977

Founded 1967I OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF

$1.00MUTUAL UFONETWORK, INC. I

Major Lawrence J. Coyneand Crew Chief

1973 Helicopter Case(See story, Page 3)

8/14/2019 Number 120

3/21

MUfONJOURNAL103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155

R I C H A R D H A LLEditorWA L T E R H . A N D R U SDirector of M U F O N

P A U L C E R N YPromotion/publ ic i tyR E V . B A R R Y D O W N I N GReligion an d UFOs

A N N D R U F F E LCalifornia ReportL U C I U S PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARJOR1E FISHExtraterrestrial Life

M A R K HERBSTRITTAstronomy ,ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publici ty

TED PHIIUPSLanding Trace CasesD A VI D A SCHROTHSt. Louis/Mass M edia

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO PropulsionN O R M A E. SHORTD W I G H T CO N N E L L YEditor/Publishers EmeritusLE N STRINGFELDCommentary

The M U F O N UFO J O U R N A L ispublished by the M u tu a l U FON etwor k , Inc., Seguin, Texas.Subscription rates: $8.00 per yearin the U.S.A.; $9.00 per yearforeign. Copyright 1977 by theM u t u a l UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. Publication identificationn u m b e r is 002970. R e t u r nundeliverable copies to: TheM U F O N UFO JOURNAL, 103Oldtowne Rd. , Seguin, Texas78155.

F R O M T H E ED I T ORThe apparent disinclination of N A S A to undertake an open-ended U FO study at this time should not be interpreted as a total

rebuff, or as a sign that the Carter adm inistration will do nothingabout UFOs. M a n y signs suggest th at there is "more to come" in thisstory, an d there are many different ways an d different levels ofinvolvement by which the Federal govern ment could participate inor "encourage" UFO research.

Some small indications of possible adm inistration maneu versbehind the scenes appear in Len Stringfield's account of hisexperience at the U N , an d also repo rts from countries half a globeapart that have reached me. Two M U FO N foreign representativeshave reported sudden interest on the part of their governments incertain U FO cases, wherein they have contacted private UFOgroups or individuals for information. With the known history ofother countries looking to the U.S. fo r leadership in UFOinvestigations, these could well be signs that UFOs ar e beingdiscussed seriously in W ashington diplomatic circles. W e shall haveto wait and see whether this is merely wishful thinking, or correctinterpretation of straws in the wind.

(Cover photograph furnished by National Enquirer)

CONTENTS:Helicopter Case Update 3

B y Jennie ZeidmanThe Birdwood UFO 4

B y Ke ith B asterfieldNASA Letter (News) ; 6What Can We Learn From Hypnosis of Imaginary "Abductees"? 7

B y Alvin H. LawsonThe UFO Status Quo 10

B y Leonard H. StringfieldUFO Related Information From the FBI Files 12

B y Bruce S. MaccabeeCalifornia Report 15

By Ann DruffelIn Others' Words 17

B y Lucius ParishDirector's Message 18

B y Walt AndrusMagazine Hoax Exposed 20

By Ann DruffelAstronomy Notes 20

B y M a r k R . Herbstritt

Th e contents of the M U F O N U FO J O U R N A L ar edetermined by the editor, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of M U FO N. O pinions ofcontributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflectthose of the editor, the staff, or M UF O N . Ar t ic le s may beforwarded directly to M U F O N .

Permission is hereby granted to quote from this issueprovided not more than 200words are quoted from anyon e article, the author of the article is given credit, andthe statement "Copyright 1977 by the M U F O N UFOJ O U R N A L , 103 Oldtowne Rd, Seguin, Texas" isincluded.

8/14/2019 Number 120

4/21

HELICOPTER CASE UPDATEJennie Zeidman( M U F O N Field Investigator,Columbus, Ohio)

The Coyne he l icopter-CloseEncounter of October 18, 1973, nearM ansfield, Ohio, continues to be ofinterest to both serious investigatorsan d "throwaway" skeptics. Within afew mo nths of its occurrence, the four-m an crew had divided the NationalEnquirer award for the best case of1973, and Philip Klass had published(with dark insinuations that the crewshould return the money) that theobject was merely "a fireball of theOrionid meteor shower."

At the request of Dr. J. A. Hynek, Ihave been working on this case sinceM ay 1976. I h a v e p e r s o n a l l yinterrogated each of the crew and afamily of five who apparently witnessedthe event from the ground.* M y workrepresents over 18 hours face-to-facewith the witnesses, the study of severalhours of tapes made with them byHynek and others as early as the dayfollowing the event, plus m any hours ofadditional investigation and analysis.

The general details of the case arewell publicised; my specific findings are:The object was in continual view forapproximately 300 seconds.The object, as a red light, was visibleo n t h e eastern horizon fo rapproximately 90 seconds before itturned and began its run toward the

helicopter.The object definitely decelerated,and m a i n t a i n e d a h o v e r i n grelationship over the helicopter foras long as ten seconds.

The g r o u n d witnesses w e r eapparently within 1,000 feet of theactual encounter; they corroboratethe crew testimony.

There is no. physical evidence toindicate that the 1,800 foot - 1,000feet per minuteclimb or the apparentradio malfunctions were in any way aproduct of the object's proximity.The object presented to the crew aprecisely defined opaque oval shape,slightly domed, without wings,engine pods, empennage, logo,numbers, windows, strobe, orrotating beacon.The ground witnesses described theobject as "pear shaped," "like ablimp," "big as aschool bus," "biggerthan th e helicopter."At no time was there an overall. luminosity to the object or anirregularly defined train or trail. Thelights were emitted from specificp o s i t i o n s on the otherwisefeatureless object.The event took place at the shore ofCharles Mill Lake, which is 997 feetabove sea level. T hus, at the lowestaltitude noted (1700 ft. msl) thehelicopter had a near 700 foot marginof safety.As it proceeded away from thehelicopter, the object's intensityremained quite bright until it"snapped out" on (or over) the

northwestern horizon.Klass and Coyne have never met.Klass's contact with the witnesses(and hence the basis of his "rigorousinvestigation") consisted of threelong distance calls to Coyne and atalk-show chat with crew memberHealey. Klass never talked at all tothe other two crew members and of

course did not know of the existenceof the ground witnesses nor theexact site of the encounter.A f u l l report, covering the details ofmy work, w i l l be published by C U F O S .M eanwhile, I refer readers to FlyingSaucer Review V ol . 22, No. 4, for mydetailed arguments against the meteorhypothesis, and to F SR Vol . 23, No. 4 ,for a discussion of the ground witness

testimony and my arguments againstthe possibility that the object was aconventional aircraft.^Credits for finding the ground witnesses and thefirst tw o interviews with them are due to WarrenNicholson, M U F O N State Section Director,Ohio, (Civil Commission on Aerial Phenomena,Worthington, Ohio) and to William E. Jones,M UFO N Field Invest iga tor (formerly CCAP, no wCUFOS).

UFO upsetsa trawlerLisbonA n unideni f ied f lyingo b j e c t ( U F O ) upset a

Portuguese trawler's electricalsystem recently setting off itsalarm sirens, the official newsa g e n c y A n o p - r e p o r t e dyesterday.T he UFO , emitting aglaring light, hovered above th e300-ton Pardelhas o f fSouthwest Africa (N amibia) foreight m inutes then departed athigh speed, Anop said.Buenos Aires Herald11/25/77 . - . .

8/14/2019 Number 120

5/21

THE B I R D W O O D UFOBy Keith Basterfield

(A report on an alleged observationofan unusual aerial object at Birdwood,South Australia, July 30 , 1977. Apreliminary report appeared in No. 118,Sept. 1977. This report is copyrightedby U F O R (SA) Inc.)(1 ) Summary of details as given bythe reporter (based on interviewsAugust 26 & 27, and September17,1977).Date: Saturday, 30 Jul 77 , ,Time: 1540 CST (0610 GMT)Location: Approx. 5 K m N N W ofBirdwood, on the Birdwood toWilliamstown road, some 3 2 K m N E ofAdelaide, South Australia.Duration: 3y 2 minutes.Reporter: H i g h school scienceteacher. Male. Aged 36 years. PhD inorganic chemistry. Name withheld onhis request. Available on file.Account: "I was driving along theBirdwood-Williamstown road about 5K m from Birdwood when I noticed anobject in the sky. I thought for a whilethat it was an aircraft, but then I realized

- that it was not. It was descending froman altitude of 1-2 Km at a 15-20 glidepath. As it approached the ground, itsnose lowered and it settled between aclump of trees and a power pylon about400 meters from the road. As I got outof my car, a cream 1969-1970 Toranastopped behind me and the driver gotout and shouted, 'did you see that ?.

"I replied that I still could andpointed it out to him. W e observed theobject for 3 minutes; during this time1took particular notice of the positionofthe object andother reference points sothat I would be able to estimate its sizeand location. It then raised its tail a littleand slid backwards andupwards a little,then it accelerated vertically todisappear in three seconds. I calculated4

its verticalvelocity to be on the orderof6000 Kph.

"At no time did it emit any light orsound. Its descent and departure didnot seem even to disturb the foliage ofthe trees. Its ascent was also noiseless-not even a supersonic 'bang'."(2) The object as described

"When it came down it camedownnose up, a bit like a Mirage coming in,many, many times bigger than that andinstead of rolling as it touched, it juststopped there. I would say its speed wasround ' about 120 Kph coming in,because it was paralleling me and then itjust stopped dead.

"As it approached the ground justbehind some trees, the nose dippedandit stopped. . It descended at a glideangle of 15-18.. .Velocity slowed downtremendously as it approached theground and then '* dipped its nose andwas down."

It was first noted at an angularelevation of some 35-40 to the righthand side of the car through the closeddriver's window, descending at about aminus 15'angle from the horizon,towards the ground. Initially seen atabout 1-1% minutes and 2-3 Km Southof where it was reported to havesettled.

