MUFON UFO Journal - 1982 7. July

  • View
    219

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Text of MUFON UFO Journal - 1982 7. July

  • EMUFON UFO JOURNAL

    NUMBER 173 JULY 1982

    Founded 1967 $1.50OFFICIAL 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 GroupPAULCERNY

    Promotion/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 .3

    By 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 ' ' ;
  • Contact, Continuedfollowers 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 "s