MUFON UFO Journal - 1981 9. September

THEMUFON UFO JOURNALNumber 163 " September 1981

Founded 1967

lOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF

$1.50

MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.l

•"3 V.

Kresge Auditorium — M.I.T. Campus

SPECIAL 1981 SYMPOSIUM ISSUE

The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)

. 103 Oidtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155

RICHARD HALLEditor

ANNDRUFFELAssociate Editor

LEN STRINGFIELDAssociate Editor

MILDRED BIESELEContributing 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 Oidtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.

FROM THE EDITORDue to coverage of the 1981 MUFON UFO Symposium at M.I.T.,

some material had to be deleted from this issue. The regular columnsand features will resume next month.

Terry Hansen's "Mind-Body" article is particularly thought-provoking, and we look forward to readers' comments on it. Also,Len Stringfield answers his critics and provides more backgroundabout the controversial "alien cadaver" photographs.

Early reports on the Center for UFO Studies conference in Chicagothis month indicate that it was of exceptionally high quality. We willbe reporting on it in an upcoming issue.

(Symposium photographs by Dennis Stacy)

In this issue

UFOs: THE HIDDEN EVIDENCE(1981 MUFON Symposium) 3By Dennis Stacy . .

THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM ANDUFO RESEARCH 11By Terry W. Hansen

.15PUZZLING CASE

OF THE CADAVER PHOTOS.By Leonard H. Stringfield

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE 20By 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 Oidtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.

UFOs: THE HIDDEN EVIDENCE12TH ANNUAL MUFON SYMPOSIUM

By Dennis Stacy(MUFON Staff Writer)

Orthodox science has long com-plained that the UFO evidence islargely hidden — either in the ab-sence of bona fide physical proof orin the uncertainty of anecdotal,eyewitness counts. The cliche, ofcourse, has been that it is impossibleto replicate the UFO phenomenon inthe laboratory, therefore, the UFOdoes not exist as a viable phenome-non for objective, scientific study.

Nothing could be further from thetruth, as this year's MUFON Sym-posium clearly showed. In fact, it isorthodox science that has chosen tohide from the UFO phenomenon andnot the other way around, a pointthat was brought home in Walt An-drus, Jr.'s opening remarks. Morethan 15 years ago the Air Forcequeried several universities as to theirinterest in conducting a scientificstudy of the subject. The Massachu-setts Institute of Technology, Cam-bridge, was one of the first queriedand also one of the first to decline the"honor" which eventually fell to theUniversity of Colorado. The lesson,however, was clear enough: ufologyhas come a considerable distance inthe intervening decade and a half, andtraditional and contemporary sciencehas been moved to acknowledge thatprogress.

Still, the ultimate burden of con-verting a study of the phenomenoninto an acceptable scientific disciplineremains on the shoulders of individ-ual ufologists and ufological groups.Or such was the message deliveredby Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the Director ofthe Center for UFO Studies, in hisopening address,. "Ufology as a Pro-fession: A Manifesto." The dictionarydefines manifesto as a "public declara-tion of intentions, opinions, objec-tives, or motives," and Hynek'sspeech was certainly that.

J.A. Hynek, center, chats with registrants

After recounting his initial connec-tion with Project Sign, which began in1948 and continued with Project BlueBook until the latter's demise in 1969,the Professor Emeritus of Astronomyat Northwestern University went onto briefly catalogue his experiencewith various UFO groups:

"My what a parade," Dr. Hyneksaid. "Each often with a pettheory . . . some mystical . . . somereligious . . . some scient if ical lyoriented . . . and many with claims tosuperiority, often leading to theirfoundering on the rocks of humannature . .. jealousies, competition, in-fighting, personality conflicts, and soon. And I have seen, as we all have,the disdain and scorn of the scientificcommunity, in open opposition to theideals of science. As Erwin Schroe-dinger, one of the pioneers of quan-tum mechanics, once wrote: 'A scien-tist should be curious and eager tofind out.' Well, quite the opposite has

been true: the scientific establishment(not necessarily individual scientists)has held its nose at the mention ofUFOs as though'it were carrying adecaying rat to the city dump."

In a way, though, Hynek said, hecould see reasons for such disdain.Most scientists probably get their in-formation about UFOs from the tab-loid press or the debunking pressreleases of the Air Force, neither ofwhich is calculated to raise scientificcuriosity. Is it any wonder most scien-tists, their time and energy alreadyconsumed by their own research proj-ects, should refuse to take an interestin UFOs? "I was fortunate in that Iwas asked to (and paid to) take an in-terest in the subject," Hynek said,"and even at that it took me years tochange my mind about UFOs."

What can we as individuals doabout the contemporary scientific

(continued on next page)

Symposium, Continued

neglect of the phenomenon? "UNITE,"said Dr. Hynek, "because it is up to usto present the subject of UFOs in aprofessional manner . . . not merelyto bring it to the proper attention ofscientists, but more importantly forour own respect. It is my profoundand considered judgement that weourselves will face another 30 yearsof stumbling, desultory collecting ofcase after case . . .until ufologybecomes a profession.

"Professionalism is a state of mind,a serious structured approach to a sub-ject, following the rules and standardsof a given profession. The fact is, theprimary sin of ufology today is that itpresents to the outside world a mostfantastic hodge-podge of unprofes-sional action, statements, maneuvers,intrigues, and balderdash .. . and Imean it very seriously when I say thatto get anywhere in the next decadeufology must become a professionwith accepted standards of action.And that simply means a houseclean-ing. Not only- in this country, but in-ternationally. It can be done.

"I issue a manifesto then, a call forufologists to close ranks andunite . . . as individuals . . . in a sort ofspiritual bond to set up a code of pro-fessional standards, a code of ethicsfor investigators, researchers andwriters on the subject."

As Director of what is probably thecountry's most visible UFO organiza-tion, the Center for UFO Studies,Evanston, Illinois, Dr. Hynek's open-ing address to the 12th annualMUFON Symposium was a welcomeone and one that was warmly re-ceived by the more than 400 paidregistrants who attended the talksgiven in Kresge Auditorium on theM.I.T. campus. A summary of theother speakers' positions follows.

THE HUMAN FACTOR IN UFOSIGHTINGS

The speaker was Dr. RonWestrum, a graduate of HarvardUniversity and Professor of Sociologyat Eastern Michigan University, Ypsi-lanti. Dr. Westrum is MUFON Con-sultant in Sociology and is a national

board member of the Fund for UFOResearch; he is also the AssociateDirector of the Center for ScientificAnomaly Research (CSAR) and asso-ciate editor of the Center's highlyregarded journal, "Zetetic Scholar."

"Since the majority of evidence forthe reality of unexplained UFOsightings comes from human testi-mony, it is impossible to evaluate theUFO problem without consideringthe human factor," Dr. Westrumbegan. But we must also know some-thing about the psychology andsociology not only of the individualwitnesses who report UFOs, but ofthe other human elements which areinvolved as well, namely members ofthe press and media, who largelydetermine the extent to which UFOsare reported to the general public,and members of the scientific com-munity, who largely determine howthose reports are to be interpreted.

People who see and report UFOs,Westrum said, are much like the restof society with one noticeable excep-tion — those who were youngerwere much more likely to say theyhad seen a UFO than those who wereolder. This tendency held not only inthe general opinion polls conductedby Gallup, but also in more particular-ized surveys like the one conductedby "Industrial Research and Develop-ment" Magazine.

As for those people who reportclose encounters, Westrum said, "un-fortunately, the research has just notbeen done which would allow us tomake any distinctions about themfrom the rest of the general public.The most that we can say at this timeis that it appears that close encountersare more likely to take place in ruralareas."

It is perhaps a common assumptionthat people who have UFO sightingswill report them, but this proved notto be the case, according to Dr.Westrum. In fact, almost the exact op-posite was true. In a survey ofengineers and other scientists, it wasfound that only 22 percent of UFOwitnesses told someone other thanimmediate members of their familyabout their experience. A survey con-ducted in the course of the University

of Colorado's scientific study of un-identified flying objects, otherwiseknown as the Condon Report, re-vealed that only one out of everyeight people who thought they hadseen something unusual in the skywould go to the trouble to file a for-mal report to the police, military, ormass media.

So, the greater majority of UFOsightings — or potential UFO sight-ings — are not reported in the firstplace. As far as the serious ufologistgoes, this situation is further com-pounded by Westrum's observationthat there is no particular correlationbetween the number of sightings be-ing made during a particular timeframe and newspaper coverage ofthose sightings. Westrum referredspecifically to the so-called "dead-period" of UFO activity following theCondon Report. This period essen-tially lasted from late 1968 until1973. And although newspaper cov-erage of UFOs decreased dramati-cally, the percentage of Americanswho said they had seen a UFO, or apurported UFO, tripled during thesame reference period.

The final human factor involved inthe UFO phenomenon is, of course,the scientific community itself, whichgenerally decides for the public whatis real and what is not. Reiterating apoint of Dr. Hynek's, Dr. Westrumsaid that individual scientists shouldnot necessarily be blamed for the cur-rent state of affairs: most of the booksand data they see about UFOs aremost likely to be those least respon-sible. Or, as Westrum himself put it,"trash is far more likely to sell thansolid investigative work."

Obviously, this is not the sort ofsituation in which the average scien-tist is likely to want to involvehimself," Westrum said. 'There is, /

though, one group of scientists forwhom this neglect is inexcusable, andthat is the astronomers and biologistsconcerned with the search for extra-terrestrial life, or SETI. People whowrite long papers on the relative effi-ciency of this or that radio frequencyfor interstellar communication cannot



be excused from looking into reportswhich could be evidence of alienvisitation."

'TAITH, THEORY, AND UFOS"

From the purely social andhumanistic aspects of the UFO phe-nomenon, we next turn to thosewhich might be considered angelicand/or divine. The speaker was theReverend Barry H. Downing, PhD, aboard member of the Fund for UFOResearch, as well as MUFON's Con-sultant in Theology. Mr. Downing'sprevious credits include The Bible andFlying Saucers and several articles con-tributed to the recent Encyclopedia ofUFOs.