The ascent: ". . .then it just wentvertically straight up. I would say almostinstantly to a very definite supersonicspeed. . .It lifted off and went tail firstbackward, then levelled off and wentvertically upwards. Within threeseconds it was lost to view almostdirectly overhead."

Size: ". . .probably about the 60meter mark in length. . .about tenmeters thick. . .probably about 20-30

meters wide and this rear section washigh from the ground level about the 20meter. . ."

"I would estimate the average partof it to b e 5-8 meters in height, length5060 meters and I would conjecture thatits width could have been in the 20meter mark.. .Its width being about onethird of its length."

Color: ". . .it was a light pinkishcolor. Salmon pink. It just appeared aclear color to me. Inother words it wasjust an object and I was only gettingreflected light from it. Idon't think it hadany source of its own.. .There was nometallic luster. It wasn't shiny, but notdull. A light pink in color. A satin finish."

Shape: "It seemed to have a littlebit of a drooped nose and this was alscalloped. Like one of those fan shellsthat I used to collect when I was akiddie. Itsmoothed out into just straighlines as it went back, and then the rearsection of it seemed to point a little intothe air, and it had these two other, ialmost looked like an airfoil surfacesbut Iwouldn't say exactly.. .1didn't seeany landing gear as such. I didn't seeany legs or pegs.

"Ithad a rounded front, i.e., a threedimensional point. The rear taisurfaces were visible through the firstgap in the main body upon settlingdown. The underside of the entire thingwas concavethis was noticed as itook off. The two tail pieces were alsoconcave underneath."

Effects: The reporter says thatthere was no unusualnoisenoted at anystage throughout the observation, andno movement of vegetation was notedby him. The weather was clear skiesand light winds. It was not noted if therewere any livestock in the paddock

8/14/2019 Number 120

6/21

concerned at the time.(3 ) Reactions according to the

reporter:("I was sitting there an d quite

frankly it absolutely stunned me. Notthat I didn't believe such thing s exist butfor me to actually see one myself. . ."Ilooked at it for about three minutes.That was two getting over th e shockand I was considering going across to it.I would have gone right up to it andknocked on its hull if it stayed therelong enough."

His imm ediate reaction was to lookagain. Then he saw it coming d own andso stopped hi s vehicle. He got out,crossed the road an d watchedamazed. Then th e other person arrivedan d after the object ha d gone he talkedto him f or . 10-15 minutes about it. Hedoesn't know why he didn't think to goover to the spot after the object ha d left.He says he considered l i f e to probablyexist elsewhere in the universe, didn'tthink to o much about UFOs prior tothe event, . but .has clearly .seensomething beyond him.

The reporter stated that there was .a wom an in the car with him at the time.The following comments are made:"The passenger in my car, though,is very adamant. She doesn't want to

open he r mouth to .anyone, anywherefor fear of ridicule. . .1 don't think that Icould convince thisparticular person. Itshattered her belief enough as it is. Avery, very religious woman, elderlywoman."

At the interview on September 17,1977, he stated that he was in fact doinga "demonstration drive" at the time an dthat the person with him was a"student". Age, early twenties. A veryreligious or Christian person. She tooka quick look at the object an d thendidn't want anything more to do with it.She remained in the car when he lookedat it. In his opinion she w as in a stateof

"shock" or similar. She was very quieton the way back, but still sees him.Com ments on the people in the carwhich pulled up :"The bloke ran across to m e andsaid 'Did .you see that , did you see

that?. To which I said, 'Yes. There it isover there.' W e both stood just lookingat it for about three minutes . . . A man, awoman, and three children.""I stopped when it stopped and as Igot out of my car, another man got out

of a car behind me. He was driving anearlier model Torana, big bloke and heran up to me and said 'Hey did you seethat ? and I said, 'Yes, there it is.' "The man was described as 55 yearsold, stout, balding , grey su it, tie, whit eshirt, monacle, early model white

Torana. SA registrationclean. Them an mentioned having heard of themagazine of which the reporter iseditor. T he reporter gave this man oneof his business cards. They did notdiscuss telling anyone about th e event.Record of Investigations To Date:1. T h e . reporter telephoned UFOR(SA) Inc. on the evening of August26, 1977 an d related details of hisreport. Arrangements were made

for tw o investigators. to visit th elocation together with the reporteron August 27th.. 2. The location of the reported eventwas inspected by two investigatorswith th e reporter, paying particularattention to the ground beneaththe location where it was stated tohave "settled". Noth ing out of theordinary was noted. N o sign of any

disturbed grass, tree branches, noholes, indentations, burns, etc.3. A detailed inspection of the

location was made on September4,1977, when photographs an drough measurem ents of the area

were taken. The area was furtherinspected on September 11, 1977,fo r refined measurements an dfurther pictures to be taken. Theoccupants of the houses to thenorth an d south of the paddockconcerned were interviewed butha d heard, seen, nor f e l t nothingthey considered out of theordinary.

4. A further personal interview wa sundertaken on September 17,1977, to check on several points.Photographs and tape recordedinterviews are on f i l e .

5. Soil samples were taken onNovember 27,1977, and forwardedto the ACOS consultant for tests.APPENDIX A:N O T E S O N I N T E R V I E WC O N D U C T E D S E P T E M B E R 1 7 , 1977

We called on - th e reporter at hishome in a quiet residential suburb . Thereporter is married with tw o childrenaged 7 and 3. He is an Australian aged36 years; his w i f e wa s born in Belgium.He used to be a Major in theregular Australian a r m y and is now onthe reserve l i s t . However , h isoccupation for the last fe w years ha sbeen that of a teacher. Th e family live ina housing trust home and run a FordCapri sedan m otor car. As we talked to

hi m hi s wife re tu rned 'home and for therest of the evening sh e remained in thelounge where we were talking to he rhusband.

A p p e a r i n g a v e r y f r i e n d l y ,confident person, he answered all ourquestions in a forthright manner an dgave the impression of a person whowas adamant about that which he hadobserved. Discussions centered onwhat he had reported but deviated intotopics of astronomy an d physics. Hementioned he had a PhD in organicchemistry but that he couldn 't get anywork with that so turned to teaching.

(Continued on next page) r j

8/14/2019 Number 120

7/21

(Birdwood UFO, Continued)

During the interview we clarified allpoints that we wished to and the onlyreal discrepancy noted in this interviewas opposed to previous discussions wasthat he now says he had a youngwoman in the car with him. Previouslyhe had mentioned that his companionwas an elderly lady.

When queried about the possibilityof locating the other people in the whitecar he said that the man intimated tohim that he read the magazine of whichthe reporter is editor. The reporteragreed to put an item in the Novemberissue of his magazineand ask the otherman to get in touch with him. N odevelopments have occurred so far.(11/27/77). We suggested the use ofhypnosis to try and find this other man'sname or car registration number, butthe reporter firmly declined this.

W e asked re: the young ladywhohad been in the car with him,as to thepossibility of talking to her. He said shedid not wish to talk to anyone.

NASA Letter DeclinesUFO "Research Activity"

December 21, 197

Honorable Frank Press, DirectorOffice of Science and Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the PresidentWashington, DC 20500

Dear Frank:In response toyour letter ofSeptember 14,1977, regarding NASA's possible role iUFO matters, we are fully prepared at this time to continue responding topubliinquiries along the same lines as we have in the past. If some new element of harevidence is brought to our attention, in the future, itwould be entirely appropriatfor a NASA laboratory to analyze and report upon an otherwise unexplaineorganic or inorganic sample; westand ready to respond to any bona fidephysicaevidence from credible sources. We intend to leave the door clearly open fo r suca possibility.Wehave given considerable thought to the question ofwhat else the UnitedStatemight and should do in the area of UFO research. There is an absence oftangiblor physical evidence available for thorough laboratory analysis. And because of thabsence of such evidence, we have not been able to devise a sound scientifiprocedure for investigating these phenomena. To proceed on a research taswithout a disciplinary frameworkand an exploratory technique in mind wouldbwasteful and probably unproductive. I do not feel that we could mount a researceffort without a better starting point than we have been able to identify thus farwould therefore propose that NASAtake no steps to establish a research activitin this area or to convene a symposium on this subject.I wish in no way to indicate that NASAhas come to any conclusion about thesphenomena as such; institutionally, we retain an open mind, a keen sense oscientific curiosity, and a willingness to analyze technical problems within oucompetence.Very truly yours,

Robert A. FroschAdministrator (NASA)

8/14/2019 Number 120

8/21

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROMHYPNOSISO F IMAGINARY "ABDUCTEES"?

(This, the first of a three-part article,starting with the N ovemb er 1977 issue,is a continuation'of the paper presented"by Dr. Lawson at the 1977 M U F O NU FO SYMPOSIUM in Scottsdale,Arizona, on July 16,1977and publishedi n the 1 9 7 7 M U F O N UFOSYMPOSIUM P R O CEED I N GS.)ABSTRACT: I m a g i n a r y UFO"abduct ions" w e r e i n d u c e dhypnotically in a group of subjects (Ss)of varied ages with no significantknowledge of UFOs. Eight situationalq u e s t i o n s c o m p r i s i n g the m a j o rcomponents of a "real" abd uction wereasked of each S. R esponses indicated awide range of imaginative inventio n, butan averaged comparison of thei m a g i n a r y sessions w i t h "real"abduct ion regressions f rom th eliterature showed no substantivedifferences. Many presum ably obscure"patterns" f rom U F O l i t e ra t u reemerged in the imag inary narratives. Inaddition, there was evidence that ESP-.like effects were manifest during someof the hypnosis sessions. T heimplications of the s tudy ' fo r futureh y p n o t i c r e g r e s s i o n o f CloseEncounter cases, and for abductioncases now deemed of the highestcredibility, are unclear at this time.

