™EMUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 173 JULY 1982

Founded 1967 $1.50

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AfCS^OJV/ MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC."

U F O REPORTED OVER OHIO IN 1963

The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)

103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155"

RICHARD HALLEditor

ANN DRUFFELAssociate Editor

LEN STRINGFIELDAssociate Editor

MILDRED BIESELEContributing Editor

WALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFON

TED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,

Humanoid Study Group

PAULCERNYPromotion/Publicity

REV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOs

LUCIUS FARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publicity :

GREG LONGStaff Writer

TED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO Propulsion

DENNIS W. STACYStaff Writer

NORMAE. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLY

DENNIS HAUCKEditor/Publishers Emeritus

The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the'Mutual UFO Net-work, Inc., Seguin, Texas. Member-ship/Subscription rates: $15.00 peryear in the U.S.A.; $16.00 foreign.Copyright 1982 by the MutualUFO Network. Second class postagepaid at Seguin, Texas. POST-MASTER: Send form 3579 to advisechange of address to The MUFONUFO JOURNAL, 103 OldtowneRd., Seguin, Texas 78155.

FROM THE EDfTORSeveral articles and letters in this issue confront the problem of hyp-

nosis applied to UFO witnesses generally, and Prof. Alvin H. Lawson'sBirth Trauma (BT) Hypothesis for "abduction" cases specifically.These are central issues bearing on interpretation of "abduction"reports worthy of searching inquiry. Hypnosis, clearly, is a useful toolwhen properly applied, but it has its limitations and can easily be abus-ed or misused. Certainly it is naive to think that what emerges underhypnosis must be taken as "absolute truth." "Abductee" stories nodoubt contain some mixture — and the proportions are critical — offact, fantasy, and creative imagination. As is true of so many otheraspects of the UFO problem, we need well-qualified, "objective" (easyto say, hard to define) analysts to weigh the pros and cons, and to fur-nish guidelines on how to proceed in order to sort out the truth.

In this issue

'CONTACT FROM THE PLEIADES" IN FACT AND FICTION .3By Kal K. Korff & William L. Moore

,.8MUFON-NORTH CAROLINA UFO CONFERENCE.By Richard Hall

MULTIPLE WITNESS SIGHTING OF STRUCTURED UFO .11By Richard D. Seifried

UFO-BIGFOOT UPDATE 13By Stan Gordon

CRITIC'S CORNER 15By Robert Wanderer

LETTERS 16

IN OTHERS' WORDS 19By Lucius Parish

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE. .20By Walt Andrus

The contents of The MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, and donot necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contributors aretheir own, and do riot necessarily reflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON. Arti-cles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to published articles may be in aLetter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or in a short article (up to about 2,000words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: the article author may reply but will beallowed half the wordage used in the response; the responder may answer the authorbut will be allowed half the wordage used in the author's reply, etc. All submissions aresubject to editing for style, 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, and thestatement "Copyright 1982 by the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.

"CONTACT FROM THE PLEIADES" IN FACT AND flCTIONBy Kal K. Kprff

and William L: Moore(©1982)

One of the marks whichdistinguishes an expert yarn-spinnerfrom an ordinary storyteller is his ex-pertise in manufacturing, exag-gerating, or distorting details at ran-dom and upon the spur of the mo-ment in order that he may continue tosound convincing and credible to hislisteners. Given such criteria, "Ka|Korff and the Tvleier Hoax': AResponse" by Wendelle C. Stevens(MUFON UFO Journal, Nos. 164-165)should be eligible for some sort ofprize. Either Wendelle Stevensregards his shameless efforts to foistthe Meier case upon both legitimateUFOlogy and unsuspecting UFO"buffs" alike as some sort of tremen-dously funny personal joke (in whichcase let's all laugh and forget about it),or he honestly thinks that those whobother to double check his "facts" andfind them wanting will conceal theirresults solely to protect his (alreadyprecarious) reputation. In either case,it is our opinion that this disgracefulcharade has gone on long enough.

Stevens' "Response" to the pointsraised in Korff's expose of the Meiercase are neither convincing nor ter-ribly new. Worse, his ad hominem at-tack on Korff's alleged immaturityhardly befits a gentleman and is at thevery least irrelevant to the matter athand. While Korff's anti-Meier book(The Meier Incident: Most Infamous Hoaxin UFOlogy: Town Scribe Press, 1981)may have put him on the map per se,his interest in UFO reports did notbegin when he decided to look intothe Swiss contactee case in earnestback in early 1980. Indeed, WendelleStevens has known of Korff for over5 years, their first exchange of lettershaving begun on September 14,1976. (A copy of this letter is inMUFON's file's.)

As to why UFOlogy has more orless looked to Koriff for informationon the Meier case, the reason is ac-

tually quite simple. It is obvious fromhis writings that he has thoroughlyresearched and investigated both theincident itself and those connectedwith it. His book is an authoritativecompilation of the results and conclu-sions of that investigation. Andironically, there are more hard factsset forth therein than there are in theentire Genesis III Pleiades volume.

The statement that appears inKorff's book to the effect that Meierhas recorded over 3,000 pages of"quotes" from the "Pleiadeans" ismost certainly true in spite of Stevens'protestations to the contrary. Meier'scontactee ramblings consist of a totalof ele_ven volumes, five of whichKorff viewed himself in the presenceof Dr. Marcel Vogel. Much of thismaterial was allegedly "channeled"through Meier by the Pleiadeans viathe so-called "automatic writing"technique.

If Wendelle had read Kal's articlecarefully, he would have noticed thatKorff said, "He has also been givenrock and metal samples which, accor-ding to his story, defy conventionalexplanation." As anyone evenremotely familiar ..with, the Englishlanguage can tell, the two pronounsused, "he" and "his", refer to Meierand not Stevens. Even moreridiculous, however, is Steven'sboldfaced contention that the phrase"defy conventional explanation" canbe interpreted in a manner substan-tially different from the words used inhis own phrase "not immediately ex-plainable... in reference to our presenttechnology."

Having now succeeded in manufac-turing dirt from earth, Stevens goeson to claim that neither he nor hisGenesis III associates "declare,anywhere in the book, that all, oreven any of Meier's claims are ge-nuine." Truth? Wrong again. Unlessof course Stevens expects us to

believe that the statement 'This bookis not a work of fiction," which beginsthe flapcopy, somehow got there byaccident. And what about Stevens'own statement which appears in thetext of the book itself: "...we are im-pelled to a conclusion that the ex-perience actually happened, that thedisc-shaped craft photographed isreally a UFO and that th& case islegitimate"?

Korff made no misquotations as toMeier's first claims of contacts. All hepointed out was that according toStevens' book, Meier's first ex-periences with extraterrestrials beganon January 28, 1975. Unfortunatelyfor Wendelle, this is not the case. Ac-cording to articles written by Stevenshimself and published in the nowdefunct Argosy UFO magazine,Meier's first sighting of a UFO occur-red on June 2, 1942 when only 5years old! But even granting thatGenesis Ill's 'It all began..." statementis merely a poor choice of words,Stevens' claim that he and hisassociates were unable to includedetails about Billy Meier's earlier con-tactee experiences because of spacelimitations in the book is pure andunadulterated hogwash! In fact, eventhe most casual and impartialobserver is able to see at once thattheir book is literally brimming overwith unused space. Even by conser-vative measurement (and not taking in-to account the unnecessarily . largetype used), there is in the-neighborhood of 950 square inches(more than 6Vi square feet) of totallyunused, absolutely blank space in thePleiades book!

After reading Wendelle's statementthat he is not "a one-fourth partner inGenesis III," we began to fear thatStevens is either a pathological liar oris suffering from delusions. Apparent-ly he has forgotten that he told Korff

(Continued on next page)

Contact, Continued ' ' • ; <'•

in writing that he was indeed a "onefourth partner in Genesis III." (A copyof the letter in question has been pro-vided for MUFON's files so that therecan be no question in this matter.)

Stevens' statement that Meiersought no publicity from anyone con-cerning any of his experiences is alsodemonstrably false. Meier first began

. publishing and offering for sale allover Europe numerous little pam-phlets about his "encounters" inSeptember of 1976, long 'beforeStevens -was even aware of his(Meier's) existence. Not only do weknow this to be a fact, but two samples(of the well over a dozen that wepossess) of Meier's literature appearon page 27 of Korff's book! Wendellehas at least three copies of Kal'smonograph, but still insists uponpublishing such statements. (Copies ofsome of Meier's privately publishedpamphlets have been provided forMUFON's files including the issuewhere he claims to be the 14th disci-ple of Jesus Christ.)

According to an associate of ours,Mr. Franco Kleppe, who also residesin Switzerland, there exists noevidence (in the form of official policerecords) of any assassination attemptson either Meier's life or that ofWendelle Stevens. It should bepointed out that Herr Kleppe is ex-tremely familiar with the Meier'sclaims, having been a devout believerin them, and spent several months asa part of the Swiss contactee's "com-mune" of followers. Kleppe has evenmet the "Pleiadean cosmonaut" Sen-jase, and has assured us that she is"quite human" — especially whenplying her trade in one ofSwitzerland's better known backalleys.

Stevens did indeed describe Meier as"a .sort of person who gets greats a t i s f a c t i o n out of f o o l i n gauthorities," despite his claims to thecontrary. Wendelle not only told JimLorenzen this over breakfast one mor-ning in Tucson, where among otherthings he talked about Meier'scriminal record, but he also toldKorff, Al Reed, and Paul Cerny thesame thing on August 23, 1980 in

4

Oakland, California. Wendelle's ac-count of this affair, as set forth in his"Response," is totally at odds withthat provided by Jim Lorenzen whofirst told it to Moore a few days afterthe event and more recently recalledprecisely the same details in aDecember 1981 interview.

Yet another telling point is Stevens'ludicrous claim that De Anza Systemsis not mentioned in his book. ("Wedid not say, nor does the book imply,that De Anza Systems 'did some ofthe analysis.' ") Please note that in the"Acknowledgement" section of theoriginal version of Pleiades, the follow-ing clearly appears:

...our thanks go to De Anza Systems, Inc.,manufacturers of the remarkable state-of-the-art computer graphics systems utilized to betterillustrate some of the test procedures...