According' to Downing, "UFOshave created a tension within thescientific community and much ofthis tension has to do with the factthat many scientists see UFOs asreligion rather than science. Yet thetwo disciplines are not all that di-vorced, Downing said. In fact, scienceand religion share several character-istics that should be bringing themcloser together rather than drawingthem further apart. What passes forfaith in religion is very much akin towhat passes for theory in the realm ofscience. Both faith and theory are pro-posals based on intuition and feelingrather than on true, objective know-ledge. And both seek to provide an-swers about the mystery of existenceitself.

Dr. Downing also professed that hewas a Presbyterian and Christian firstand a scientist second. "\ say thisbecause I want you to see that one ofthe major problems we face today isthat of deciding which scientifictheories, if any, .to place pur faith in.Faith, science, and theory are deeplyinterdependent. If we place our faithin the wrong scientific attitudes andtheories, we might possibly destroythe human race. Yet there is no wayto avoid making the choice. Faith in-volves risk. We do not have any wayout of our 20th Century dilemma,"Downing added. "And the truth isthat neither good religion nor goodscience can be risk free. We must not

Speakers field questions, I. to r., Bill Moore, «Stanton Friedman,and Barry Downing

sacrifice ourselves on the altar ofeither safe science or safe religion.God wants us to take risks."

And according to Downing, UFOsare part and parcel of God's myste-rious plan. "My theory, my guess, myfaith, if you will, is that UFOs carrythe angels of God — divine beingsfrom another world who have helpeddevelop the human race, and whowatch over us, like shepherds watch-ing over their sheep, as we take ourrisks of faith on planet earth, believ-ing, making progress, leaving firstbase and trying to get to second."

Ultimately, Downing argued, wewill have to assess the UFO phenome-non solely on the basis of whichtheory seems to make the most sense;in other words, by an act of faith."But if I am right, the UFO mysterywill remain just that — a mystery —for as long as it serves God's gameplan."

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THESECOND KIND: PHYSICAL

TRACES

Whether divine angels or mundanealiens (or neither) are aboard thephysical objects UFOs sometimesseem to represent, one thing appearsrelatively certain: a curious complexof physical effects are often found onthe ground where UFOs were said to

have been resting and from whichthey have allegedly taken off. TedPhillips, MUFON's Specialization Co-ordinator, has been conducting adetailed study of landing trace casesfor over 14 years. In that intervalPhillips has personally investigatedsome 300 such cases. His files containreports of more than 2,000 landingsfrom 64 countries.

There has been a steady increase inthe number of physical trace casesreported since the 1940s, when lessthan 100 were recorded. From 1951until 1960, almost 400 UFO landingswere logged. The following decadesaw nearly 600 new reports, and from1971 until 1980 there were almost athousand. The great majority of thesecases came from ten major countries:the United States ranked first, withalmost 1,000 cases, followed byFrance, Australia, Canada, and Spain,

,'•• each of which recorded in theneighborhood of some 200 cases.Argentina, Italy, Brazil, England, andNew Zealand completed the list.

Most of the U.S. reports originatedin California, followed by Ohio,Missouri, Pennsylvania, Iowa, andNew York. The "typical" UFO land-ing occurs in the month of October atapproximately 9 p.m. Its average


Symposium, Continuedduration is between 1 and 5 minutesand involves two witnesses. Almosthalf of the reported UFOs are de-scribed as disc-shaped. Thirty-eightpercent are said to be of a metalliccolor, 21 percent red, and 17 percentorange.

Aside from the impressionsassociated with landing arms, ortripods, the most commonly reportedphysical traces involve burned ordepressed vegetation and dehydratedland surfaces. Humanoids, frequentlyseen in or near landed UFOs, aredescribed as being less than averagehuman height. Various animals, par-ticularly dogs and cats, are disturbedby the close approach of UFOs and,for some as yet unknown reason,automobile engines seem oddly af-fected.

"In conclusion," Phillips said,"based on the information at hand, itappears that the reports indicate anunconventional vehicle, solid andwith considerable weight, which isunder intelligent control — an un-conventional vehicle which has noknown origin or purpose."

UFO ABDUCTIONS: THE INVISI-BLE EPIDEMIC

Much of the UFO evidence is hid-den not only from orthodox science,but from the UFO percipient, as well.These are the cases involving allegedabduction by a UFO and its occupantswhich frequently contain instances oftime lapses and/or amnesia. If the dataare recovered at all, it is usuallythrough the use of regressive hyp-nosis, although some abductees spon-taneously remember experiences.

Budd Hopkins has recently been in-vestigating UFO abductions in whichthe witness reports lapses in time ormemory and has published his find-ings in a new book, Missing Time. Hiswork was assisted by veteranMUFON investigator Ted Bloecher,of New York, and by psychologistAphrodite Clamar, who contributedthe afterword to the book.

Hopkins found that "classical" ab-ductions like that of Betty and BarneyHill were the exception rather thanthe rule; in fact, he was soon able to

Landing trace specialist Ted Phillips

distinguish five separate abductioncategories classified on the basis ofthe extent of the witnesses' consciousrecall of their experience.

Type 1 abductions are those inwhich the witness consciously recallsmost of his or her experience. Thewitness remembers first seeing theUFO and watching it approach. He orshe remembers being taken aboard,the interior of the craft, and human-like creatures who usually perform aphysical examination. All of this isrecalled without recourse to regres-sive hypnosis. Type 1 abductions in-clude cases like that of Villas-Boas,Hickson-Parker, and Carl Higdon.There may be periods when the wit-ness was unconscious during his orher abduction and so does not recallthe entire abduction scenario, as inthe case of Travis Walton.

In Type 2 abductions witnessesremember the arrival of the UFO, theappearance of its humanoid occu-pants, and subsequent lapse in time ordislocation in space. Unlike Type 1cases, however, they do not con-sciously recall what transpired whilethey were aboard the supposed UFO.This emerges only later with the useof hypnosis, which hot all abducteesare willing to undergo. The Betty andBarney Hill abduction is a classicalType 2.

Type 3 abductions are closely akinto a paranormal syndrome known as"bedroom visitations." These involvethe appearance of strange people orentities, sometimes seen as if in adream or vision and most commonlyreported during normal sleepinghours. The abduction of BettyAndreasson-Luca falls into this cate-gory; she was not consciously awareof a time lapse, nor did she initiallyremember anything about the UFOitself, only a light emanating from it.

"It is when we begin to considerType 4 cases," Hopkins said, "that wefirst understand how truly invisiblethe abduction phenomena might ac-tually be. In such cases, no UFOsighting is involved. The abductee con-sciously remembers only an odd time-lapse or dislocation. No occupants arereported and there is nothing thatwould seemingly link the strange ex-perience with the UFO encounter aswe know it. It is only when thewitness eventually agrees to.undergohypnosis that the knowledge of theirabduction by a UFO first surfaces."

"Vague, ephemeral clues are allthat remain in the conscious memoryof a Type 5 abductee," Hopkins con-.tinued. 'There are absolutely no con-scious recollections of a UFO sight-

(conKnued on next page)


>

ing, of occupants, of an on-boardexperience, nor, for that matter, of atime-lapse or dislocation. In otherwords, just about nothing at all thatwould suggest a UFO abduction hadtaken place."

Still, there is a complex of factorswhereby a Type 5 abduction mightbe involved. These include disturbingdreams of an abduction experience,unexplained physical marks or scarson the body, an unnaturally strongfear of certain places or stretches ofhighway, experiences of sourceless il-lumination and so on. The least ob-vious symptom may be nothing morethan a vague feeling that 'somethinghappened to me.'"

"It has been a comforting idea overthe years," Hopkins concluded, "thatwe had a problem with UFOs, what-ever they were, but that abductionswere some special and bizarre aspectof the phenomenon that occurred, ifat all, only very rarely. For me, thatcomfortable old idea has ceased to betenable. If one wants to be trulyjarred, consider this proposition: theremay be as many abductions as thereare UFO sighting reports."

MISSING TIME: APSYCHOLOGIST EXAMINES

THE UFO EVIDENCE

Aphrodite Clamar is a practicingNew York psychologist who helpedBudd Hopkins' investigations by con-ducting regressive hypnosis sessionswith several abductees. She alsoarranged for a battery of standardpsychological tests to be administeredto the abductees. Mrs. Clamar foundthat most of the UFO "victims" fit nospecific psychological pattern; priorto their encounter with UFOs, societywould have accepted them as psycho-logically and sociologically normal.Her hypnotic subjects did share onenew factor in common, however. Allexpressed a feeling of being per-plexed and troubled by their UFO ex-perience, particularly those who hadsuffered time-lapse or amnesia.

"Why me7" was the question mostfrequently asked. "Did this reallyhappen to me?"

Author Budd Hopkins autographs "Missing Time"

"The subjects I saw," Mrs. Clamarsaid, "were apt to feel marked orstigmatized in some way — ashamed,embarrassed, or perplexed aboutwhat happened to them and hesitantto discuss their experience .. . Males,especially men who had their UFOexperience in adolescence, did notfare as well as women in integratingand philosphically accepting their ex-perience.

"For the UFO witness I hypnotizedthere appeared to be a gap betweenthe experience they believe theyunderwent and the words they wereable to use to explain and describe it.The fact that we, as psychologists, donot have an adequate explanation ofwhat happened to them, the fact thatwe cannot give their experience aclear-cut diagnostic label or describe itin detail, does not detract from thevalidity of the experience as far as thesubjects are concerned," Mrs. Clamarconcluded. "For them it was a genuineexperience that warrants our respectand further efforts to clarify andunderstand it.

"Nevertheless, the question ^per-sists: is the UFO experience, as re-lived under hypnosis, genuine or a

delusion? After spending more than60 hours with some 20 subjects underhypnosis, I still cannot answer thequestion."