IntroductionSome remarkable abduction caseshave recently been the focus ofresearch in Southern California. E achof the cases emerged u nder hypnosis,and each is uniquely interesting; bu ttogether they pose questions fo rufolog y of perhaps u n p ara l l e l e dseriousness and c o m p l e x i t y .Summaries of six of these imaginaryhypnotic "abductions" follow.In view of this complicated study;some observations and speculationsabout abduction reports are in order:

'Professor of English, California State University,Long Beach

By Alvin H. Lawson*(Copyright Alvin H. Lawson, 1977)

1. "REAL" AND IMAGINARY Ss'CONSCIOUS MEMORIES OFUFO ENCOUNTERS

It has been supposed that a majordistinction between allegedly real andimaginary witnesses is that "real" Ssusually have a vivid conscious memoryof at least part of the UFO event.However, a recent regression castsdoubt on this thesis and indicates thatsome imaginary Ss m ay develop post-

regression conscious "memories" of aU FO encounter.;In an attempt to analyze multiple-witness testimony' more thoroughly,two pairs of Ss, a man and wo man , anda set of identical female twins, wereg i v e n s i m u l t a n e o u s i m a g i n a r yabductions. The protocol followed wasidentical in each case, except that thetwins were asked to hold hands duringtheir session. The Ss were able to hear

each other during the hypnosis. Somecontrasting details follow:CO U P L E(1) Each individual had a distinctexperience

(2) Male S asked to be awakenedmidway(3) Female S "borrowed" exam detailsfrom male S after he was awakened(4) After awakening, couple could no t

affirm they had not had a "real"abductionTWINS(1) Both shared a near-identicalexperience

(2) Neither asked to be awakened

(3) N o borrowing; narratives weresupplemental with few differences(4) After awakening , twins agreed their

. : experiences were imaginaryThe most significant contrastbetween the two is that , despiteextensive discussion, the couple wereunable afterwards to say whether or n o t ,they had actually experienced a CE-III.This findingshows tha t "real" witnesses

might similarly confuse fact with fancy,a p ossibility which could cast doubt onthe credibility of man y established CE -IH's. (It may be objected that weinadvertently chose a couple who hadactually experienced an abduction,though before the session neither ha dany conscious memory of such anevent-in part or whole.)The twins' apparently sharedexperience suggests that additional

hypnosis of multiple Ss will reveal mu cha b o u t t h e m a n y p s y c h o l o g i c a lmysteries in "real" cases. Theirseemingly identical experiences m ayhave involved paranormal communi-cation which, as we will see below, maybe a significant aspect of all closeencounters.2. D O M I N A T I O N BY ONEWITNESS IN M U L T I P L E -WITNESS ABDUCTIONS

M ultiple-witness abduction caseshave usually been dominated by one ofthe witnesses: one is more observant,often seems less negative in his or heremotional response to the ev ent, and isinclined to be more cooperative andeven mo re articulate with investigators.Betty Hill, Charles Hickson, SandyLarson, and Elaine Thomas are .good(Continued on next page) _

8/14/2019 Number 120

9/21

. _ ('Abductees', Continued) ;: .examples in their respective abduction -incidents of domination" (in thisrestricted sense) over their fellowwitnesses. It is interesting that even themale S of the imaginary couple (seeabove) requested to be awakened,thereby indicating a less active interestin. th e proceedings and so deferring tohis more intrigued par tner . Themeaning of this dom ination pattern isunclear, but Charles Tart's discussionof what he terms "discrete alteredstates of consciousness" (or d-ASC)m ay have relevance to the emotionallyt r a u m a t i c e x p e r i e n c e s o f U F Oabductees: . .

...one person's illusion in a givend - A S C can s o m e t i m e s becommunicated to ano ther person - .in the same d-ASC so that a falseconsensual validation results.*

Exactly how one abduction witnessmight communicate an "illusion" toanother is not known, but if it isreasonable to expect witnesses toundergo an alteration of consciousnessduring the excitement .of a U F Oe n c o u n t e r , the s i n g l e - w i t n e s sdomination pattern m ay tell ussomething about the "reality" of UFOabductions. To the extent that suchexperiences are "real", their sensoryrecord may depend largely if not totallyupon the sensibility of a single witnesswho, through some mysterious means,induces or otherwise communicates asensory experience of an abduction tofellow witnesses.

Thus multiple-witness abducteesm ay merely be sharing in the abd uctioni l l u s i o n s o f another witness'sdominating sensibility-rather than trulyparticipating in actual events-illusionswhich their memories or hynoticsessions ultimately "recall". Of coursewe are left with a series of still-bafflingquestions, not only about reporteda b d u c t i o n - c a u s e d p h y s i c a l and*In States of Consciousness (New York,

1975), pp. 223-224.

physiological effects,;- bu t also aboutwh y the dominantwitness undergoesthe "illusion" of a UFO experience intrie'first place: in short, what is stimulu sfor the event which witnesses describeas a UFO abduction? These and otherquestions may lead us to wonderwhether the elaborate explanationso ffered are any less exot ic- -orimprobable-than what some witnessesevidently believe has happened tothem.3. WHY AREN'T THERE MO REINTER R U PTED ABDUCTIONS?

, Of the h u n d r e d - o d d UFOabductions reported, none has been ahalf-way affair. Each has a wholeness orintegral quality (although details an dduration vary) which differs from otherclose encou nters. M a n y witnesses havereported, fo r instance, that a CE-I orCE-II was in progress when anapproaching v e h i c l e or otherinterruption apparently caused theU F O to leave. Occasionally there havebeen CE-ID's where the entities havemade a hurried departure apparentlybecause of some human, intrusion. Butno partial abductions ,have beenreported and I think that is verycurious. .

It could be suggested that alienswith sufficiently exquisite knowledgeand control of time could well know inadvance whe n such interruptions weregoing to occur, and so schedule theirabductions accordingly. B ut this idea,aside from its ETassumptions, does notexplain the persistence of reportedinterruptions of other kinds of closeencounters, nor why .only abductionsshould be unique in this regard.

It seems to the writer thatabductions, for whatever reasons, arequalitatively distinct from other typesofUFO experiences. One may speculatethat their wholeness or psychologicallyintegral nature, along with allegedmental effects such as time-lapses,amnesia, and blackouts, suggests-in

the absence of unambiguous physicadata--a psychic rather than a simplephysical interpretation. This relativeabundance of psychic effects does noseem typical of other U FO sightingand close encounters, where the ratioof physical to psychic effects is roughlyreversed. B ut even if abductions shouldprove to be some sort of mentaphenomenon, the question of why-iabductions are the ul tim ate in closeencounter experiences-they arefundamentally different in these waysfrom other UFO adventures, is anothein a long line of puzzlers which cannobe ignored by thoughtful researchers.4. WHY DOWITNESSES' MEDICALHISTORIES PARALLEL UFO"PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS"

An interesting pattern in "realabduction narratives is that details ofwitnesses' personal medical historieare sometimes reflected in thei r allegedphysical ^examinations by aliens onboard the UFO's. For instance, in heN orth Dakota abduction Sandy Larsontold of havi ng her sinuses "scraped" byher alien exam iner. B ut she had had hesinuses operated on by an M Dpreviously. In the Woodland, Californiacase (see Appendix #1) a woman, whowas allegedly abducted with her twosisters in 1971, described how she wa"catheterized" (had urine drawn fromher bladder) by a grasshopper-eyedalien and his human-like femalassistant; she later revealed that shhad been catheterized while in hospital. There are other examples inthe literature, and it is probable thamore parallels might be found if adiligent search of abductees' personamedical records were made.

B ut such parallels are not limited t"real" cases; one of our imaginaryabductees' n a r r a t i v e s i n v o l v e dpersonal medical history as well. Undehypnosis a college student told ohaving a large m ask-like apparatus puover he r face during he r "examination

8/14/2019 Number 120

10/21

on board a UFO; afterward sheremembered that a similar mask wasused when she was given atonsilectomy as a child.

Thus?- there is an irresistible.invitation to see a basis in memoryand/or imagination for at least somedetails of "physical examinations"d u r i n g alleged U FO abductions.Further, if medical histories play asignificant part in abduction narratives,there is no reason w hy o f h e rbiographical data could no t similarlyemerge during other aspects of theUFO encounter tale. This does notnecessarily mean that all such detailsare baseless; rather, it tells us that theinterplay of imagination and memorymay make determination of theunvarnished truth very difficult indeed.5. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN UFO

ABDUCTIONS AND ANIMAGINARY "DIVINEVISITATION"

Th e possibility of a significantrelationship between U FO encountersan d events of religiousmythology suchas "miracles" and"visitations" hasbeenwidely noted, and particularly byJacques Vallee. In order to test thisidea, we enlisted a student volunteerwh o described herself as a "rebornChristian" with a serious religiouscommitment. The S was hypnotizedan d told that an unspecified "divinefigure" would visit with her. The datafrom her session suggest obviousp a r a l l e l s with U F O abductionnarratives. A general summary of theimaginary regression follows:

1. S sees "divine figure" floatingtowards her. .2. S is fascinated by the being's eyes.3. S senses "power" inbeing, is drawn. to him.4. S is touched bybeing, feels soothed"special".

5. S, being "talk" about heaven, endof world.

6. S sees being float upward "in acloud", and disappear.7. S feels positive about experience,,"Glad I've been picked!"

One can interpret this scene as a ratherroutine UFO close encounter: The Ssaw an alien entity float towards her.She was fascinated by its eyes and shewas aware of an exotic power in it. Atone point she was tranquilized by itstouch . They communica tedtelepathically about another world an dabout the end of this world. Finally theentity floated upward "in a cloud" an ddisappeared. Afterward, the S felt veryspecial about her experience.

