20
MUFON UFO JOURNAL NUMBER 199 NOVEMBER 1984 Founded 1967 .OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF $1.50 MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC., RE-ENTRY RE-EXAMINED

MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

MUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 199 NOVEMBER 1984

Founded 1967

.OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF$1.50

MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.,

RE-ENTRY RE-EXAMINED

Page 2: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)

(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.

Seguin, Texas 78155

DENNIS W. STACYEditor

WALTER H. ANDRUS, JR.International Director and

Associate EditorTHOMAS P. DEULEY

Art Director

MILDRED BIESELEContributing Editor

ANN DRUFFELContributing Editor

TED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmcn,

Humanoid Study Group

PAUL CERNYPromotion/Publicity

MARGE CHRISTENSENPublic Relations

REV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOs

LUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publicity

GREG LONGStaff Writer

SIMONE MENDEZStaff Artist

TED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERMedical Cases

LEONARD STRINGFIELDUFO Crash/Retrieval

WALTER N. WEBBAstronomy

NORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLY

DENNIS HAUCKRICHARD H. HALLROBERT V. PRATT

Editor/Publishers Emeritus

The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscr ipt ion rates:$15.00 per year in the U.S.A.; $16.00foreign in U.S. funds. Copyright 1984by the Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin, Texas.POSTMASTER: Send form 3579 toadvise change of address to TheMUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155.

FROM THE EDITORULTRALIGHT UFOS?

Incidentally, we need to be aware and careful of putting all ourdelicate eggs in what may prove to be an even more fragile basket. Irefer specifically to the series of UFO sightings stemming from lowerNew York state, about which we have all heard so much in recentmonths. The "accepted" explanation of said events is that they areattributable to a group of maverick ultralighters who are flying theirvehicles after dark, in formation, and lighted in such a way as toemulate the popular notion of a flying saucer, or UFO.

Despite the fact that such behavior is unlawful, what if it provesto be true? What happens to our carefully reasoned arguments ofobjectivity and public concern then? In short, how often can we call"wolf" a priori to the gathering of all available information and anultimate, perhaps embarrassing resolution of a particular set ofcircumstances?

As long as events warrant, we should pursue the public'seducation about the UFO phenomenon. On the other hand, itbehooves us all to follow a course of moderation as well. Then if aparticular case collapses, it will not seem as if ufology as a wholecomes tumbling down with it. We were here before the sightings insouthern New York state; I trust we will be here after as well.

In this issueMASSACHUSETTS MUFON FORUM, By Walter N. Webb 3RE-ENTRY RE-EXAMINED, By Dan Wright & Harriet Beech 5RADAR/SONAR CONTACT, By Walter N. Webb 7ALCALDE UFO ANALYZED, By Kenneth Ewing & John Warren 11LETTERS 16CARTOON, By Leonard Bruce 18DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE, By Walt Andrus, Jr 20COVER ART By Simone Mendez

The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Tax underSection 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a publiclysupported organization of the type described in Section 509(a)(2). Donorsmay deduct contributions from their Federal income tax. In addition,bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are deductible for Federalestate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions ofSections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the code.

The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, and donot necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contributorsare their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON.Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to published articles maybe in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or in a short article (up to about2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: the article author may reply butwill be allowed half the wordage used in the response; the responder may answer theauthor but will be allowed half the wordage used in the author's reply, etc. Allsubmissions are subject 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 1984 by the Mutual UFO Network, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin,Texas" is included.

Page 3: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

MASSACHUSETTS MUFON FORUMBy WALTER N. WEBB

Despite a gray misty day, nearly.150 persons crowded into theCenterville Community Center inBeverly for Massachusetts MUFON'sfirst all-day UFO Forum on Sunday,August 12, 1984. The 9 AM-4 PM eventattracted MUFON State Directorsfrom nine states including five of the sixNew England states (Connecticut,M a i n e , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , N e wHampshire, and Vermont) as well asMaryland, Michigan, New Jersey, andNew York. The Forum wascoordinated by Massachuset tsMUFON Director Marge Christensen.