(Curiously this particular passage wasconveniently omitted in the so-called"revised" version of the book.) In ad-dition, apparently one of theColonel's friends responsible for do-ing layout on the book did a poor jobof masking, for when one carefullychecks the "Computer and LaserPhoto Examination" section ofPleiades, one finds De Anza Systemsmentioned again—this time at the ex-treme right edge of computerenhancement photos No. 2 and 6(from right to left) depicted on page53 (also note that one must count thepages because they are notnumbered). If this isn't an "implica-tion" that De Anza had something todo with the analysis, then what is it?

For the record, it was throughreading Wendelle's book that Korfffirst learned of De Anza Systems andthus contacted them. Both Korff andMoore conducted personal interviewswith officials of De Anza, and learnedthat the Genesis III involvement withthat company were indeed somewhatcurious. Stevens and his associates didnot go to De Anza because they hadthe best equipment for this sort ofwork, but because they claimed thatthey were interested in purchasingequipment and wanted a freedemonstration. In the words of Ken Din-widdie, the "edge identification" manreferred to by Stevens, De Anza'sequipment is not analytical in nature."

The sole reason that De Anza elected todemonstrate enhancement techniqueson some of the Meier photos wasbecause they honestly believed thatthey were dealing with potentialcustomers for their product. Stevensand Jim Dilettosb then proceeded totake photographs off of the displayscreens with a small polaroid cameraand never returned.

According to all accounts, in-cluding Stevens to Moore in June of1981, it was Jim Dilettoso who wasthe so-called "expert" utilized byGenesis III to do their "testing.^' Dilet-toso's impeccable credentials consistof 6 years at the University of Con-necticut without benefit of a degree;and considerable experience with"laser" light displays for rock con-certs. A check of Science Citations Index(an exhaustive index of virtuallyevery scientific paper published in theU.S. by author, source, and year) forthe years 1975-1981, lists not one single,paper published by a James Dilettosoon the subject of computer analysisprocedures, or for that matter on anyother subject.

The report by Dr. Neil Davis thatWendelle referred to does not statethat Meier's photos, or at least the onephoto that Davis examined, areauthentic. When Korff spoke to Dr.Davis, he was informed that theanalysis was by no means conclusivebecause, "...the print that Wendellegave me, claiming it was a secondgeneration print, was at least thirdgeneration or better. Therefore, myanalysis was pret ty much in-conclusive." Davis' statement thatnothing was found during his ex-amination of the print in questionwhich would indicate a hoax, wasseized upon by Genesis III toautomatically mean that there was nohoax — a convenient exaggeration ontheir part similar in nature to a cubreporter concluding at the scene of acrime that because no fingerprintswere found, no crime could havebeen committeed. (Copies of Davis'report have been provided forMUFON's files.)

The 23 "witnesses" that Stevensrefers to are, in reality, the number of

(Continued on next page)

Contact, Continued

followers that Meier has recruited.Like the "Bo and Peep" scam of a fewyears ago, those who wish to "follow"Meier's teachings must relinquish per-sonal property and a lot of money.We find it curious that Stevens men-tions none of this; nor does he men-tion that Meier currently charges$50.00 per hour (Swiss F.100,oo) togrant interviews to the press.

As to the question of the point oforigin of Billy Meier's "alien visitors,"if they are not from the Pleiades, thenwhy are they repeatedly referred toas "Pleiadeans"? Why is Wendelle'sbook entitled UFO ... Contact from thePleiades! Why does the text on page21 (again, count the pages — theyaren't numbered) clearly state, "It wasfrom the Pleiades, The Seven Sisters',that these cosmonauts came."? Whyare Semjase, Asket, Ptaal, and Plajarepeatedly referred to as "Pleiadeancosmonauts"? Why can't. Stevenseven get his story straight?

The statement that Korff made inhis book which claims that thePleiades are only "some tens ofmillions of years old" was based On in-formation supplied to him in a letterdate August 25, 1980 from Dr. J.Allen Hynek. Hynek, of all people,should know what he's talking aboutwhen he says that the Pleiades "arejust about the worst group of stars(for extraterrestrial life) possible."After all, Hynek has been a profes-sional astronomer for more than 40years. For those who require a "lessbiased" authority, however, well-known astronomer Robert Jastrowplaces the age of the stars in thePleiades cluster at only 60 millionyears in his recent book Red Giants andWhite Dwarfs (NY: Norton, 1979).

Since the stars of the Pleiadescluster are mainly "type A", stars, itshould be obvious to even the mostcasual astronomy buff that thechances of them being "one billionyears old" is nil. Type A stars onlyhave a lifespan of about 500 millionyears, and none is known to be mucholder — including those that exist inthe Pleiades.

The notion that Meier had nofinancial resources to have his camera

repaired is patently absurd. If this isso, then how to explain his ability to,bear the costs involved in purchasingand processing film sufficient to pro-duce the more than 800 colorphotographs he has taken of allegedPleiadean spacecraft? Even more ab-surd, however, is the fact that Stevens& Co. certainly possessed sufficientphotographic equipment during theirvisit to Meier in Switzerland (see themany non-UFO photos in their book)to have been able to lend (or, giventhe alleged tremendous importance ofMeier's pictures, even give) him acamera which was functioning proper-ly. Are we to believe that such anidea never occurred to this group ofsupposedly competent investigators?Or is it perhaps that Meier did notwant his photos to be taken with pro-perly functioning equipment?

Again, contrary to Steven's claim,the statement that we made concern-ing camera optics is most certainly ac-curate. Indeed, the statement in ques-tion was written by Moore, who atone time operated his own profes-sional photo service and who is quiteversed on camera, optics. However,just to prove our point, we asked Dr.Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicistby profession and photographic con-sultant to'MUFON, if we were in er-ror. Dr. Maccabee replied, in a letterdated January 6, 1982, that "Thestatement...which you have called tomy attention (regarding camera op-tics) is essentially correct." (Copy of letterprovided for MUFON's files.)

Dr. Vogel did not analyze just oneof Meier's physical samples; heanalyzed three, all of which wereviewed by Korff and Sarah Rea at thedoctor's home. Vogel obviously didchoose to share his findings withKorff, otherwise how could Kal havequoted Dr. Vogel in his expose? Fur-thermore, Stevens' ramblings aboutOmni and MIT's involvement in theanalysis of the Meier samples aresimply not true. Dr. Robert Ogilvie,the same metallurgist who analyzedthe famed Ubatuba, Brazil, UFOfragments for Omni, did analyzeMeier's samples and found them to bemundane at best. A fu r the rbreakdown of Ogilvie's findings waspresented in the expose.

On yet another point, can Stevenshonestly expect us to believe that hemade no attempt in his book to con-nect the "great structures of (Earth's)history to the Pleiades" and that hisbook "only reported a few of the con-nections which had already beenmade by others...(which) were iden-tified with quotes"? If this is so, thenhow to explain the following quotesnot attributed to others which appearin the text of Pleiades!

For the first time, a case continuallypresented known factors, not unknown...and now it presented historical connectionsas well. (9th page from the end, bottom ofleft column.)

An archeological bronze medallion... (17thCentury B.C.), shows...a story of celestialvisitation by beings who arrived in a disc-shaped craft from the sky. The sevendots enclosed in a circle...is believed torepresent the Pleiades. Wendell (sic) C.Stevens. (3d page from the end, bottom left.)And never mind the title of the

chapter in question, which just hap-pens (by accident, perhaps) to be "ThePleiadean Connection." Of courseGenesis III made no attempt to con-nect the great structures of history tothe Pleiades. Everyone else merelymisinterpreted.

Korff's statements about Meierclaiming to have met with Jesus Christwere not based upon information sup-plied to him by Colman von Kevic-zky. The source of this information isthe literature which Meier privatelypublishes (in German) in Europe.

Von Keviczky did not spend just"one day" in Switzerland. This is adeliberate distortion of the truth.Keviczky was in Switzerland for fourdays and has previously informedStevens of such. Also, Colman did in-deed visit one of Meier's alleged "con-tact" sites. He did so in company withone Hans Jacob, a former follower(now turned defector) of Meier's,(whom Stevens claims was "rejected"by the Pleiadeans). On pages 31-33 ofKorff's book there appear a wholegroup of pictures that were taken atthis site. Stevens has a copy of Korff'sbook and even a set of these printswhich were supplied to him by Kevic-zky.

Curiously, in a series of photos sup-posedly taken by Meier on this site,

(Continued on next page)

Contact, Continued

an alleged UFO is shown circling alarge tree. In von Keviczky'sphotographs of the same site, the tree ismissing. Stevens is on record as hav-ing given two quite different explana-tions for this apparent discrepancy. Inthe first instance, Stevens claimed thatMeier had told him that the tree hadbeen subjected to radiation from thePleiadean spacecraft and had conse-quently disintegrated (even thoughthe other vegetation in the area, andpresumably Meier as well, weremiraculously unaffected). Stevens' se-cond explanation, however, wassomewhat better. This time, the treewas simply transported into anothertime dimension.

Wendelle's remark about havingcontacted many of the individualslisted in the "Acknowledgements"section of Korff's book is yet anothermisstatement of truth, as is his claimthat many of these people did notsupply the information attributed tothem. As proof, we openly invite anyone of the individuals thus listed towrite to MUFON, or to either of usdirectly, and state otherwise if the in-formation attributed to them is incor-rect.

The statement that Korff obtainedfirst generation copies of Meier'sphotographs is true. Meier freelygave' Wilfried Falk ten photos foranalysis by GSW Inc. Meier also toldFalk that he did intend to produce abook and "...(that) the expert opinionsof Ground Saucer Watch shall haveits place in it." As we all know,however, GSWs opinions never ap-peared in Stevens' book. Instead,Genesis III chose to include the resultsof their own "expert analysis," theresults of which, as we have alreadyshown, were nothing more than theproduct of their own imaginations.

