THEMUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 160 JUNE 1981

Founded 1967

lOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF

$1.50

MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.i

M.I.T.: Site of 1981 MUFON Symposium

The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)

103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155

RICHARD HALLEditor

ANN DRUFFELAssociate Editor

LEN STRINGFIELDAssociate Editor

MILDRED BIESELE,Contributing Editor

WALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFON

TED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,

Humanoid Study Group

PAUL CERNYPromotion/Publicity

REV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOs

LUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

MARK HERBSTRITTAstronomy

ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publicity

TED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO Propulsion

DENNIS W. STACYStaff Writer

NORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLY

DENNIS HAUCKEditor/Publishers Emeritus

The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscription rates:$15.00 per year in the U.S.A.;$16.00 foreign. Copyright 1981 bythe Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. POSTMASTER: Send form3579 to advise change of addressto The MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.

FROM THE EDITORWe had hoped to have this issue published before the 1981

Boston MUFON UFO Symposium, but most people will receive itafter the meeting is history. Printing delays and vacation schedulesintervened. Coverage of the Symposium will be included in theAugust or September issue.

As an example of cooperation among UFO groups, we intro-duce this month the first of a series of quaterly plotting maps forU.S. sightings. We congratulate Gayle McBride of the Tarheel UFOStudy Group, North Carolina, who persuaded the representedparties to share sighting data for this purpose.

In this issueKLASS AND FRIEDMAN DEBATE 3

By Dennis StacyAIR FORCE "MODEL" UFO 5

. By Don BerlinerOPEN LETTER TO ROBERT SHEAFFER 7

By James M. McCampbellUFO AND OCCUPANT AT SANTA MARIA AIRPORT, AZORES.8

By Ted BloecherFOGARTY ON KLASS: A COMMENT 10

By Jennie ZeidmanGERMAN UFO LITERATURE NEEDS TRANSLATION 11

By Michael SinclairCALIFORNIA REPORT 13

By Ann DruffelFIRST QUARTER 1981 UFO SIGHTINGS MAP 16

By Gayle McBrideIN OTHERS' WORDS. 19

By Lucius ParishDIRECTOR'S MESSAGE ' , 20

By Walt Andrus

The contents of The MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, anddo not necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions ofcontributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, thestaff, or MUFON. Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses topublished articles may be in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or in ashort article (up to about 2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: thearticle author may reply but will be allowed half the wordage used in theresponse; the responder may answer the author but will be allowed half thewordage used in the author's reply; etc. All submissions are subject to editing forstyle, clarity, and conciseness.Permission is hereby granted to quote from this issue provided not more than 200words are quoted from any one article, the author of the article is given credit, andthe statement "Copyright 1981 by the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.

KLASS AND FRIEDMAN DEBATEBy Dennis Stacy

(Staff Writer)

A formal debate was staged inthe halls of Trinity University, SanAntonio, between UFO proponent,Stanton T. Friedman, and arch saucercritic, Philip J. Mass on February %l,1981. Nearly 400 people attended thedebate in Trinity's Laurie Auditoriumsponsored by the Trinity StudentsActivity Committee and Professor ofAstronomy, Dr. Michael Hart. Hartalso chaired last year's University ofMaryland astronomer's conferenceon the question of extraterrestriallife, "Where Are They?"

Friedman was the evening's firstspeaker and led off by arguing thatthe evidence that some UFOs wereindeed spacecraft of an extraterrest-rial origin and manufacture was nowoverwhelming. Various parties,Friedman charged, including U.S.government and military intelligenceagencies, were actively involved in aCosmic Watergate, an on-goingcoverup designed to keep secret theknowledge that UFOs exist in phys-ical reality.

Friedman, a nuclear physicistwith 14 years research experience invarious government and industrialhighly classified projects, is prob-ably the country's foremost pro-ponent of the theory of extraterrest-rial UFO origin. He claims he is theonly known space scientist devotingfull time research to the UFOphenomenon.

His opponent was Philip J. Klass,senior avionics editor of AviationWeek and Space Technology journal.He is also an original UFO panelmember of the Committee for theScientific Investigation of Claims ofthe Paranormal (CSICOP), a panelwhich also includes well-knownUFO skeptics, Robert Sheaffer andJames Oberg. Klass is the author oftwo flying saucer books, UFOs -Explained and UFOs - Identified, andalso serves as an editor for the

Committee's quarterly journal, "TheSkeptical Inquirer."

Klass1 maintained that there hasyet to be a UFO reported that, when.subjected to close enough scrutiny,does not fail to have behind it aprosaic, if admittedly sometimes ex-ceedingly rare, source or stimulus.According to Klass, UFOs can beanything from meteors to moreexotic meteorological phenomenalike "sundogs" and atmosphericplasma, or ball lightning. They canbe hallucinations or misapprehen-sions of untrained witnesses. Theycan be temperature inversions on aradar screen or common celestialobjects seen under unusual condi-tions. They can even be outrightfabrications and hoaxes, said Klass.In fact, they can be just about any-thing at all except convincing proofthat the planet is being surveyed orvisited by extraterrestrial intelli-gence capable of interstellar travel.

As a classic example of how eventhe best of high-strangeness UFOreports can turn out to have a mun-dane explanation, Klass spent thefirst 30 minutes of his time analyzingthe famous near collision between'acigar-shaped, redly glowing UFOand an Army Reserve helicopterpiloted by then Captain Lawrence J.Coyne the night of October 18,1973,near Cleveland, Ohio. A Blue RibbonPanel of "The National Enquirer"newspaper later awarded the heli-copter crew $5,000 as a prize for "themost scientifically valuable UFO re-port of 1973."

Klass admitted that, on the sur-face, the circumstances seemed to bestrange enough. The October nightin question, Captain Coyne hadbeen at the controls of a Bell UH-1H(Huey) helicopter on a routine flightfrom Columbus, Ohio, to the crew'shome base in Cleveland. Three othercrewman were also aboard. The

chopper was traveling at a speed of90 knots, 2500 feet above sea level.1200 feet above the actual groundsurface below..

At 11 pm, one of the crewmannoticed a curious red light off to theeast. Coyne told him to "keep an eyeon it." Thirty seconds later, the redlight shot straight for the helicopteron a collision course. Its speed wasestimated at 600 knots, or about 700miles per hour. Coyne tightened hisgrip on the controls and urged thehelicopter into an abrupt dive. Nowthe red light had stopped directlyabove them and the entire crewlooked up through the helicopter'sroof panel windows in wonder.

The thing remained motionlessfor 10 or 12 seconds. One of the crewsaid it looked like the "hull of a darksubmarine" as its oblong form blot-ted out the easily visible stars. Allaboard could see the red light at thenose of the odd object, and severalother attached lights reflecting off itsdark surface.

Suddenly, a pyramidal, or tri-angular-shaped beam of green lightshone down on the helicopter, light-ing up the interior. Coyne now not-iced that his chopper, instead ofdescending, was rising, at almost athousand feet a minute! Whateverthe thing was, it abruptly shot off tothe west and disappeared from view,having been in continuous sight fora period of 4 to 5 minutes.

And what it might have been, ofcourse, depends on which side ofthe UFO debate the individual inter-preter happens to fall. To PhilipKlass, not unexpectedly, the explan-ation was obvious. Coyne and hiscrew had seen a particularly brilliantand sustained fireball emanatingfrom the annual Orionid meteorshower which generally occurs on

(Continued on next page)

Debate, Continued

the nights of October 21 st and 22nd.And it is entirely understandable,Klass continued, that the helicoptercrew should react in alarm and con-fusion to the startling sight, so muchso that they obviously misinterpret-ed the subsequent events and timefactors involved. The green lightflooding the cabin of the helicopter,for example, was caused not by abeam of light of that color, but be-cause the flash of the fireball itselfwas filtered through the rooftopwindow panels which are them-selves tinted green!

Klass also focused on severalother discrepancies he said he de-tected in the crew's account of thefrightening encounter after a pas-sage of two and a half years. Coyne,in particular, later said that the heli-copter's magnetic compass had be-gun to spin wildly in the course ofthe near collision and had to bereplaced. Another crewman said thecompass had not been affected dur-ing the event. The chopper's radio-man had also tried to contact one ofseveral nearby military installationsat the time of the sighting and hadfailed to raise a response. Nothingoverly, mysterious about that, either,Klass noted; the onboard radio unithad a short range and simply couldnot cope with the distances involved.

encounter, a fact that Klass "conven-iently" failed to mention.

Rather than engaging in a lenghtyrebuttal of Klass' explanation, how-ever, Friedman quickly moved ontomaterial he considered more urgent,including a review of numerous lawsuits undertaken by individuals andsaucers groups alike under theFreedom of Information act. Onesuch suit currently under way seeksthe recovery of 135 classified docu-ments in the archives of the NationalSecurity Agency (NSA). Govern-ment attorneys have already admitt-ed that the documents do exist, buthave taken strenuous steps to seethat they are not released to thegeneral public. A 21-page summaryof the documents was shown to thepresiding judge in a closed-doorsession. Friedman, of course, alleges

Friedman was courteous andsuccinct in his rejoinder. Since hisUFO encounter, it was pointed out,Coyne had been promoted to Lieu-tenant-Colonel, hardly the kind ofrecognition the Army Reserveswould bestow upon a helicopterpilot guilty of the errors of observa-tion and judgment with which Klasscharged him. Friedman also notedthat several independent groundobservers had confirmed the UFOsighting at the time of the Coyne

that the legal manuevers are, thelatest in a series of on-going cover-ups conducted by the governmentto withhold conclusive evidence ofthe physical existence of UFOs.

In his own rebuttal, Klass wouldreply that the NSA was the govern-ment intelligence agency chargedwith the translation of classifiedcommunications intercepted from

(Continued on next page)

AIR FORCE "MODEL" UFO

By Don Berliner

The first major study of a largecollection of UFO reports was thepuzzling "Special Report 14," whichcovered more than 3,000 reportsreceived by the U.S. Air Force inthe first 5 years of its ProjectsSign, Grudge and Blue Book —1947-52. The data used in the re-ports were the Air Force's, but theconclusions were those of BattelleMemorial Institute, a private scienti-fic research organization in Colum-bus, Ohio, which performed thestudy on a $100,000 Air Forcecontract.