WHAT THE GOVERNMENTWOULD KNOW ABOUT UFOS IFTHEY READ THEIR OWN

DOCUMENTS

Peter Gersten joined MUFON in1977 as a legal advisor and field in-vestigator. He was the legal counselto William Spaulding's GroundSaucer Watch in GSW vs. CIA,September 1977, which resulted inthe release of over 900 pages of of-ficial government documents perti-nent to UFOs. He also representedCAUS (Citizens Against UFOSecrecy), in their Freedom of Informa-tion suits against the National Secur-ity Agency, the Defense IntelligenceAgency, and the Federal AviationAdministration.

"In the 3,000 pages of previouslyclassified documents on UFOs re-leased during the past 4 years by theDepartment of State, Army, Navy,Air Force, by the Federal Bureau of



Investigation, the Central IntelligenceAgency, the National Security Agen-cy, and the Defense IntelligenceAgency, we find the expert testimonyof scientists, military personnel, in-telligence personnel, law enforcementofficers, and other reliable and res-ponsible people on the subject ofUFOs."

And what those expert witnessestell us is almost exactly opposite theofficial government "line" on UFOs,namely that UFOs show no evidenceof being intelligently controlledvehicles, nor is there any reason tothink they may pose a threat to na-tional security.

Peter Gersten

Gersten, however, is hardly con-vinced by the government's argu-ments. "I am a defense attorney incriminal cases," he explained. "I knowwhat evidence is. If the evidence con-tained in these documents were to bepresented in court it would provideoverwhelming proof that UFOs doexist and that some UFOs are un-conventional aerial ob jec ts . . . I donot hesitate to say that what we aredealing with here is an advanced formof technology and I will use thegovernment's documents to provemy case."

Gersten then proceeded to show aseries of slides of previously classifieddocuments which did indeed indicatethat most of the government agencieslisted above took an active interest inthe UFO phenomenon, at least to the

extent of accepting and responding tothe various UFO reports which cameto their attention.

Here are only a few of the manyexamples Gersten showed:

• Department of Defense docu-ment dated September 8, 1973, andclassified as a "Serious IncidentReport." Two military policemenreported a UFO over Hunter ArmyAirfield, Georgia, which hovered,rapidly changed altitude, and trav-elled at a high rate of speed. The ob-ject was described as between 35 and75 feet in diameter, oval-shaped andshowing brilliant blue, white andamber flashing lights.

• Algeria, 1975, a Department ofState message revealing a report bythe local Defense Ministry of UFOsmaneuvering over Algerian air spaceduring the month of March. The ob-ject seen on the night of March 6, wassaid to have a "very bright light. . . which obscures its shape. Objectmaneuvers and has been seen to landand take off. Sighting last night, atabout 1930 hours, was first by radarand secondly visually."

•January 21, 1976, a NationalMilitary Command Center memoran-dum for the record reported twosecurity police officers seeing UFOsnear the flight line at Cannon AirForce Base, New Mexico. The UFOswere reported as "25 yards in diame-ter, gold or silver in color with bluelight on top, hole in the middle andred light on bottom."

"Does a flying doughnut 75 feet indiameter represent known present-day technology?" Gersten asked.

Despite frequent claims to the con-trary, Gersten noted, the governmenthas also shown an abiding interest inUFOs in terms of the nation's secur-ity. An Air Force document datedMay 1950, referred to "the continuedoccurrence of unexplained phenom-ena of this nature in the vicinity ofsensitive installations."

In December of 1952, the AssistantDirector of Scientific Intelligence forthe CIA sent the following message tothe then-acting Director of the CIA,Walter B. Smith:

"Sightings of unexplained objects at

great altitudes and travelling at highspeed in the vicinity of major U.S.defense installations are of suchnature that they are not attributableto natural phenomena or knowntypes of aerial vehicles."

What we might logically expectfrom the government,' then, if only itbothered to read its own documents,could be an objective reappraisal ofofficial attitudes towards the UFOphenomenon.

"But what we know for certain,"Gersten concluded, "is that thegovernment, after more than 30 yearsof secrecy and deception, stillmanages to keep UFO related infor-mation from the public. I object tothis policy of UFO secrecy. 1 feel thatthe public has a right to know."

AFRICAN ENCOUNTERS: CASEINVESTIGATIONS

There is also another way in whichthe UFO information can be hidden,as was demonstrated by the sym-posium's next-to-last speaker, CynthiaHind, of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.

Cynthia HindAnd that is by virtue of living in asociety which is not basically as wellacquainted with the phenomenon asare most of the European and Asiancountries. Despite the difficulties ofeducating the public and findingqualified people who are willing tocontribute to investigations, Mrs.Hind was able to take comfort in thefact that the reports that did surface


8

Symposium, Continuedexhibited characteristics similar tothose reported in other areas of theworld.

She recounted several cases whichwould have been the envy of anyEuropean, Asian, or American in-vestigator. The most dramatic ofthese involved a probable physicaltrace landing which occurred nearDespatch, South Africa, on October2, 1978. It was reported by fourteenage youths who were waiting forthe mother of one of them to pickthem up after school.

The day was fine, but overcast.One of the boys suddenly noticed asilver object protruding out of thebrush on the side of a- hill across thevalley. At almost the same time,another boy noticed two silver-suitedmen about 300 yards to the west ofthe silver object. The two distantfigures were moving toward thecenter of the hill when they werejoined by a third man, who appearedto be carrying a small suitcase.

But the most unusual thing of allwas the way they were moving.

"They moved only from the kneesdownward," said Peter Simpson,oldest of the four boys, "and usedtheir legs like a fin."

Report of the sighting was delayedsome 10 days because of the objec-tion of Peter's father, a local doctor,who did not want to become asso-ciated with something as bizarre" asflying saucers. Each of the boys wasquestioned separately and asked tosubmit sketches of what they hadseen. Although there were somedifferences, the sketches agreed onmost points, as did the oral accounts.

Eventually, Mrs. Hind was able toenlist some of the local citizens in aneffort to survey the potential landingsite. To the volunteers' surprise, thevegetation and brush turned out to besome 6 to 8 feet high and necessitatedthe use of machetes to chop their waythrough. When they did reach the siteindicated by one of the boys, how-ever, they found an area measuringsome 6 by 18 meters (21 by 60 feet)which had been crushed down toground level. On the outside of thisoval depression were nine marks,

each containing 3 or 4 tiny imprints. Itwas extremely difficult to ascertainthe exact nature of these marks,because it was now some 16 daysafter the original sighting and therehad been at least one heavy rain inthe meantime. All of those present,however, were convinced that as ahoax, the physical evidence on thesite was simply too much for theyoung boys to have arranged, even ifthey had all worked together.

THE ROSWELL INCIDENT:BEGINNING OF THE COSMIC

WATERGATE

Finally, a Symposium devoted tothe subject of the hidden evidencebehind the UFO phenomenon wouldhardly be complete without a discus-sion of what may well prove to be thegreatest cover-up of all times: the factthat the United States governmentcould have in its possession a crashedsaucer along with the deep-frozenbodies of its occupants.

Such theories have been current fora number of years, in fact, ever sincethe late 1940s, when UFOs madetheir most recent and persistent ap-pearance in the skies overhead. But itwas not until the appearance this yearof The Roswell Incident, co-authored bynoted author and linguist, CharlesBerlitz, and William Moore, that thetheories of UFO crash retrievalsgained widespread public attention.

William Moore was present alongwith the man hired as research consul-tant for the book, nuclear physicistStanton T. Friedman.

Briefly, the Roswell Incident con-cerns the apparent high probabilitythat a UFO crashed on American soilin the state of New Mexico, in July of1947. Stanton T. Friedman uncoveredthe original lead in January of 1978,while lecturing in Baton Rouge, Loui-siana, and appearing on local media.Someone introduced him to themanager of the TV station, who saidthat Friedman ought to get in touchwith Retired Colonel Jesse Marcelwho had handled one of these "flyingsaucers way back when."

Friedman did get in touch with thenow elderly Marcel, but was skepticaluntil Bill Moore, researching the story

in the files of the University of Min-nesota, came across the original newsrelease which said that the Air Forcehad recovered a crashed "flying disc."Just as immediately, however, pressreleases were issued which denied theoriginal report: the odd scraps ofshiny material picked up in the desertnear Roswell were actually the re-mains of a weather balloon.

Air Force brass supposedly had thematerial flown to Carswell Air ForceBase, Fort Worth, Texas, whereGeneral Ramey displayed it to mem-bers of the press. A local weatherforecaster was on hand to explain thatthe material being shown had indeedcome from a weather balloon.

There is no doubt about that,Moore and Friedman admitted. Theproblem is that the Air Force kept thereal recovered material aboard planeand later flew it on to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. TheFort Worth press conference wasnothing more than a stage show and acover-up, the beginning of CosmicWatergate and a policy that still existstoday. At least this is the scenario ar-rived at by the two men after inter-viewing Jesse Marcel and others whowere in the area around Roswell,New Mexico, at the time of the crash.Marcel was a highly placed intelli-gence officer who would later be pro-moted to Colonel and work withAmerica's hydrogen bomb program.

Present day Air Force officials, ofcourse, continue to deny the exis-tence of any crashed saucers in theirpossession.

There was, of course, much moreto the MUFON M.I.T. Symposiumthan can be included in an overviewof this sort, including Friday night'sbeer and wine reception; Saturdaynight's Speaker Panel when all Sym-posium Speakers assembled on stageand replied to questions from the au-dience; numerous workshops on sub-jects such as animal mutilations, closeencounters, and investigators' ethics;the showing of several UFO docu-mentary and related films; and thedetailed presentation of the Betty An-dreasson abduction shown in slides


to r., Bruce Maccabee, Tom Deuley, and Dick Hall representing the Fund for UFOResearch

by Raymond Fowler. Betty Andreas-son, now Luca, was available for ques-tions from the audience after the pre-sentation.

Then there was the behind-the-scene work conducted by JosephSantangelo and the local MUFONmembers, all of whom must be con-gratulated for one of the most pro-gressively organized and realized ofall MUFON's annual Symposia. Ac-commodations were on campus and acomplete schedule of meals availablefor those who so desired.