Following Marge's openingremarks, moderator Dr. EugeneMallove, MUFON's Consultant, onI n t e r s t e l l a r C o m m u n i c a t i o n s ,introduced the first two of the day's fived is t inguished speakers. BarryGreenwood and Larry Fawcett labeledtheir topic, "UFO Secrecy '84: BigBrother Is Watching Them!" (Theformer delivered the same paper at the1984 MUFON UFO Symposium.)Barry and Larry, of course, are the co-authors of Clear Intent, which alreadyis in its third printing. Both investigatorsare active in Citizens Against UFOSecrecy (CAUS) and in MUFON asAssis tant State Directors forMassachusetts and Connecticut.

BIG BROTHER & UFOS

Barry stated, that governmentUFO documents so far released span a40-year period, from 1942 to 1981.These have yielded a number ofsighting reports from Air Force andmilitary installations where securitypolice and guards witnessed unknownobjects maneuvering over sensitiveareas at very close ranges and belowtreetop level.

Perhaps the most publicized ofthese once-secret reports embracedthe October-November, 1975 wave ofUFO sightings at Air Force bases andinstallations along the U.S.-Canadian

border from Maine to Montana. At onepoint, Barry commented, a securityalert was declared along the full lengthof the northern U.S. border. (So muchdocumentation emerged from thiswave alone that Clear Intent devotedthree chapters to the series ofincidents.)

Evidence was offered that thegovernment investigation of UFOs stillcontinues. For example, a 1976NORAD regulation establishedstandard procedures for reportingunknowns to regional control centers.Barry also referred to a NORAD UFOsighting report form for witnesses to fillout. It was dated "27 October 1977,"which is eight years after the supposedclosing of official government UFOinvestigations!

The speaker concluded by saying:"All we can say for sure is that UFOsare real, unidentified, intelligent, and, atleast in some cases, a potential threat toour national security."

Larry presented to, the audiencetwo former Air Force securitypolicemen, one witnessing the 1980Rendlesham Forest affair in England(No. 188, Oct. 1983, and No. 196, July-Aug. 1984) and the other observing amore distant UFO from the RAFBentwaters base a week later. Eachwitness told his story before theattentive gathering. Of the more than200 personnel reportedly presentduring the close encounter atRendlesham, Larry announced that hehas now located and spoken with nineindividuals involved in the incident.

UFO ABDUCTIONS

Budd Hopkins, noted investigatorof UFO abduction cases and author ofMissing Time, spoke on "What We CanSay We K n o w a b o u t UFOAbductions." To give those assembledthe flavor of a UFO abductee'sexperience, the New York artistplayed a tape from one of his hypnosis

sessions. The subject was "Maxine,"who consciously recalled driving by"hundreds" of paralyzed rabbits on aNebraska road in 1959 andencountering a brillant light followed bya two-hour time lapse. In 1983 she filledin the missing time under hypnosis withan emotional, gut-wrenching account.Tearfully, she asserted that her car wasstopped by three entities in the roadand that she was then abducted.

Budd summarized "things we cansay we know" about UFO kidnapreports:

" 1. Testing procedures appear tohave ruled out both hoaxes andpsychological explanations for anumber of abduction claims.

2. Literally thousands of peoplemay have been abducted as indicatedby Hopkins' own investigations and bythe great number of letters he hasreceived from potential abductees.

3. A physical component to UFOabductions is suggested by thepresence of unexplained incision-likescars and other bodily traces, the recallof physical sensations, the provendisappearance of the victim in somecases, and the logical and tacticalnature of the UFO landing site.

4. A psychic component exists inthe form of witness precognition,ex terna l ly controlled behavior,telepathic contact with the entities, andparanormal aftereffects.

5. "Some kind of interaction withthe abductee's physical body is centralto the purpose of UFO abductions."

6. Occurring in only a few ofBudd's cases, "dialogue with UFOoccupants seems at least a marginalpurpose of UFO abductions."

7. An abductee is probablyunconscious during part of theexperience, and some of the recalledimagery may actually be hallucinatory,perhaps the consequence ofanesthetics employed by the captors.

(continued on following page)

Page 4: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

MUFON, CONTINUED

8. "Amnesia is, at least to someextent, externally caused" and "variesradically from individual to individual,both in its scope and its tenacity."