When it was released to the pub-lic in 1955, Special Report 14 attract-ed little attention, as the press chose

to base its stories on the report'svery conservative conclusions andsummary, rather than on the intrigu-ing but hard-to-read tables, graphs,and charts. As a result, few peoplerealized at the time that almost one-quarter of the 3,201 sightings hadbeen declared "Unknown" by theBattelle scientists. Instead, the publichad little choice but to accept theconclusions of the accompanyingAir Force press release which im-plied that only 3% of all the sightingshad not been explained as conven-tional phenomena or illusions.

One of the more interesting ideasexplored in the report was the at-tempt to construct a model of a UFO,

using the descriptions of what theyfelt were the "Best Unknowns" a-mong the hundreds they had deter-mined were unexplainable. TheBattelle conclusion was that it wasimpossible to derive a model of a"flying saucer" that fit all the re-quirements of consistency. The im-plication was that this reduced thechances of there being a category ofreal, unknown devices responsiblefor a significant number of reports.

The validity of the effort can becalled into question on several ac-counts, any one of which causes oneto wonder if the study was trulyobjective. The statement that "suffi-

(Continued on next page)

Debate, Continued

Soviet, Chinese and other foreignpowers. To reveal their contents, hecharged, would show the public notso nearly much about flying saucersas about America's intelligencegathering capabilities. Klass thenshowed slides of numerous alreadyde-classified documents from var-ious security agencies which indi-cated that if a saucer conspiracywere indeed in effect, individualagencies such as the CIA and theDepartment of Defense were as ig-norant of its existence as everyoneelse. Klass also said that it would be aphysical impossibility to maintain asecret of such magnitude as the sup-posed fact that the U.S. governmenthas in its possession a crashedsaucer or retrieved alien corpses.

Friedman also stated that thefamous Barney and Betty Hill ab-duction case offered convincingproof that an extraterrestrial intel-ligence was engaged in biologicalexperiments involving human spec-imens. The single most convincingelement of the case, Friedman re-iterated, was Betty's ability, two andone half years after her frighteningabduction experience, to redraw analleged star map she had seen whileon board the alien spacecraft. The

map was sketched out while Betty wasunder the influence of a post-hypno-tic suggestion. Astronomer MarjorieFish later constructed hundreds ofthree-dimensional star maps of ournear-neighbor suns using recentlycorrected star distance data beforeshe arrived at a controversial verifi-cation of Betty's map. Fish's workindicated that the aliens were fromeither Zeta One or Two Reticuli, twosun:like stars separated by a gap ofonly 3 light weeks. Friedman con-tended that such a situation of rela-tive proximity between one solarsystem and another would be highlyconducive to the development ofspace travel technology by an intel-ligent life form inhabiting a planet ineither system.

After Friedman had finishedspeaking, Mass scored one of themore dramatic points in the debateby approaching Friedman's tablewith his own "star map." If Betty Hillcould accurately recreate a mapfrom memory two and one halfyears after the alleged incident,would Friedman be willing to sub-ject his own memory to_a smallscientific test? Would he kindlyglance at the drawing Klass held upto the audience, study it for 30 se-conds, and then recreate it from

memory?Friedman declined, of course,

after noting that Betty Hill had re-drawn her map while under the careof Dr. Benjamin Simon, a prominentNew England psychologist andtrained hypnotist. The fact of themap's existence spoke for itself,Friedman concluded.

So who really won the "inside"debate? Probably no one. As no lessan authority on the subject of UFOsthan Dr. J. Allen Hynek once said: "Iwas trained as a scientist, not as alawyer, and in any case I don't seehow a difficult scientific questioncan be properly addressed withinthe limitations of the debate format,

. which reduces everything to a sim-plistic either-or position and makesno allowances for the real complexi-ties of an issue."

The only thing that does seemclear at this point is that the UFOdebate is bound to continue until asatisfactory resolution is made. Itwill continue in the front pages ofthe world's newspapers and in thehallowed halls of academia. And itwill continue in the woods and fieldsof the world whenever people lookup and see something strange in thenighttime sky. Something they can'treadily identify. D

AF Model, Continued

ciently detailed descriptions weregiven in only 12 cases" makes ab-solutely no sense to anyone who hastaken a more than casual glance atthe accumulated cases of the first 5years of the official investigation.There are many scores of reportscontaining as much, if not moreinformation than the dozen selectedfor this special study. Just why thesewere chosen and others ignoredcannot be determined at this latedate. But even using these cases, abetter job could have been done. Infact, there are so many errors in.reporting and drawing the objectsfrom the 12 cases that serious doubtarises as to the capability and sincer-ity of those who prepared the sec-tion entitled; "The 'Flying Saucer'Model."

In an effort to show how distort-ed the attempt to derive a modelwas, we offer comments on each,along with considerably better ident-ification of each case than was pre-sented in Special Report 14.

Best Unknowns

Case I. July 29,1948; Indianapolis,Ind. Non-Technical witnesses JamesToney and Robert Huggins. The twomen said the object was propeller-shaped, yet the drawing in Report 14looks like no known propeller. Thewitnesses refer to round cups on theobject, yet the drawing shows mostcups to be clearly oblong. The writ-ten description is of an object 6'-8'long and 2' wide; the dimensionswith the drawing say it was lV2'-2'wide. The description is of an objectwith a radius-to-thickness ratio of 3or 4:1; the dimensions are of anobject witha ratio of 3 to 5:1; and thedrawing has a ratio of just over 2y2:l.The final Project Blue Book conclu-sion was: Unknown.

Case II. Apr. 20, 1952; Flint,Mich. The prime witness is describ-ed as a Naval aviation student, butthe case file says he was a universitystudent who had been a naval aviat-or. The description is of objects"shaped like conventional aircraft,"yet the drawing in Report 14 showsan airplane clearly lacking a tail!

Despite the shape and the red glowsurrounding the many glowing ob-jects, the official USAF conclusionwas that the several witnesses hadbeen watching birds.

Case III. Jan. 20, 1951; SiouxCity, Iowa. The witnesses were Mid-Continent Air Lines Capt. LawrenceVinther, First Officer James Bach-meier, and control tower operators.The description is of an object "likean airplane with a cigar-shapedbody and straight wings." The draw-ing is of a pair of crossed hotdogs,with the "wings" shaped exactly likethe "fuselage." Despite some ratherviolent maneuvering, the USAF de-cided the excellent witnesses musthave been observing an enormousB-36 airplane. -

Case IV. July 19,1952; Madison,Fla. The witness was Ollie Daniel, aformer U.S. Navy airplane mechanic.He described two "cigar-shaped"objects. The drawing is of an ovalwith a thickness ratio of just over 3:1,which is pretty fat for a cigar. Eventhough Daniel said the objects werelighted, had visible exhaust at oneend, and maneuvered, the USAFsaid they were "possible balloons."

Case V. July 24, 1948; Mont-gomery, Ala. Witnesses were East-ern Airlines Capt. Clarence Chilesand First Officer J.B. Whitted. Theirdescription was of a rocket-shapedobject with two rows of lighted win-dows, and yet the pilot's drawingshows only vertical divisions withno indication of light, as (in his co-pilot's drawing. Even though theobject was said to have climbedaway steeply, the USAF said it was ameteor, apparently on the urging ofthe late Dr. Donald Menzel.

Case VI. Dec. 22,1952; Banning,Calif. The witness was instrumenttechnician Michael Fajack. This casefile is missing from the Project BlueBook collection and so no analysis ispossible.

Case VII. June 6, 1952; KimpoAFB, Korea. The witness was anunnamed USAF Flight Sergeant ( aterm apparently coined by the au-thors of Report 14). The case file ismissing from the Blue Book records,but is listed as "Unidentified" on asummary sheet. It was described in

Report 14 as a thick disc: The draw-ing shows a thickness ratio of 3.4:1and mentions proportions of 7:1.referring to dimensions from theobserver's drawing, but never stat-ing any specific figures.

Case VIII. July 31,1948; Indiana-polis/ Ind. Witnesses Mr. and Mrs.Vernon Swigert. (No notice is takenthat it occurred less than 48 hoursafter Case I and in the same generalarea.) It is described as "cymbal"shaped, which suggests a flat bottom,but the drawing shows an upwardlycurved bottom. Using the witnesses'dimensions, the object would have athickness ratio of between 2.5 and3.3:1, but the drawing is of a thinnerobject with a ratio of 3.7:1. Theofficial USAF conclusion is:Unidentified.

Case IX. Aug. 13, 1947; TwinFalls, Idaho. The witnesses wereA.C. Urie and his sons Kenneth andBillie. The dimensions are of anobject having a thickness ratio of 2:1,yet the drawings show ratios of 3.2and 3.4:1, with no explanation forthe variance. The witnesses describ-ed pods on the sides, while the side-view drawing shows loops or hand-les. There is no sign of flames com-ing from the pods, as mentioned bythe witnesses. The USAF explana-tion of "atmospheric eddy" is credit-ed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who subse-quently disowned the idea.

Case X. May 24, 1949; RogueRiver, Ore. The witnesses were sev-eral employees of the Ames Aero-nautical Laboratories. The objectwas described as "like a fifty-centpiece," "pancake-like.. .somewhatthicker in the center," "either com-pletely circular or somewhat oval...thin near the edges and thicker inthe center." All witnesses describeda small triangular fin extending fromthe middle and getting larger as itapproached the rear. The drawingshow a fairly thick circular disc witha fin resembling the one describedby the witnesses. Estimated dimen-sions ranged from 25' in diameter, tothe size of a C-47 transport plane(95' wingspan and 6.4' length); no

(Continued on next page)

AN OPEN LETTER TOROBERT SHEAFFER

CONCERNING HIS NEW BOOK,"THE UFO VERDICT,

EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE"May 4, 1981

Dear Bob,It was a pleasure to meet you and

your family last week and I appreci-ate having a copy of your book. Yoursuspicion that I might not like it wascorrect. It would take too much timeto tick off each item of weakness thatI noted, but here are a few generalcomments:

(a) The title and subtitle implythat the book is a comprehensivestudy of the subject leading to arational conclusion. It falls far shortof that.