MUFON held its annual corporatemeeting on Sunday, July 26th, hear-ing reports from the Treasurer and in-dividual State Directors. Cynthia R.Hind, a Symposium speaker, wasnamed Continental Coordinator forAfrica.

ADDENDA

We failed to properly credit DennisStacy for the photographs with his ar-ticles on the Klass-Friedman debate(No. 160) and the London UFO con-ference (No. 162). We.apologize forthis oversight. Dennis kindly provideshigh quality .photographs with his ar-ticles, and deserves full credit forthem.

Betty Andreasson-Luca

10

The Mind-Body Problem andIts Importance to UFO Research

By Terry W. Hansen

In recent years, some scientistshave become increasingly preoccupied "with the possibility that we may beable to locate and establish com-munication with extraterrestrial in-telligence, despite the fact that mostscientists believe that no hard evi-dence is available to indicate its exis-tence. This interesting developmenthas been accompanied by a flood ofpapers, books, proposals, televisionprograms, etc. intended for bothspecialist and popular audiences.Almost simultaneously, we have seenthe appearance of a large body ofliterature on the UFO phenomenon,although in this case, the scientificcommunity has tended to shun anyassociation with the subject.

Certainly one of the main reasons,if not the main reason for the wide-spread popular interest in the UFOphenomenon, is the intriguing pos-sibility that it represents the activitiesof intelligent extraterrestrial beings.Because this possibility seems to con-tradict many widely-held scientificdogmas, and because, of certain ma-nipulative policies introduced by theU.S. intelligence community, this ideahas been generally regarded as highlydisreputable by the bulk of the U.S.scientific establishment. More "social-ly acceptable" routes have been pro-posed to search for extraterrestrial in-telligent life.

In this article, I shall focus on thepossibility that some UFOs representadvanced intelligent activity and dis-cuss the problems involved in recog-nizing intelligent life forms con-siderably more sophisticated thanourselves.

As students of the subject know alltoo well, the UFO phenomenon of-fers a wealth of puzzling and often,bizarre manifestations for which nosingle, universally-convincing ex-planation has been offered. Indeed, itis not at all surprising that scientists

unfamiliar with the extent of thephenomenon are compelled to doubtits very existence. On the one hand,we have reports of objects in the skyand on the ground which, althoughsurprising, do not challenge existingscientific paradigms too severely.They might be explained by suggest-ing that they are technologicaldevices of some kind, constructed bysome advanced race or races whichhave discovered the secret to inter-stellar travel. It is not surprising thatthis idea, or some modification of ithas, from the beginning, been themost widely-held explanation for theUFO phenomenon, since it fits inrather well with popular conceptionsof the Universe.

But of course, things are not so sim-ple as this. We must also account forthe so-called high strangeness aspectsof the phenomenon which seem topose such a severe challenge to thephysical scientist that one is tempted-to dismiss them as "merely" psycho-logical delusions of some sort. Herethe extraerrestrial hypothesis seemsto break down. Physical scientistsseem to be reluctant to deal with thisaspect of the phenomenon for fear ofbeing drawn into some dark abyss of"psychic nonsense" where scientificprinciples seem to have. been aban-doned altogether. Or, if they do sum-mon the courage to confront thesecases, it is generally in the old familiarframework, that is to say, as an exten-sion of current physical science (ad-vanced technology as magic) requir-ing no fundamentally new ideas orconcepts.

On the opposite side of this"nothing is new under the sun" ap-proach are those who feel convincedthat many aspects of the UFO phe-nomenon represent a need for an en-tirely new model — a radical andrevolutionary explanation of somesort, perhaps not even involving ex-

traterrestrial entities at all, but requir-ing perhaps, only the collective un-conscious of the human race. Thisview is almost diametrically opposedto that of the "hard-core" physicalscientists described.

Thus, the UFO research commu-nity seems split into two camps with arange of opinions linking the two ex-treme positions I have briefly out-lined. I' will now suggest how thesetwo views can be reconciled by amore sophisticated appreciation ofthe nature of intelligence which is nottoo foreign to experience, scientific orotherwise.

Before we embark on a program tolocate and understand extraterrestrialintelligence, it would be wise to ask ifwe understand the nature of humanintelligence. We should try to iden-tify as many possible misconceptionsas we can here, because if we don'tunderstand what human intelligenceconsists of, how can we ever hope torecognize non-human intelligencewhen we run into it?

A rather close and interestingparallel exists between those attempt-ing to understand the UFO phenom-enon and those interested in the so-called "mind-body problem" in thephilosophy of science. Briefly stated,the mind-body problem asks whetherthere is a clear distinction betweenthe physical brain and the mind, or, ifthey are one and the same. Onceagain, we find two opposing points ofview. On one extreme are those whoclaim that all aspects of conscious ex-perience can be explained in terms ofphysical and biological phenomena(e.g., neural activity). We may callthis school of thought "materialism"and it is analogous to the school ofthought which claims that the UFOphenomenon can be explained in thecontext of. physical theories.


11

Mind-Body, ContinuedAt the other philosophical pole are

those who maintain that there is aclear distinction between the physicalbrain and the mind. These investi-gators argue that the diverse range ofexperiences and the truly remarkablecapabilities attributed to our brainscannot possbily be explained in termsof neural activity alone and that someoverriding entity called the mind isnecessary to monitor and control thevarious activities going on in ourbrains. In other words, they say thatthe human brain is merely an organor, to use a computer term, an inter-face between the mind and the worldof physical matter/energy. Perhapsmany of the functions that we haveassumed are carried out by the brainare not performed there at all, such asthe storage of information. This viewobviously requires the introduction ofsome strange metaphysical conceptswhich are at odds with, and evenrather shocking to, the materialists.

The philospher Karl Popper2 has in-troduced a useful model in an attemptto resolve the mind-body problem.This model divides all aspects of theuniverse into three categories or"worlds," and is hence known as "thethree world model." World One isthe world of physical matter/energyor the world that the physical scientisthas traditionally been concernedwith. World Two is the world of sub-jective conscious experience whichcannot be measured or quantified, butis directly experienced. (Pain, for ex-ample.) Finally, World Three consistsof written language or artifacts likepaintings and other works of art.World Three objects are encoded in-terpretations of World One objects orWorld Two experiences. Scientifictheories such as those that physicistshave developed and written down areexamples of World Three objectsalthough they are distributed onWorld One paper and ink. WorldThree objects can only be approxima-tions of Worlds One and Two.

Traditionally, it has been believedthat there was no need for the in-troduction of World Two, since it wasthought to be explainable in terms ofWorld One phenomena alone. It was,

and for the most part still is, believedthat science would ultimately obtain acomplete understanding of thehuman mind/brain through the workof neurophysiologists at one end andpsychologists at the other. Thus, com-plete understanding of the brainwould be achieved as if these twogroups of scientists were boring a tun-nel through a mountain and wouldsomeday meet in the middle, resolv-ing the problem once and for all. Thisis the classical materialist view of howthe mind-body problem will beresolved. Notice that a similar viewcan be seen among the "hard-core"physical UFO researchers who sug-gest that even the most bizarreaspects of the UFO phenomenon canultimately be explained in terms ofproperties of matter and energy(known or unknown).

As so often happens in science, in-creasingly detailed observations haveled to breakdown of existingparadigms. Increasing numbers ofbrain researchers have come tobelieve that conscious experience,memory, and many other accomplish-ments attributed to the brain, simplycannot be explained purely in termsof neural activity alone, no matterhow complex. More and more fre-quently, accounts are appearing in thescientific literature of research whichindicates that most traditional ideas ofhow the brain works and what it isfor, are fundamentally incorrect.3

Neurophysiologist John Eccles, in abook co-authored with Karl Popper(The Self and its Brain) argues that themost probable explanation forobserved properties of the brain isthat the mind is a separate and distinctentity from the physical brain. It isnecessary to supervise the various ac-tivities going on in the brain. Themind exerts an influence on thephysical world by selecting an area ofthe brain which can carry out themind's wishes, and the brain thenamplifies the command through longchains of events which are only poor-ly understood. Thus, the mind, a non-physical entity, exerts an influence inthe physical world.

It is impossible to summarize thiscomplex and scholarly work here, but

the main point is that a rigorous scien-tific case has now been made for theidea that the essence of intelligence isnon-physical. While this idea is not, atthis time, the prevailing opinion inthe scientific world, the evidence tosupport it is compelling and I believethat it will ultimately become the ma-jority view. Although, since it is sucha radical departure from existingscientific dogma, we shouldn't holdour breaths!

At this point, I should point outthat the position advocated by Ecclesoccupies a similar status to that ad-vocated by some UFO researcherswho propose metaphysical explana-tions for that phenomenon. Both posi-tions are minority views, and bothseem to be gaining ground as theevidence accumulates. The generaltrend in both cases is toward the in-troduction of fundamentally newconcepts of what intelligence is andhow it manifests itself.

If I understand Eccles' position cor-rectly, he believes that the self-conscious mind evolved out of neces-sity as our ancestor's brains becameincreasingly more complex. In otherwords, the mind is a relatively newphenomenon which exists only in thehigher animals and not among veryprimitive species. I infer from this thatno non-physical entity like the mindis proposed to have existed in loweranimals like insects. (Although I maybe inferring too much. I cannot speakfor him.)

A somewhat different view is pro-posed by E. Lester Smith and hisassociates in their book IntelligenceCame First.4 They propose that con-sciousness is the primary reality,capable of functioning in its ownrealm, and that biological forms aresecondary manifestations. In otherwords, the physical world does notguide the course of biological evolu-tion and therefore intelligence — in-telligence or the mind — guides thecourse of evolution in the physicalworld. Although, of course, thephysical world has its own set ofrules. Once again, considerable scien-tific evidence is cited in support ofthis radical view.