There are doubtless other parallelsin the S's narrative, though these fewsupport the hypothesis that UFOencounters an d alleged miraculousreligious events have a closely relatedor even common origin. If religious"miracles" such as allegedly occurredat Lourdes and Fatima were "real"events, either physicallyor psychicallyfor the immediate witnesses, a similarcase m ay thus'be made for the "reality"(in the same restricted sense as forre l igious events) o f U F O closeencounters. To reverse the argument,ifthere is no relationship between the twoclasses of alleged phenomena, whythen the substantial parallels? (Somemay find the similarities unconvincing;others m ay object that the hypnoticprotocol utilized leading questionswhich predetermined the desired data.Ido not feel these responses have merit,though I will no t take time to argue thepoints beyond suggesting*--yet oncemore- that replication of each and all ofour hypnosis experiments beattempted before our data arerejected.)*

Supposing, then, that a case for aUFO-religious mythology' parallel tohave been made (both here and by

others), vast questions remain as to thenature an d meaning of the commonstimuli fo r religious events such asLourdes on the one hand and the Hillabduction on the other. Is a divine lightthus cast on the Hills?Or, were Fatimaand Lourdes caused by ET and/orpsychic phenomena? The questions getcuriouser and curiouser!

(T o be continued)*It should be noted that a partial replication of ourexperiment took place during a public sessionofthe International. U FO Congress in Chicago,June 25,1977. Three voluntary "abductees" werehypnotized an d reported patterned imaginaryCE-IIFs. Tw o "real" witnesses, however, hadunsatisfactory hypnosis experiences, arid nomeaningful comparison wa s possible.

POSTAL EXCHANGEThe MUFON program of tradingcancelled foreign stamps to a collectorin exchange for current U.S. postagestamps continues to be successful,thanks to generous contributions byM U F O N members. This program helpsto underwrite the expense of extensivecorrespondence, and results in betterinformation exchange internationally.

W e would like to thank HarryCohen, editor of Aerial PhenomenonClipping an d Information Center(APCIC), for a recent contribution andpledge of contributing stamps on aregular basis.. (APCIC offers a UFOnewsclipping service for $5 per month.For more information, write H .. R .Cohen, P. O. Box9073, Cleveland, OH44137). .

Please continue to send cancelledforeign stamps in any quantityfrom 5 to500. It takes a lot of them to equal thevalue of current U.S. stamps. (Send toRichard Hall,441839th St., Brentwood,M D 20722).

8/14/2019 Number 120

11/21

THE UFO STATUSQUOMY ADVISORY ROLE FO R GRENADA'S

UFO MISSION AT THE UNITED NATIONSBy Leonard H. Stringfield

O n November .14,1977,1 got wordf r o m D r . Well ington Friday,Ambassador At Large fo r Grenada,that I was chosen to serve as his adviserat the United Nations where he wasscheduled to propose the establish-ment of an agency, within the UnitedNations framework, to study UFOs.As I now look back on my five days

spent in New York with Grenada'sPrime Minister and his delegation, andbeing witness to their dramaticendeavors at the UN, I must hasten tosay that m y experience in playing a partin the affairs was rewarding. I sawhistory being made and I have thesatisfaction of getting a good insideglimpse at diplomatic manuevers,especially on an issue sosensitive as theUFO!

Before departing from Cincinnati,Sunday, November 27th, I ponderedthe possible pitfalls of such a boldventure. I could see the cynical pressbeing amused by the blatant antics of aflyspeck Caribbean island nation; and Icould see the great powers, secretlyknowledgeable of the UFO, gloweringdown at a country so puny, poor, andpolitically unstable who would darechampion the UFO instead of takingissue with other world problems likehuman rights in South Africa or theownership of the Panama Canal.

But, in my point of view, I sawGrenada as a nation standinglegitimately alongside other nations as amember of the UN. Moreover,Grenada's Prime Minister Sir Eric10

Gairy seemed willing to risk his politicalfuture as he crossed swords in supportof the UFO in open forum a mattertoo long delayed in the U N . It was in thisspirit, that I was willing to serve asadviser.

The man behind Grenada's UFOthrust was Prime M inister Gairy.Openly admitting he witnessed a UFO

.and knowing of other U FO closeencounters on his island, he addressedthe UN's 32nd General Assembly,October 7, 1977, requesting. that theUFO question be placed on the agendafor serious review and that steps betaken to establish an agency for ". . .coordinating and disseminating theresults of its research."

It was prior.to Gairy's Octoberaddress that I first became involved asadviser. Following a meeting in NewYork on September 16, 1977, when Imet Grenada's. Ambassador to theUnited States, Franklin Dolland, at hismission's office, I was introduced to Dr.Friday. Duringa private meeting later atmy hotel, Friday asked if Iwould submita paper to him describing the objectivesfor serious UFO research. I promptlyresponded with a 4-page guidelinewhich I later learned was used as thetheme in the.Prime Minister's address.

As "official" adviser, I was greetedSunday, November 27, at LaGuardiaAirport by limousine and a Grenadastaff member.

Shortly after arrival at the RogerSmith Hotel I got into action. Dr.Friday, in a nearby room, gave me arough draft of his address for review

an d editing. Working far into the niand rising early Monday to resumehad sharply edited the 45-page teParts were deleted, parts added, astatements factually correctedr h e t o r i c a l l y rephrased. Fridhowever, had done his homework wHe had searched U N files, exhumold data from the 1960*5 when the lSecretary General U Thant hexpressed his interest in the worldwUFO problem. He had also uncovemany records showing that MaColman V on Keviczky of I C UFO Npressed the UN in 1966 to act on UFO question. Friday had aincluded in his draft many quotes frD r. Hynek's tw o books, T h e UExperience and The Hy n ek UReport , and, from m y book, SituatRed , T h e U F O Siege.

On November 28th, the daywhDr. Friday was scheduled to makeaddress at 3 p.m. in the GeneAssembly, the phone in his rojangled all morning. O ne call standou t above the others occurred wAmbassador Dolland and I wrushing some last minute copy chanwhich were to be delivered to mission office for typing. It came frCoast Guard Commander John Feia member of the U.S. delegation. Ipolite manner, he at first offeredUnited States' hopeful supportGrenada's UFO stand at the UN, evthough the text ofFriday's address wunknown to him. Then Feigle inquiabout Grenada'sobjectives which drfrom Friday only a rhetorical responFeigle then stated that the U.S. positwas based on the Condon RepFriday, indicating some annoyan

8/14/2019 Number 120

12/21

stated that he w as aware of the CondonR eport, that he knew of new U FO datasince the report's release in 1969 whic hmade the Condon Report invalid, an dthen promised to call back. In a matterof minutes, Friday and I discussed andformulated Grenada's policy. We hadhoped fo r U S support bu t hopes werefading fast. Our decision:.Stand firm!

Dr. Friday's hour-long oratory,following the Prime M inister's openingstatement, wa s in my opinion, amoment fo r history. Sitting with theGreriadan staff, I watched the reactionof delegates representing certaincountries which I knew beforehandwould be mentioned as having a part inUFO affairs.. Notably , on ly theCommunist Chinese delegate aroseduring the talk, an d smiling inscrutably,strolled but of the assembly. -

' The U.S., as expected, requestedtime fo r rebuttal, but any chance fo rdebate was cut short as the delegatefrom Nepal had asked fo r adjournmentto allow time to review Friday's text.The next meeting wa s scheduled fo rW e dn e s da y , Nov e m b e r SO.Disap-pointingly, I had no recourse to openmy briefcase where I had stored U FOdata to offer Dr. Friday if needed in thedebate.

- ' " - '- .* - '- ' -

The day at the UN ended but theday of the diplomat never ends.M eetings and p hone calls go far into thenight. For me, I was privileged to beinvited by the. Prime M inister as hisguest to see Close Encounters of theThird Kind at the Ziegfield Theatre.Arriving by limousine, with adequateSecret Service cover, weavoided a longqueuing line outdoors and went up theback stairs to reserved seats. I not onlysaw the movie" royally bu t never felt soprotected, as stone-faced agentsdeployed to seats nearby.

The next two days, November 29and 30, were focused on extensivework on the draft resolution which wasscheduled f o r ' presentation at theGeneral Assembly at 3 -p.m. ofNovember 30. Both days were active

for the U.S. delegation. Calls camefrom Delegates, Commander Feigle,an d John Krindler.After consulting th eWhite House, they said they could"sympathize" with Grenada's effortsbut could not support th e existing draftresolution. Several items were tood e m a n d i n g , s u c h as the l inesunderscored from the text as follows:"(1) Requests the Secretary-General

to consider the scope and variousaspects of this item and to undertakefor consideration by the 33rd sessionof the General Assembly, a survey ofthe UFO phenomenon which shouldinclude...(b) the results of studies

. and such documentation and otherdata p ertinent to this item as may beprovided from records of repre-s e n t a t i v e g o v e r n m e n t s , ' t he. committee on the Peaceful Uses ofOuter Spaces, etc. etc."

On Wednesday at 11:30 a.m., apress conference was held at PrimeM inister Gairy's suite at the PlazaHotel. I was there with my briefcasecontaining U FO data just in case it wasneeded. Gairy fielded questions aboutthe UFOs by the media well, and, ofcourse, there were political questionsabout human rights in his country an dabout alleged Chilean Communistsoperating in his country. This heemphatically denied, calling his politicalopposition "liars". Gairy said Genada isa quaint, non-military, religious coun trywhich rejects communism as he does.In my opinion, at no time wa s Gairyevasive, nor lacking in forthrightanswers to questions on U F O s orpolitics.

': At the close of the conference, thePrime M inister waspressed td share hisop i n i on of the m o v i e , "CloseEncounters of the Third K ind". He saidthat he was "favorably impressed" andthen asked that I state my views. As Igave my critique, the Secret Serviceagents standing behind me had quietlyushered in the U.S. delegates, Feigleand Krindler. They had kept ana p p o i n t m e n t w i t h G a i r y for adiscussion of the draft resolution. Inbounds of .protocol, the meeting was

conducted behind closed doors.In essence, the closed-door

session was triggered by a maneuver byth e British U N delegation. Having m etwith the U.S. team they had averredthat the establishment of an - UFOagency in the U N , on the basisproposed by Grenada, would beprohibitive in measure of cost and time.The U .S. agreed and reiterated that theterms in the draft resolution w ere to odemanding.