(b) You start with an unstated,but none the less obvious, promisethat UFOs do not exist, then searchfor the necessary solutions to certaincases. With very strained argumentsthat ignore essential details you "ex-plain" the cases. Therefore, accord-ing to the book, you have provedthat UFO's don't exist. We both knowthat you have an impossible mis-sion, that is, to prove that UFOs donot exist. On the other hand, I maybe able to prove that they do. I preferto hold my cards in this game.

(c) Your debunking techniquesare the old familiar ones of BlueBook, Condon, and Mass. They don'twash.

(d) You treat ufology as a socialphenomenon exclusively, whereas

its proper thrust is the study of UFOsthemselves.

(e) The arguments ad hominemare inexcusable. (Perhaps you aremerely trying to antagonize peopleto gain notice.)

(f) The single reference to mywork concerning Adamski and im-plying that I think there are cities onthe back side of the moon is ridicu-lous. It suggests that the scientifictheory of the book and the technicaldetails passed over your head.

(g) You give great lip service tothe scientific method, but fail toapply it.

(h) In a number of instances Ifound the logic to be faulty. Actually,Bob, the book is so bad that I find iteasier to believe in flying saucersthan that you are serious.Sincerely,

/s/ JimJames M. McCampbellMUFON, Director of Research12 Bryce CourtBelmont, CA 94002

MUFON103OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN.TX 78155

STAMP CONTRIBUTIONS

We are grateful to the MUFONmembers/subscribers who continueto contribute cancelled foreignstamps. Proceeds are applied to helpunderwrite international exchangeof UFO information. Recent stampcontributions have been receivedfrom —

Don Berliner, Arlington, Va.;Larry Bryant, Arlington, Va., JeromeClark, Lake Bluff, 111.; Robert Davis,Dallas, Texas; R. Bruce Jordan, PaloAlto, Calif.; Project Starlight Inter-national, Austin, Texas; TarheelUFO Study Group, Winston-Salem,N.C.; and Diane Tessman, St.Petersburg, Fla.

? Were 'funies'J really from? UFOs?&, DANVILLE - One person described« them as resembling "hundreds of fuz-

{ zies" and another said they looked "likefalling cobwebs."

Some 'people in Danville's 2nd Wardwere talking about shiny little white par-ticles that seemed to be falling from the

jT sky at about 2:30 p.m. Monday. SomeM were still coming down at 4:30 p.m..M they said^. It appeared that the silklike particles3 were being shot from saucer-shaped3 crafts in front of the sun. said William F3 Hummer who lives at 222 Honeymoon St.

He said he and about six of his neighborswitnesssed the objects. Two neighborssaid they agreed with Hummer's ac-count, but they wouldn't give theirnames.

Hummer said the saucer-type craftsseemed to have round domes on top. Hesaid it looked like the saucers were ex-ploding or "hatching" in front of the sunand releasing the smaller particles.

The particles seemed to disintegrateas they fell to the ground, he said.

AF Model, Continuedone estimated the thickness ratio.The descriptions and drawing aretherefore in reasonably close agree-ment. The Air Force, in its inimitablefashion, listed this case twice, onceexplaining it as "kites" and once as"aircraft."

Case XI. Mar. 20,1950; Stuttgart,Ark. Witnesses were Chicago &Southern Airlines Capt. JackAdams and First Officer G.W. Ander-son. They described the object asdisc-like, but the drawing in Report14 is of a flat cylinder with sharpedges, like a hockey puck. The des-

cription says there was a ring of lights3/4 of the distance from the center tothe edge, but the drawing showsthem 9/10 of the way to the edge. Theofficial conclusion: Unidentified.

Case XII. Aug. 25/1952; Pittsburg,Kans. The Witness was radio stationemployee William Squyres. His writ-ten description gives a thickness ratioof 5:1, the drawing dimensions workout to 3 to 3.8:1, and the drawingshows 2.8:1. Squyres described a pairof oval meat platters placed together,but the drawing is of an elongatedfootball with pointed ends. Squyresdescribed several windows* extend-

ing from the top to the rear edge; thedrawing shows several parallel linesfrom the center line to the top of theobject, but with no color different-iation to suggest windows. Squyresdescribed a series of 6"-12" whirlingpropellers along the outer edge,while the drawing shows them onlyas small circles. The written descrip-tion plays down Squyres' referencesto apparently intelligent motion insome windows, though the officialconclusion was: Unidentified.

With such sloppy work going intothe study, is it any wonder that nomodel of a UFO could be found? -

7

From the Humanold Study Group Archlvos-IV

UFO AND OCCUPANT AT SANTAMARIA AIRPORT, AZORES

By Ted Bloecher

Date of Sighting: Tuesday, Septem-• her 21, 1954.Local Time: 10:45 p.m. (2245 mili-

tary time).Locale: Santa Maria Airport, Azores

(Portuguese Territory).Primary Witness: Vitorino Lourenco

Monteiro, civilian guard at SantaMaria Airport.

Duration: From two to three minutes.Closest Proximity: Face-to-face,

within arm's length.Investigator: Lt. Henrique da Costa

Pessca, Commander of the Portu-guese International Airport ofSanta Maria.Hum Cat Classification: Serial#0252, Type B (entity observedgetting in and/or out of UFO).

BackgroundAmong the humanoid cases from

the U.S. Air Force UFO files thatRichard Hall and I examined at theAir Force Office of History, in Wash-ington, D.C., during the Fall of 1974,was a CEIII case from the Azores.The incident took place on Septem-ber 21, 1954, during the wave ofUFO reports that was centered in,but by no means limited to, France.The Air Force concluded that thisUFO event was "Unidentified," al-though it was not a U.S. Air Forcerepresentative who conducted theinvestigation.

So far as can be determined,there is only one published sourcefor the Azores case: a brief abstractcan be found in the Appendix ofJacques Vallee's book, Passport ToMagonia (Regnery, 1969, p. 210),where it is misdated as September20, 1954. Vallee has identified thewitness as Vitorino Lourenco Mon-teiro (his name is not included in theAir Force report). The official ver-sion of the case is published here forthe first time.

i

8

Since the event occurred on Por-tuguese territory, the official inquirywas conducted by a representativeof the Portuguese government, Lt.Henrique da Costa Pessca, Com-mander of the Santa Maria Airportfacility. The information containedin Lt. Pessca's report was made avail-able to Wing Intelligence OfficerRobert D. Gammell, 1st Lieutenant,U.S.A.F., head of the U.S. Intelli-gence Operations at the Azores AirTransport Station in Lajes Field. Lt.Gammell prepared and submittedhis report to Air Force Intelligencein accordance with the official UFOreporting format, APR 200-2, theprocedure used from 1953 through1966, when it was revised for use inconjunction with the Condon Com-mittee inquiry. (For an example ofthe revised form, see Appendix B, p.819, in the Bantam paperback edi-tion of The Condon Report.)

The Official ReportThe official report includes the

usual Project 10073 Record, or cover-ing summary sheet, not reproducedhere. Air Force Form 112, the AirIntelligence Information Sheet, pro-vides the following information onthe case:USA-MATS; IR-225-54; AF 640037Subject: (Unclassified) Unidentified

Flying ObjectsArea Reported In: AzoresFrom Agency: Intelligence Section

AATS, ATLD-MATSDate of Report: 18 October 1954Date of Investigation: 13 October

1954Evaluation: B-6 (Unidentified—TB)Preparing Officer: Robert D. Gam-

mell, 1st Lt., USAFSource: Lt. Pessca, Mr. Gowman,

Mr. CorrelaReference: B AIR #3-ASummary: Attached herewith is an

unidentified flying object reportsubmitted by the Intelligence Of-ficer, Azores Air Transport Sta-tion, Lajes Field, Azores. Theinformation submitted herewithcomprises statements made byLt. Henrique da Costa Pessca,commander of the PortugueseNational working for FAA atSanta Maria Airport; and a news-paper article translated from thePortuguese. The report followsthe format outlined in paragraph6b, AFR 200-2, subject: "Uniden-tified Flying Object Report"(Short Title: UFOB), dated 26August 1953.Prepared by Robert D. Gammell,1st Lt., USAF, Wing IntelligenceOfficer. Approved: H. L. Smith,Colonel, USAF, Commander.Distribution by Originator: Orig,HQ USAF; Ice, MATS, ATLD,CINCLANT, American Consul;2cc, Air Attache.The following is from Part II of

AF Form 112, reorganized from theoriginal itemized format into a morereadible description:

The shape of the object wasoblong (or "pecan-shaped"), 10 feetin length by 5 feet in height, and.of alight metallic blue in color. Therewas a plexiglass-type section in theforward end, also blue, which con-tained the "pilot." There were fourpole-like appendages, two at eachend, which supported parallel aerials,and there was an orange light in thenose of the object.

The civilian guard, Senhor Mon-teiro, was alerted to the presence ofthe object by a humming or whirringnoise, similar to the sound made bythe wind passing over wire cables ortelephone lines. The object ap-

(Continued on next page)

Azores, Continuedproached and landed approximately30 feet from the guard post, makinga slight nose-down approach to land;it levelled off, hovered a few feetabove the ground, then settledstraight down. The witness was un-able to see any landing gear. Ablond-haired man, 5 feet, 10 inchesin height, got out of a door located inthe plexiglass section; he approach-ed the witness, but "attempts to con-verse failed." The encounter lastedfrom 2 to 3 minutes and was termi-nated by the approach of an auto-mobile. After the pilot reboardedand "belted up," the UFO ascendedalmost vertically and then accele-rated rapidly into the night sky, dis-appearing in the darkness.

The weather, according to thewitness, was fair, with visibility un-limited. The official weather condi-tions for Terceira Island (142 nauticalmiles to the northwest of Santa MariaIsland) reported the ceiling at 200feet, with a one/eighth cloud coverat that altitude. The wind directionwas 230 degrees at 14 knots, at 6,000feet. There were no balloon launch-ings in that area at the time.