The photographs that Falk sent toGSW, and which were later forward-ed to Korff, were not in slide form,nor did they come from Hans Schutz-bach. Stevens knows better, but stillinsists upon mis-representing thetruth. (Copies of these first generationprints have been provided forMUFON's files also.) Falk never stoleany prints from Meier. Meier gave

them to Falk of his own free will. It isimportant to note here also thatStevens' source for his assertion that"no first generation copies of thephotos were let out of Meier's hands"is none other than Meier himself.

As for the photos that Colman vonKeviczky received from Hans Jacob,these were indeed stolen from Meier.

' These pictures, for those who are in-terested, show models of UFOs in theMeier barn, slightly altered Swissfarmer's hats made to look like flyingsaucers, and a whole array of otherequally damning evidence. Thesephotos, plus much more, appear inKorff's book.

When Wendelle attempts to tacklethe analysis that GSW did on Meier'sphotos, he makes one very dangerousassumption — that Spatial DataSystems aided GSW in their work.Anyone even remotely familiar withthe operation of GSW knows that theorganization contracts out to at leastfive firms which possess imageenhancement equipment. Unfor-tunately for Wendelle Stevens,Spatial Data Systems was not the com-pany responsible for the work per-formed on the Meier photos. And so(alas) with that revelation, Stevens'lengthy argument about the supposedproblems with the enhancementtechniques and the alleged technicallimitations of the equipment used bySpatial Data Systems is reduced quiteliterally to the level of absurdity sincenone of it has any relevant applicationto the situation .at hand. As of thiswriting, GSW has not authorized therelease of the name of the contractorwho did perform the enhancementsin question, but suffice it to say thatwe are satisfied that the work was ofhigh quality.

Before we leave the subject ofSpatial Data Systems, however, itseems essential here to point out thateven concerning this matter, the "in-formation" supplied by Stevens in hissupposedly authoritative response ap-pears to be seriously flawed in bothquality and reliability. To begin with,Spatial Data Systems' video camera isby no means "cheap." Nor is their image enhancement equipment. Thestatement by Stevens that 'Theydidn't even have a light table and no

filters and lens attachments at all forthe camera" is pure rubbish. To il-lustrate the point, we have providedto MUFON a copy of the SDS catalogof their image enhancement equip-ment, which includes the light table,filters, the histogram and pseudo den-sity slicing modes, etc.

Perhaps even more indicative ofWendelle's general unreliability is hisboldfaced statement that "SpatialData Systems... (processed photossent to them) in a program designedfor them by Dr. Bruce Maccabee...(and that) Dr. Maccabee had done agood job of designing a programwhere none existed previously." Con-trary to what Wendelle says, Dr.Bruce Maccabee never designed a pro-gram for Spatial Data Systems. Mac-cabee initially confirmed this (whileexpressing surprise that Stevenswould even make such a statement) ina conversation with Moore inWashington, D.C., on October 26,1981. More recently he reaffirmed itto Korff in writing as follows:

/ have never communicated with SDS in regards tothe development of a program for them. The SDS pro-gram seems to be quite good without my help.Thus, although I appreciate the compliment...!must admit that whatever program Stevenswas referring to, it was not developed by me. Ican't imagine where he got this "information"(emphasis added).

In truth, Stevens received this "in-formation" from Genesis Ill's own"computer scientist," JinvDilettoso —a source that even Wendelle haspreviously characterized (verbally) as"Unreliable," but by the same tokencontinues to quote whenever it seemsconvenient to do so.

Stevens' remarks that Genesis IIIconducted an independent analysis ofMeier's photographs are also ques-tionable. The reason that results of acompetent, impartial, independentscientific analysis of the Meier photoshas never appeared is quite simplybecause such an analysis has neverbeen performed. Indeed, Stevens andGenesis III have been challenged toproduce their "evidence" for impartialevaluation, and have not only refusedto do so, but have refused to even

(Continued on next page)

Contact, Continued

provide the courtesy of answering thecorrespondence involved.

In addition, even more recently,Stevens verbally admitted to Moorein Tucson that he does not possessfirst generation copies of any of theMeier photographs, while at the sametime carefully sidestepping Moore'soffer to arrange for an independentanalysis of the slides he does possess— which he claims (upon assurancesfrom none other than Billy Meierhimself) are second generation copies.

GSW's statement that some of theimages in Meier's photographs areout-of-focus is also entirely correct.This fact becomes obvious upon merev i sua l examina t i on of thephotographs in question. It doesn'ttake a digital computer to come tothis conclusion. In fact, we inviteWendelle to prove GSW wrong onthis point — or any other for thatmatter, so long as he can stick to facts,trigonometrical calculations, etc.

Stevens' quaint little "experiment"of having photographed a smallmodel between 4 and 6 feet away isyet another excellent example of hisinability to address the issues at hand.The question is not whether objectsfar away would be in focus if a pic-tune was taken of a nearby model,with the camera focused on the model.The question is whether or not onecan obtain reasonable focus on a near-by model when the camera is focused"just short of infinity," as (allegedly) isMeier's camera. As a matter of fact,the key to the matter is the use of assmall an "f" stop as possible. Indeed,Moore tried a few experiments of hisown and succeeded magnificently inproducing good quality photos of afour inch diameter plastic UFOmodel. (See photos 1 & 2 which arephotographed at 6 and 12 feet respec-tively. Note the wealth of objects inphoto 1 which illustrate depth of fieldfrom slightly less than 5 feet to morethan 15 miles.) Admittedly Moore'smodel is nowhere near as elaborate asMeier's, but it is sufficient to show thesort of effects than can be produced.Clearly it is possible to produce"UFO" photographs utilizing smallmodels close to the camera.

Moore UFO Model, Test Photo No. 1

Moore UFO Model, Test Photo No. 2

Concerning Wendelle's contentionthat "the Swiss sky in (Meier's) vicini-ty is usually -white" and that such asky does not usually cast shadows,it should be noted that there areshadows visible in many of Meier'sphotos. Admittedly they are slightand take some looking, but they arethere in many cases. It should bepointed out here, however, thatbefore Genesis III published thesephotos in their book, they had them"enhanced" to make them look morepresentable (or perhaps to hide anyhint of balloons and supporting struc-

tures?). Fortunately Korff acquiredfirst generation copies of thesephotos, some of which appear in hisbook.

As to the matter of the suspension"string" which clearly shows up inone of GSW's enhancements, let usbegin by stating that the enhance-ment in question is not cropped. Norare there any other "artifacts" presenteither. If one looks carefully, the str-ing does indeed extend all the way upto the top of the frame. A more refin-ed enhancement was later performed

(Continued on next page)

Contact, Continued

using the color contouring, edgeenhancement mode, which alsorevealed the entire string and verifiedthe fact that the "artifact" was a sup-portive wire or thread. But just in casethere may still be some doubt in thismatter, Moore hereby renews his of-fer to arrange a competent indepen-dent analysis of the internegative inquestion, providing of course thatWendelle Stevens will agree to sub-mit same with no strings attached (nopun intended, naturally).

As Dr. Maccabee has pointed out,the computer can only detect what isactually in the film to begin with.Since Meier appears to have usedtransparent fishing line (as did Moorein his test photos) to hang his models,much of the strings in his photossimply aren't visible due to his use ofan advantageous photographic angle.However, the portions which are visi-ble, having been illuminated by therays of the sun, just happened to havebeen close enough for the film tohave resolved them. It doesn't reallymatter whether 4 inches or 4 feet ofstring was detected — the fact re-mains that a string (or, if you prefer, a"supportive device") was detectedthrough computer enhancements. (Toshow that no "cropping" was done,copies of the original photos showingthe strings have been provided forMUFON's files.) If Stevens has anyhard evidence to the contrary in thismatter, let him present it. (Indeed,Wendelle actually admitted to Moorebefore an audience in Tucson atWorld University, November 21,

.1981 that he really didn't have anyhard evidence in the Meier case, butrather chose to rely upon his own im-pression of things!)

The notion, as put fourth byStevens, that Meier shot all of his 800or so photos "from the hip" (since hecouldn't look through his camera) isyet another of Stevens' absurdities. Itis simply an impossibility for anyoneto take 800 photographs of a flyingobject "from the hip" and have thecraft come out reasonably framed inevery photo. In fact, just out ofcuriosity, Moore tried this techniquewith a kite and a roll of twenty ex-8

MUFON-NORTH CAROLINA UFO CONFERENCEBy Richard Hall

(Photographs courtesy of Thomas P.Deuley) • '.

The sixth annual MUFON of NorthCarolina UFO Conference was heldJune 19 and 20 at the Winston-SalemNature Science Center sponsored bythe Tarheel UFO Study Group.Speakers covered the full range ofUFO topics, from an apparent abduc-tion through ground and airborneclose encounters, and variousanalyses of "what it all means."Veteran UFOlogist George D.Fawcett led off with an overviewslide show entitled "UFOs: Opening a35-year time capsule."

Bernard Haugen continued hisongoing analysis of aeronautical andaerodynamic aspects of UFO reports;

Libby Cocchiarel la reviewed"metaphysical" aspects of the pro-blem; Rob Anderson recounted his1975 close encounter sighting inWinston-Salem; Tom Deuleyreported on the progress and plans ofthe Fund for UFO Research; andWayne LaPorte analyzed the UFOsighting "repeater syndrome," basedon his own recurring sightings in thearea near his home.

Henry W. Covington of Charlotte,N.C., reported three UFO encountershe experienced while a Marine Corpspilot in the 1950s. During WorldWar II, Covington was a flying in-

(Continued on next page)

posure film. He managed to get thekite in only three frames, none ofwhich had it centered. (One wonders,in light of this, whether perhapsMeier might not have .have "pre-exposed" his film before ever puttingit in his camera. Or for that matter,whether Stevens & Co. ever botheredto check to see if the,camera Billyclaimed to be using actually worked atall? Consider the scenario of severalof Billy's confederates pre-exposingthe UFO-model pictures at leisure andthen quietly passing the already ex-posed film to Billy, who then passes it

. off as fresh film to "the investigators."This accomplished, he loads his trustycamera in full view of the gullible andtoodles off into the country-side onhis putt-putt to shoot pictures of"visitors from the Pleiades" with acamera that doesn't even work! Ofcourse, .when the pictures aredeveloped — voila! And all with onearm too!)