12

Mind-Body, Continued

Further destruction of the mate-rialist philosphy has been carried outby physicists themselves. Investiga-tion into the nature of matter has ledto the inescapable conclusion that nosuch thing as hard particles of matterexist. Each time a new "fundamentalparticle" is discovered, it is found thatit can be further subdivided into moreand more "particles." Because of this,what appear to us to be solid physicalobjects such as buildings, animals,etc., have been shown to be compris-ed of energy fields bound together byforces described in complex andabstract mathematical laws. Thus theuniverse appears to be more like agreat thought rather than a greatmachine.5

These discoveries expand our con-cepts of the nature'of intelligence insome very profound ways and com-pel us to consider more sophisticatedways in which advanced .intelligencemay manifest itself. In light of this, weshould also re-examine our old ideasof where we fit into the scheme ofthings. The traditional view of scienceis that the Human race occupies thepinnacle of the pyramid of life onEarth. We certainly appear to be themost intelligent and adaptable of allother forms of life. We seem to beunique in our ability to use advancedtechnology to help . us survive inalmost any environment in which weseek to. In addition, we see no otherforms of life which appear more ad-vanced than us. Indeed, some scien-tists have actually suggested that wemay be unique in the entire universe!But perhaps this is only a case of notbeing able to see the forest for thetrees.

Lovelock" has developed the con-cept of the planet Earth as a sort ofcolonial organism whose constituentsub-organisms act together unwitting-ly to maintain the larger ecosphere ina stable condition over long periodsof geological time. Indeed, whileobserving the interconnected cities ofthe United States at night from highoverhead in a commercial airplane, itis difficult to escape the impressionthat the Human race is, in fact, a colo-nial organism, with each of us acting

the part of individual cells in theoverall body.. Humans are born,grow, and die, but the overallorganism of human society lives onand evolves. Perhaps it would bemore accurate to describe the Humanrace as a specialized organ in thelarger GAIA organism. This conceptcan be extended to the solar system,the galaxy, and so on.

The point of this discussion is toemphasize our very limited perspec-tive on our place in the heirarchy ofthe universe. It is much simpler torecognize and comprehend biologicalorganisms which are less complexthan ourselves, but much, much moredifficult to comprehend levels oforganization vastly greater in extentand far more complex than ourselves.This is because we are caught up inthe minute details of life at our levelof organization, and the subtle in-fluences imposed on us from our sur-roundings tend to escape recognition.Although it seems apparent that suchhigher levels of organization do exist,we can only vaguely perceive theirtrue nature and purpose, just as a cellin my liver only vaguely perceivesthe role it plays in my body.(Although it may be intimately intouch with all biochemical processesit must take part in at its level oforganization, with which I never con-sciously concern myself.)

Thus, an argument can be made,based on accumulated scientific obser-vations, that intelligent life, muchmore complex and advanced thanHuman beings, is already known toexist, although because of the greatdifference in complexity betweenourselves and higher levels, "com-munication" as we conceive of it, isquite a hopeless endeavor. Just as Iwould not think of discussing physicsor music with my liver cells, thehigher levels of organization in theuniverse cannot have an English-language discussion with us. Com-munication, (if you can call it that) be-tween vastly different levels oforganization is much more subtle andsophisticated than this, but it does occur.What we really mean when we talkabout communication then, istransferring information between

organisms at the same or very similarlevels in the heirarchy of theuniverse.

It is clear that the whole problem ofcommunication between different or-ganisms is one whose complexity isalmost never appreciated, even byotherwise intelligent scientists. Somehint of the difficulties involved incommunication with intelligent ani-mals similar in complexity to our-selves can be gained from the work ofJohn Lilly with dolphin communica-tion.7 The problems of translating ourown World Two perceptions into aWorld Three symbolic languagewhich can be detected by organismswith entirely different World Onephysical senses and then understoodonce again in World Two are enor-mous. Most subtle concepts wouldalmost certainly be lost in the transla-tion. Even communication betweenHuman beings of the same culture isoften abysmally bad. For thesereasons, pronouncements by CETIresearchers about radio communica-tion with intelligent non-humans onother planets should not be taken tooseriously. The gap between us isunlikely to be as narrow as they seemto believe.

The most efficient way to com-municate between organisms whichare significantly different would be todo so directly, by-passing WorldThree symbolic language (at best apale imitation of either World One orWorld Two) and the awkward restric-tions of World One, the physicalworld of matter/energy. If it is truethat the nature of intelligence is non-physical, as I believe the evidencesuggests, then it is reasonable to ex-pect that organisms or beings onlyslightly more advanced than us mightbe able to do this.

Communication carried out in thismanner might be dismissed as a "pure-ly subjective" experience by a phys-ical scientist who thinks that eventsare only meaningful if there is quan-tifiable physical evidence left behind.Nevertheless, such communicationwould certainly be a meaningful ex-perience to the person who engaged


Mind-Body, Continued

in it, although he or she might be at aloss to convey the experience toanother Human being except by us-ing limited analogies or symbols.Much of the communicated messagemay not even be available to the per-son's conscious mind because it mightbe suppressed by the shock value ofthe experience, or perhaps becausethe communication was intended forthe subconscious mind in the firstplace. From the point of view of theperson receiving the communication,it might well be considered a"religious experience."

The recognition that the truenature of intelligence is non-physicalshould help in understanding the baf-fling set of occurrences known as theUFO phenomenon. While we shouldrecognize that the UFO phenomenonalmost certainly consists of a varietyof more or less unrelated phenomena,not all of which can be attributed towhat is traditionally defined as ad-vanced intelligence, many UFO casesbear the hallmark of intelligencecapable of manipulating the physicalworld in ways which are clearly be-yond the means of all (?) humans. Inaddition, they can apparently com-municate or at least transmit ex-periences which are subjectively real,but leave little or no physical evi-dence.

Second, it is important to recognizethat our own technological efforts aretending to follow an interesting trend.Technologies such as radio and televi-sion, sound recording, computergraphic simulations, movies, etc., pro-vide us with "simulated real ex-periences" of greater and greaterfidelity, while the technology re-quired continues to decline in phys-ical size. We should not lose sight of whatthis is all about. It is an effort to com-municate experience from one con-scious mind to another by minimizingthe barriers presented by Worlds Oneand Three. But the technology orhardware required is of secondary im-portance. It is the conscious ex-perience that we derive from this ef-fort which is important. A completeunderstanding of what the physicalbrain is for and how it operates might

provide the ultimate reduction inhardware needed for communication.

Finally, we need to recognize thatintelligence manifests itself at a vari-ety of levels of sophistication andcomplexity from the sub-atomic parti-cle, on up to the galactic level andbeyond. An individual Human occu-pies only one rung in the ladder, notthe top of the pyramid. Just as we canlook down the ladder to contemplatelower levels of complexity, we shouldtry to look up the ladder to higherlevels of complexity appreciating thatthese higher levels can only be dimlyrecognized and understood by usbecause of their immense size, sophis-tication, and subtlety. The UFO phe-nomenon is an interaction that is notso simple that we can recognize it asoriginating from an organism ororganisms more simple than our-selves, and yet, it is not so subtle andpervasive that it escapes our attentionas communication altogether. There-fore, it is most likely due to an in-telligence or intelligences which isvastly more sophisticated than our-selves.

Thus, I submit that the best ex-planation for many aspects of theUFO phenomenon remains the extra-terrestrial (or at least non-human) in-telligence hypothesis, although thetrue nature of the exchange betweenus and them will likely remain poorlyunderstood by scientists for a verylong time because of our currentlimited perspective and general in-ability'to comprehend interaction ona scale that apparently involves theentire human colonial organism. Inaddition, the split in the UFO researchcommunity between the "nuts andbolts" school of thought and themetaphysical school can be seen to bedue primarily to a fundamental mis-conception of the nature of intelligentlife on the part of physical scientists (aconception not supported by thelatest biological research) and isresolved by the model introducedhere. I assert that this hypothesis isthe best that can be offered at thepresent time and can stand up againstthe greatest number of objections.

NOTES1. Mallove, Eugene F. and Forward, Robert L,Bibliography of Interstellar Travel and Com-munication, Journal of the British InterplanetarySociety, Vol. 27 (12) pages 921-943; Vol. 28 (3)pages 191-219; and Vol 28 (6) pages 405-434.2. Popper, Karl R., The Self and ik Brain,Springer International, 1977.3. For a couple of interesting recent reportswhich indicate that all is not well with currenttheories of what the brain does, see: Lewin,Roger, "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?,"Science, Vol. 210, 1232-1234; and "Right Brain,Left Brain," New Scientist, Vol. 87, 790-792.4. Smith, Lester E., Intelligence Came First, TheTheosophical Publishing House, 1975.5. Capra, Fritjof, The Tao of Physics, ShambhalaPublications, Inc., 1975.6. Lovelock, J.E., GA1A: A New Look at Life onEarth, Oxford University Press, 1979.7. Lilly, John C, The Mind of the Dolphin,Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1967.

HYPNOTIC RECALL

A warning on the "remarkableability of the human mind to con-fabulate" and the impossibility ofavoiding such suggestions to a hyp-notized subject was sounded by Ber-nard L. Diamond, a professor of bothlaw and psychiatry at the Universityof California and a frequent expertwitness in the courts.

In words that would seem to applyto use of hypnosis in UFO investiga-tions as well, he stated:

"Hypnotized persons, being ex-tremely suggestible, graft onto theirmemories fantasies or suggestionsdeliberately or unwittingly com-municated by the hypnotist... Useof hypnosis by police on a potentialwitness is tantamount to the destruc-tion or fabrication of evidence."

He termed hypnotically recalledmemory "a mosaic of appropriate ac-tual events, entirely irrelevant actualevents, pure fantasy, and fantasizeddetails supplied to make a logicalwhole."

The article is available for $2 fromCalifornia Law Review, 14 Boalt Hall,University of California, BerkeleyCA 94720.

14

THE PUZZLING CASE OF THE CADAVER PHOTOSBy Leonard H. Stringfield

This article breaks my long silenceon the theme of UFO crash/retrievals.My last article, "Status Report onAlleged Cadaver Photos," appearedin the MUFON UFO Journal,December 1980. I now feel urgedbecause of the constant noise ofcriticism, insults, and baseless rumorsto re-state my position as it relates tomy continuing research into this sen-sitive and controversial issue.