Comments by1st Lieutenant GammellThe above information was re-

lated by Lt. Henrique da Costa Pes-sca, Commander of the PortugueseInternational Civil Airport at SantaMaria, Azores, during a personalinterview with the reporting officer.

According to the story reportedby Lt. Pessca, the guard saw thestrange object land. A blond-hairedman, approximately 5' 10" in height,got out, walked over to him andspoke in a strange language whichthe guard did not understand. Theguard attempted to converse inFrench, without success. After a min-ute or so of this, the headlights of acar were seen approaching the guardpost, which is in the middle of anintersection with roads leading tothe only port on the island, the townof Villa do Porto and the airport.

The strange man patted the guardon the back of his shoulder in afriendly fashion and got back intohis "flying cigar" (the term used by

Pessca), fastened a safety belt acrosshis middle and some shoulder straps,then seemingly pushed a button.The craft took off with its nose raiseda few degrees from the horizontal,traveled a few feet, then levelled offand shot almost straight up.

The occupants of the car, whoseheadlights caused the departure ofthe strange man, stopped to ask theguard what the strange light wasthey had seen above his post. Theguard related a part of his story tothe people in the car. Later, theguard decided he would not reportthe incident to his superiors for fearof not being believed. However, thepersons in the car began spreading thestory around the small island of SantaMaria. In view of the stories beingcirculated, the guard made an offi-cial report of the incident late on thefollowing day. The guard stated hewas too scared while the strangeman was present to think aboutarresting him.

Lt. Pessca stated (that) he hadinterrogated the guard three days ina row and received the same storyon each occasion.

Pessca had a folder full of state-ments and drawings of this incident,which he kept in his safe. He dis-played a rough drawing of the objecttaken from this file, to the reportingofficer. In this drawing, the pilot ofthe object was seated approximatelyin the middle of his craft at a slightbackward slant from the vertical.The shape of the object was similarto that of a pecan nut or a footballexcept it did not have as pronounceda point at the front and rear.

The guard is 25-28 years old andoriginally from a town near Lisbon.He is reported by the Santa MariaAirport Director to be a good workerwith no police record, a steady, reli-able man and not a nervous type.Pessca further stated there was noevidence to indicate the Guard wouldinvent the story for personal publicity.

When asked for his personalviews on the sighting, Lt. Pesscastated: "I personally don't believe."Then he indicated he had nothing tosupport this belief except that theguard remembered too many detailsfor a two or three minute period of

time. Then he shrugged and said, "Idon't know; maybe it is true. It isvery strange indeed."

A Mr. Correira, a Portuguesenational working for Pan AmericanAirways at Santa Maria, told a repre-sentative of the AATS IntelligenceOffice he had been on the oppositeside of.the island at approximately2230Z the same evening and hadseen some strange white lights abovethe island. Some fishermen cominginto the island at approximately thesame time also are reported to haveseen some strange lights above thefield.

Mr. Owen Gowman, FAA Direc-tor at Santa Maria Airport, told thereporting officer several of his Ameri-can employees saw strange lightsabove the airfield during the latterpart of September. Additional infor-mation as to time, color, number,dates, etc., has been requested andwill be forwarded separately whenreceived.

Since the sighting of the "flyingcigar" was made at a Portuguesecivil airport by a Portuguese guard,the reporting officer did not havethe opportunity to personally inter-rogate the principal. However, it ismy opinion that Lt. Pessca coop-erated to the fullest extent in relatingthe facts of the case as he knew them.This is not another incident of some- k

one thinking he saw something: theguard either saw the object as re-,ported, or he saw nothing and con-cocted the entire story for reasons ofhis own. In the absence of informa-tion to indicate the latter, the former .seems to be the answer to the facts sofar presented.

The following article appearedin a local newspaper on this island(Terceira) on October 3,1954, and isreported as additional informationon unusual sightings in the SantaMaria area.Santa Maria, Sept. 28: A PAA DC-6B com-manded by Captain Freeman, radioed shortlyafter leaving Santa Maria Airport that at •approximately 3:20 a.m. (9/28), while flyingat 6400 meters altitude with the weatherexceptionally clear (no clouds) at 38° 36' Wlongitude, he sighted above the ocean a large

(Continued on next page)

FOGARTY ON KLASS: A COMMENTBy Jennie Zeldman

(® 1981 by Jennie Zeidman)

It is invigorating and satisfyingto debate one's peers, to engage inintellectual battle over a problemmutually defined. Sometimes wholenew avenues are opened, and solu-tions are shown where before, blindspots clouded the issue. Argumentsamong ufologists are common—butthey are arguments within thebounds of decorum—of respect forthe intellect and integrity of oneanother, of recognition of the re-search and documentation providedby one another, and most important-ly, they are arguments within therules of logic and rationality.

It has become abundantly clear,in written and verbal exchange, thatPhilip Klass is unwilling (or perhapsunable) to abide by those standardsnormally considered proper for de-bate. He speaks his own privatetongue, while serious ufologistsspeak the language of logical, ra-tional inquiry. I have yet to see anypositive results from these exchanges— although one might note that theyhave provided "comic relief" oramusement from time to time.

As Quentin Fogarty has indicated- (No. 157, March 1981) Mass and hisilk feed upon the publicity we, the

serious ufologists, provide for them(they do little investigating of theirown, but swoop, like vultures, uponcases we have already broughtdown). The tape transcript cited byQuentin displays what we all knowso well: rational, productive dis-course with Klass is impossible.

Enough of this waste of time, ofgiving audience to childish tantrums,attempted diversions, and unscrup-ulous ploys, which have contributednothing to ufological knowledge.

During the 2Vz years I worked onthe Coyne helicopter case,* I don'trecall ever responding directly toMass's voluminous attempts at cor-respondence. I would no moreattempt disclosure with him thanwith a tantrum-throwing, hysterical6-year-old. As with a 6-year-old, Iwalk away. When negative behavioris not reinforced with recognition,sooner or later it ceases. We all knoweverything we need to know aboutMr. Klass. Now, let's move on tosomething worthwhile.

*"A Helicopter-UFO Encounter Over Ohio,"by Jennie Zeidman, Center for UFO Studies,P.O. Box 1402, Evanston, IL 60204. $9.00including postage and handling.

FUND FOR UFO RESEARCH

At the London International UFOCongress, May 24-25, Dr. Bruce S.Maccabee, chairman of the Fund forUFO Research, presented a checkfor $500 and an International ScienceAchievement Award certificate tothe UFO Phenomena InternationalAnnual Review (UPIAR) ". . .fortheir, contribution to the scientificstudy of UFOs and in particular forthe consistently high quality foundin their publication." UPIAR is theonly international refereed journaldevoted to a scientific examinationof UFOs and has been publishedsince 1976. It is published in English.For subscription information, writeto UPIAR, c/o Editecs PublishingHouse, P.O. Box 190,40100 Bologna,Italy.

The Fund has also sponsored aninvestigation by Allan Hendry of theDecember 1980 Betty Cash, Huff-man, Texas, radiation injury case(See MUFON UFO Journal No. 158,April 1981). John Schuessler, DeputyDirector of MUFON, is coordinatingthe investigation, and Dr. Peter Rank(radiologist, Fund Board Member)has lent his expertise to the ongoingstudy. Contributions to the Fund aredeductible from U.S. income taxes:Fund for UFO Research, Box 277,Mount Rainier, MD 20822.

Azores, Continued

lighted area of abnormal brilliance, a fact forwhich no explanation was available.At any rate, it didn't seem possible that itcould have been a ship. It gave off a greateramount of light than any illuminated shipcould possibly have given.The phenomenon was also observed by pas-sengers aboard; who unanimously affirmedthat it was a flying saucer (or should betermed a flying saucer). The plane didn'tattempt to come any closer to the strangeobject which, as the plane continued onward,still remained above the water. Diario Insular,3 Oct. 1954.

Mr. Cowman, the FAA Director,personally talked to Captain Free-man on his return trip from Lisbonto the States and, when shown theabove article, the Captain stated itwas essentially correct except that

10

the altitude of the aircraft was 15,000feet. Mr. Gowman stated CaptainFreeman was positive the 40 to 50very bright lights he sighted abovethe water were not ships at sea. Hestated that he has flown across theAtlantic many times and has seenhundreds of lighted ships, but theselights were much brighter than anyhe has ever seen.

Comments

It is probably unnecessary to addany comments to the above, but Ifind myself unable to resist men-tioning one aspect of this remark-able report, a feature guaranteed tostick in the craw of most seriousUFO researchers—that is the pre-

sence of an entirely human UFOL

naut. "Extraterrestrials," as all rea-sonable "ufologists" know, are notsupposed to be human. Unfortun-ately, the guard at Santa MariaAirport didn't know what everyoneelse knew in 1954. But that airportguard wasn't the only one notpaying attention in 1954: on theafternoon of August 20, just onemonth before the event in theAzores, a similar incident occurredin the Oeydalen Valley of Norway.The next report of the HumanoidStudy Group archives will describeit in detail.

GERMAN UFO LITERATURE NEEDS TRANSLATIONBy Michael Sinclair, Ph.D.

(MUFON InternationalCoordinator)

Recently, I had the privilegedopportunity to spend 4 days in WestGermany as the very well treatedhouse guest of the distinguishedUFOlogist, Mr. I. Brand, Coordinatorof MUFON-Central European Section(MUFON-CES). MUFON-CES con-sists of our German-speaking col-leagues in Austria and Switzerland aswell as West Germany. (Membershipis by invitation only.) Since the early1970s a small though dedicated andhighly research-oriented group ofprofessional scientists has beenworking through MUFON-CES to-wards a better understanding andeventual resolution of the UFOphenomenon (perhaps we shouldsay phenomena).