The investigator mentioned otherpoints common to this type ofencounter: UFO abductions tend tolast one to two hours; "a large numberof abductees will experience more thanone abduction in their lifetimes;" somesubjects report the insertion of tinynasal implants; a number of episodesdescribe the removal of sperm or ovasamples , sugges t ing "geneticexperimentation" as another purposeof abductions; UFO entities seem to be"objectively and scientifically inclinedand generally indifferent to humanemotions; the experience often leavesbehind "the psychologically hurtful"aftereffects, and, Budd added, "that isone of the saddest, and yet mostcertain, things" resulting from suchencounters.

"Something is going on, on a vastscale, that intimately affects thousandsof people," concluded Hopkins, "anintelligent program for interacting withhuman beings, but an interaction thathas yet to reveal its purpose."

TOOLS OF STUDY

The next paper was delivered byMUFON's History Consultant, Dr.David M. Jacobs, author of The UFOControversy in America and AssociateProfessor of History at TempleUniversity. Dr. Jacob's subject was"UFOs and the Problem ofKnowledge."

David pointed out that most of ourknowledge concerning UFOs has beenbased upon human observation with asmattering of physical-trace evidence.The blame for inadequate data restslargely upon the failure of the scientificc o m m u n i t y to cons ide r thephenomenon worthy of study.

Despite this drawback, amateurresearchers are improving their owninvestigative techniques: MUFON'sField Investigator's Manual is available;individuals are conducting betterquality probes into sightings; thepolygraph and hypnosis are beingincreasingly employed as aids in UFO

investigations. But Jacobs also warnedthat the latter two adjuncts also havetheir problems and thus require greatcare in the interpretation of their data.

The speaker presented a capsulehistory of our improving UFOknowledge through the last severaldecades. He credited pr ivateresearchers with gathering massiveevidence on UFO characteristics,effects, humanoids, etc., and withpublishing detailed individual cases andstudies.

As for theories, David expressedhis view that "ETH has stood the test oftime" despite being vigorouslychallenged by the various ultra-terrestrial hypotheses.

Commenting upon abductions, heemphasized that these cases "requireexceptional caution." The witness maybe "telling the truth, lying, or thinkinghe is telling the truth but isn't."Abduction episodes are important, thespeaker declared, because they couldbe "revealing information about entitiesand the intelligence behind UFOs."

CULTURAL CONTEXT

The final lecturer of the day wasCynthia Hind, MUFON's ContinentalCoordinator for Africa and author ofUFOs: African Encounters. Sherepeated her '84 MUFON Symposiumpaper for her New England audience-"Tribal Reactions to UFOs" (No. 196,July-Aug. 1984).

The bush people of Africa, Cynthiareported, have only a limitedknowledge of the Western World. Theyare unaware of UFOs, space flight, orsci-fi. Governed by the spirits of theirancestors, these unsophisticatedobservers "report exactly what theysee," and what they see corresponds, inmany respects, to the unexplainedphenomena pestering other culturesaround the globe. For years, accordingto Mrs. Hind, native Africans havedescribed seeing lights, spheres, andmaneuvering objects that "follow,communicate, and put them intotrance."

She cited a number of cases,some of them comprising bothEuropean and native observers. In a1972 South African episode, afarmhand spotted a bright red ball oflight about 2l/2 feet in diameter hovering

near a farm dam. When the owner ofthe farm appeared, he shouted at theobject which then moved laterally andvanished behind a bush. The ball soonreappeared and began changing colors.After two hours of observation, policewere summoned. As the object movedaway, the farmer and police fired at it,hitting it once. At this point the ballbegan moving up and down andstopped changing colors. It thencontinued into heavy cover where itdisappeared.

In a more recent example, aZimbabwe dairy farm owner and hisworkers watched a blue light behavingstrangely on numerous occasions fromlate 1982 to early 1984. One time they allsaw the light hovering against a distant.hill. Wishing it would come closer, thefarmer said the object seemed torespond, for it abruptly crossed thevalley and stopped within 600 feet of thestartled men. The UFO cast such abrilliant light that the farmer said it hurthis eyes and he was unable to discern ashape. The frightened black workerswere convinced they were watching aghost!

All speakers participated in a paneldiscussion which consisted of a spiritedgive-and-take between themselves andthe audience. It lasted well over anhour. Following the Forum, a privatedinner was held at a nearby restaurantand was attended by 50 of theregistrants.