Wendelle's claims that "the nearest(photographic) lab to Meier is 80kilometers away" doesn't seem to ringtrue either — especially when onerealizes that Canton Zurich (whereMeier lives) is only some 50kilometers across at its widest point,and that three major cities, Zurich(430,000 pop.), Winterthur (92,500

pop.) and Schaffhausen (32,400 pop.)all lie'within 30 kilometers of theMeier farm.

Statements (oft repeated verballyby Stevens, but not a part of his"Response") to the effect that theMeier farm is without benefit of run-ning water, electricity, or barn are allbelied by photos which appear in thePleiades book. Evidence of all three isclearly visible if one takes the time tolook carefully.

But getting back to the photos; thephoto that Stevens says appeared inUFOs and Space but claims was "notshown by Korff," does indeed appearon pages 8 and 9 of Korff's book.Also, the branches of the tree in thephoto allegedly taken by Meier onMarch 29, 1976 near Hasenbol-Langenberg, are • indeed behind the"UFO." Edge ehchancement process;

ing clearly establishes this, and it isclearly visible in Korff's book.

Finally, it is our considered opinionthat Wendelle Stevens' "case" for Bil-ly Meier is literally built of the stufffrom which dreams are made, and istherefore non-existent. No matterhow many "Responses" or rebuttalshe cares to make, there simply doesnot appear to be any way' he canrebuild the damage he has done to hisown reputation because of his in-volvement in this unfortunate affair.

North Carolina, Continued

structor at Pensacola Naval Air Sta-tion. During the Korean War he wastaking a refresher course in the AU-1(prop plane) at Cherry Point/Edonton,N.C., and was required to get in a cer-tain number of night flying hourseach month. To do this, he would flyup the coast to the vicinity of NewYork City, circle around for a while,then return to base.

On one such night flight in mid-November 1952, Covington was enroute back to base from New YorkCity and had reached a point about15-20 miles west of Norfolk/NewportNews, Va. He was at about 10,000feet when, looking west, he spottedtwo "orange dots" at lower altitudewhich changed position relative toeach other. They seemed to betravelling about 300 m.p.h., and pass-ed beneath him.

As he turned to investigate, the ob-jects changed color, flashing pastelshades of pink, green, and blue, andfinally brilliant white. His attemptedpursuit was broken off when the ob-jects put on a burst of speed,estimated at 2,000 m.p.h., and lefthim far behind. One made a right-angle turn south and the other con-tinued east, disappearing in thedistance. It was a clear night with nomoon.

Continuing on toward Edonton,Covington then saw in his overheadmirror a light trailing him. When hemade a quick 180° turn to check itout, the object "backed away" withzig-zag turns and disappeared. Whenhe again turned toward base, the ob-ject followed him. About 10 miles outhe called the control tower andreported that an object was followinghim. The tower could see his planeand the light from an unidentified ob-ject.

As Covington landed, the objectstopped an estimated mile away andhovered at about 1,000 feet, starlikein appearance. He told the pilots inthe ready room to go outside and takea look, but they were skeptical andresponded slowly. By the time someof them went outside the object haddisappeared, and Covington tooksome kidding about his report.

Ex-Marine pilot Henry Covington

Pat Eudy describes apparent abduction

About three weeks later, inDecember, Covington was in a four-plane flight commanded by a MajorAllen, flying about 25 miles south ofPhiladelphia. Suddenly Major Allensaw a huge orange light approachingand shouted out, "My God, pull up!"A huge orange disc with dome on topshot past beneath the flight. The otherpilots, intent on flying close forma-tion, had not seen it approaching. Thedisc appeared to be about 50 feet indiameter and 15 feet thick.

In 1953 Covington was stationed atK-6 base south of Seoul, Korea. Sincehe was scheduled for the first flight ofthe day, he went out to look up at theclouds. There hovering overhead wasa disc-shaped orange object dark inthe center, giving it an almostdoughnut-like appearance. It seemedto be at about 1,000-1,500 feet. Cov-ington rushed inside to obtain otherwitnesses, and this time eleven otherpilots and crewmembers also saw the

(Continued on next page)9

North Carolina, Continued'UFO. As they stood watching, itmoved away slowly to the north on azig-zag flight pattern.

Patrick M. Eudy of Monroe, N.C.,a Cadillac-Oldsmobile salesman,described his apparent abduction ex-perience of March 9, 1979. Then 43,Eudy was returning home about 3:00a.m. driving a 1979 Cutlass Supremewhich had about a quarter of a tank ofgas. He was on Sykesville Road inStanley County about 18-20 milesfrom Monroe.

As he came to a one-lane steelbridge, a brilliant light like a"floodlight" appeared overhead. LaterEudy "woke up" driving slowly downthe road in a different location, dazed,his eyes burning badly. He could notaccount for a period of time, nor howhis car got from the bridge to the newlocation. Next morning he felt that hehad been on board a craft of somekind but had no clear recollection ofit. For a few days afterwards, he hadan unusual rash and itch on his fingersand ankles. He was also puzzled thatthe car had not used enough gas tocover the distance involved.

Later he began to wake up in themiddle of the night, having"flashbacks" — light f lashes. . .a,room...a chair...panels...a being. Itwas "like being there again," he said,"except that it was like TwilightZone... a semi-conscious gray area."About July 1981 he sought help andwas hypnotized by Dr. Richard Pin-neau, research psychologist. Underhypnosis, he described being in abright room with blinding light, twoseats, and panels. A being in uniform-like clothing and "helment" with visortook him into a dark room where hethinks tests were conducted on him.

In answer to questions, Eudy saidthe experience "bothers" him and thathe still has flashbacks.

Why him? He feels that he wassimply isolated and vulnerable, atarget of opportunity, in effect.

Because of the location, the lack ofgasoline used, and other factors, hethinks the car was lifted off theground with him in it and finally setdown in the new location where he"woke up."

Dr. Richard Pinneau, who hyp-10

notized Eudy, later spoke on settinggoals for MUFON and UFOlogy. Inhis view, hypnotic regression is "notof much value in providing evidence"but can be a source of new ideas. Herelates UFO experiences to psychicevents, "metaphysical" processes,altered states of consciousness, lifeafter life, reincarnation, and the like.He feels that it is "essentially allbeyond us."

As positive goals, he proposed: (1)pulling together all concepts ofphysics, matter, etc.; (2) stop labelingof peoples' viewpoints, divisiveness;(3) increase public awareness and raise

(Continued on next page)Dr. Richard Pinneau

Conference Planning Committee: I. to r., Gayle McBride, Rob Ander-son, Larry Boozer, George Fawcett, Libby Cocchiarella, Ray Rhein (notshown — Bob and Mickey Hair, Jayne Ware, Erline Rhein)

Panel discussion: I. to r., Richard Pinneau, Tom Deuley, Richard Hall,Wayne LaPorte, George Fawcett, Ben Haugen

MULTIPLE WITNESS SIGHTING OF STRUCTURED UFOBy Richard D. Seifried

(MUFON-Ohio State SectionDirector)

(Editorial. Note: Sightings of struc-tured UFOs, especially by multiplewitnesses, are at the core of the UFOmystery. We are indebted to DickSeifried for his investigation, in-cluding signed witness reports on fileat MUFON, and to artist James R.Leming for his renderings of thewitness sketches and the compositecover illustration.)

"I was in the kitchen when my hus-band called... that there was a planeon fire out back. I ran out, and a son,who was working on his car, ran too.A daughter ran out from the livingroom and a younger son camedownstairs..."

The above narrative explains howon an evening in October of 1963,southeast of Millersport, Ohio, fiveindividuals witnessed a UFO hover-ing perhaps 20 feet above the groundand no further away than 100 yards.

Although the sighting had occurredover 19 years ago, it was very ap-parent to my wife and me that therecalling of the event still excited thewitnesses. Unfortunately, Mr. Parkin-son died shortly after the sighting butthe remaining witnesses were quitewilling to testify to the experience. Atthe time of the sighting Glenna was

North Carolina Continued

consciousnesses; (4) probe deeper into"metaphysical" sides of the question,since "reason (intellect) only carries usso far" whereas such things as medita-tion can carry us "beyond mere in-tellect".

Dr. Pinneau also stated thatcounseling and support for "ab-ductees" is far more important thangrilling them for the truth.

A panel discussed his ideas, review-ed crash/retrieval information, andother topics. The conference wascovered by area television news andseveral newspapers. D

50 years old, Gary was 20, Marjorie15, and Jeffrey was 11.

Mr. Parkinson may or may nothave seen the craft come down. Bythe time the others arrived on thescene the object was hovering abovea low spot in a field, which it con-tinued to do for from 5 to 10 minutes.Glenna's (Mrs. Parkinson) descriptionis the most detailed. She related, itwas like two plates, plates or saucerstogether with a cup or large bowl ontop and there was a tall metal anten-nae. I could tell it was metal. It seem-ed to shine. In the area where the twoplates would come together therewere openings, and what appeared tobe flames, short flames out of theseopenings. This area moved. It wasmoving clockwise, very, very slowly.

"There were windows in the toppart that would be where the bowlwas turned upside down. There werewindows in sets of three and theywere not transparent. They weretranslucent..."

Glenna reported that there wererounded objects protruding from thebase of the craft. "They looked likethe bottom of a ball. It looked like,just like these rollers that they haveon big heavy chairs. Sort of a ball-type roller. Only, of course they werehuge."

Because of the lateness of the even-ing, colors were not distinguishablebut the craft was clearly outlined bythe lights of Millersport and the foot-ball field. It appeared clearly outlinedby the natural light, plus lighting fromthe object, to the degree that movingparts could be observed.

Lights from the hovering objectcame from two sources. The windowsemitted light, "Just like a house lightonly brighter. Really brighter," recall-ed Glenna. The flames jetting fromthe center section were "...sort ofyellowish-red." There was a slight

sound coming from the object. Thewitnesses described it as "very lowhum," "whir," and "humming." Gary.recalled a "swish," as it left the area.