This article provides some detailsof the large volume of German-lan-guage material, published byMUFON-CES, on their investi-gations of UFO reports andconsequent research endeavours.MUFON-CES has held an annualcongress from 1974 to 1980, inclusive,and the proceedings have been pub-lished in German for the first five ofthese gatherings. Each year the vol-umes have become successivelylarger—no doubt due to the successand untiring efforts of Mr. Brand andhis associates. The proceedings oftheir 1979 and 1980 congresses arebeing prepared for publication. (Mr.Schneider's paper about instru-mental UFO research, presented atthe 1979. MUFON-CES conference,is long enough—about 200 pages—for a separate publication.)

Unfortunately, English sum-maries or abstracts of the presentedpapers are contained only in thepublication of their 1975 congress,held in Icking, West Germany. Toacquaint Journal readers with thenature of the research results andresearch proposals published byMUFON-CES, this article reviews

the 240-page publication of their1975 congress. The quotations whichappear below are from the summaryabstracts, in English, of the publishedpapers.

Electromagnetic and Gravitational Effectsof UFOs

In a 70-page article Dipl.-Ing. A.Schneider, another distinguishedEuropean UFOlogist, and MUFON'srepresentative in West Germany,presents a detailed non-technicaldiscussion of "Electromagnetic andGravitational Effects of UnidentifiedFlying Objects." This paper is con-cerned "with a few UFO effects thathave been observed over and overagain," including effects which "havebeen automatically recorded byinstruments." "With the help ofselected characteristic examples thatoften come from numerous inde-pendent witnesses, the authorattempts to prove that the electro-magnetic and gravitative interactionsmust be essentially correlated withthe propulsion system of the uniden-tified flying object." Mr. Schneiderdiscusses various "physical second-ary effects" reported in associationwith UFOs, also "primary effects,which are presumably of a gravitativenature,... presented by means ofexemplary cases" (e.g., reports ofUFOs which "hover or acceleratedirectly over the ground or overwater" causing "crater or cone-likemovement... that cannot be ex-plained by aerodynamic airmovement alone."

He also relates cases of closeencounter witnesses who "sometimesspeak of a strange force that hinderstheir freedom of movement," e.g., asin the famous October 1973 case inPascagoula, Miss., when "the grav-itative force seemed to have affectedthe kidnappers as well as theirvictims." The paper's appendix in-

cludes "approximately 350 codedcases" and a bibliography of about100 sources.

New Theories of Gravity and UFOs

The paper "New Theories ofGravitation and the QualitativeExplanation for Some PhysicalEffects of UFO's," by Dipl. Phys. I.Brand, is the longest (62 pp.) in thepublication of the 1975 MUFON-CES congress. This often highlytechnical and mathematical article,"directed mainly to theoreticalphysicists," is based on new theoriesof gravity and "the attempt is madeto support the extraterrestrialhypothesis as the explanation ofUFO phenomena. For this purpose,gravitation theories are introducedwhich predict accompanying electro-magnetic effects that have beenobserved in the vicinity of UFO's." •

Mr. Brand discusses "the de-velopment and the most importantcharacteristics of the theories,... inabbreviated form." This provides an"overview of the main directions ofgravitational research" as a back-ground to enable readers to "judgethe theoretical path and the import-ance of the... unified quantumtheory of matter and gravitation byBurkhard Heim." (This theory isdiscussed in the July 1979 issue ofthe Journal.—Editor.)

The detailed abstract concludeswith this statement: "Finally, it willbe shown how, according to Heim'stheory, it is possible, in principle, fora space ship traveling at less than thespeed of light, to reach the mantel ofthe light cone. The result providesthe extraterrestrial hypothesis(ETH) and a theoretical basis."Thirty-six illustrations and photo-graphs (including several well-known to English-speaking UFO

(Continued on next page)

11

German, Continued

researchers), 22 bibliographicalreferences, and 117 non-UFO-related citations accompanythis article.

Use of Mathematical Models inUFO Research

"Mathematical Procedure forAnalyzing Theoretically Unpredict-able Phenomena" is the title of abrief article by Dr. Leo Ferrera.Through historical examples heanalyzes the problem of "typicalreactions of men to spontaneousphenomena... On the one hand onefinds a tendency toward mysticismwhile on the other hand the factualnature of the phenomena is denied.Because of this, the reception thedata receive is scarcely influencedby the objective quality of data andevidence." Thus, an essentialquestion to ask is to "what extentmathematical methods of evaluationcan be helpful for an objectivejudgment."

Acknowledging that "from themathematical viewpoint, spon-taneous phenomena present a seriesof peculiarities that can make use ofthese procedures difficult," theauthor proposes "a practicalstrategy... to start from a specialclassification of spontaneous phen-omena. .. based on the presence orabsence of an intelligent originatorof the phenomena and on the exist-ence and nature of an underlyingintention to communicate." Dr.Ferrera then outlines "the appli-cation of probabilities for compositeevents and cluster analysis/' andbriefly sketches two othermethods—"game theory and thetheory of fuzzy sets."

He reviews "the smoothing andcompensation of the observationalerrors that can be expected frommathematical methods as well as thenature of the interrelations betweenobservation and theory develop-ment." The author concludes thatmathematical models, assuming that"the correct choice and applicationhave been made, can not only serveto derive inferences from the mat-erial on hand," but also can "indicate

12

strategies for further research." Also,he says, "the introduction of math-ematical methods for the analysis ofspontaneous phenomena is useful,even in a relatively early phase of theresearch." (p.68) This short andcomparitively non-technical articleshould be a prime candidate fortranslation into English.Other Papers

A few other short papers arecontained in the 1975 conferenceproceedings. "Misinterpretationsand Forgeries" by Ostudrat.a.D. H.Malthaner,> discusses photographswhich, "because of misinterpretation,have been related to UFOs." He alsoanalyzes twelve such "cleverforgeries" which "show methods ofintentional deception that wereadopted into the UFO literature asgenuine." The article concludes with"criteria... that allow one to test theauthenticity of UFO photos." (p.33)

Luis Schonherr's article analyzes"the particular phases in the devel-opment of scientific research" anddiscusses "the particularities of UFOdata... (for example the problemsof sources, reliability, strangeness)."He also reviews the difficulty inobtaining UFO report informationbecause of "the complexity of thephenomenon and... the pollutionof the information channels." Heproposes "a structure of a docu-mentary system" and dataprocedures, and briefly sketches"the problems of automatic -classi-fication" of UFO data.(p.54)

Translation Services Needed!

The above information shouldillustrate the wealth of publishedGerman-language UFO materialavailable to the international UFOcommunity. MUFON has a copy ofeach of the five published pro-ceedings of the MUFON-CES con-gresses. Moreover, we have permis-sion from MUFON-CES to get thisvoluminous material translated andpublished (with, of course, an ap-propriate reference to individualcopyrights, and acknowledgement—and thariks—to 'MUFON-CES).

Therefore, MUFON would liketo secure the voluntary translation

services of people prepared to tran-slate some of this material fromGerman into English. As we fully

" recognize that language translationis a very difficult and time-consum-ing task, we hope to interest differ-ent people to translate relativelysmall pieces (i.e., specific articles).Thus, we are not asking anyone totranslate a large amount of material.Hopefully, some offers of translationwill be forthcoming.

We are asking MUFON-CES torecommend which papers they thinkwould be most useful to have tran-slated first. Consideration should begiven to articles they might be es-pecially keen to see disseminated toUFO researchers. A priority listingmight also suggest early translationof articles about the results of theirUFO case investigation. Anotherapproach is that publication ofEnglish abstracts of all articles in thepublished MUFON-CES proceedingswould enable potential translators tooffer to translate an article of par-ticular interest to them.

Can you help in this importanttask in UFO research? If so, pleasecontact MUFON (108 OldtowneRoad, Seguin, Texas 78155, U.S-A.)Even an offer to translate only onesmall article would be of enormousbenefit.

Let us break down the barriersof language which prevent dissemina-tion of scientific UFO research. AsUFO reports are essentially the samethroughout the world, we are allworking towards a resolution of thesame puzzling enigma which hasbaffled mankind in all corners of ourplanet.

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED

MUFON has a constant need forforeign language translators, as wellas specialists in other fields (science,technology, field investigation, docu-mentation . . .). Members are in-vited to write to Walter H. Andrus,Jr., International Director, 103 Old-towne Rd., Seguin, TX 78155. Yourspecial skills can make a contribu-tion toward solving the UFO enigma.

By Ann Druffel

Comments on the Tujunga Canyon ContactsBy Timothy Lee King

(Guest Columnist)

I would like to comment on therecently published book, The TujungaCanyon Contacts, written by AnnDruffel and D. Scott Rogo, and inparticular the two concluding chap-ters in which the joint authors ex-press differing, but compatible, viewsabout the nature of UFOs.

In my opinion, truth is truth. Itdoes not change, but man sees moreas he develops. "Absolute Truth"will always be "Absolute Truth." Ifthe entire UFO history has shownchanges in the patterns of man-UFOinteractions, then changes in thatpattern (steps :or jumps to keep justahead of man)1 is certainly the resultof higher direction, even higher thanthe entities in direct control of theUFOs. The essential nature of themystery certainly hasn't changed inany way whatsoever.

If we had "absolute proof of thehistory of the UFOs to 30,000 B.C., asthe cave drawings of UFO shapes insouthwestern France and Canta-brian Spain indicate,2 then we couldstart saying some of our hypothesesare now laws. For an example: if wecould photograph all of the UFO-connoted images in these caves,then we could index and digitallyanalyze by computer for shape, fre-quency, etc. Even those images con-sidered psychosexual should be cata-logued secondarily for an ability toadd and subtract the numericalweight to a finding.

Monotheism was born long be-fore 6,000 B.C. as an oral history, be-

fore man could put his symbols intowriting. The first written "biblical"books came from the Aramaic cul-ture, into which Jesus Christ wasborn. We also have hints that theAramaic culture came from an earlierone that lasted about 15,000 years.The sum total of these two culturesencompasses about 30,000 years,which is the same as the cave draw-ing records.

The early oral history was shroud-ed in apochryphal mystery by dedi-cated cults who, it is supposed, namedtheir groups after the phenomena (non)which transmitted the knowledge toman. One such cult's name trans-lated as "we who descend to thechariots." This title was used longbefore we had chariots in our civiliza-tions.