Massachusetts MUFON hopesthat the one-day event can become anannual affair. In fact, several speakershave already accepted for next year'sForum.

SUPPORTUFO

RESEARCH

MUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN, TX 78155

Page 5: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

RE-ENTRY RE-EXAMINEDBy

DAN WRIGHT and HARRIET BEECH

RE-ENTRY

As a matter of record, at 9:55 PM,Sunday, May 20, 1984, debris from aSoviet launch vehicle, Soyuz T-10, re-entered Earth's atmosphere. Blazing apath across Texas to the northeast, itcaused switchboards across mid-America to light up on this unusuallyclear night.

Most callers described a diffusedcloud of sparks and vapor trails behinda huge fireball in a flat trajectory. Somewitnesses in Michigan remarked on theseveral fragments accompanying themain body. These, they reasoned, musthave been a formation of sorts, smallcrafts ejected from a "mother ship."

A June 17. reponse generated bythe Space Surveillance Center, NorthAmer ican Aerospace DefenseCommand (NORAD), resolved thematter. The launch vehicle had takencosmonauts to the Salyut-7 spacestation, then was deorbited on April 11.

CIGAR SHAPE

Steve Crum had spent Sundayevening at his parents' residence insouthern Eaton County. As he headedhome, his mind was occupied with thestatus of his father's health. Turningwest onto Bellevue Highway, the youngteacher noticed an object descending ata sharp angle in the opposite direction.He assumed this to be a jetliner fromChicago headed for nearby Lansing,given the delta-wing shape.

For perhaps two minutes, hecasually watched it slowly approach tohis left, taking note of its seeminglyoversized appearance, a greaternumber of headlights than expected,and a whitish mist surrounding thecraft. Despite the peculiarities, he didnot believe at this point that he wasviewing anything extraordinary.

Half a mile away now, the objectleveled off at an estimated thousandfeet and "transformed into a cigar

shape." The unusual misty substancecontinued to envelop it with a nearlyglowing qual i ty through whichnumerous points of light were visible.

Steve looked in his. rearviewmirror and saw that three or four carsbehind his own were slowing. Thisconfirmation that others wereobserving the oddity was reassuring.Then the most striking aspect of theevent occurred. "All of a sudden, it justshot out and it was gone." He describedthe accelerative effect as "infinitelyfaster," emphasizing that the craft,while continuing on a level courseeastward, was out of sight in less than asecond. He looked at his watch, whichread 9:55. Quickly, he turned onto aroad heading north and scanned theentire eastern horizon but saw nothingmore.

GIANT TRIANGLE

Butch Fuller and Bob Fowler wereout testing the Fullers' new car, drivingin the countryside of southern InghamCounty some ten miles away. As thetwo were starting for home sometimearound 10 PM, they noticed two brightlights descending and approachingfrom the west. Assuming them to beaircraft headlights, they wonderedaloud whether a plane was in trouble.

The object appeared to slow to lessthan traffic speed, crossing the roadtwo hundred yards or so ahead of themat what they estimated to be a fewhundred feet above the ground. As thegiant vehicle glided over the roadway,Butch turned off the radio, rolled downhis window and stuck his head out, buthe heard nothing.

They later described the craft aslikened to a triangle, with a wingspan offootball field proportions and, from itsnose to the rear, about four times thewidth of the two-lane road. The edges ofthe vehicle were rounded. Its finish wasa "battleship grey" that reflected thelights somewhat. No mist was

identifiable.Bob urged Butch to "step on it!"

While they raced toward the scene,though, the lights seemed to fade out.This, they agreed, may have beenbecause the lights were pointingforward and seemed to be recessed likea ship's portholes. As the objectcrossed their path, then, the lightswould appear to have beenextinguished. The men insist that theobject should nevertheless haveremained visible as a dark mass againstthe sky, but when they reached aclearing only seconds later, it was notwithin view. Despite their brief searchof the area, they did not sight thevehicle again.

Later, on the eleven o'clock news,they heard mention of reportedsightings of a high-flying object with asparkler effect (i.e. the spacecraftdebris). What they observed, the menare convinced, was not at all associatedwith any re-entry.

BEAUTY OR BEAST?