Most interesting, three of thewitnesses testified that they saw liv-ing figures behind the windows. Mrs.Marjorie Ankeney, the marrieddaughter, reported, 'It was really ex-citing, because it was so low youcould see shadows moving around onthe inside." Jeffrey recorded, "Therewere human-like shadows movingbehind the milky-clear windows."

Glenna, once again, gave the mostdetailed description, "...for a fewseconds after we first saw it the formappeared. It looked like a humanform. It looked exactly like a humanmoving like it's arms moved, like itwas doing something on the counteror a controls or something in front ofit. You could see the arms move outto the side and back. I could not see aface or anything like that. It just ap-peared to be a human form."

When the object began to leave itrose slowly, made an arc to the left,and then accelerated to a tremendousspeed and was gone. The witnessesspeculated that had it moved awayfrom them at a right angle, it wouldhave appeared to disappear instan-taneously. Fortunately, it movedtoward the northeast at perhaps 30°east of where it had been, so theireyes were able to follow it's trajec-tory.

Gary described the speed as, "ex-ceedingly fast." Marjorie used the ex-pression "extremely fast," and Jeffreyreported, "...all of a sudden it justwent up and then took off faster thanI have ever seen anything move. Itjust practically disappeared, it movedso fast."

Again, Glenna .gave the bestdescription, "...then, just like (snappedher fingers) and it was gone. And in a

(Continued on next page)

11

Multiple, Continued

second, in seemed like, all we couldsee was a tiny red dot in the nor-theast." .

What makes this sighting so in-teresting is that it is not complicated.The father calls out, the witnessesobserve, and the craft leaves. There isno time lapse. They did not have adog so, there is no animal response.,

No one became ill. They did not gointo the field: None of the witnesses'felt fear. Their reaction was the op-posite of fear; they were elated. Jef-frey reported, "We were all excited,hoping it would come close or land sowe could get a better look at it." Ap-parently, after the excitement subsid-ed they continued to lead a very nor-mal life.

The weather was warm, with ex-

.cellent visibility and just a slightbreeze. No clouds were remembered.

What makes the sighting morefascinating is that the family did ex-perience nocturnal lights over alimited time of a few years and in-dividual members were, on two occa-sions, frightened by encounters.These additional incidents are stillunder investigation.

1. GLENNA PARKINSON

2. GARY PARKINSON

O _ O O o O O oO O o

o o d•^Z/

.3. MARJORIE (PARKINSON) ANKENEY

4. JEFFERY PARKINSON

DESCRIPTIONS OF U F O

12

UFO-BIGFOOT UPDATEBy Stan Gordon

(Pennsylvania State Director)

The May issue (No. 171) includedmy article on an incident which in-volved both UFOs and a Bigfoot-likecreature appearing on the same pro-perty. I wrote that article in March ofthis year, and since that time further,investigation by the PennsylvaniaAssociation For the Study of theUnexplained (PASU) as we)l as byother Pittsburgh-area researchers whohave gone to the area of the observa-tions have now found an explanationfor some of the lights that were seennear the crabapple orchard on theSimpson land.

Mark Wojcik an electr icalengineer, and PASU's Director offield investigations, has been to thesighting area on numerous occasionswith other members to interviewthose involved, as well as to observe.Mark saw the lights up by the orchardand said that "They gave the exact ap-pearance of headlights striking anarea of the orchard from a greatdistance." At that time a source forthe headlights couldn't be determinedsince the property was surrounded bya large hill of fields and woods in theback, and woods across the roadwhich run parallel to Route 819. Traf-fic moving along Route 819 wouldhave been the .most likely source forthe headlights, but this was not foundto be the case.

The source o f . the orchard lightswere headlights from cars after all,traveling along a street over Vi-mileaway from the orchard. Across thewoods opposite the Simpson home,another hill rises to approximately thesame elevation as the Simpson home.This hill is obscured from normalobservation from the Simpson homeby the woods across from Route 819.The area being lit up as found.on atopographical map proves to be in arange of 20 to 40 feet higher than theSimpson house and higher than thewoods, making it possible for the car

headlights from the street on the dis-tant hillside to reach the area in ques-tion. This provided a very convincingillusion of trees being lit with nopossible source of light. Sightings ofthe lights were found to be morecommon after the foliage wouldbegin to appear on the trees. Theleaves on the trees seemed to add tothe illumination by casting a shinefrom the light, and the thicker foliagecreated more surface area for the lightto reflect from.

In a recent interview I asked theSimpson's if they felt that this sourcewould explain the many unexplainedlights which they had observed .around their home. They both said"definitely not." They were satisfiedthat some of the lights in the orchardwere indeed reflections, but also feltthat some of the lights they had seenin that area as well as in other sectionsof the property were not the same.

The mystery still remains as to thebright light which appeared over thetop of their home and illuminated theentire dwelling, the daylight observa-tions of bright lights which have beenobserved in other sections of theiryard, as well as the bright illumina-tion of two large walnut trees not farfrom their porch. Also, the afternoonsighting of the object falling from thesky which seemed to have been thestarting point to this ongoing mysterystill remains unexplained.During this June and July, the soundsof the mystery animal are being heardagain. Some skeptical neighbors havenow heard the eerie screaming andare attempting to tape record thesound. A strange chattering sound isalso being heard in the surroundingwooded area, and it has been heard inthe daytime as well as at night. Soeven though some of the lights arenow explained, there still are manyaspects to the entire situation whichremain baffling. We will continue to

follow current incidents at this loca-tion, and hope to find some con-clusive evidence to the continuingmystery.

Other recent incidents still underinvestigation by PASU include thefollowing:

Apollo, Pa. Incidents began afterUFO sighting in 1979, still occurringin May of 1982. Several residentshave reported encounters with .unex-plained hovering lights. Bigfoot-likecreatures, and paranormal ex-periences. There is some indicationthat the appearance of the lights cor-responds with the creatures in thearea. >

Uniontown, Pa., February, 1982.Witnesses in the area have reportedobserving a huge UFO described aslooking similar to the space shuttle orsomewhat triangular, depending onthe angle of observation. The object isestimated to be over 100 feet long,has wings with tiny blue lights alongthe wing structure and the front sec-tion of the object looks like the Con-cord. The most interesting aspect ofthe report was a sketch drawn for usby the initial witness who observedthe craft follow along the tree line,and move over his property at analtitude of approximately 100 feet.The sketch was of an insignia he clear-ly saw on the'bottom of the object. Itis an identical marking to the con-troversial UMMO incidents reportedfrom Spain.'" Fleetwood, Pa., Feb. 24, 1982. Atapproximately 6:25 a.m. a man andhis son going to work observed abright round lighted object movingtoward their car. The object followedseveral hundred feet over the car, andat the time there was an increase instatic on the car radio.

Tunnelton, Pa., February 25, 1982.At approximately 9 p.m. witness was

(Continued on next page)

13

UFO-Bigfoot, Continued

Uniontown, Pa., Feb. 1982

looking out of window for her hus-band to return from work. She notic-ed a bright beam of light in the treesover a hill". The beam was emittingfrom a large round object, about thesize of a large car. There appeared to

, be a dome on top of the round bodywhich was obscured by the brightbeam which actually seemed tooriginate from the dome area and il-luminated the bottom rim of the ob-ject and the ground and surroundingarea. The object was about 100 feetoff the ground according to thewitness, but' investigators feel that

' from the angle of observation it couldhave actually been on the ground orjust above it. The object after about 5minutes rose vertically into the sky,hovered a short time, then flew overthe roof of the witness's home andwent out of sight.

Scottdale, Pa., March 22, 1982. Amotorist on Route 119 reported thatat approximately 9 p.m. a very largetriangle-shaped object making nosound hovered close to his car andfollowed him down the road.

Shenango Twp. near New Castle,Pa., Mar. 23, 1982. At approximately5:15 a.m. an off-duty police officerreported a bright round lighted objectabove the roof of his house. He thennotified another police officer whoalso saw the object when he arrived in

the area. The object then followedthe patrol car down Route 65 hover-ing above the patrol unit. Another of-ficer with a camera was called to thescene, but by the time he arrived theobject was far off and almost out ofsight.

Oakmont, Pa., Mar. 29, 1982. At3:30 p.m. a witness reported observ-ing a bright silver, metallic shiningdisc-shaped object hovering over thearea. Physical description and themovements are not characteristic ofballoon.

North Washington, Pa. (ButlerCounty), Apr. 1, 1982. NumerousUFO reports from many areas ofButler County during April. On April1st, three observers watched what ap-peared to be a red pulsating starhovering over the trees about 1,000feet away. When the headlights wereturned on the jeep that was beingworked on, the light source movedtoward the trio. The light went overthe heads of the observers at ahaltitude of about 250 feet. The brightlight went out, and it was still lightenough outside to see the entire ob-ject. It was described as lookingtriangular from beneath. One witnessalso commented on the similarity insize and shape fo the space shuttle. Itwas, gun-metal gray in color and hadthree colored pulsating lights, one at

each corner. There was a mist with aglitter effect to it, which seemed toemit from the rear of the object andencircle the entire craft. Two smallerglowing lights shot out from the mainobject; one went North, the otherSouth. When a commercial jet beganto approach in the distance from theEast, the object rose straight up intothe sky and went out of sight. The en-tire observation lasted about 45minutes. Two of the witnesses havehad severe headaches since thesighting.

West Sunbury, Pa., Apr. 14, 1982.TWO sky observers watching theplanets through their telescope saw alarge disc-shaped object with 3 lightsalong the back section move acrossthe sky. They had observed manytypes of aircraft previously and saidthe shape and movement was unlikeconventional aircraft.

Derry, Pa., Apr. 21, 1982.Residents reported two bright orangeballs of light hovering over the trees.One of the lights after severalminutes went toward the South anddisappeared, while the other lightwent straight up vertically into thesky and went out of sight. OtherUFO's have been reported recently inthis same area, and other residents

(Continued on next page)

14

CRITIC'S CORNERBy Robert Wanderer

Whenever I meet a hypnotistwho "regresses" subjects into thepast, I ask: How do you know thatthe story you get is "true" and nota creation of the subject's sub-conscious mind, similar to thedreams we all create every night?