The altered state of reality hypo-thesis, discussed in The Tujunga Can-yon Contacts, is valid to a degree. Thatis, perhaps a lone individual has theelusive psychic ability that drawsout the UFO phenomenon from itsown "Space-time-continuum," butothers in the vicinity can also clearlysee the UFO. That does not mean"innocent bystanders" are in analtered state of consciousness/realityto the degree the original operant is.For example, about 3 years ago avery large UFO buzzed a town nearBakersfield, California. It was seenby 'dozens, perhaps hundreds, ofpeople. All of them could not havebeen' in an altered state." '" I believe the "hard" and "soft"evidence' found in UFO research

isn't really contradictory. This UFOreality game may, to humanity, seema game, but something surfaces thatsmacks of planned alteration. I be-lieve we need not think about howbizarre or how simple the manifesta-tions have been, because that would/could sidetrack us from the underly-ing principle and drown us in detail.

Regarding the "aspect" history,as outlined in Druffel's concludingchapter, the physical, psychological,and psychic aspects in the history ofthe modern UFO wave seem valid.However, Step 4 — the philosophi-cal aspect — began around 1965 orso, in my opinion, and Step 5 — thecosmological aspect — seems to havealready begun. Our physicists/scientists are treading heavily, deeperand deeper, into the truth. The workwe see beginning at CERN, our own"transistor valley," and other placesdemonstrate this. I see a pattern ofrecent scientific research which con-firms the existence of God.

The "detail reflectivity" discussedin the same chapter seems to hitsome hardcore truth. It might be,however, that this hypothesis is arbi-trary. I don't know, of course, anddon't intend to be ambiguous on thesubject or to invalidate Druffel's ideasabout "d-r" (detailed reflectivity).3

But perhaps "d-r" occurs as a by-product of interaction and communi-cation between UFOs and humans,rather than being an essential ele-

(Continued on next page)

13

Contacts, Continuedment in close encounters and abduc-tions.

I feel that Druffel's conclusionsregarding the nature of UFOs andtheir motives for being interested inthe human race are proper and meritcareful thought and study. I don'tthink they are presumptuous in anydirect way; indeed, they may be softand innocent in comparison to thehard and cold realities they confront.

To the book's joint authors' credit,there is a generous overlap of twopoints of view. Druffel's viewpointmay be a philosophical one, while D.Scott Rogo's view is statistically de-rived. Both conclusions express be-liefs personal to their private per-sonalities, and as such, the subject(UFOs) itself is seen through theirown "d-r" senses. The two authorsseem to have a distinctive taste of theAbsolute Truth.

Regarding Rogo's conclusions,whose hypothesis regarding UFOsis that they are the result of anintelligent, but essentially unknownPhenomenon which responds tohuman psychological needs, I'm notarguing against his conclusion perse, but the Phenomenon does notalways mold itself exactly to the vic-tim's predispositions. Referringback to the matter of detail reflect-ivity, which Rogo addresses byanother literary term, we can seecertain aspects of the Betty Andreas-son case which is rich in this. Mrs.Andreasson tells us that she had achildhood rich in Christian Churchceremony. There is much "d-r"especially regarding her religiousfaith. The entities have their own"glowing paged" book, and shemeets on her journey an intelligenceof such magnitude that she asks if itis Jesus, or God. After Betty's abduc-tion was recalled under hypnotic re-gression, she divorced her husband.Could it be that she was underpsychological stress prior to thedivorce? Was this solution the bestway a Phenomenon could have re-sponded to her needs?

A close correlation between theTujunga Shaw-Whitley case andother classic cases concerns certain

14

furniture, mainly chairs, seen inUFOs. Betty Andreasson was specifi-cally clear about glass chairs andglass covers, and the hoses attachedto the chairs/boxes when the topand bottom was united in one assem-bly. Far away in Brazil, AntonioVilla-Boas reported the same thing.His description of identical glasschairs was withheld from the public,according to Raymond Fowler. BettyAndreasson's and AVB's abductionsoccurred in the same decade, al-though Andreasson did not reporther experience until long after theAVB Brazilian case came to light.

On page 251 of The Tujunga Can-yon Contacts, Sara Shaw's drawing ofthe "conference room" evokes a curi-ous image echo of Andreasson'sdrawing of tubes leading down tothe glass chairs. Here we have whatmight be called a rhythm of vision.Were the Shaw-Whitley case andthe Andreasson/Boas cases con-ducted by the same intelligence?

These similar details neither in-validate Rogo's hypothetical crux orsupport it to the degree they should.The diversity and complexity of allUFO incidents cannot, in my opinion,be encompassed by a singular hy-pothesis.

If there is a real symbiotic linkbetween man and higher UFO intel-ligences, you could paraphrase Bib-lical writ in the Old Testament,wherein God told the Israelites theywere an errant race and if undis-posed to heed his threats, they wouldget a lesson. And, they did receive alesson. Now, if you jump aheadthousands of years to the present, itis obvious man as a race has gonehaywire.

There is a pattern in Holy Writ —a pattern which hints that "the super-mind" (entities/phenomenon/spirits/God) is having to employ somebizarre phenomena to illustratesomething to a bizarre race of beings.I personally do not think the bizarrenature of some UFO phenomena ishaphazard. Considering the detailreflectivity fact in many close en-counters/abductions, would not thisaccount for the sometimes awful ex-periences of the UFO victims? This

is the sinister aspect. There exists thebenevolent aspect also, but bothaspects imply objectified, albeit tem-porarily, UFOs and beings.

If some of our contemporaryufologists have truly given up theidea that UFOs are nuts and boltscraft, they could be simplisticallyviewing very complex craft, for acomplex subject such as UFOs wouldhave complex "machinery" to carryout their mission, whatever it is. Iconsider myself a "nuts and boltsman," but only to the extent that thecraft are "physical" while choosingto manifest and to operate in ourenvironment and before human wit-nesses. We cannot ignore the ex-treme velocities, maneuvers, and theimplications of strong and uniqueapplications of EM forces. Despitethe fact that many UFO researcherssuspect that the UFOs are very real,but only temporarily physical, theships are very advanced, and as far aswe can tell are piloted by very ad-vanced intelligence (s).

We have all heard reports of"mother ships" and we know thatsome entities have reportedly talkedabout enormous carrier craft in orbitabove Earth and also stationed mil-lions of miles away. It logically wouldbe more "cost-effective" to take onelarge ship containing several smallerrecon/surveillance vehicles.

We know that time dilationsoccur at the speed of light. I mentionthis because an implication of timedilation is illustrated by UFO his-tory. The last 100 years of UFOhistory — roughly from 1896 to1981 — could be just seconds orminutes or days to any intelligenceoperant at extremely high velocities.In the Hill incident, the beings didn'tunderstand aging. And consideringthe time span between the Andreas-son Affair, the Tujunga Contacts,and the Brazilian AVB incident, thevery obvious geographical distancesbetween all three reports, and men-tioning again the similarity of certainfurniture aboard all three craft con-cerned in these three cases, we cansuspect that time dilation may be

(Continued on next page)

Contacts, Continued

part of the existence of UFO entities.The "reinforcement schedule"

by which UFOs seem to be helpingmankind think in new and originalterms should wash well with ourphilosophers, psychologists, andperhaps our theologians also. Howelse could man develop or evenhope to survive unless his conceptsare updated and rearranged?

The last poll on UFO belief placesa "belief threshold" at about 68-75%.I suspect the remaining 32% have ahidden body of about 15% morebelievers who are too timid to admittheir beliefs to themselves, muchless to the poll taker! Perhaps we canguesstimate the UFO mechanismhas generated 84% acceptance. Ifthis is so, then we could logicallyexpect such a dynamic to swing/spin or polarize to a larger mass, forexample, 99.99 percent!

With this in mind, it isn't illogicalto expect a new wave of UFO pheno-mena in the near future. The nextwave should be more intense andcontain different manifestations.What we should see is that thesymbol has undergone social dif-fusion. I think the phenomenon andits social diffusion has reached criti-cality. I agree the "Phenomenon" isabusively, and socially, chaotic aswell as being psychologically damag-ing to most individuals at variousdegrees.

Mr. Rogo's amalgamation ofseveral theories has a real "bite" toit, especially when he mentions thatthe manifestations have obviouslyphysical qualities. Rogo (and Clark,et al) say. In a nutshell then, we donot think that the UFO mystery isdirectly produced by our own minds.It is physically, though only tempo-rarily, created by "The Phenome-non" in answer to our needs.

Then Rogo takes the germinaltheory a step further. A nexus per-mits the UFO drama to unfold. UFOabductions/dramas occur when thewitness is in a state of psychologicalneed. Once contacted by a humanmind in such a state, the supermindcreates an experience for the witness,by drawing upon information and

preoccupations buried deep withinthe human mind.

Rogo is to be congratulated forbringing this modality/operantmechanism to the attention of thepublic in that format and regardingthe subject of UFOs in particular.

I think UFO-CE-Abduction stat-istics tell us that man has an innateability to think about solutions to hisproblems — an innate connectionvia his subconsciousness to tap asupermind that is, while part of him,also external to himself. We shouldbe beginning to comprehend histruly innate ability to tap an incred-ible and nearly incomprehensiblesource that will help him mature —but seemingly only step by carefulstep. That the subconscious can leachout to the conscious mind just whatif wants known, and that the subcon-sciousness is also linked to an in-finite mind, supermind, or to an"energy dynamic," should be in-creasingly clear. Man has a beautifulinstrument — the human brain —that has the capacity for infiniteknowledge.

I believe mankind approaches adefinite change toward a spiritualplane, via an appreciation of hisinnate spirituality. Overviewing ournew physics demonstrates the ex-treme likelihood of subatomics exist-ing and acting at velocities far ex-ceeding the speed of light.

I realize my belief is not neces-sarily comprehensible to others whohave their own subjective realitystructures. I do feel, however, thatobjective and subjective reality isintermeshed with quantum/quantaicphenomena, and the complexity of"the phenomenon." I haven't reachedan affirmed, unshakeable conclu-sion, but I am fearful that whateverwe are dealing with appears to desireresidency among us. Its hesitancy iscaused by what we have done in thepast, or what we are doing presently,or will do in the future. Whether ornot I am mistaken isn't of conse-quence in the long run. Norms are tobe respected and sought after in allphases of life, but I've the cynicismto say — "nothing happens byaccident."