Shirley Sturgis and Melody Hoerlhad spent their Sunday shopping andattending a movie in Kalamazoo. At afew minutes after ten, Shirley turnedonto Constantine Road, a few milesfrom Three Rivers near the Indianaborder.

Not yet up to highway speed, thetrees on their left cleared away for arailroad crossing. At that moment, theywitnessed what they instantlydiscerned to be an aerial phenomenon.Hovering just over a tangle of scrubtrees was an elongated object, taperedat either end and shrouded in a silverywhite mist. Behind the nearly opaquecamouflage, a line of steady green androse-colored lights shone along thebase. The extreme upper portion wassomewhat more clearly visible, atapering silver outline. The cloudlike

(continued on next page)

Page 6: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

RE-ENTRY, CONTINUED

covering encompassed the entirelength of the object and beyond, someforty yards or more, and seemed toprevent the surface lights from castingonto the trees immediately below.

Shirley slammed on the brakes atfirst glance of the strange vehicle. Sherolled down her window but heardnothing, leaving the engine running andheadlights on (with no effect to either).She was elated to witness "one of themost beautiful things I've ever seen".

Melody, by contrast, was greatlyagitated. For the next few moments,

while they gawked at the spectacle onlythirty yards away, she arguedvehemently that they must leave: "Itwas coming down very, very slowly,almost like a slow-motion sidewaysmovement....and I just felt like we had achoice. We could stay and hope that itwouldn't stall the Bronco out, or wecould get out of there. And Shirley wasall enthused and ready to get out andmeet this thing, and I kept saying, 'Iwant to leave; I'm scared. I really wantto go.'" Having been exposed to mediaaccounts of ,E-M effects, physicalabductions and consequent traumas,Melody wanted no part of what might

be in the offering.Shirley reluctantly started to move

the truck forward, then halted againalmost immediately as they reached thecrossing stopsign. They were a scantsixty feet from the craft as it continuedto "creep" toward them, protruding'now from the line of trees.

Nea r ly hyster ical , Melodyscreamed at Shirley to leave. Thoughfascinated by the sight, for the sake ofher friend Shirley crossed over thetracks and continued down the road forperhaps half a mile. While the secondspassed, she noted a more conciliatorytone in Melody's reactions and sosuddenly turned the truck around,racing back to the scene. But theobject was nowhere to be found.

When they arrived at Shirley'shome, they were made aware of thesighting by Shirley's son and daughter-in-law, who were among the many thathad -mistaken the re-entry asanomalous. They maintain that whatthey saw was extremely close at handand of an unconventional nature.

COINCIDENCE OR CUNNING?

Amid hundreds of reportsmisidentifying a re-entry vehicle, thesefive people, the authors are convinced,confronted something genuinelyanomalous. Each learned of the re-entry afterward, yet all insist that theyhad witnessed an entirely different craftthat exhibited flight characteristicsbeyond present-day technology.

In light of the obvious correlationsof these accounts and the astuteobservations of credible witnesses, wewish to speculate: Is it reasonable thatintelligent visitors would have thetechnological capacity to monitordecaying orbits of space vehicles andpredict their moment of re-entry? If so,would these visitors have thesociological insight to realize that, inlight of a known event such as a satellitere-entry, separate UFO reports areunlikely to be given credence? If this isalso correct, might such simultaneousoccurrences become a modus operandiof sorts as the several hundredinoperative satellites now in orbit fallback through the atmosphere withincreasing frequency? •

Page 7: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

RADAR/SONAR

CONTACTBy WALTER N. WEBB

BACKGROUNDA longtime friend and coworker of

mine at Boston's Museum of Science isValerie Wilcox of Aubarndale,Massachusetts. During a telephoneconversation with me on July 27,1984,Val commented that an Englishacquaintance recently mentioned aUFO experience that he had while hewas in the Royal Navy. He told her hewas present when an unidentified targetwas picked up on his ship's radar andthen tracked by sonar after it enteredthe water! Part of the log referring tothis event was alleged to have beenconfiscated. Val offered to have us bothcome to dinner some evening in lateAugust or early September so that Icould question the individual about hisexperience.