Once again th e resolution wasreworked to a more moderate posture,however, the salient points remainedintact. The last word I had beforedeparture from New York, December1st, was that th e U.S. was in a"supportive" mood of the draftresolution, probably knowing that giventime for mo re d iplomatic man euversthe final wording of the documentwould hopefully be revised more to itsliking.

O n December 7th, th e draftresolution (with few changes) wa sshelved until next year's GeneralAssembly to be convened in September1978. This would allow the delegates ofmember nations to consult with theirhome governments for an'evaluatiori oftheir o w n U F O status quo.

Dr. Friday, a man of great vigorand an astute diplomat, toasted mydeparture from the R oger Smith Hotel.He thanked me for my contributionsand we agreed that the U FO had wonn e w i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p e c t a b i l i t ythrough Grenada's efforts. The UnitedStates got off the limb at the UNwithout embarrassment. Perhaps, theU.S. was hoping that by the time acrucial vote would come up inSeptember 1978, that Prime M inisterGairy's views might change on theU F O . After all, President Carter hadgifted hi m , du r i n g a di p l om a t i cexchange in September 1977, with acopy of the Condon Report.

11

8/14/2019 Number 120

13/21

UFO RELATED INFORMATION FROM THE FBI FILES: Part 2By Bruce S. MaccabccM U F O N State Director for Maryland

(Copyright Bruce S. Maccabee, 1977) As of July 31 , 1947, the FBI was

officially involved with the UFOphenomenon. Agents were ordered tocarry ou t intense investigations ofreports which came to their attention.The Washington office began toaccumulate a mass of UFO-relateddata. This would seem to be an idealsituation for an investigative agencythat wanted to understand what wasgoing on . However, only two monthslater the FBI l e f t th e center stage an dbegan its retreat into the shadows. Tounderstand part of the reason why, it isnecessary to consider the types ofreports that the FBI investigated.

B y the time Gen. Schulgencontacted the FBI (July 10, 1947) theFB I had a collection of newspaperclippings and teletype messages. Thefirst teletype message was rather brief,to say the least. It read: "About 12so-called f lying discs passed overDarlington, S.C. approximately 5:30PM today. Advise if wishdetails."11 Tw oother teletype messages that had beenreceived by July 10 were moredetailed, bu t they were reports ofmechanical hoax devices which wereapparently typical of the hoaxes thatwere perpetrated during th e early daysof UFOs. O n July 7 a report was filedfrom Shreveport, La., of an object thathad "Made in USA" written on it. It wasa disc which reportedly landed andsmoke issued forth. It was found tobeathin aluminum disc, 16 inches indiameter with coils of wire attached.The Army at Barksdale Field retrievedthe disc befoore the FBI agent had achance to look at it.12 On July 8a "disc"was found near Rpswell, N.M. This"disc" was hexagonal inshape and wassuspended from a balloon. This "disc"was sent to Wright Field by a special

12

plane for analysis.13 O n July 9 theresident agent in Burbank,Cal., calledth e main FB I office to report that a firein a nearby wood ha d been caused bythe landing of a "flying disc". A furtherreport on July 10described the disc asbeing made of aluminum, about twofeet in diameter, an d "having a sort ofradio tube in the center of the disc."

B y the time the FB I had agreed toinvestigate UFO witnesses (July 24,1947 communication to Gen.Schulgen), the files contained severalmore reports of hoax objects and onlythree reports that could be consideredgood. These reports will be referred tolater. The hoax reports included areport from Twin Falls, Idaho, about adome, wires and "tubes similar to radiotubes". It was about 30 inches indiameter and apparently had somewiring burned off and "looked asthough something might be missing".This saucer was reported by a womanwho claimed she had heard a noise likea collision in her back yard.14 Anotherhoax object was found by Mr. . . .(name crossed o f f ) in Laurel, Md. Hecalled to report that a buzzing objecthad landed in his back yard "and themachinery is still buzzing".15 Stillanother object was reported fromBlack River Falls, Wisconsin. It was alarge, possibly cardboard, disc that hada small propeller attached to the side.16A disc found in Seattle on July 16 wasanalyzed by the ONI (Office of NavalIntelligence). It had a hammer an dsickle painted on it.

The three good reports in the FBIfile at the time of the response toGeneral Shulgen all came from theArmy A ir Force (AAF) an d were thefollowing. (1) Two meteoro/ogiste inVirginia wrote "We hesitate to makethis report concerning our pilot balloonobservations in regards to a flying disc

because of the considerable nationskepticism regarding the subjectpresent. However, local newspapeinform us that the U.S. Governmeadmits no authority fo r such a shipobject and for its flights. Then we muassume this strange object to foreign." The report goes on describe several sightings. "Mr. .(name removed) has observed thstrange metallic disc on three occasiothrough the theodolite while making hpibal observation during the last smonths. Miss Baron (name accidentno t removed) ha s reported observingon one occasion. Miss Baron's repoagrees with Mr.... observations exceas to the color which she reported asdull metallic luster. Mr . . . . laobserved this disc in April 19(underlining by present author) at t1100E Pibal Observation when tballoon was at 15,000 feet. Thedisc wfollowed for 15 seconds, apparentmoving on level flight from east to weto the far north of the station. Tobject was a metallic like chromshaped something like an ellipse withflat level bottom and a dome like-rountop. The disc .appeared below tballoon, was much larger in size in tinstrument (sic; this m ay meanappeared larger than the instrumepackage hanging below the balloonand shined like silver. It was impossibto estimate the height or speed of tdisc except that it appeared to moving very rapidly. Miss Baroobserved the disc when her balloon wat about 27,000 feet. All daobserved were either clear or with vefew clouds and good visibility." Threport was received by the FBI on t22nd of July. It stands out as one of thighly credible pre-Arnold repor

Aside from the early dates of tsightings, one is struck by the detaildescription by trained meteorologis

8/14/2019 Number 120

14/21

instruments to track and observe"saucer". One isalso struck by the,

retrospect, amusing references tosightings of "this disc" and "theas if there were only one objectits type which had been seen on

occasions. It is clear from thethat the meteorologists werethat "the disc" representedtechnology of which the U.S.

be made aware.that theof flying discs might beserious that if they sighted

a disc again they should considertheir weather measurements tothe disc: 'If sighted again, wewould be a good idea to

the balloon and instead makeon this disc."

The second :and third reports inFB I file by July 24 were bothfrom the air in southernon

7, the second at 1145 CSTand theat 1430 CST. Each was a tworeport, with 'an A.F. captainin the second sighting. The

report stated: "saucervertically edgewise throu ghclouds, stopped at 4000. an d assumed horizontal position andin horizontal flight from aposition for 15 seconds

25 miles and again stoppedd disappeared." This observations made from an altitude of about 80 0above ground, while the "saucer"

about 4000 ft.sea level. The speed of thewas estimated at 6000 mph.

Th e t h i r d report stated:in horizontal flight in aattitude for a period of 20covering 22 miles. By the time

had removed his camera from thecompartment of his plane, the -

disappeared and aga i napproximately 10 milesalong its course after 6secondsfinal disappearance." Thisobservation was made' at an

of 3500 ft. above sea level andsaucer was estimated to have been

at an altitude about 1000 ft. lower. Th espeed of the saucer in the third reportwas estimated' at 3690 mph. Theweather during both of the sightingswas clear ("CAVU") with scatteredaltocumulus clouds at 6000 ft. Both ofthe above reports were sent via theCivil Air Patrol in Wisconsin to theCommanding General at Boiling A F B .There was no suggestion that theobservers might have been m istaken orthat they were attempting to create(independent) hoaxes.

I have presented these threereports in detail to show tha t the FBI didh av e some i n t e r e s t i n g e v i d e n c eavailable which could not be explained:as simple hoaxes by the time th edecision was made to investigate U FOrepor ts /Although it wasn't the jo b ofthe FBI to i n v e s t i g a t e a e r i a lphenomena, it was the job of the FB I toinvestigate subversion within th e U.S.Thus, if all reports of saucers had been(a) clearly hoax objects and/or (b )clearly mistakes of observers, the FBIcould have concluded that the re was noreason to investigate. However, with afew good, detailed observations ofwhat seemed to be real craft thatexhibited capabilities fa r beyond ouro w n , the existence of hoax reportsbecame more suspicious because onecould argue that a foreign power (e;g.,Russia) wa s flying a new type of aircraftover the U SA ( f o r intelligence purposesor whatever) while trying to cover up itsflights by discrediting witnesses bymeans of hoaxes. To be more exp licit,suppose John D oe (or K enneth Arnold)reports seeing a flying disc. Whether ornot he gives a detailed description isimmaterial. Then soon after many otherpeople also report seeing objects in thesky and also they report findingobjects. Suppose, moreover, that theobjects which are found have the samegeneral shape as the descriptions ofobjects reportedly seen in the skybut that they are clearly hoax devices.Then John Doe's (and KennethArnold's) story is discredited, and thefew discs that the foreign power has arefree to fly wherever they wish (as longas they stay away from cities) because

they "know" that whoever sees themwill not be believed.