San Pranolsoo ExaminerApril 18. 1952

Five Feport Flying Discs NearNevada Test Region

LAS VEGAS (Nev.), April 17.—(INS)—Flying saucers In th«area of the Nevada test site,where Important new atomictests are In progress, were re-ported today. i

An Air Force technical sergeantand four civilian workers at theNcllls Air Force Base, near LasVegas, said they saw eighteencircular objects Hying an easterlycourse which carried them overor very close to the test site.JIEPOBTED BT FIVE.

Tose who reported seeing theobjects were T/SgX Orvllle Lew-son, Rudy Toncer, Sheet metalshop foreman, and sheet metalshop workers R, K. Van Houtln,Edward Gregory and, ChralesRuliffson.

The objects went by at 12:05p. m.

Van Houtln saw them first andcaled the attention of the othersto them.STBEAK EAST.

The men watched the saucersfor about 30 seconds while theystreaked across the sky in aneasterly course north of Ia>Vegas and disappeared.

The men estimated that thecraft were 40,00 let up and fly-ing at a. speed of at least 1,200miles an hour.

The objects flew an Irregularformation with one of. them off tothe right, moving with a zig-zagmotion. They left no smoke orvapor.

(Historical clipping courtesy ofUFO Newsclipping Service)

("Tim King" is the pseudonym for aphotographic technician of 25 years'experience, who has been activelyengaged in analyzing UFO picturesfor MUFON investigators in theSouthern California area.)

REFERENCES

1. See THE TUJUNGA CANYON CON-TACTS, published June 1980, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,NJ,pp.201-08for elaboration on this theory. Also seeMUFON UFO Journal, No. 121, Dec. 1977,"Thirty Years Later: Thoughts in the Dark,"pp. 15-16 for Druffel's original presenta-tion of this hypothesis.

2. Book cited, pp. 197-99, original reference isfrom FLYING SAUCER REVIEW, Vol. 16,No.6 (Nov-Dec 1969), pp. 311.

3. Book cited, pp. 213-14.

15

FIRST QUARTER 1981 UFO SIGHTINGS

Information and map coordinated by Gayle McBride, Tarheel UFO Study Group, P.O. Box 412, Rural Hall, NC 27045.Through cooperation with Mutual UFO Network, Inc., Seguin, Texas; Center for UFO Studies, Evanston, Illinois; PhenomenaResearch (Robert Gribble), Seattle, Washington; and Ground Saucer Watch, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona.

* - information not suppliedClass

DATE LOCATION NO. WITNESSES CLASSIFICATION

DATE

1-11-51-51-51-51-51-51-71-81-91-101-101-111-111-121-131-131-141-171-171-191-191-211-211-221-221-231-231-241-241-291-301-311-311-312-12-12-22-22-22-2

LOCATION NO. WITNESSES CLASSIFICATION

Knox County, ILStillmore, GAGreen Cove Springs, FLSeattle, WACedar Rapids, IALa Puente, CATorrance, CAToutle, WACamino, CAPopularville, MSGrand Meadow, MNGrand Island, LAFaraland, ALCorvallis, ORFolsom, CADuluth, MNCut Off, LABennettsville, SCSacramento, CASan Diego, CALexington, KYHayward, CAParish, NYParish, NYJesup, GASt. Louis, MOTopeka, KSTopeka, KSVacaville, GADodge, NBNorth Baltimore, OHFelton, MNBerkeley, CAChesapeake, OHLa Mesa, CAMerryville, LASan Francisco, CABrooks County, TXSanta Cruz, CAMullan, IDTroy, MI

5 CE1* Class "A"

Class "A"Class "A"Class"A"-CEl

* Class "A"Class "A"

* Class "A"- CE 1* Class "A"- CE 1* Class "A"* Class "A"- CE 3

Class "A"* Class "A"- close approach* Class "A"

Class "A"* Class "A"* Class "A"

Class "A"* Class "A"* Class "A"• Class "A"- CE 1* Class "A"* Class "A"* Class "A"

' * Class "A"* Class "A"- close approach* Class "A"

Class "A"* Class "A"- close approach

Class "A"* Class "A"* Class "A"

Class "A"Class "A"- CE 1Class "A"

* Class "A"- CE 11 CE12 CE 1

NL1 NL* NL

2-32-32-52-52-62-62-62-62-72-72-82-82-92-92-102-102-112-112-112-112-132-132-132-132-142-162-172-172-192-192-192-202-202-202-202-212-212-212-212-22

- Millville, NJHoward County, ARFairfield, CTWindsor, VTShady Side, MDEverett, WASalem, ORNaples, FLPortland, ORN. Babylon, NYCitrus Heights, CATroutdale, ORMarlton, NJFranklin, OHRenton, WARenton, WAWilliams, AZChesapeake, VAEnosburg Falls, VTMason, WITacoma, WAFullerton, CAFurnace Creek, CAAlton, NHGreensburg, PASanta Cruz, CASeattle, WAFlushing, NYLilbum, GASanta Clara, CACupertino, CAMinneapolis, MNCampbell, CAAntioch, CATupelo, MSSan Francisco, CAVallejo, CAOakland, CADaly City, CASan Jose, CA

Class "A"- CE 12 CE 1 (one of numerous reports)* Class "A"

Class "A"* Class "A"- CE 1* Class "A"• •* NL* Class "A"- CE 11 CE1

Class "A"- CE 1• Class "A"

Class "A"1 NL

Class "A"- CE 1• Class "A"* NL

NL1 NL

NL* Class "A"

Class "A"* Class "A"• NL1 CE 1 & 3

NLClass "A"

* Class "A"- CE 1Class "A"- CE 1

* Class "A" •1 DD* Class "A"

Class "A"* Class "A"- CE 1

several NL* Class "A"

Class "A"several NL (8 separate reports)

1 NL* Class "A"

(Continued on next page)

00 DATE

2-222-222-222-222-222-222-222-222-232-232-232-232-242-252-252-257-75 76^ ^*J, ^O

2-262-282-*3-13-13-23-33-33-43-53-53-53-53-53-63-63-73-83-93-103-103-103-113-113-113-123-113-123-143-143-143-143-143-143-163-16

LOCATION

Algona, WASan Antonio, TXEureka, CAMerced, CALodi, CAWhittier, CAGuadalupe County, TXWilson County, TXRapid City, SDEl Centre, CADallas, TXRoomington, NCMarshfield, WINorphlet, ARGlen Ellyn, ILLansing, MIArroyo Orsnoc, v_APeckville, PASan Jose, CADayton, OHLufkin, TXVallejo, CAOscoda, MISalinas, CABelleville, NJAuburn, ALBellingham, WAGresham, ORHawthorne, FLSanta Clara, CASnyder, TXCaledonia, MISignal Mtn., TNNapa, CAGlyndon, MNWichita, KSAlhambra, CAPuela Park, NHPortland, ORChico, CAForestville, CAArcata, CABattle Mtn., NVSalinas, CAMetamora, MIAlameda, CAKingsley, MIIndianapolis, INBradford, PALimestone, NYGermantown, OHSanta Clara, CAKennerdale, PA

NO.W1TNESSES

»*

several4

1

*

1

3•2*••**

*

family•

numerous»

2•

15

1

*

*

*

*

41*

*

*

*

41163

CLASSIFICATION

Class "A"- CE 1Class "A"NLNLNLNLCE1CE1Class "A"NLNL•CE 1Class "A"Class "A"- CE 1NLMTIN Li

CE 1- photosClass "A"several sightings in areaClass "A"- from aircraftClass "A"- CE 1NLClass "A"- CE 1

CE1Class "A"- CE 1CE1NLNLCE1Class "A"Class "A"- CE 1Class "A"- CE 1Class "A"- CE 1Class "A"- CE 3Class "A"NLNLClass "A"-CE 1Class "A"Class "A"Class "A"-CE 1Cla« "A"Class "A"- CE 1Class "A"Class "A"- landingClass "A"CE 1CE1NLNLCE1

3-17 St. Helens, OR * Class "A"^ O 1 7 If ant \A7 A * f*\<*co "A" f C 1*>-!/ T*KT\\, W/\ V_laSS A - L-t 1

3-17 Thousand Oaks, CA * Class "A"3-17 Bremerton, WA - * Class "A"3-18 . .Molalla, OR * Class "A"3-18 Auburn, WA * Class "A"3-18 St. George, UT * Class "A"3-18 Aloha, OR * Class "A"- CE 13-19 Tigard, OR * Class "A"- CE 13-21 Decatur, GA * Class "A"3-24 Newport, OR * Class "A"- radar/visual3-24 Seattle, WA * Class "A"3-24 Coos Bay, OR * Class "A"3-25 Gainesville, FL 1 NL3-25 Los Angeles, CA * CE 13-28 Mt. Clemens, MI 1 NL3-29 Scottsdale, AZ * NL3-30 Alton, IL 2 NL

E j 2 3 O f B C L d c o ' 0 < ' o v 3 i ' 0 S C g - s . Q . s » < » c o < c T £ 3 ' - 3 h O " o "na B ) a 3 - h a § ~ o ; l 8 . 3 ' B 8 > 8 ^ n ™ .|j' n £. S s » — S . § ~ § - § - srSI1-* g <r 3. g- ̂ 3 c " 5 — § w Q O C T ! ""3.3 2 d3' 5 S* o 3. fo 8 n

v < 3 r r ? 3 . < W e J n 3 ? 0 ? » o 2 o 2 , y t n ( K v < ' D . 5 ' t S i ? r > ' ( i ' ( i > i ? *~*

vo "Q 5- S. t / 1 o £ - : 5 ' o l a ' l ' 3 a > r o < « ' « > ' ' a : a n § ™ s ' o >1 = 3 ' ™ ^

It I ! § !]| -3 II 1 § f | § 1 3 i II 1 1 i. *% 1 1 1". tn' ' * " " • " 3 . ^ 0 ̂ ^ " l ~ l H « - " o O § S. C •"* ? C o ' y

S S ^ a q ' ° D . £ , 0 ^ 2 . v < o ) " u ? ° 3 - . ^ S " > r o ' E r ° s . - S ' 5 ^ n >? * S o ' ? 7 ' > r o ' " o " T ? I = ? S ^ ' o > ^ S ( » S ' t t ' y ° ^ S ' 5 a . ° f B D .