As incredible as my subject mayseem to science, religion or the media— and even to me — I believe thereis some credence for it. I furtherbelieve that at some point in myresearch, since the circulation of mypaper, "The UFO Crash/RetrievalSyndrome," that I may have hit a sen-sitive nerve in the Intelligence com-munity or, perhaps in some othercovert group. I base this on coinciden-tal events, and other evidence, thatsuggest a powerful force is afoot to in-fluence or even manipulate my work.

First of all, I should make it knownthat I have taken early retirementfrom corporative work, effectiveJanuary 1981 after 30 years of ser-vice. However, to dispel a rumor thatthe C.I.A. was behind my removal, Ihasten to add that I have been re-tained as a consultant by the samecompany, for two more years.Needless to say, I have had to concernmyself with other priorities apartfrom pursuit of the UFO, plus allow-ing for readjustment.

Next, I must stress that I have notbeen banished from research orforced into silence, threatened orharassed by any of the usually suspectIntelligence agencies. So far, I remain"high and dry" in my work, but I dowonder about the fates of so many ofmy erstwhile informants, 20 who arefirst person, and the others — 29 —who are known to me through an in-

termediary. Most of these people,strangely, have become inaccessible,others have become evasive and afew have clearly stated their fear ofreprisal. Two key informants openlyhave admitted that they can say nomore on the subject.

Strange, too, was the time se-quence, September-October, 1980when most of my sources fell intosilence. Looking back, the abruptchange came hard-on-the-heels of theMUFON Symposium in Houston,June 1980, at which time I announcedthat I had in my custody photographsallegedly showing alien bodies. Then,another coincidence. In August 1980,a second independent set of photos,alleging to show a small burnt alienbody from a UFO crash, vintage1948, in Mexico, hit the nationalscene. No sooner had they gotpublicity, came word from BillSpaulding, who had analysed thephotos, declaring that the alien bodywas no more than a monkey used in a1948 rocket test.

To the best of my knowledge, theMexican photos were obtained byWilliard Mclntyre of Maryland froman unidentified Navy source. Thesewere released through cohorts,Charles Wilhelm and Dennis Pilichisof Ohio, who at that time were allpals in a group called The Coalition ofConcerned Ufologists. Notably, itwas Wilhelm, in Cincinnati, who gotthe biggest splurge of publicity,August 21, 1980, when WLW-TVfeatured his photos. Having noprevious knowledge of the photos, itcame as a shocker to me.

Perhaps even;more significant thanthe timing of Wilhelm's publicity, wasthe coincidence that he and I, bothresearchers in the Cincinnati area, hadeach come up with individual sets ofphotographs, alleging to sripw alien

bodies. Think of the odds against thiscoincidence.

Then, by coincidence, again, inSeptember, the stage was set for thebeginning of a broadside of blatant at-tacks against my photos, my work,my credibility. The reason for theseattacks, according to The Coalition-ists, was a supposed remark that I hadmade to a mutual researcher, callingtheir photos a hoax and blamingMclntyre for it. Actually, I do notrecall ever using the word "hoax" todisqualify the Mexican photos. Get-ting many embarrassing calls fromresearchers who asked for my opin-ion about the photos and Wilhelm, Iopenly questioned, of course, thecoincidence of timing and the role ofMclntyre, but, usually I referred tothe Spaulding analysis, the onlyanalysis available.

Really now, is a hearsay remark thereal reason for such a selective vendettaagainst me? And, even if I had said,"hoax," so what? Is my word in the"ears" of research so colossally impor-tant, so profound or so sacred tocause three people to go "ape"? Yet,others in the field who have been farmore critical of the Mclntyre photos,have gotten off relatively unscathed.

In review of all the negative coin-cidences affecting my work, I will bethe first to concede, however, thateach event, seemingly linked togetherin conspiracy, may be just an isolatedcircumstantial event. Certainly, Iwould not characterize Wilhelm orPilichis, or even Mclntyre as secretagents, but if there is a conspiratorialmeaning in the pattern of coincidentalevents, is it possible that all threewere unwitting stooges for somebodyelse pulling their strings?


15

Photos, Continued

It seems we should know moreabout the source of Mclntyre'sphotos, and much more about Mcln-tyre himself, for whom Wilhelm hasexpressed his implicit trust. Personal-ly, I do not know Williard Mclntyre;however, other researchers in hisbailiwick who know him from earlyNICAP days, question his researchcredibility.

It was in Mclntyre's MARCENJournal, Vol. D, No. DI, 1979, that Ifirst became suspicious of his researchand his alleged sources. In this issue,under the heading, "Marcen Looks atUFO Retrievals," Mclntyre lists 24cases, 17 of which had appeared inmy first paper, "Retrievals of theThird Kind." Allegedly from his ownresearch, he adds precise dates andnumber of bodies for each incidentfrom alleged "witnesses whose mili-tary background could be verified."

In essence, by making a few wellplaced phone calls, Mclntyre had un-covered extraordinary statistical dataunavailable to me or any other re-searcher. Dick Hall informs me thatmaterial from INFO and MUFONJournals also has been presented inMARCEN Journal, slightly doctoredup and claimed as original research.Mclntyre, Hall says, is also known toexperiment with fake photographs.

Whatever the role of the Coali-tionists, the trigger had been pulled todiscredit my photos and my credibil-ity. One example of their tactics, us-ing false assumptions as a guideline,was in their published paper, "AlienBody Photos: An Update Report,"dated November 21, 1980. In this,among other misleading claims againstme, is an alleged transcript of a tapeof my talk made before the ClevelandUfology Project group in September1980. Significant are omissions,statements out of context, misquotesin transcription, etc. No need toelaborate, as I know what I said as doothers of a more responsible typewho were present.

I preferred, during the heat of theattacks, to remain silent, not wantingto fall into a long, useless battle ofsniping from the gutters.

Now, let's go back to my scenario

of supposition. Perhaps, I, too, was setup to be shot down. Given a set ofphotos by my source to proclaim inHouston as the big breakthrough,only time — a short time — wouldelapse before the inevitable discoveryby researchers of photos of a similarkind that had already appeared in An-cient Astronaut, 1977, Official UFO,1978, and again in UFO Sightings,1980, all three published by the PassBrothers, of questionable reputation.In fact, a photo, appearing in the lattermagazine, coincidentally, new on themarket, was dated July, but releasedas early as May. Fortunately, one ofmy colleagues (who had seen my setof photos) brought a copy to my of-fice. I knew then that something waswrong. Had I been gullible, I mighthave proclaimed the photos in Hous-ton, but I did not!

Instead, even more suspicious of aplot, I decided to play the game asagreed upon with my source. When Iprepared the text of my message todeliver the next morning, I repeatedlyemphasized the word "alleged" todescribe the photos, which is a matterof record. (See MUFON UFO Journal,July 1980.) As added insurance, Ialluded to another photo I had re-ceived from an anonymous source inWashington, D.C. in the Spring of1980, alleging to show an alien craftaboard a rig near a hangar. This one,with the help of qualified analysts,was declared to be a hoax. Promisedwas the same treatment for the newphotos before I would endorse themfor release to the media.

For the moment, I felt safe. I wouldcontinue my quiet probes and, at thesame time, press my source for addi-tional evidence, but I knew that timewas against me.

For the record, on the way toHouston, I discussed my photos andthe fake story in UFO Sightings withDick Hall, editor of MUFON UFOJournal and a trusted researcher sincemy CRIFO days in the early 50's. Ialso showed him a copy of a govern-ment Memorandum from my sourcewhich he offered as back-up evi-dence. This one document, if legiti-mate, could alone blow the lid offsecrecy. Not only did it cite sensitive

UFO matters, but implicated thefederal judicial process by playinggames with a covert agency. Hallagreed that for me to release thememo was premature. It needed morethought, more probing. Even thephotos had their risks, we agreed, butI felt that I should proceed with theannouncement of my acquisition, asplanned, on the assumption that soonmore back-up material would come.He had lots of it, according to my in-termediary — photos of a UFO land-ing at an airbase, more alien bodyphotos in color and other memorandafrom "inside" Intelligence contacts.

Even if the photos were a tool ofdisinformation, I reasoned, perhaps Icould ferret out some clue, or a looseend, to prove that my time and in-vestigations were not in vain.

But the tables suddenly turnedagainst me as though somebody hadpressed a button. No sooner had Ireturned to Cincinnati, calls came inabout the, Pass magazines with theirfictitious stories featuring the suspectphotos. Word was out that I had beenhoaxed. Even Stan Friedman and BillMoore, who had seen the photosprivately in Houston, thought theyhad uncovered a hot scoop anddeclared that I was a victim of a crueljoke. Others, shallow in the investiga-tions, were quick to condemn anddowngrade my work. Some critics,already rankled over my failure todisclose my confidential sources in'The UFO Crash/Retrieval Syn-drome," joined the rumor mills. Ig-nored completely was my statement made inHouston.

While rumors spread and got moremalicious, I tried to contact my sourceto relate the scope of negativecriticism. Critically needed, at thispoint, was more substantive back-upphotos, such as the ones showing"alien bodies" in color. But, throughmy intermediary, I learned that mysource was in hiding. His claim, I wastold, was that he had been underheavy surveillance since my Houstonmessage and feared physical harrass-ment.


16

Photos, Continued

If true, then he had good reason tohide. When he and our contact met inErie, Pennsylvania, in March 1980, todiscuss a plan to reveal some of themassive evidence, he stressed hiscruel treatment at the hands of con-spiring Intelligence agents. If, on theother hand, my source is, himself, anagent, and his story of mistreatmentwas a sham to win me to his cause,then I must admit that I was the vic-tim of a frame-up. Whoever was be-hind my source was, indeed, power-ful and resourceful.

At this point there is the obviousquestion: Who is my source and hisintermediary? For many reasons itwould be imprudent for me to releasetheir names at this time. However,one or both are known by at least twoformer NICAP members of high sta-tion, both of whom are suspicious ofthe source's motives. One believesthat the source, and even the in-termediary are agents; the other,knowing only the intermediary, won-ders about his undercover status.