A - scenario as just described(Russia has real discs and flies themover the USA while "covering up" theflights by discrediting witnesses) m a yhave been considered by the FBI in itsdecision to investigate,but in an y .eventthe suggestion of subversion :andcreation :of hysteria. by a "foreignpower" was definitely made (seeSchulgen's letter in Part I) . Whateverreasoning m ay have been invoked toconnect the "bonafide" reports with th ehoax reports, the FBI entered the U FO"arena" with th e -intent to discoverwhether or hot any of the U FO repor ts.could be directly attributable : tos u b v e r s i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , G e n .Schulgen asked that Kenneth .Arnoldand Byron Savage (an RCA f i e l dengineer .who reported seeing a disc inM ay 1947) be investigated "since th eywere .among the first to sight the allegedflying discs. H e. indicated th at ,hedesired that -the investigation be.directed toward ascertaining whetheror. not either of these individuals havea n y . subversive background or toascertain, whe ther or not they had anyulterior motives fo r reporting thesesightings."17 (According to a note onth e document that included thisrequest, "a review of Bureau files failedto reveal an y derogatory informationthat could be identified with theseindividuals.") M any of the teletypemessages to FBI headquarters andreports on investigations made afterJuly 30 , 1947, were headed "securitymatter X", "internal security",- andsabotage". '

By the end of September, the FBIf i l e contained many reports, aboutequally divided between good reportsand poor reports/hoaxes. M an y of thereports ha d been supplied by the AAFmerely as information for the FBI withno investigation requested. M any ofthese reports concerned sightings bytechnically oriented individuals (pilots,military personnel, scientists). There

(continued on next page) 13

8/14/2019 Number 120

15/21

(FBI Files, Continued)was even an early analysis of sightingsthat had been carried out by someonein the AAF (no name given). Itcontained 18 sightings up to late July1947, and broke these sightings intot h e i r various characteristics f o rcomparison according to Date, Hour(local t ime), Location, Observer'sN a m e , Occupation, Ground or AirObservation, Number of Objects,Altitude, Direction of Flight, SpeedDistance Covered, Length of Time inSight, Deviation from Straight Flight,Color, Size, Shape, Sound, Trail,Weather, Manner of Disappearance,and "Remarks". The analysis includedcopies of all the sightings analyzed, bu tthere was no conclusion expressed.However, associated with the analysisin the FBI file, but not necessarily a partof it, is an updated page with nosignature which expresses someone'sinteresting conclusions. The paper,which was very likely written in late Julyor in August 1947, reads as follows:

"From detailed study of reportsselected fo r their impression of veracityand reliability, several conclusions havebeen formed:

(a) This "flying saucer" situation isnot all imaginaryor seeing to o much insome natural phenomenon. Somethingis really flying around.

(b) Lack of topside inquiries (i.e.,lack ofrequests by top echelon militaryofficers), when compared to theprompt and demanding inquiries thathave originated topside upon formerevents, give more than ordinary weightto the possibility that this is a domesticproject, about which the President, etc.know.

(c) Whatever the objects are, thismuch can be said of their physicalappearance:

1. The surface of these objects ismetallic, indicating a metallic skin atleast.14

2. When a trail is observed, it islightly colored, a Blue-Brown haze, thatis similar to a rocket engine's exhaust..Contary to a rocket of the solid(propellant) type, one observation,indicates that th e fuel may be throttledwhich would indicate a liquid rocketengine.

3. As to shape, all observationsstate that the object is circular or atleast elliptical, flat on the bottom an dslightly domed on the top. The sizeestimates place it somewhere near thesize of a C-54 or a Constellation.

4. Some reports describe two tabs,located at the rear and symmetricalabout the axis of flight motion.-

5. Flights have been reported fromthree to nine of them, flying goodformation on each other, with speedsabout 300 knots.

6. The discs oscillate laterally whileflying along, which could be snaking."All of the previous information has

been presented to indicate the typesofreports and the sort of information thatwas available to the FBI by the end ofSeptember. About 60 non-trivial, non-hoax reports, some from FBI sourcesand many from AAFsources, were filedby the end of September. Also filedwere documents giving viewpoints onthe situation regarding "flying discs".All of this information played animportant part in the decisionofthe FBIto end its official investigatory status.However, the FBI investigation mighthave continued anyway, if it hadn'tbeen for "the last straw", which I willdescribe shortly.

However, first I would like topresent some information whichsuggested to the FBI that it might beinvestigating our own secret weapons.The document of interest reads asfollows:18

"Special Agent Reynolds (call himSA) of the Liasion Section, whilediscussing (flying discs) with Lt. Col.

Garrett (Col. G) of the Air ForcIntelligence, expressed the possibilthat flying discs were, in fact, a .vehighly classified experiment of *Army or Navy. SA was very mucsurprised when Col. G. not only agrethat this was a possibility, bconfidentially stated it was his personopinion, that such was a probabilitCol. G. indicated confidentially thatM r who is a scientist attached to thAir Forces Intelligence, wasof the samopinion."

"Col. G. stated that he based hiassumption on the following: Hpointed out that when flying objecwere reported seen over Sweden, th"high brass" of the War Departmenexerted tremendous pressure on thAir Force Intelligence to conducresearch and collect information in aeffort to identify these sightings. Col. Gstated that, in contrast to this, we havreported sightings of unknown objecover the United States, and the "higbrass" appeared to be totallunconcerned. H e indicated this led himto believe that they knew enough abouthese objects to express no concernCol G. pointed out further that thobjects in question have been seen bmany individuals who are what hterms "trained observers", such aairplane pilots. He indicated also thaseveral of the individuals are reliabmembers of the community. He statethe above has led him to come to thconclusion that there were objects seewhich somebody in the Governmenknows all about."

"SA pointed out to Col. G. that ifis a fact experimentations are beinconducted by the United StateGovernment, then it does not appeareasonable to request the FBI to spenmoney and precious time conductininquiries with respect to this matteCol. G. stated that he agreed with SAithis regard and indicated that it woulbe extremely, embarrassing to the AForces Intelligence if it later is learnethat these flying discs are, in fact, aexperiment of the United State

(continued on page 19) .

8/14/2019 Number 120

16/21

f f

By Ann Druffel

NOTE: Walt Greenawald, the author ofthis month'sguest column, is a mechanicalengineer with 25 years' experience inrocket engine research and development.In 1972, he observed a UFO overCalifornia from th e window of acommercial airliner andsince that time hasAIRLINE PILOTS AND UFOs

Several years ago, after I hadsufficiently intrigued by theO enigma to digest everything I

afford on the subject, I had awith a pilot friendmine who flew for American Airlines., being somewhat surprised at my

and position on the alienfolksho reported discoidal-shaped craftviewing airplanes at odd angles.I wondered ifhad specifically polled a groupairline pilots for their impressions ofcontroversial UFOs.

I speculated that the average pilot,trained and with so muchwould make anobserver and would be

a very credible witness.airspace fo r hours on end fornear the flight path 'whichthe airliner, I expected

see more than theirof UFOs.

The following questionnaire wasto approximately0 airline pilots, mostly captains, allmajor U S airline. I

24 responses or a 14% return.1. In your opinion what is thethat some UFOs arecontrolled spacecraft fromother planet?

ANSWERS: 0-10% Probability 16(69.5%)11-50% Probability 1(4.5%)51-100% Probability6 (26.0%)

2. Do you think there arebeings elsewhere in the

A N S W E R S : Only three pilotscould correctlyidentify this U FOresearch group.

9. Do you think the UFOphenomena should be studied openlyby the U.S. Government?ANSW ER S: Yes 14 (63.5%)N o 8 (37.5%)10. Do you have a collegedegree?A N S W E R S : Yes 17 (74%)N o 6 (26%)11. Most UFO sightings areexplained as known phenomenaapproximately 80%. Give an opinion asto what yo u think the remaining 20%may be (some rare, unknown thing,hallucinations, alien spacecraft, a newweapons system, etc.)ANSWERS: Six pilots, 25%, gavetheir opinion thatUFOs came from

an alien source.Five pilots, 20.8%,responded thatUFOs probablywere caused by un-known phenomena.

12. True or false: People withmore education are more likely toreport a UFO sighting?A NS W E R S : Yes 4 (20%)( r i g h t answer )N o 16 (80%) " 13. At least one major collegeo f f e r s a course on UFOs forcredit?AN SWE RS: Yes 13 (56.5%)

studied the UFO phenomena on acontinuing, volunteer basis. The followingarticle has been taken from a much longerreport writ ten recently by Mr.Greenawald. Th e f u l l report, includingtables andgraphs, isavailableto interestedresearchers. .

Possible 4 (17.5%)N o 6 (26.0%)

3. Have any of your flyingcolleagues ever reported (publicly orprivately) a UFO sighting?ANSWERS: Yes 8 (34.8%)No 15 (65.2%)4. What U FO literature have yo u .

read (books, reports, privatepublications, magazines, etc.)?A N S W E R S : Books 5 (22.7%)M agazines 5 (22.7%)Reports, articles 2(9.1%)Non e 10 (45.5%)5. Does your airline have an

official (or unofficial) policy on UFOsightings?A N S W E R S : Yes 1 (4%)No 22 (92%)Unknown 1(4%)6. For what is Professor GeorgeAdamski famous?A N S W E R S : Only on e pilot couldidentify Adamski,

as an early "con-tactee" arid author.

7. Who is Dr. J. Allen Hynek?A N S W E R S : Only on e pilot couldidentify Hynek, asan astronomer and

UFO researcher.8. What did the CondonCommittee (University of Colorado)

do? - .

(continued on next page) 15

8/14/2019 Number 120

17/21

A N S W E R S : Yes 4 ( 1 6 . 7 % )(right answer)O t h e r 20 (83.3%)( responses l i k e"hope not", un-k n o w n , "waste ofmoney", etc.)

14 . Have you ever seen a U F O ?A N S W E R S : Yes 5 (20.8%)

N o 19 (79.2%)

O ne pilot repor ted two sightings inhi s 23,000 h o u r s , in the air, brieflydescribing them as :

"In a mid-1948 night 50 miles westof Phoenix , Arizona, sighted a cigar-shaped o b j e c t , w h i t e - l i g h t e dproceeding south at high speed. Itappeared to hover the n disappear. T heother pilot saw the same thing as I."

And "In 1950, on a night trip to SaltLake City , U tah, sighted a delta-shapedobject, green lighted, proceeding west,south of the airport at what appeared tobe a rather slow speed. This sightingwas reported on TV by the other pilot."Another pilot reported th e mostinteresting UFO event: "About 1964approximately 75 miles west ofAllentown, Pa., at 37,000 ft. and over a

25,000 ft. solid overcast, an objectappeared as a small moon. Severalsmaller objects seemed to fly into an daway from the brightly lit object.Several other airline pilots in the areasighted the objects and questioned theN ew York Center about it. The centerhad no radar contact with the object.The object was viewed for about 10minutes until we descended into th eovercast. There appeared to be no waythat th e object would have been areflection because the overcast wassolid for at least 20,000 ft."