Some hypnotists seem to findthis a strange question that hadnever occurred to them before.More often, the hypnotist will talkabout conduc t ing a fewpreliminary sessions before the"regression," to become convincedthat the subject is reasonable andtelling the truth. But even thisanswer does not quite get to theheart of the matter: A hypnotizedsubject can be well-meaning . and"sensible-sounding" and yet beunaware that the story beingrelated is a product of the sub-conscious.

One hypnotist I talked with put

the matter in these terms: She hadregressed people to find lost ob-jects, and they had rememberedunder hypnosis where they hadlost the object. She had regressedpeople in therapy to get throughto some traumatic event that .hadhappened in early childhood, andthey had remembered it underhypnosis and thus overcame whatwas blocking their progress intherapy. So when she regressedpeople who had been shockedwith some sort of UFO experience,and they came up with a story ofbeing "abducted" onto a spaceshipand having the typical adventuresthat "abductees" usually report,she • was sure that their storieswere true. Regressive hypnosisworks, she felt; ' it worked for lostobjects and therapy blocks, sosurely it works for UFO "abduc-tions" too.

But there is a key difference. Inthe lost object problem, hyp-notism relaxed the subject andmade it possible to rememberwhere it was lost; the fact that theobject was recovered is proof ofthe technique. A classic case wasin the bizarre kidnapping of abusload of schoolchildren inCalifornia a few years ago; underhypnosis, a witness remembered alicense number, and the case wassolved.

In the case of the person whosetherapy was at a dead end becauseof a repressed traumatic event thathad happened at the age ofperhaps 4, the "block" was resolv-ed and the therapy could proceed.To be sure, we don't knowwhether the story of the traumadeveloped under hypnosis wasliterally and objectively true, but at

(Continued on next page)

UFO-Bigfoot, Continued

have also reported Bigfoot likecreatures.

Youngstown Ridge (Latrobe) Pa.,May 5, 1982. Witness at approx-imately 8 p.m. observed an object theshape of a child's top with a domeshape on the top. A red pulsatinglight was contained within the domearea. The object appeared to be thesize of a piper cub aircraft and movedslowly at an altitude of about 1,000feet. When first observed the objectwas moving toward the East. It thenhovered for about 30 seconds, revers-ed it's direction of travel and wentover the horizon toward Greensburg.

Pleasant Hills (Pittsburgh suburb).Pa., May 5, 1982. At 11:17 p.m.,police radio networks in the areawere filled with reports of a brightnocturnal light over the area. A pilotwho heard this on his scanner, beingcurious, went outside in his drivewayto look around. He didn't see thebright light, but saw what appeared tobe a solid outline .of the front sectionof a triangular-shaped object moving

very fast from the Northwest towardthe Southwest. It was about the sizeof a Learjet and at the altitude of anaircraft making an approach to the air-port. What amazed the witness wasthe fact that he could look throughthe object and see the bright starsthrough it, as though it weretransparent.

Jeanette, Pa., May 19, 1982. At ap-proximately 9:10 p.m. a man was justcoming in from working in his fieldwhen he noticed what he thought wasa helicopter' going down on a crashcourse over the hill near LincolnHeights._A massive search by StatePolice, fire departments, and Civil Air

, Patrol units, failed to located any signof a downed aircraft. A check withWestmoreland Control Tower as wellas the FAA Flight Service office, in-dicated that there were no aircraft inthe area at the time, and that all air-craft which had filed a flight planwere accounted for. A thunderstormwas just moving into the area at the

time of observation. An interviewwith the witness indicated that themain body of the object was dark butsolid appearing and was the size andshape of a corporate helicopter. Whatcaught his attention were threeseparated windows that were brightlylit from within. He could not see thetail or main rotor section. The objectwas coming down from the sky veryfast at about a 45 degree angle. Theobject appeared to go down behindthe trees, but when it didn't reappearthe witness became worried and toldhis f r i end who not i f ied theauthorities. The object had no strobeor other navigational lights. Otherwitnesses have now reported a similarodd shaped helicopter-type UFOwhich would correspond with thetime of this sighting. A similar objectwas reported in the South Hills areaof Pittsburgh about 11 p.m. this samedate.

Pennsylvania Association for theStudy of the Unexplained, 6 OakhillAve., Greensburg, PA 15601.

15

Critic's Corner, Continuedleast it represented how the per-son fel t , about the problem, andbrought it out for a satisfactoryresolution in therapy.

In the case of the UFO "abduc-tion," however, there is .norecovered object and there isi nodemonstration of improvement intherapy; there is nothing but anexotic, extremely unlikely storywhich the subject, in the intensityof the hypnotic experience,believes to be "really true."

The general problem here, as Isee it, is that we tend to over-simplify our perception o f , theworld around us; we like toclassify an . issue, such as hyp-notism, as being either "good" or"bad," as "right" or "wrong." Buthypnotism offers both advantagesand disadvantages. It's useful forrelaxation, for helping people toreconsider and solve personal pro-blems, for helping people to recallearlier experiences. It's on thismatter of recalling the past that theadvantages of hypnotism begin todissolve into disadvantages, withthe picture distorted by what wewould like to believe. t

People commonly view memoryas a kind of storehouse fromwhich material from years backcan be recovered exactly as ithappened. But psychology pro-fessor Elizabeth Loftus, who hasconducted extensive research andwritten the excellent book Memory,finds that our memory consists offragments that are constantly "be-ing altered, t ransformed, anddistorted," and that hypnosistends to complicate the matter fur-ther by giving people a false con-fidence that the materials they aredeveloping are accurate.1

Distortion of memory throughhypnosis has become recognizedas sufficiently questionable incriminal cases as to constitute abreach of law; one major authorityconsiders use of hypnosis bypolice on a potential witness to be"tantamount to the destruction orfabrication of evidence."2

Hypnosis seems to be useful in br-inging out material from the sub-

16

LETTERSBirth Trauma Hypothesis

Editor,Robert Wanderer (No. 170, April

1982) has written a commendablylucid account of the comparativelycomplex and novel birth trauma (BT)hypothesis. The tentative andsometimes confused comments on thetheory by others .are understandablepending availability, of the long-awaited CUFOS Proceedings. However,I would like to emphasize that the BThypothesis is not limited to hypnotiz-ed CE-III witnesses but applies also.tothe very few non-hypnosis cases in-volving conscious recall. (We have in-vestigated two conscious-recallwitnesses ourselves.) Again, I hopethat informed debate will focus onthe issues: (l) image/event similarityamong the various mental abductionanalogs; and (2) testing of the BThypothesis.

• I , urge , all CE-III researchers toundertake experimental test of the BTtheory. Some guidelines:

• . Determine as precisely as possible thewitness's birth history. Unusual birth condi-tions which could manifest themselves includethe following: cesarean delivery; difficult orprolonged delivery; premature birth; breech orother abnormal positions; forceps-aideddelivery; emergency procedures due to illnessof mother or fetus; umbilical cord problems;amniotic sac problems; maternal psychologicalor physical distress or trauma; maternaldependency on drugs; drugs during delivery;fetal birthmarks; unusual birth conditions —primitive, "natural," Lamazeian, etc.•. Scrutinize the witness's CE-III narrative forechoes of his/her own birth history, particular-ly unusual (and verifiable) perinatal events.

conscious, particularly in helping peo-ple get a clearer idea of how they in-terpret a situation. But as a suremethod to find "objective reality,"hypnosis is so flawed as to be notmerely useless but positivelydangerous.

REFERENCES1. Elizabeth Loftus, Memory (Reading, Mass:Addison-Wesley, 1980).2. Bernard L. Diamond, "Inherent Problems inthe Use of Pretrial Hypnosis on a ProspectiveWitness," California Law Review, V.68:313,1980.

• Look specifically for reported abductiondetails such as extreme head pressure and sud-den relief. These are late-stage birth eventswhich cesarean-bom witnesses could not nor-mally have experienced. Thus if any witnesseswho report such events are cesareans, the BThypothesis would be proved false; if there areno such cesarean abductees. it would be con-

' firmed.

I wish to go on record as sayingthat I am not necessarily wedded tothe BT hypothesis. If the theory isdisproved or other evidence seemspersuasive, fine. However, as welearn more about birth the BT/abduc-tion parallels grow stronger. For ex-ample, recent research has shown thatoxytocin, the hormone which floodsboth mother and fetus as it initiatesbirth contractions, causes amnesia inlaboratory animals — and doubtlessin the fetus as well.* Thus most of usdo have a "missing time" experiencewhich we can recall later; but it iscaused not by a CE-III but by centralevents in a normal birth.

Alvin H. LawsonGarden Grove, Calif.

*Bohus, Bela, el «/., "Oxytocin, Vasopressin,and Memory: Opposite Effects on Consolida-tion and Retrieval Processes," Brain Research,157:414-417, 1978 (quoted in Verny, Thomas,M.D., Secret Life of the Unborn Chilli (SummitBooks, New York, 1981), p. 186).

More BT HypothesisEditor,

The .debate about Prof. AlvinLawson 's b i r th t r a u m a (BT)hypothesis, that people claiming "ab-duction by spacemen" while underhypnosis really are recalling BTevents (No. 172, June 1982), hastaken an interesting turn. WilliamLeet's letter to the editor properlycites conscious recollection cases andpurported physical/physiologicalevidence as those aspects of thereports that Lawson fails to explain. Itis not clear that the physical effectsare validated by police or medicalrecords — as opposed to anecdotal ac-count. If the effects are well attested,then they must be taken into account.

(Continued on next page)

E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL: A REVIEW

. By Brian Parks

In 1977 the genius of StevenSpielberg brought us the mostpositive film about extraterrestrialvisitation to that date. His "Close En-counters of the Third Kind" was aspecial inspiration in the hope thatnon-violent contact with visitingaliens could be accomplished. Withthe aid of technical advisor Dr. J.Allen Hynek, Spielberg gave UFOresearchers many familiar momentson the screen.