Lucius Parish

in Other's words

l\-

The May 5 issue of NATIONALENQUIRER presents details of UFOformation flights over Ohio County,Kentucky, in late 1980. Police of-ficers and others watched the ob-jects for up to 5 hours on December28.

UFO REPORT has switched backto a quarterly schedule, beginningwith their third issue of 1981. Theywill continue publishing an Annual,as well. The new address for themagazine is: Sterling Publications,355 Lexington Avenue, New York,NY 10017.

Paul Dong's "UFO Update" col-umn in the May issue of OMNI is avery interesting summary of UFOactivity in China, as well as a reporton the UFO research which is nowbeing conducted in that country.

Soviet UFO researcher, Valerii I.Sanarov, has ah article on UFOs andfolklore in the April issue of CUR-RENT ANTHROPOLOGY. Unfortu-nately, Sanarov concludes his articleby saying that "flying saucers andlittle green men do not exist inobjective reality." This is the type ofnonsense which is found so often inthe UFO literature (or what passesfor same) today.

THE JOURNAL OF UFO STUD-IES, Vol. II, is now available from theCenter for UFO Studies for $7.50per copy. This issue contains articlesby Richard Hall, Thomas M. Olsen,Durk Pearson, Roberto EnriqueBanchs, and Richard W. Heiden andseveral other researchers. To my

way of thinking, Durk Pearson's arti-cle on instrumentation for analysisof physical traces left by UFOs is themost interesting of the lot. Someothers would be" helpful for insom-niacs. The bi-annual issues of theJOURNAL are, in my opinion, great-ly overpriced. It has also been amystery to me why CUFOS does notcombine its four periodicals (includ-ing the "International UFO Reporter"section of FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE)into one monthly, bi-monthly orquarterly publication. The most ele-mentary logic should suggest thatone deadline is easier to meet thanfour, especially considering that thepublications are all dealing with vari-ious aspects of the same overalltopic.

A new periodical from UFO re-searcher Tom Benson is THE SIXTHQUARK JOURNAL, to be published"as many times a year as possible."The subscription rate for four issuesis $10.00 (U.S. and Canada). Singleissues may be purchased at $2.50each. The first issue contains articlesby Benson, Kenneth W. Behrendt(on UFO propulsion) and O. Ray,plus news notes, book reviews, etc.More attention to proofreading isneeded, as this issue contains a largenumber of typographical errors.However, the magazine might welldevelop into a useful periodical infuture issues. Subscriptions andorders for individual issues shouldbe sent to the magazine at: P.O. Box1174, Trenton, NJ 08606.

(Director's Message, Continued)servations. It is in this manner thatwe are able to obtain the raw factsneeded that will not only distinguishan IFO from UFO, but hopefully theclues that will aid us in resolving thisenigma.

James McCampbell, MUFONDirector for Research, was asked by

Robert Sheaff er, during a recent visitin Jim's home, to evaluate Bob's newbook and express an opinion. Jimwill share a copy of his letter toRobert Sheaffer for the readers ofthe Journal. "Leading Skeptic Inves-tigates the Case for UFOs" is theheadline for the news release andthe book is described as "an incisive

UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICE

The UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOactivity, as it happens! Our service wasstarted in 1969, at which time wec o n t r a c t e d w i t h a r e p u t a b l ei n t e r n a t i o n a l newspaper-cl ippingbureau to obtain for us, those hard tofind UFO reports (i.e., l i t t le knownphotographic cases, close encounterand landing reports, occupant cases)and all other UFO reports, many ofwhich are carried only in small town orforeign newspapers."Our UFO Newsclipping Serviceissues are 20-page monthly reports,r e p r o d u c e d by p h o t o - o f f s e t ,containing the latest United States andCanadian UFO newsclippings, withour foreign section carrying the latestBritish, Australian, New Zealand andother foreign press reports. Alsoincluded is a 3-5 page section of"Fortean" clippings (i.e. Bigfoot andother "monster" reports). Let us keepyou informed of the latest happeningsin the UFO and Fortean fields."For subscription information andsample pages from our service, writetoday to:

UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICERoute 1 — Box 220

Plumerville, Arkansas 72127

analysis of the factual case forUFOs." Basically, the book is aninsult to the intelligence of anyknowledgeable reader who canreadily recognize the proverbial"snowjob" that Mr. Scheaffer hasunleashed in the typical Philip Klassstyle.

19

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE byWalt Andrws

William L. Moore, coauthor ofthe two recent books The PhiladelphiaExperiment and The Roswell Incident'will share the podium .withStanton T. Friedman at the 1981MUFON UFO Symposium on July24, 25, and 26 at M.I.T. in Cam-bridge, Mass. (Boston). Bill is ourState Section Director in Prescott,Ariz., for Yavapai County. Lt. Col:Lawrence Coyne has rescinded hiscommittment to speak. This vacancy 'has been filled by the ProgramCommittee by moving Mrs. CynthiaR. Hind, writer/lecturer and MU-FON Representative for Zimbabwe(Rhodesia) in Africa from the Work-shop Sessions. Mrs. Hind was aworkshop speaker at the 1978 MU-FON symposium in Dayton, Ohio.' John F. Schuessler, MUFONDeputy Director for Administrationand President of VISIT, will bespeaking at the CUFOS UFO Con-ference on September 25,26, and 27in a Chicago area hotel. John will -relate the investigation into theserious medical effects incurred inthe Cash/Landrum close encountercase of December 29, 1980, on thehighway between New Caney andDayton; Texas. His appearance atthe CUFQS Conference is a recip-rocating arrangement between MU-FON and CUFOS, since Dr. J. AllenHynek will be the keynote speakerat M.I.T. on July 25 at the MU-FON UFO Symposium.

The 1981 MUFON UFO Sym-posium Proceedings will be avail-able on July 24 in Boston for thoseattending our 12th annual sympo-sium and immediately thereafter bymail for ten dollars (U.S. Funds)postpaid from MUFON, 103 Old-towne Road, Seguin, Texas 78155,U.S.A.

The APRO sponsored"UFOHIO '81" on June 5,6, and 7 atthe Marriott InnrAirport in Cleve-land, Ohio, will be history by thetime most readers receive this issueof the Journal. They did not publish

a current list of the speakers in theAPRO .Bulletin, therefore we areunable to provide this information.Some very competent and know-ledgeable people in UFOlogy wereoriginally scheduled.

Billed as a "Giant UFO Conven-tion," the National UFO Conferencewill sponsor a June 27 event at theHoward Johnson Motor Lodge, inDePere, Wisconsin. Speakers willinclude James W. Moseley, co-founder of the National UFO Con-ference, author and researcher; Wil-liam Moore, researcher, lecturer andauthor; Col. Wendelle C. Stevens(USAF Ret.), noted researcher andauthor of one of the most contro-versial books of modern times, UFO:Contact from the Pleiades; andRick Hilberg, author, lecturer, andChairman of the Ohio UFO Group.Mr. Hilberg publishes the UFOJOURNAL and is co-publisher of theHilberg-Easley Report.

The book of photographs byWendelle C. Stevens is definitely themost controversial book of moderntimes. This selection of words doesnot adequately describe the greatestsham that has been thrust upon theUFO public since the George A-damski photos. The Eduard "Billy"Meier photographs are simply sus-pended models placed in front ofthe camera, both still and motionpicture, using various countrysidescenes in Switzerland as a back-ground. As a photo researcher, Col.Stevens has destroyed his ownpersonal integrity and credibility bypromoting these hoax photos and•book. Your Director can documentthe veracity of this evaluation, there-fore I challenge the people of Gen-esis III Productions, Ltd. to providethe evidence that these are authenticphotographs of UFOs. If this firmshould publish Volume II, as theyhave promised, they are knowinglycommitting a form of fraud upon thepublic and making a mockery ofscientific UFOlogy.

Michael Brein, Ph.D., State Dir-ector for Hawaii, has appointed PaulE. McCarthy, Ph.D. as the AssistantState Director and Research Spe-cialist. Dr. McCarthy resides at 3687Woodlawn Terrace Place, Honolulu,Hawaii 96822 and may be contactedby telephone at (808) 988-6954.'Paul earned his doctorate in PoliticalScience with a thesis on the lateJames McDonald. Richard D. Sei-fried, M.A., was selected by LarryMoyers to become the new StateSection Director for Montgomery,Preble, and Greene counties inOhio. Richard may be contacted bywriting to 7340 Calmcrest Court,Dayton, OH 45424 or telephoning(513) 233-4055. Robert Grattan III of107 Howard Street, Ashland VA23005 has agreed to serve MUFONin a multiple role due to .his manytalents. Bob becomes the State Sec-tion Director for Henrico and Han-over counties in Virginia, a Frenchtranslator, and an active member ofour amateur radio net, using the callletters WA4NKZ.

It is with regret that we acceptthe resignation of Dr. Willard P.Armstrong as State Director forMissouri on May 30, 1981, coincid-ing with his retirement from theengineering department of the Noo-ter Corporation in St. Louis. Bill andCarol, founding members of MU-FON and the UFO Study Group ofGreater St. Louis, have purchased aretirement home in Tampa, Florida.Bill will continue to be active in theMUFON amateur radio net asWCNC from his new QTH. Afterbecoming settled and acclimated inthe Sunshine State, he will resumehis activity in a leadership role. Ourbest wishes to Bill and Carol.

Lew Willis, State Section Direc-tor in Texas for Collin, Dallas, Ellis,Kaufman and Rockwall counties, hasmailed a letter announcing theirnew UFO telephone hotline to all

(Continued on page 18) .