The following report resulted frominterviews with the witness at Val'shouse on September 6,1984, and at hisplace, of business on September 12 (afollow-up interview). Since he wassworn to secrecy at the time of theincident and still is a British citizen, theobserver requested that I not tape ourinterviews nor use his name or thename of his ship in this report. He alsodeclined to fill out MUFON Form 9(Radar Cases) due to the classifiednature of the instrumentation.However, I was permitted to takenotes.

In the 21% years since this amazingepisode occurred, I was told I was thefirst person to hear the complete story.Val and the observer's wife were theonly others told anything about theincident (his wife learned about it onlytwo years ago). The wintess proved tobe very cooperative, congenial, andquite credible in my opinion. He is 41years old, has been married seven yearsto an American wife, and lives andworks in Newton. His name, address,

—ILLUSTRATIONS BY BRUCE LEONARD

and occupation are on file. I haveassigned the witness the pseudonym"Tom Preston."

THE SIGHTING

It was late February (possibly the28th), 1963, and a contingent of theRoyal Navy's North Atlantic Fleet hadbeen participating in exercises offNorway for about three days. Part ofthis contingent of approximately tenships included Tim Preston's frigate (adestroyer escort).

Preston, a 20-year-old lieutenanttrained in navigation and radar-sonaroperations (over 12 months of radarexperience), was on the early morningwatch (2400 to 0750 hours) in thedarkened radar-sonar room. Second incommand of this facility, Tomhappened to be in charge of the shift atthe time of the UFO incident. Besideshimself, other personnel in the roomcomprised three radarscope operatorsand two sonar operators. The seniorofficer was not present.

The witness believes his frigatewas cruising approximately northeastbetween Spitsbergen and Norway,some 30 to 50 miles off the northernNorwegian coast. On a map he placedhis position at roughly 71° north latitudeand 20° east longitude in the NorwegianSea. Thinking back to that morning, theobserver recalled that the sky was clearexcept for scattered clouds; the seaswere probably running three to fivefeet; and winds were probably blowingat Beaufort Force 2 (3.5 to 6 knots, or 4to 7 miles per hour, a slight breeze).

Each of the three radarscopes inthe room displayed a different heightlevel in the atmosphere. Atapproximately 0315 hours, Prestonrecalled, a stationary "bleep" appearedabruptly on the highest-level scope.The target's vertical height wasapproximately 35,000 feet, and it waslocated somewhat west of the zenith(overhead point) at perhaps 70°elevation. The bleep indicated a

(continued on next page)

Page 8: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

RADAR/SONAR, CONTINUED

seemingly hard solid object giving off astrong reflection; the size of the targeton the screen, according to thewitness's best recollection, implied anactual diameter or length for the objectof between that of a jet fighter and a 707--in other words, said Preston, roughly100 to 120 feet across.

SUDDEN APPEARANCE

One of the strange things aboutthis u n k n o w n target was thesuddenness of its appearance: Onemoment the screen was empty; thenext moment the target was there. If itin fact represented a genuine reflectionfrom a real object at the indicated

.altitude, the object would have had tohave entered the radar, field atunbelievable speed, either horizontallyor vertically, and then stopped instantlywithout any deceleration. When I askedabout the possibility of anomalouspropagation creating a false target, theobserver said no unusual atmosphericconditions existed at the time thatmight have caused A.P.

Tom stated that he went out ondeck a number of times during theobservation and peered upwardthrough binoculars in attempts to spotthe UFO against the night sky. He wasunsuccessful, however, in spotting theobject visually. (A visual confirmationalso eluded others in the fleet so far asPreston was able to determine later.)

After a few minutes, Tom notifiedhis senior officer who came into theradar room, looked at the target on thescope, and then withdrew. The officerproceeded to radio the nearest ship tolearn if it also "painted" the same target.It did. Thus, a radar set malfunction wasruled out. (Tom's conversations withradar operators aboard other shipsfollowing the episode determined thatthey had the unknown on their screensas well.)

When an attempted radio contactwith the unexplained source failed toelicit any response, the fleet's flagshipwas contacted and an ordersubsequently issued to all ships toexecute an evasive maneuver, basicallya "Z" pattern. Preston said the UFOappeared to follow the maneuver,

8

remaining overhead at its originalaltitude and holding the same relativeposition on the radarscope.