This event appears to h a v e .involved a rare "mother-craft" type ofU F O . . .similar sounding to those

reported over France in the great flap of1954. This particular UFO may* havebeen relatively hug e to have been seenby other nearby pi lots , as normallyairliners ar e spaced fa r apart fo r safety,considerat ions.

PILOTS ATTITUDES: One of themos t striking results of this poll was anemergence of an extremely skepticalviewpoint regarding the reality of U F O samong those pilots who had neverobserved something in the sky whichthey could not explain. Graphsavailable from th e author indicate thatth e airline pilots studied by him were atleast twice as skeptical of UFO realityas the U.S. national average.Exploration of the reasons fo r thisvariance, most likely psychological innature, could very well be the subject ofsome future study.

In contrast to the skepticism notedrelative to the belief in UFOs, airlinepilots are much more prone to acceptthat intelligent l i f e exists elsewhere inthe universe. Results of Question 2show that 56% of the p ilots polledbelieve that there are smart beings outthere. Comparing this to a survey ofparticipants in a Center for U FOStudies (CUFOS) conference atLincolnwood, Illinois, in early 1976, itwas learned that approximately 50% ofthose polled at t ributed UFOs to anextraterrestrial source. In other words,pilots tend to suppor t th e ET I belief b utgenerally refuse to accept that an alienh as arrived on this planet.

These skeptical attitudes on thepart of the polled pilots should not beassessed without an evaluation of anindividual's knowledge on the subject.In an area so controversial as UFOs, itis no t surpris ing that th e most skepticalones are those who have notinvestigated the great wealth ofi n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e . T h e mostskeptical pilots had never heard ofAdamski, Condon, or Hynek , and hadread little at all on the U FO subject.Regarding UFOs, skepticism correlateswell with th e ignorance factor.

There also appeared to bedefinite t rend of skepticism with ag ethose pilots who had not sightedU F O . Th e o l d e r p i l o t s a

. predominantly skeptical.of U FO realRegarding th e feeler as to airlpolicy on UFO sightings, only o

respondent said "yes" to this quean d added, "not official airline positwhen making statements." I wopresume that he means that a pilot mreport a UFO sighting on his own, awhatever he says does not reflectairline's position on the matter.other pilot reported that this particuairline had an official or unofficial polon UFO matters.

M y ow n opinion is that all airlihave an unwri t ten ru leDOPUB L ICIZE U FO SIGHTINGS A NO U R AI RL I NE ! This is conjecturem y part, but UFO stories associawith commercial airline travel is bad business. A ny pilot reporting one to press is sticking hi s neck out .

The most interesting characfrom this effort was the pilot wresponded that he never seen a UFha d never talked to another pilot whad seen one, had read some boand articles, and was 100% convinthat some UFOs were alien spacecrH e even admitted that he carriedloaded 35-mm camera in the cockpijust in case.

CONCLUSIONS:1. Airline pilots see significamore UFOs than the average pers20.8% as compared to 8% of the Upopu lation polled in 1973. In early 19th e National Inquirer reported in thow n poll of airline pilots that 11.4% hseen a U F O , somewhere betweentw o previous percentages.1

2. Airline pilots are significanmo re skeptical regard ing the realityUFOs than is the average citizen.3. Airline pilots "shoot the buabout UFOs.

16 (continued on next p a g e )

8/14/2019 Number 120

18/21

Lucius ParishIn O thers' W ords

The October 18 issue ofENQUIRER reported on

since 1967. This preliminarywill determine if a furtheris necessary. A total of 92FO sightings were reported to thefollowing its "Operation

October5 issue. This issue also c ontain s a veryng item about a M artianThe November 8 ENQUIRER tellsf t h e D e f e n s e Department's

interest in U FO reports. Dr.Institute for Space Studies,his views on the likelihood ofwith extraterrestrialswithin the40 years in this same issue. A

of the UFO subject isin the November 15

The November issue ofDIGEST contains an anti-FO article by Ron ald Schiller. Hespecific U FO cases by usingmethods, apparently unawarethe total inadequacy of Klass'

Another report on the AcapulcoFO conference appears in the7 issue of N EW WEST.are evident, but it is ainteresting report on theA related article in this issuewith Steven Spielberg's film,Enclounters of the Third Kind."The Vol. 1, No. 3 issue of N EWhas three articles ofa survey of Ufology after 30

a report on Ray Stanford'sand still

conference.Wendelle Stevens' article on UFO

activity in the area of Virginia Beach,Virginia, and William Leet's report onKentucky U FO cases are about theonly two items of interest in the #8 issueof TRUE FLYING SAUCERS & U F O s .

December's UFO REPORTcontain s articles by Wendelle Stevens,Brinsley Le Poer Trench, John A. Keel,an d others, including an interestinginterview with D r. James Harder.The January issue of OFFICIALU FO contains a couple of semi-decentarticles, but the remainder of the issueis total garbage. Ditto fo r January

A N C I E N T A S T R O N A U T S , whoseonly redeeming feature is a reprint ofone of Wendelle Stevens' good articles.Leonard Stringfield has beeninterested in UFOs since that day inAugust , 1945, when three glowing

"blobs" affected, the engines of theplane in which he was flying. In lateryears, his interest was responsible forp ro d u c i n g the C R I F O (Civil ianResearch, I n t e r p l a n e t a r y F l y i n gO bjects) periodicals, NEWSLETTERan d O R BI T .

These excellent additions to UFOliterature were followed by his firstbook, INSIDE S A U C E R P O S T 3 -OB LUE. H is latest book, S I T U A T I O NRED, T H E U F O SIEGE!, is, in thewords of the sub-title, "A n Update onStrange an d F requen tly FrighteningEncounters." Essentially, it is a reporton the events of the 1973 U FO flap, pluslater happenings which Stringfield ha sinvestigated. It is filled with reports ofsightings, landings, occupant andabduction casesthe fascinating an doften mind-boggling events whichmake even the most seasoned UFO

researchers p o n d e r th e v a s tcomplexity of the subject. In relatingU FO cases which he has heard fromvarious sources, Stringfield provides awealth o f p o t e n t i a l ly i m p o r t a n tmaterial, but one might wish for a bitmore documentation fo r these stories.H o w e v e r , S I T U A T I O N RE D iscurrently well worth your attention.The rather dramatic title is thepublisher's choice, not the author's,incidentally. Th e book is available for$8.95 from Doubleday &Co., Inc., 245Park Avenue, N.Y., N Y 10017.

Readers who are interested inLeonard Stringfield's earlier writingsmight like to know that the f u l l set of 36CRIFO publications is available fromthe author (4412 Grove Avenue,Cincinnati, O h i o 45227) for $18.00.Copies of his first book, INSIDESAUCER P O S T 3-O BLUE, are alsoavailable at $3.00 each. All items arewell worth the price, in my estimation.

C a l i f o r n i a R e p o r t , continued4. Airline pilots are grossly under -informed about the UFO phenomena.5. Older pilots tend to be moreskeptical than younger pilots regardingU FO reality.

(There is only one comm ent which canbe added to W alt's splendid study. Whyin the world hasn't the U.S.Government made use of this vast built-in monitoring systemall the pilots onthe U.S. airlinesto gather detailedand expert UFO reports?AnnDruffel)

' N A T I O N A L E N QUIR E R , Feb. 8, 1977

17

8/14/2019 Number 120

19/21

Director's MessageB y Walt An dr u s

As promised, Columbia Pictures'epic film "Close Encounters of theThird Kind" made it s nationwide debutDecember 14, 1977, opening in 460s e l e c t e d t h e a t e r s . P r e l i m i n a r yattendance figures indicate that it couldsurpass "Star Wars" in popularity,although this prediction is premature,since both continue to run week afterweek in major theaters. N early everypublication has given "CE3K" favorablereviews as an entertainment film, thatleaves viewers very impressed as theydepart from th e theater. StevenSpielberg ha s built up the final scene toa climax which could only be describedas "beautiful". Others come awayf e e l i n g t h a t i t h a s r e l i g i o u sconnotations, which was also inten-tional in the Script. An evaluationof the film by scientific UFOlogistswould lack the enthusiasm expressedby motion picture film critics. Eventhough actual UFO cases were theinspiration for the story, Hollywoodsensationalistic techniques embellishedthe action, lighting, and sound effectsfar beyond th e real event, causingsome phases to ring of Walt Disney,while others are reminiscent of ahorrible nightmare. A prior concernthat the hiimanoids depicted and theshapes of the craft might influencefuture U FO sighting reports may bediscounted, since nothing new wasinjected into the film in this respect.

M U F O N has received numeroustelephone cal ls f ro m newspaperreporters coast to coast, inquiringwhether th e influence of "CE3K" hascaused the number of UFO reports toincrease and to what degree. Since wehave been going through a very lowintensity period, the impact of the filmwould be significantly apparent if it hada bearing. To date, it has only been aconversational item. Since it has onlybeen showing for a few weeks, it would18

be premature to speculate upon itsoverall influence. However, we do notbelieve that it will create an abnormalnumber of hoax reports.

O n the other hand, the fi lm hasmany positive aspects which we predictwill be forthcoming.

(1 ) Older UFO sighting reportsby respectable citizens, that h ave beenshared only with their immediatefamilies due to the fear of ridicule, w i l lno w rise to the surface. The personalfeeling that th e experience was "toofantastic" fo r anyone to believe ha dcompelled th e observer to remainsilent.