Letters, ContinuedThe core of the issue is this:

Lawson's hypothesis apparently isdependent on the assumption that somestartling (UFO?) event triggers the BTmemories. Otherwise, why wouldpeople driving down the highwaysuddenly lapse into an "altered stateof consciousness" and dredge uprepressed imagery of something thathappened to them at birth? There isnot the slightest evidence that anyknown phenomenon abruptly in-duces amnesia, disorientation, and"abduction" reports among typical,normal motorists.1 Given that a UFO or other startlingevent induced BT memories, why didit do so only selectively and not in allor most of the thousands (probably)of startling close encounter "victims?"What is the mechanism that causesseemingly normal people to suddenly"flip out?" Lawson's hypothesis issilent on these critical points.

I offer an alternative hypothesisthat pulls all these threads together:"Abductees" have had real UFO en-counters in which f e t u s - l i k ehumanoid beings have tampered withthem in frightening ways, and theirresemblance to proto-humans is what hastriggered the imagery and dredged upsubconscious memories. , And,perhaps, the shock to the humanmind and the confused imagery (ac-cidentally or deliberately) colors the"victim's" recounting of the event inways that make it difficult to deter-mine what "really" happened.

Hal R. Aid richCollege Park, Md.

This year Spielberg has brought hisvisitors closer to home. Unlike themysterious creatures in Close En-counters, we get a personal look atour visitor E.T., a lonely extrater-restrial botanist who had the misfor-tune of being abandoned in a strange"alien world": The Earth. AlthoughE.T.'s childlike innocence is notaltogether what we would expectfrom a visiting alien, his physical ap-pearance and other characteristics willremind UFO researchers of some im-portant CE-III cases. At least E.T.'scuriosity and fear of a strange newworld is realistic.

We also encounter a group ofscientists who, after carefully sear-ching the spaceship landing site, con-tinue to pursue E.T. to the home of10-year-old Elliot who has hidden himaway from the outside world whichthreatens him. Even though they wishto treat him with care, how could any

STAMP PROGRAM

Contributions of cancelled foreignstamps, which by sale to a collectorare converted into money for interna-tional exchange of UFO information,have been received from numeroussources in recent months, includingHilary Evans, London, England; MilosKrmelj, Yugoslavia; and HenryMcKay, Agincourt, Ontario, Canada.

U.S. contributors include DonBerliner, Alexandria, Va.; Larry W.Bryant, Arlington, Va.; Jerome Clark,Lake Bluff, 111,; Ronald K. Ford, Red-wood Valley, Calif.; Jerold R.Johnson, Austin, Texas; R. Bruce Jor-dan, Monterey, Calif.; Kal Korff,Union City, Calif.; Greg Long,Richland, Wash.; Mrs. F.E. Loso'rnio,Pasadena, Calif.; Dr. Virgilio SanchezOcejo, Miami, Fla.; Tom Taylor,Tempe, Ariz.; and Fred Whiting,Alexandria, Va.

Send cancelled foreign stamps inany quantity to Richard Hall, 441839th St., Brentwood, MD 20722.Unusual commemoratives or nonstan-dard stamps are particularly desired,but all are welcome, from two orthree you happen to have from inter-national correspondence all the wayto large collections.

visiting E.T. feel safe in the hands ofearth scientists?

The film is not about UFOs but isrelated to problems researchers havebeen concerned about since UFOresearch began. E.T. is also adelightful contrast to other alien-related films such as the currentmovie 'The Thing," and shows awelcome change in public attitude.

EDITORIAL NOTES

Due to an unanticipated change ofprinters, which will begin with theAugust issue (now in preparation),some articles and features were drop-ped from this issue. They will appearin the next two issues. Forthcomingarticles include coverage of the 1982MUFON UFO Symposium, possiblereptilian origins of some UFO oc-cupants , strange sightings inWashington State, an update of thedisappearance of Australian pilotFreder ick V a l e n t i c h , and a"re-review" of Dr..Harley Rutledge'sbook.

The Chinese Journal of UFO Researchhas gathered 600 cases of UFOsightings in China that it hopes tohave translated into English and of-fered for sale. To make the publica-tion project feasible, the editors needto know how many readers arepotentially interested in purchasingthe report; the more who subscribe,the cheaper the volume will be toeach person. The volume will containan estimated 60,000-120,000 words,since the cases each will be describedin 100-200 words.

To express your interest, or for fur-ther information, write to Paul Dong,P.O. Box 2011, Oakland, CA 94604.

17

NEW PUBLICATIONS

UFOs... Canada: A GlobalPerspective; Proceedings of the 13thAnnual MUFON UFO Symposium,July 2-4, 1982, Toronto, Ont.,Canada. (Talks/papers by W. Andrus,A. Bray, G & I. Owen, M. Persinger,F. Alzofon, J. Schuessler, D. Haisell,J.A. Hynek, and W. Moore.) 104 pp.,$10 plus $1.50 postage and handling.MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin,TX 78155.

The Andreasson Affair PhaseTwo; The Continuing Investigationof a Woman's Abduction by AlienBeings, by Raymond E. Fowler. Se-quel to The Andreasson Affair, dis-counted and autographed by author.$10 plus $1.00 postage and handling.Raymond E. Fowler, UFO Books, Box19, Wenham, MA 01984.

UFO Crash/Retrievals: Amassingthe Evidence; Status Report No. 3,by Leonard H. Stringfield. Over 50pp. typeset, illus. Privately published.$10 plus $1.00 postage and handling.Leonard H. Stringfield, 4412 GroveAve., Cincinnati, OH 45227.

The UFO Evidence, Richard H.Hall, Ed. Reprint of 1964 NICAP200,000-word documentary report,184 pp. Complete and unalteredxerographic reproduction of original,bound, with new Introduction byRichard Hall and extensive index bySherman J. Larsen. $15 plus $1.00postage and handling in U.S. andCanada, $2.00 elsewhere. Sherman J.Larsen, 2926 Applegate Rd., Glen-view, IL 60025.

Catalogue of UFO Periodicals, byTom Lind. First extensive English-language bibliography of UFOperiodicals (over 1,100 titles of cur-rent arid former newsletters, journals,bulletins, etc.) 280 pp., &Vi x 11 inchformat, plastic binder, $12.50 plus75c postage (orders outside U.S. andCanada add $2.00; Florida residentsadd 5% for total of $13.25). TomLind, P.O. Box 711, Hobe Sound, FL3455.

MUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN, TX 78155

UFO DATA MARTUFO Slides

Box of 96 black and white and col-or 35 mm slides in good condition,available to first person who sendscheck for $25. Other checks will bereturned immediately. George D.Fawcett, 602 Battleground Rd., Lin-colnton, NC 28092.

UFO Tapes

We have large collection of UFOhistory tapes (1950's to 1970's) onreels that we are thinking abouttransferring to cassettes and offeringfor sale, both to raise funds and foreducational purposes. Includeswitness descriptions of significantcases, noted UFO "personalities,"radio and TV broadcasts, Air Forcespokesmen, NICAP press conferencesand statements. We need to know ifthe interest is there. Send post card orletter to Fund for UFO Research, Box277, Mt. Rainier, MD 20712.

Director's Message, Continued

commended for the thoroughness inthis investigation. He has also learnedthat one can be used as a pawn byunscrupulous people in this con-troversial field. Copies of this reportare available from OUFOIL, P.O. Box436, Fairfield, OH 45014. The price is$6.00 per copy including postage andhandling.

Another book which may be of in-terest as an historical event is titled'The House of Lords UFO Debate,"edited by Brinsley le Poer Trench (theEarl of Clancarty). It is a reprint of thefull text of the House of Lords UFODebate, Lord Clancarty's.account ofthe modern developments of govern-ment research into the UFO problemand marginal notes on the issues rais-ed in the debate, contributed by UFOwriter John Michel). The book isavailable by writing to UFODocumentary, 2 Blenheim Crescent,London Wll INN, England for $4.00for single copies plus $1.00 forpostage and packing. A discount is of-fered for multiple copies.

18

Mrs. Cynthia Hind, MUFON Con-tinental Coordinator for Africa, hassent a copy of her new paperbackbook titled UFOs: African Encounterspublished by Gemini, P.O. BoxMP49, Mount Pleasant, Salisbury,Zimbabwe, Africa (see separate note,this issue). This book is a sequel to herarticles in the MUFON UFO journaland her speech at the 1981 MUFONUFO Symposium at M.I.T. in Cam-bridge, Mass. It is recommendedreading for the best investigated UFOcases in Africa. Mrs. Hind may becontacted at P.O. Box 786, Salisbury,Zimbabwe, Africa.

On Sunday, June 13th, The UFOStudy Group of Greater St. Louis con-ducted their UFO Awards Banquet atthe Stegton Restaurant in St. Charles,Mo. Dr. J. Allen Hynek was thefeatured speaker with an astronomicalslide/lecture. Clifford Palmberg gavea short talk on the formation andhistory of the St. Louis study groupand John Schroeder introduced Dr.Hynek. (Both gentlemen are

MUFON State Section Directors).The UFO Study Group of Greater St.Louis was one of the original foun-ding groups when the Mutual UFONetwork was organized. We are ex-tremely proud of this outstandinggroup.

In order to develop the, MUFONinvestigative team in the Portland,Oregon area, Jim Kness, 10030 N.E.Alton, Portland, OR 97220 was pro-vided a list of all members and Journalsubscribers in Oregon so meetingscould be arranged and the Stateorganized into a functional unit. Jim isspecializing in UFO detection devicesand invites others so interested towrite to him and share their designsand schematics. :

The 1982 MUFON UFO Sym-posium Proceedings UFOs...Canada:A Global. Perspective are now availablefrom MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Road,Seguin, TX 78155 U.S.A. for $10.00plus $1.50 for postage and handling.