JET SCRAMBLE

At this juncture, according to thewitness, a call went out for fighterassistance in making an identificationintercept. Within minutes, Tom heardthe sound of jets through the opendoor, and he could see the bleeps of twoaircraft on* the scope racing from thesouthwest toward the unidentifiedimage. (He believes the aircraft musthave been English Electric Lightnings,the RAF's fastest fighters in the early1960s.)

The observer recalled that whenthe jets came within about 10 to 15 milesof the unknown, the UFO suddenlyperformed a steep angular descent atincredible speed, crossing all threeradar screens as it descended andpassing completely below the radarhorizon (750 to 1,000 feet height)-allwithin about two or three seconds! Theobject's path crossed the ship's bowfrom port to starboard.

SONAR CONTACT

As the target descended, the twosonar operators aimed their pulses inthe general direction of the droppingobject. Almost immediately (in a matterof seconds) following loss of radarcontact, both sonar operators receivedaudible "pings," indicating a strongecho from a fast-moving submergedtarget at a range of probably 20,000yards (roughly 10 miles).

(Sonar is the underwate rcounterpart of radar, only the formeremploys sound waves rather than radiowaves. The distance to the submergedobject can be found from the time takenfor the waves to travel to the object andback to the ship, knowing the velocityof acoustical sound waves through seawater. Tom explained that sonar'susually limited range was extended inthis case by means of a classifiedprocedure.)

The underwater target appearedto be traveling in the same generalazimuth and at the same descent angle(at least initially) as the airborne object,implying that the two unknowns were

one and the same! The target's speedwas considerably reduced, "down tohundreds of miles per hour" but "stillmoving damn fast," remarked Preston,and it was now moving along a zigzagpath away from the ship. Sonar firstpicked up the target at its upwardhorizon, perhaps 50 feet below theocean surface, and continued toregister an echo from the object as itdropped rapidly into deep water (thewitness claims that the depth in thisarea should have been "no more than2,000 feet"). Sonar contact with theunidentified object suddenly ceasedafter .an indeterminate period of nomore than two or three minutes. Theabrupt cessation of the echo might havesimply indicated that the objectdropped behind a rise in the uneven seabottom.

Tom's frigate had begun steamingtoward the target's entry point a flankspeed and probably arrived at the spotin about 20 minutes. A visual and sonarsearch over the entry point, however,yielded nothing. No further contact of

(continued on next page)

Page 9: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

RADAR/SONAR, CONTINUED

any kind was made with the submergedobject.

When asked to estimate the totalduration of the entire radar-sonarobservation, the witness said he wasuncertain owing to the length of timethat had elapsed since the event. But hecame up with "five or six minutesalthough it could have been a lotlonger." In fact, if one considers all theelements of time involved throughoutthe espisode--the initial radarobservation prior to notification of thesenior officer, the subsequent ship-to-ship communications, the attemptedradio contact with the target, theevasive maneuver of the fleet, thearrival of the jets, and the sonarcontact-it would appear that a durationon the order of at least 15 to 20 minuteswould have been more reasonable.

SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

After Tom witnessed the seniorofficer enter the UFO observations inthe radar log book, their shift ended.Radar room personnel on the earlymorning watch ate breakfast and thenturned in..Probably sometime between1200 and 1300, Tom said he wasawakened and ordered to report to theward room, along with the five radarand sonar operators on his shift thatmorning. There was a little grumbling athaving their "sack time" interrupted.Awaiting the men in the ward roomwere their senior officer and thecommander of the ship. All sat downaround a table over coffee.

The senior officer proceeded to goover the events of that morning, askingquestions about the radar-sonarobservations. He told the six men thattheir conversations were being tapedand explained that until more wasknown about the unknown target, theywere to remain silent about what theyhad seen. "Gentlemen," the officersaid, "we will rememberthat we have allsigned the Official Secrets Act (orwords to that effect)." Although therewere no threats, the implication wasclear that to divulge anything to anyoneconcerning the tracking of the UFOwould be considered a breach ofsecurity.

I asked Tom if the meeting mighthave been part of a general ordercarried out on other ships in the fleet aswell in connection with the UFOincident. He responded that he didn'tknow if it was or not.

The witness recollected that hewas in the ward room about 10 minutes.He said he never heard anything furtherabout the unknown target.