From my view, I have no hardclues or knowledge based on my pastexperiences in NICAP to guide me in-to suspicion. I do know that my in-termediary has been helpful in otherUFO probes, is always friendly,always available by phone, works fora living and is well informed and ofabove-average intelligence. His con-tact, the source of the photos, is alsoof above-average intelligence, neat inappearance and seemed sincere as hedescribed his past experiences withundercover agents, his frame up, hisinterest in radionics and his health fac-tor. Neither of my contacts are of thetype found in the lunatic fringe.

I last heard from my photo sourcevia carbon copy of a letter sent to myintermediary, dated March 3, 1981.In this, my source reiterates a revivalof fears from federal and law enforce-ment agencies, citing some examplesof threats and harassment. In one partof his letter he said, "I can clearlyascribe it to Len's pronouncement andarticle of late (see MUFON UFO Jour-nal, December 1980) that theydefinitely know where the informa-tion is coming from and the heat is

o n . . . the trail is the right trail he'sfollowing and he knows it but whatcan he and I do with the odds againstus? In time we will win. But it's goingto hurt awfully bad to be a winner . . .

"So I sit on a hot seat and I don'tknow, presently, anything except Iam being attacked from all sides.What it is coming down to is one ofthree choices or a combination of allthree on some of them: (l) Go backon the road with the slide show, re-vised, to reveal the facts with chargesthat can be damaging, (2) releasemore information that will cause anexplosive rebuttal, (3) find a lawyerwho knows the UFO situation andwould be willing to fight a UFO casein open federal court that would opena bee's nest by bringing charges ofconspiracy and harassment... I thinkit would be to their benefit to let asleeping dog lie .."

Although my last letter to myphoto source, dated June 29, 1981,has not been answered, I did hearfrom my intermediary by letter datedJuly 13,1981. He states in part, " .. .Itis my feeling that you do not need torespond to anybody. You have gath-ered a great deal of information andpresented it honestly and accurately.If people do not want to believe it,that is up to them, and it should notbe of concern to you. You still havethe facts and those who are receptivewill believe you.

'Those who don't want to believeyou won't no matter how much mate-rial you give to them. Then there isthe group that wants to discredit you,and is trying to get you to react soyou will divulge more informationwhich it can systematically refute ..."

Now, let's go further into a scen-ario of supposition. Suppose mysource was playing his hand abovethe table with me and his photos wereobtained from a C.I.A. contact. If, onthis premise, his photos are genuine,and were secured illegally, then un-derstandably, they would have to bediscredited.

According to my source, he hadpossession of the photos since 1977 orearly 1978, during which time, hestated, a secret agent, posing as afriend, tricked him into surrendering

copies. If this be the case, it might ex-plain the sudden appearance of thephotos,-or reasonable facsimilies, indisreputable magazines, thus, the realones would be defused and easily belabelled as fakes.

At this point, I may ask the samequestion as the reader: Who is the realDr. L. K. Barnes who allegedly tookthe photos (or facsimilies) and soldthem to the Pass publishers? When Itried to call Myron Pass at his NewYork office for his explanation, hewas not reachable. Attempts werealso made in the Fall of 1980 to locateDr. Barnes without success.

Jim Moseley, editor of a monthlysaucerzine, who publishes all sorts ofhot flashes on UFO matters from allsorts of people, has been helpful ingathering some useful informationrelative to the photo in my custodydubbed "fish tank man." In a postalcard, dated March 21, 1981, hewrote, "I obtained from Jeff Good-man (former editor of Official UFOand Ancient Astronauts) one colortransparency of the fish tank manphoto — whether the actual one theypublished or a similar one, he doesnot know. He could not find morethan one among his transparen-cies ..." Moseley added in the April30, 1981 issue of his newsletter that"Stringfield's pictures are very similarto the one in Official UFO but by nomeans identical. (They) are takenfrom a different angle; they have amore blurry focus; and the creatureshown is more decomposed. Thereare other differences."

Still to be explained are two photos(never published to my knowledge)showing what seems to be a maimedor dismembered body, notably, insidethe same type of glass tank with thesame accoutrements such as down-drafts and two beakers emittingvapors. These two photos I had seenonly in the presence of my source and in-termediary during our rendezvousMarch 1980, in Erie, Pennsylvania.As I recall these photos did not in-dicate professional work; too muchshadow and nebulous areas whereparts of the body appeared to be


17

Photos, Continued

covered by cloth. Also of note, theface, turned to one side, was almostfeatureless; and one leg seeminglydetached from the body, was bent atthe knee. Even more inexplicable isthe one photo showing the skeletalrib cage and arm with claw-like ap-pendage. To the best of my know-ledge, this photograph never ap-peared in a Pass publication or anyother magazine. My source's onlycomment was that the skeletalspecimen was delivered from aFlorida Air Force base to Wright-Patterson and sent on to a universityin Pennsylvania for secret study.

I knew that if I could endure thenoise of criticism I would, in themeantime, try to put the photos totest or at least seek advice from theprofessional community. Responsewas disappointing. While in Houston,a physicist (known to research) work-ing in a high level and secret capacityat a complex in New Mexico, tookclose-up photographs of the photos inmy custody, to show to a person heclaimed to be in a "position to know."In a short time he called me from hisoffice to state that the body in theglass case was genuine.

Like out of a James Bond movie, aHouston doctor who seemed im-pressed by the one photo showing theskeletal rib cage, arm and what ap-peared to be a "rotatory" wrist andclaw-like hand, took me aside torelate that he was advised by a personof "highest authority" to get copies ofthe photos and the name of mysource. Curiously, he said that hisauthority who had access to the Presi-dent, if need be, knew I was comingto Houston. Of course, I did not iden-tify my source, as a matter of practice,and the photos I did deliver did notget his authoritative response.

Hoping for better luck, I went tomy key medical source, the doctorwho claimed to have performed anautopsy on an alien body in the early50's (see "UFO Crash/Retrieval Syn-drome"). Through a colleague; hestated that he could not vouch for thephotographs, however, the body de-picted bore a likeness to a type he had

seen. He would not elaborate ondetails or comment on the glass tankor its accoutrements such as the ap-parent downdrafts circumventing thebody.

Dr. Stan Tytko, boichemist andmember of the Cleveland UfologyProject, aware of my plight, offeredin September 1980, to experimentwith the photos using infra-red film.Special film was procured but the testnever got off the ground. Instead, byreversing the negatives to show theeffects of opposite muscular high-lights, we found to our mutual sur-prise that certain highly vascularorgans appeared in their properanatomical places. Interesting, ofcourse, but we agreed that it was in-conclusive. Further tests were nevermade.

One last probe made through theefforts of Dr. Harry Marks, head ofthe Analytical Chemistry Departmentof the University of Cincinnati,brought me to the office, on campus,of anthropologist, Dr. Anthony J. Per-zigian. I showed him only one photofor study, the one with the skeletal ribcage and appendages. This one, freeof all the ballyhoo and free of the Passpublications, puzzled me the most.Perzigian's useful comment appearedin this Journal, December 1980.

Still another facet of exploratoryendeavor regarding the skeletonphoto, was an attempt to explain theoperation of a hypothetical rotatorywrist as suggested by the appearanceof a protuberant section joining thefour-digit claw and the forearm. AlReed, an able and knowledgeable il-lustration artist of Sunnyvale, Califor-nia, made extensive drawings andoverlays for medical review, how-ever, it was during this period thatcommunications with my key medi-cal consultant had turned to silence.The project is shelved for a better 'day.

During the Summer of 1981, whileprobing into leads from new sources,I received in the mail (printed ap-propriately on . yellow paper) averitable ultimatum, dated June 1,1981, from Charles Wilhelm, as headof a newly formed Hoax & FraudCommittee. Copies were sent, far and

wide, to research groups and themedia. In this release, concerning thephotos, Wilhelm demanded answersto a list of questions within a 60 daydeadline or face exposure as a fraud.

My response: Nonsense! I believe Ihave adequately presented my case inthis article, save for names of peoplewho prefer privacy or who are in anobviously uncompromising positionbecause of the squeeze of secrecy.Someday, when I consider the timeright, I may release through this Jour-nal all of my photos, which are notsecret by any means, and, perhaps thesensitive "United States GovernmentMemorandum" received from myphoto source.

For the record, I share no animosityfor Wilhelm as he exhibits for me.And, for the record, in spite of theSpaulding analysis, I cannot provethat "his" photos show a deadmonkey, any more that I can supporthis claim that it is a dead alien. I say:lay the photos to rest; there are moreimportant matters on hand. Just im-agine what could be accomplished ifbitterness could be put asunder!

Also, in a field so undisciplined, Iwill overlook other remarks comingfrom my equally frustrated contem-poraries. In FATE, Jerry Clark, long acritic of the ETH, suggests that myventure into crash/retrievals hasdegraded my credibility. May I ask,to whom should we look, with thatsainted credibility, for the answers weseek. Is this person in the psychicworld?

George Earley, also in FATE,spurns my research on the theory thata recovered craft during the 1950'scould not have been transported overinferior highways or by any othermeans from a distant crash site, toWright-Patterson. Perhaps so, but Inever claimed that all the allegedcrash-landed craft had been conveyedto Wright-Patterson. Perhaps, again,the one or two that may have beenconveyed got there because of urgentpriority and on the strength of this Ibelieve anything can happen — evenif the craft had to be fragmented forshipment. After all, the 1950's werenot in the Dark Ages.


18

Director's Message, Continuedat M.I.T., whereby we . recognizedand honored the loss of our leadersand officers who had passed awayduring the previous year — PaulKelley, State Section Director forSacramento in California on March28, 1981 and Mrs. Barbara Mathey,Continental Coordinator for Africaon June 10,1981 in.Los Angeles.

Photos, Continued 'Also, I believe that Stan Friedman,

for whom I have respect as a lecturerwith rhetorical prowess (espousingthe ETH) was perhaps too rhetoricalin his remarks during the MUFONSymposium in Boston when he putme down as a "collector of stories"and not a qualified investigator. Well,for his new book, co-authored withBill Moore, I hope that his in-vestigative talents can uncoverdocumented proof • that' alien crafthad; indeed, been retrieved. While hemakes light of'my medical testimony,it should be obvious that my source,who serves on the-staff of a majorhospital, cannot stand up and becounted.