Lucius Parish

in Others' words

An article in the June 15 issue ofNATIONAL ENQUIRER quotes Dr.R. Leo Sprinkle and Jiles Hamilton (aFlorida hypnotist) as saying thatfriendly beings from other worlds areusing human "transmitters" to sendmessages to Earth. Both researchersclaim to have had "alien voices" speakthrough hypnotized subjects. AnIowa nurse claims to have been ab-ducted by extraterrestrial beings onfour occasions, the' first time at 8years of age, according to a report inthe ENQUIRER'S June 22 issue.

The "Anti-Matter/UFO Update"segment of July OMNI tells of at-torney Peter Gersten's efforts to ob-tain classified UFO files from the CIAand other governmental agencies.There is also a short feature on theUFO Contact Center in Seattle,Washington, which specializes in theinvestigation of contact and abduc-tion claims.

The newsstands are bare thesedays, so far as UFO magazines areconcerned. No one misses the fictionfrom the Pass brothers' SJ. Publica-tions, but it would appear that UFOREPORT has also gone down thedrain. If so, this is unfortunate, asUFO REPORT was the only semi-reliable publication of its type in re:

cent times.The continent of Africa has produc-

ed its share of fascinating UFOreports through the years and an ex-cellent compendium of such cases isnow available in a nicely-producedpaperback, UFOs-AFRICAN EN-COUNTERS. The author, CynthiaHind, will" be • known to manyMUFON members, as she has attend-ed two MUFON Symposiums in re-cent years and her articles have ap-peared in this Journal, as well as inFATE and other U.S. magazines. Shehas traveled extensively in Zimbabwe(where she lives) and generally inSouth Africa, investigating UFO

reports and interviewing witnesses.Her personal comments and evalua-tions of cases make this book morethan just another collection ofsightings. She includes information onseveral close-range observations ofUFQs, including landing traces andoccupant sightings.

The contact story of ElizabethKlarer is examined, as well as anotherlong-running case involving radiocontact with beings who claim to beextraterrestrials. The book is well il-lustrated with photographs and draw-ings, plus a bibliography and index. Itis available for $5.95 (plus 85cpostage & handling) from theAmerican distributor, Arcturus BookService (263 N. Ballston Avenue,Scotia, NY 12302).

If you were intrigued by the themeof George H. Leonard's book,SOMEBODY ELSE IS ON THEMOON, but were not convinced bythe NASA photographs reproducedin the book, here is another one youmight want to check out. Fred Steckl-ing was an associate of the late con-troversial contactee, George Adam-ski, so there will be "scientific resear-chers" who will reject the book forthat reason alone. Big mistake! It isnot what Steckling says, but rather thephotographs which make this book ofinterest. All photos are from theApollo missions or Lunar Orbiters(with a few exceptions) and all areavailable for public inspection. Ap-parently, very few people everbother to inspect them. Steckling'spersonal interpretations of lunarfeatures are open to debate, but ifthese photos have not been retouched(and the author says they have not), itis difficult to see how some of theseformations could be anything but ar-tificial. The title is WE DISCOVEREDALIEN BASES ON THE MOON,available from the author (P.O. Box1722, - Vista, CA 92083) for $9.95.

The latest book from Wendelle C.Stevens is UFO CONTACT FROMUNDERSEA, written with Dr.Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo, a Florida at-torney. It deals largely with the alleg-ed abduction experiences of FilibertoCardenas, who claims to have beentaken aboard an alien craft on two oc-casions in 1979, once accompanied byhis wife. During hypnotic regressionsessions he told of being taken to anunderwater base of the extrater-restrials.

Stevens supplements the Cardenasstory with an account from a Baptistminister in Puerto Rico, who claims tohave been taken to a very similartype of • undersea installation byanother group of aliens^ Additionalreports of UFOs seen entering^andleaving bodies of water are included.The book is nicely produced, withnumerous photos, drawings andmaps. There are some typographicalerrors, but none which seriously af-fect the substance of the narratives. Avery interesting survey of somehighly intriguing cases. Copies are$14.95 (plus $1.25 postage & handl-ing) from UNDERSEA, P.O. Box17206, Tucson, AZ 85731-7206.

NEWS, Millerton, NTApril 1, 1982

At least two local residents reportedsighting unidentified flying objects(UFO) over the general arealast week.Charles "Bud" Hoffman, employed ata surgical instrument plant in Canaan,said he stepped outside a building at1:30 a.m. Thursday morning and saidhis vision was attracted to a very largeblue and white light, moving easterlyat a fast rate of speed. He described theobject as flying at a very low altitude,which necessitated it to climb sharplyto clear nearby mountains. What ap-peared, to be orange exhaust flames, hesaid, could be seen after it passed butno sound was heard.

Another Millerton resident. Mrs.June Sedlak. also reported seeing aUFO as it passed over here. She hasseen three separate objects in the skyover thU area in recent months. —March 30.1967.

19

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE Walt Andrus

The 1982 UFO Summit Con-ference with the theme "UFOs — AGlobal Perspective," held on Mon-day, July 5 at the Westbury Hotel inToronto, Ontario jn conjunction withthe Thirteenth Annual MUFON In-ternational UFO Symposium, was aninspiration and positive evidence thatleaders currently active in UFOlogyrecognize the need for cooperationand pooling their talent andresources.

Hosted by the Mutual UFO Net-work, Inc., the following peoplepresented short papers during themorning session: Walter H. Andrus Jr.(moderator) "Cooperation, Sharingand Establishing Ufology as a Sciencethrough Professionalism in Investiga-tion, and Research"; J. Allen Hynek,•PhD, "The Role that the Center forUFO Studies Will Play.in the GlobalScene"; William L. Moore, "APRO'sPosition with Respect to. Worldwide"Cooperation in Ufology"; Sherman J,Larsen, "NICAP and Its Future Posi-tion in the UFO Field"; Peter Maz:.-zola, 'The Role of the ScientificBureau of Investigation"; DavidHaisell, "Goals and Objectives of theProvisional International Committeefor UFO .Research"; B j a r n eHakansson, "Ufology — WhatNext?" (Project U.R.D.); Paul Nor-man, "How.Cooperation in UFOlogywas accomplished in Australia"; JoanL. Jeffers, "Suggestions for Organiz-ing All Existing UFO Groups Into aNational Organization"; Charles J.Wi lhe lm, "Forensic Ufology";Lawrence J. Fenwick, "RecommendedMethods of Handling Public Rela-tions and the Media"; and KennethMcLean read a prepared statement byR. Leo Sprinkle on their work withcontactees at the University ofWyoming.

Twenty-eight people wrote toMUFON and asked to participate inthe Summit Conference, whileobservers filled the meeting room tocapacity for this very significant allday session. The afternoon program

was devoted to establishing goals andobjectives, clarifying the goals,establishing priorities, specializationof talent within each organization,assignment of projects, and dates forreporting and to whom. Some of thepresented papers will be published infuture issues of the Journal. Your.Director plans to keep everyone ad-vised of the progress and results ofthis conference .via the Journal.

Our congratulations are extendedto MUFON of North Carolina fortheir very successful UFO conferenceat the Nature Science Center inWinston-Salem on June 19 and 20.Henry Morton, MUFON State Direc-tor, served as master-of-ceremoniesand the conference chairperson wasMrs. Gayle McBride, MUFON Assis-tant State Director for NorthCarolina. Richard Hall,. one. .of thespeakers, has prepared an article .forthe Journal covering this prestigiousevent.

Dr. Willy Smith has consented tobe our State Director for Georgia. Dr.Smith resides at 520 Cochran Drive,Norcross, GA 30071; telephone (404)449-7561. Since he reads and speaksfluent Spanish, Willy has correspond-ed with UFOlogists throughout Southand Central America for many years.New State Section Directors assignedare Judith Starchild, Route 1, Box 45,Check, VA 24072; telephone (703)651-8489 for the Virginia counties ofFloyd, Franklin, Patrick, and Carroll;Donald A. Johnson, 728 3rd St.South, Kirklancj., WA 98033;telephone (206) 822-6609 for theWashington counties of King,Snohomish, Island, Kitsap, Whatco,Skagit,. Pierce, and Thurston. Don isalso the Secretary of the newly form-ed MUFON affiliate "Puget SoundAerial Phenomena Research."- Donoriginally joined MUFON in 1973when he was a student at the Univer-sity of Colorado.

Sandra L. Plentz responded to theinvitation in my Director's Messagefor members to volunteer to take a

more active role in leadership and in-vestigation within MUFON. Sandra,a quality control technician, is thenew State Section Director for Berksand Schuylhill counties in Penn-sylvania, and may be contacted at.2240 Reading Ave.r West Lawn, PA19609;. telephone (215). 670-1749.Paul Cerny has appointed Mrs. KarenI Rynberg,. 12862 Cement Hill,'Nevada City, CA 95959; telephone(916) 265-5760 as State Section Direc-tor for Yuba County in California.'Raymond W. Boeche, 828 South 16thStreet,. Apt. 3,. Lincoln, NE 68508;telephone (402) 43.5:1389 hasvolunteered to serve as State SectionDirector for Lancaster, Cass, andOtoe Counties .in Nebraska. Ray-mond, a former associate of Stan Gor-don's in Pennsylvania and a graphicartist, has.a B.A. in Art. . .

Aftef becoming embroiled in thecontroversy surrounding the releaseof photos of an alleged crash of aUFO with its burned pilot inside in apublication titled "Alien Body Photos:An Updated Report" by the Coalitionof. Concerned Ufologists, Charles J.Wilhelm has published a booklet,copyrighted by, the, Ohio UFO In-vestigators League, Inc. 1982, titled"An Investigative Report Into theAlledged Alien Body Photos.".It isbasically an investigation that shouldhave taken place prior to the originalphotos and booklet being released bythe Coalition, since it offers strongevidence that Williard Mclnryre,Director of MARCEN, contrived thewhole affair and could be themysterious source that provided theinformation.

It is a shame that Mr. Wilhelm was ."taken-in" by- Williard. Mclntyre.However, it now appears from .hisown investigation that Charles mayowe Leonard Stringfield an apologyfor .his previous very adverse com-ments. The photo:analysis by BillSpaulding and his colleagues at GSWhas borne fruit. Mr. Wilhelm is to be

(Continued on page 18)