(2 ) Even though the film isconsidered science-fiction by a largesegment of the population, there will bethousands of competent scientists,engineers, educators, etc., wh o willrecognize this scientific problem and bemotivated to volunteer their servicestoward it's resolution.(3) It may provide the necessaryincentive to individual nations to opentheir own UFO investigations study ifthey ar e presently in the evaluationstage.Just as we recommend that everyM U F O N m e m b e r sh o u l d beconversant with th e contents of theM U F O N "Field Investigator's M anual",viewing the film "CE3K" is essentialgroundwork for recognition of reportsthat may be so influenced by thisHollywood extravaganza.Needless to s a y , we aredisappointed that Dr. Robert Frosch,NASA Administrator, in his response

to Dr. Frank Press, Scientific Advisorto President Jimmy Carter, did notrecommend that NASA launch their

ow n investigation into the study ofUFO phenomenon. We should notdiscouraged, because they clearly kthe door open for response to bona fide physical evidence fcredible sources. Fo r further detaplease read a copy of D r. Frosch's leto Dr. Press published in this issueth e Journal.

-A s readers have no doubt noeach recent issue of TH E M U FU FO J O U R N A L ha s contained an for the "1977 MUFON SYMPOSIUPRO CEED INGS". For those who mhave forgotten to order or who relatively new on the UFO sceM U F O N still has copies availableprior Symposium Proceedings for 1at $3.25, 1975 at $4.00, and 1976 $5.00 postpaid. A ll other years are of print and no longer availa

Plan your 1978 vacations so tyo u m ay attend th e Ninth AnnM U F O N U FO Symposium to be hJuly 29 and 30, 1978 (Saturday Sunday) at the Dayton ConventCenter in Dayton, Ohio, former hoof Project Blue Book at WrigPatterson AFB. Confirmed speakare Ted Bloecher, R ay Fowler, R ichHall, Leonard Stringfield, an d MaDonald Keyhoe.

If "CE3K" was found to inadequate by UFOlogists asdocumentary on U FO s, the new series directed by Jack Webb, tit"Project UFO", may have a far greaimpact on the viewing pub lic. Allegeit is based upon sighting reports tafrom the files of Project B lue B ook,will, hopefully, be more factualcontent. Please consult your local station program listings fo r this sescheduled to start in February.

At the Eighth Annual MUFUFO S Y MP O S I UM i n ScottsdArizona, on July 16, 1977, Bill PM U F O N State Director for Arkandisclosed p r e l i m i n ar y i n f o r m a tconcerning telephone conversatiocorrespondence, and perso

(Continued on page 19)

8/14/2019 Number 120

20/21

Message Continuedwith influential government

in Washington, D.C., in theirinto the status of the UFOin the United States. Bill was

selected as a contact due tos work in organizing an d chairing theUFO Conference, wherein

the major U FO organizations wereSince NASA has givenresponse to President Jimmyvia Dr. Frank Press, Bill Pittsthat he can now be more specific.on February 11, 1977, Bill

an unsolicited telephone callthe office of the Secretary of ther Force Liaison fo r LegislativeInquiryat the Pentagon. After

a letter with the UFOrequested, he receivedon April 4th. This wasby another phone call o n M a y1 from M r. William Montgomery of Dr.

Press' office, in the Executiveof the President. While infrom July 4 to 10, Billet with M r. Stanley Schneider,

to the Director (Dr. Press) on6 for approximatelytw o hours. M r.ha d been handling th e mailUFOs for Dr. Press, as well as

as the initial contact andwith NASA onThis information and otherwith Bill duringhour session in the Executiveof the President. During this

B U I was told that NASA wascontracted in order to take theof UFOs away from the U.S. A irand, hopefully, establish anan honest

toward a solution. Nothing of amatter has been disclosedBill's statements herein, but only athat he would provide

and dates at an appropriate

FBI Files continuedGovernment."

"SA subsequently discussed thismatter with Col. L. R. Forney of theIntelligence Division of the WarDepartment. Col. Forney stated that hehad discussed the matter previouslywith Gen. Chamberlain. Col. Forneyindicated to SA that he has theassurance of Gen. Chamberlain andGen. Todd that the Army isconductingno experimentations with anythingwhich could possible be mistaken for aflying disc."

"Col. G. of the Air ForceIntelligence subsequently contacted SAand indicated that he had discussed thismatter with Gen. Schulgen of the ArmyA ir Forces. Gen Schulgen hadpreviously assured both SA and Col. G.that to the best of his knowledge andinformation no experiments were beingundertaken by the Government whichcould be mistaken fo r flying discs. Col.G. indicated to SA that he had pointedout his beliefs to Gen. Schulgen andhad mentioned the possibility of anembarrassing situation arising betweenthe AirForces Intelligenceand the FBI.Gen. Schulgen agreed with Col. G. thata memorandum would be prepared forth e signature of Gen. McDonald, A2 toGen. LeM ay, who is in charge ofResearch an d Development in the AirCorps. Col. G. indicated that thismemorandum will se t forth thecharacteristics of the objects seen byvarious reliable individuals. Thememorandum will then request Gen.L eMay to indicate whether or not anyexperiments are being undertaken bythe Air Forces which could possibly beconnected with any of the observedphenomena. Col. G. stated that when areply is received from Gen. LeMay, acommunication will be addressed to theBureau."

"SA will follow this matter closelywith Lt. Col. Garrett and Gen.Schulgen so that the Bureau will bepromptly advised of all information

regarding the flying discs,especially anyinformation indicating that they are, inf a c t , an experiment of someGovernmental agency."

On Sept. 5, 1947, the FBI receivedthe f o l l o w i n g note f r o m Gen.Schulgen:18

"In answer to a verbal request ofyour Mr. S. W. Reynolds, a completesurvey of research activities disclosesthat the ArmyAirForces has no projectwith the characteristics similar to thosewhich have been associated with theFlying Discs." (signed) Geo. F.Schulgen, Brig. General, USA; Deputy,Ass't. Chief of Air Staff - 2.

This officially laid to rest thepossibility that the U S government ha da n y devices which could havegenerated flying disc reports, althoughthe possibility was again discussed in1950.20

(To b e continued)Part 3 will appear in December 1977 issue of

T he Journal

REFERENCES11 .12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20 .

FB I document;FB I document;FB I document;FB I document;FB I document;FB I document;FB I document;FB I document;FB I document;FB I document;

filed 7/6/47filed 7/7/47filed 7/8/47filed 7/11/47Wed 7/1V47filed 7/11/47filed 8/20/47filed 8/19/47filed 9/15/47filed 8/19/50

19

8/14/2019 Number 120

21/21

MAGAZINE HO AX EXPOSEDBy Ann Druffel

In the January 1978 issue ofOFFICIAL UFO, the title of a leadarticle blared out the startling news of"The Night an American Town DiedofFright". The story was listed on themagazine's cover as "Saucers Loot andB u r n Chester, I l l i n o i s : StorySuppressed by Officials".

T he skepticism with whichobjective ufologists an d investigatorsmet this "information" was justifiedwhen followup research by the BentonEvening News, Dlinois, and theSouthern Illinoian of Carbondale,Illinois, revealed the entire story to befraudulent:

Neither reporter B ob Nesoff no rJoseph Arimond found the town ofChester looted, burned, destroyed orotherwise damaged by UFOs or anyother marauders.

OFFICIAL UFO, until a fewmonths ago, was a fine magazinepublishing honest research. TheChester hoax, however, follows hardupon its July 1977 issue in whichanother blatant hoax was publishedand later exposed by M U F O N UFOJ O U R N A L then-editor, Dennis Hauck.

The Chester, Dlinois, story in theJanuary 1978 issue was written bysomeone purporting to be "City SheriffL u k e Grisholm" (an admittedpseudonym), who conveniently statedin the article that he was leaving townafter revealing the facts of the U FOassault on his home town and movingelsewhere so that he could not belocated.

The article contained the followingfalsehoods:

1. That giant UFOs repeatedly

other property in flames. Investigativereporters from th e above-mentionednewspapers could find no evidence offire or other destruction.

2. That the entire town of 5,300experienced a night of terror from th econtinually attacking, low-level UFOs.The truth is that not even Chester'sM ayor nor any of its citizens wh o wereinterviewed have any idea of whatattack th e author was writing about.

3. The "City Sheriff' LukeGrisholm repeatedly called nearbyChanute Air Force Base to send jetfighters to chase away the UFOs. Thetruth is that Chester has no Sheriff, bu ta Police Chief, Harold Howie, whodenies the entire story as a deliberatecanard.

4. That Channel 8 went blank ontelevision sets in Chester, followed bythe appearance of an alien figure,presumably from one of the attackingcraft. There was no verificationwhatsoever of this rumor.

In N ew York, OFFICIAL U F O seditor, Jeffrey Goodman, attemptedweakly to defend the article by statingthat it had been submitted by af r e e l a n c e writer and that themagazine's staff had tried to check outthe story. Evidently, their methods ofchecking leave much to be desiredGoodman would no t comment further.

OFFICIAL U F O is distributedwidely throughout the United Statesand Canada, as well as overseas.Publication figures are not available,but about 150,000 newsstand sales perissue are claimed.

It has become plain thatinformation published in OFFICIAL

magazine no longer deserves thesupport of ufologists. In view of itswidespread popularity, however, wewonder how many more hoax articlesmust be printed before th eunworthiness of the magazine isuniversally recognized.

(Credit: James A . Williams, Benton, Illinois, fo rlocal news reports)

I M a rk R . Herbstritt.stronomyNotes

THE SKY FORJANUARY 1978Mercury For a few days around thellth, it may be seen low in thesoutheast before sunrise. At greatestelongation west, the planet is about 14degrees above the horizon at sunrise.Venus It is too close to the sun forobservation, being in superiorconjunction on the 22nd.Mars In Cancer, it rises at aboutsunset and is visibleall night, oppositionbeing on the 21st.Jupiter Moving from Gemini intoTaurus, it is well up in the east at sunsetand sets before dawn.Saturn In Leo, it rises about threehours after sunset and is low in the westat sunrise. On the 20th, it is 1.1degreesnorth of Regulus.The Quadrantid Meteor shower in the