Now, having broken my silence,may I note that there can be no quickor final judgement, from my point ofview, concerning the status of myphotos. To weigh the evidence so far,it seems preponderantly against theirauthenticity. Conversely, and perhapsnever to be resolved, the whole storyof the Photograph Escapade is stuckwith too many inconsistencies andmissing links that still pique the invagination.

Perhaps the real story is notwhether the photographs are genu-ine, but who was the manipulator ofevents that neutralized my sources,my ' research status, and rightlyreasoned that my next monograph,planned for 1981, would never getoff the ground. .

(Editor's Note:. Neither .during the'trip toHouston, which'I shared with'Len String-field, nor at any other time has he claimed,'publicly or privately, that the "alien cadaver"photographs were genuine. His attitude hasbeen consistently inquiring, skeptical, andcautious.)

At the MUFON Annual CorporateMeeting on July 26,1981 at M.I.T. inCambridge, Mass., Mrs. Cynthia R.Hind accepted the position of Con-tinental Coordinator for Africa. Herselection for this important post wasbased upon her ability to travel exten-sively on the continent, to not onlyinvestigate important UFO sightingreports, but to recruit qualified in-vestigators and leadership in both thewell established and emerging nationsof Africa. Cynthia is eminently qual-ified to fill this post. Michael Sinclair,International Coordinator, has alsomade extensive contacts in his busi-ness trips to Africa. .

Other items of business' at the An-nual Corporate meeting included an-nual reports from the State Directors .present in alphabetical order —Robert Bletchman, Connecticut; For-rest Lundberg, Iowa; Joe Santangelo,Massachusetts; Bruce Maccabee,Maryland; Tom Benson, New Jersey;Gary Levine, New York;,Neal Hern,Texas; and .Mrs. Mildred Biesele,Utah. Canadian Provincial reportswere made by William "Bill" Allan,British Columbia; Henry H. McKay,Ontario; and1 Stanton , Friedman,Atlantic Provinces. Internationalreports were made orally by Mrs.Cynthia Hind,, Zimbabwe, Africa;Paul Norman, Victoria,>Australia; andin writing by'Keith Basterfield, Con-tinental Coordinator for Australia andNew Zealand. Dan Wright, StateDirector for Michigan, attended the'symposium, but was unable to be pre-sent for the annual meeting.• Walt Andrus~ presented the Trea- ' , .surer's report which showed that forthe fiscal year ending on June 30, -1981, MUFON had a balance of$3,740.91 after expenditures of ;

$24,150. The majority of the ex-penses were represented by secre-tarial salaries, symposium and Journalprinting costs, postage, and office sup-plies. Copies of the Treasurer's Reportwere given to the members of theBoard who were present. MichaelSinclair,. International Coordinator,was unable to attend, but sent copiesof his correspondence to the con-tinental coordinators with HenryMcKay to either be delivered in per-

son or mailed in the U.S.A., due tothe postal workers mail strike inCanada. All of the MUFON officersand Board of Directors listed in the1981 MUFON UFO Symposium Pro-ceedings were reelected to anotherterm (1981-82) by the membersattending the annual corporatemeeting. Dennis Stacy, Director ofPublications, served as recording-secretary for the meeting.

. By the time most of the readersreceived their copies of this issue ofthe Journal, the Center for UFOStudies Conference held on Septem-ber 25, 26, and 27, 1981 at theMidland Hotel in downtown Chicagowill be only a memorable event. JohnSchuessler, MUFON Deputy Directorfor Administration, was one of thefeatured speakers. He gave a factualaccount of a December 29, 1980 casetitled "Medical Injuries Resultingfrom a UFO Encounter (Cash/Lan-drum Case)."

Starting with the September 1981issue of the MUFON UFO Journal,we are initiating a new method ofreminding member/subscribers whentheir membership and Journal. sub-scription expire so that they may re-new promptly and not miss an issue.To the right of the stenciled address•on the cover of your magazine, thereis an expiration month and year. If thenumber is 9/81 your membershipwould expire after receiving theSeptember 1981 issue. Due to theslow delivery of a second class mail-ing to the far corners of the Earth, wewill place renewal forms in your Jour-nal two months before the expirationdate so that you may renew prompt-ly. A red "x" will appear at the bot-tom of the renewal form with the lastissue of your subscription as the thirdreminder. If your membership renew-al 'is not received after the thirdnotice, your address stencil and mem-bership card will be removed fromthe current membership file. Pleasehelp us by helping yourself maintaincontinuity in your monthly MUFONUFO Journals and supporting whatwe believe to be the finest UFOorganization in the World today: .

19

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE byWalt Andrns

With congratulations for a job welldone still resounding in their ears, theMassachusetts MUFON group haspassed along their symposium file tothe Chairman, Henry McKay, inpreparation for the 1982 MUFON In-ternational UFO Symposium to beheld July 2, 3, and 4 at the beautifulLoews Westbury Hotel in Toronto,Ontario, Canada. MUFON BoardMembers Henry McKay and MichaelSinclair will spearhead this sym-posium with the able assistance ofUFO people in Ontario on their com-mittees. They kicked off their promo-tion at M.I.T. with Ontario travelliterature and a red heart sticker carry-ing the inscription "MetropolitanToronto . . . affectionately yours."

The host chairperson for the 1983MUFON UFO Symposium in LosAngeles will be William F. "Bill"Hassel, Jr., supported by the SouthernCalifornia MUFON organization, andassisted by Paul C. Cerny, RegionalDirector for the Western States. Thehost organization for the 1984 sym-posium has not been made final,however, the Reverend G. NealHern, State Director for Texas has in-vited MUFON to the Dallas/Ft.Worth metroplex area for our 1985UFO Symposium. Pittsburgh, Pa., hasmade a tentative bid for the 1986symposium, but this has not beenconfirmed. MUFON of North Caro-lina has expressed an interest inhosting the 1984 affair in Winston-Salem, N.C., due to their fine ex-perience with their annual MUFONtraining conferences that have ex-panded in scope each year.

Robert Bletchman, State Directorfor ' Connecticut, has selectedLawrence A. "Larry" Fawcett, 471Gooselane, Coventry, CT 06238 ashis Assistant State Director and FieldInvestigator. A police officer withmany years of experience in UFO in-vestigations, speaking engagementsand media'publicity, Larry will be anasset to MUFON.

Mrs. Mildred Biesele, State Direc-tor for Utah, is proud to announce theappointment of Daryl L. Letham,Ph.D., 4318 Lynne Lane, Salt LakeCity, UT 84117 as the State SectionDirector for the Utah counties of SaltLake, Davis, Morgan, and Summit.Dr. Letham is an Associate Professorof Physics at Weber State College.

Shirley C. Fox, P.O. Box -164, Ft.Myers, FL 33902 has volunteered toserve as the State Section Director forLee and Charlotte counties in Florida.Her telephone number is (813)334-8318. A new consultant toMUFON, also residing in Ft. Myers,is Everett R. Walter, Ph.D., 3350-3Alouette Circle, Ft. Myers, FL 33907.Dr. Walter has been teaching a yearlycourse in Ufology at the local com-munity college since 1973. He wasthe first to receive a doctorate ineducation for a dissertation pertainingto the UFO phenomenon. As a team,we hope that Dr. Walter and ShirleyFox can develop a strong group offield investigators and UFO research-ers in western Florida. Both of themattended the 1981 symposium atM.I.T. Shirley and Robert Morganfrom San Antonio, Texas were a greataid in manning the MUFON liter-ature table at M.I.T.

G. Neal Hern, has recommendedStephen Clark, Ph.D., 1560 N.W.Highway, Suite 106, Garland, TX75041 as a Consultant in ClinicalHypnosis. Dr. Clark, a practicingclinical hypnotherapist, is a RomanCatholic Priest, has a Doctor ofDivinity degree and a Ph.D. (ABD).He is presently involved in an impor-tant abduction case under investiga-tion in Texas that will be published inthe Journal upon completion of the in-vestigation and documentation of thefacts.

Mrs. Idabel E. Epperson, StateDirector for Southern California sinceFebruary 2, 1973 and Chairman ofthe NICAP Subcommittee prior tothat time, has asked to take a less ac-

tive role in MUFON due to personalhealth reasons. Due to her vast ex-perience in the field of Ufology andher many personal contacts through-out the world, she will continue toserve MUFON in an advisory capaci-ty for southern California, which en-compasses all of the counties startingwith San Luis Obispo, Kern, and SanBernadino on the north to the borderwith Mexico on the south. Idabel's in-terest in UFOs started in 1952, byreading current literature, however,her active field investigation workbegan in 1956. She worked with thelate Dr. James E. McDonald on sev-eral interesting reports during this era.Her daughter, Marilyn, has faithfullyworked with her mother as an ad-ministrative assistant the majority ofthis time and will continue to shareher enthusiasm and efforts in thefuture.

Based upon the fine recommenda-tion by Mrs. Epperson and the mutualrespect of his colleagues in southernCalifornia, William F. Hassel, Jr.,Ph.D. has agreed to accept the posi-tion of State Director, replacingIdabel. Bill Hassel has servedMUFON as the State Section Directorfor Los Angeles County and as a con-sultant for Propulsion systems sinceNovember 1974. He and his familypresently reside at 4217 MinnecotaDrive, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360. Inthe near future, Dr. Hassel will be an-nouncing the appointment of anAssistant State Director and also hisreplacement for Los Angeles County-.His first step will be to revitalize thesouthern California membership/fol-lowed by the expansion of the UFOgroup presently meeting at theUniversity of California in LosAngeles, who will become the nucle-us for hosting the 1983 MUFONUFO Symposium.

A new tradition was instituted atthe 1981 MUFON UFO Symposium

(continued on page 19)

Documents

MUFON UFO Journal - 1981 9. September