When Preston came on duty onceagain at 2400 hours, he said he wassurprised to discover that a "spankingnew book" had replaced the radar logused the previous morning.

20 YEAR SECRET

Tom obeyed his senior officer'sinstructions to the letter and neverrevealed to anyone what happened onthe British frigate that morning in 1963until just two years ago. Preston and hiswife happened to be watching Nova'sinfamous "The Case of the UFO" inOctober, 1982. Immediately after thePBS program had ended, Tom turnedto his wife and told her he hadparticipated in a UFO sighting while inthe Royal Navy. He remembered thathe didn't go into much detail and neverreferred to the experience again untilthe observation with Val in July, 1984.

What did he think the object was?"I have no idea," Tom replied simply.He added that whatever it was, "it wasguided." The witness emphasized thatboth the radar and sonar targetsconsisted of crisp, hard reflections, not"ghost" echoes. The radar target, hestressed, was "absolutely not" anaircraft, balloon, bird, or false weathertarget. Nor could it have been a radarset malfunction since operators onother ships had the same target on theirscreens.

EVALUATION

As far as I am personally aware,this case is totally unique in the historyof UFO reports. It is the first knowncombined radar-sonar contact of aUFO. With perhaps a single exception,it is also the first known sonar-trackingof a USO (Unidentified SubmarineObject), UFOs reportedly seenentering, passing through, or exitingbodies of water. The most significant

UFO accounts involve objectsobserved entering and/or leavingwater. Sightings of many unidentifiedobjects remaining underwaterthroughout the entire observation mayin fact be due to the activity of foreignsubmarines as well as to biolurriines-cent phenomena (the mysterious"wheels of light").

The only other publicized USOsonar contact that this investigatorcould uncover turns out to be not muchmore than an unsubstantiated rumorrelated in the late Ivan T. Sanderson'sInvisible Residents (New York: TheWorld Publishing Company, 1970;Avon Books, 1973). Citing MartinCaidin's Hydrospace (New York; E.P.Dutton & Co., 1964) and Ed Hyde'sarticle "U.F.O.'s-At 4500 Fathoms!,"Man's Illustrated (Mar. 1966) as two ofhis sources, Sanderson pooled thevarious versions of the story and cameup with a composite account which canbe summarized as follows:

Sometime in 1963 (the same yearas the Preston episode) the U.S. Navywas conduct ing an t i submar ineexercises off Puerto Rico. The craftincluded five smaller naval vessels,submarines, aircraft (at least onetowing a dunking or dipping sonarbelow the ocean surface), and possiblythe carrier Wasp serving as thecommand ship.

HIGH-SPEED USO

A sonar operator aboard adestroyer reported that one of the subssuddenly commenced pursuit of anunknown submerged object that wasmoving at "over 150 knots" (170-plusmiles per hour!). According to mostaccounts, similar sonar reports of ahigh-speed object began coming in fromall of the other ships and from thesonar- t rai l ing a i rc ra f t . One ofSanderson's sources stated that no lessthan 13 craft recorded in their logs thattheir sonars had tracked this object.Allegedly, the unknown targetcontinued to be tracked for four days asit maneuvered down to depths of 27,000feet! (This must have been in thevicinity of the Atlantic's deepest point ~28,374 feet below sea level-in the

(continued on next page)

Page 10: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

RADAR/SONAR, CONTINUED

Puerto Rico Trench.)If the above story is true, nothing of

known earthly origin can travelunderwater at such speeds ormaneuver at such depths. The fastestnuclear subs can attain 45 knots (52miles per hour) and dive to around3,000 feet. The bathyscape Trieste,with a specially constructed pressure-resistant hull, descended to a record35,820 feet in 1960. However, it wasincapable of maneuvering about.

It is unfortunate that more than 21years elapsed before the Preston casereached the attention of a UFOinvestigator. We have here yet anotherexample of government UFO secrecyat work-this time a foreign nation,Great Britain. Largely due to hisa p p r e h e n s i o n over p o t e n t i a lrepercussions if he revealed hisexperience, Tom felt compelled to keephis knowledge of the event to himself.Since it hadn't occurred to him at thetime that the radar log notes would beremoved, he had only his memory torely upon during our interviews. Heexpressed uncertainty about some ofthe details and about his exact locationoff the coast of Norway. Nevertheless,the gist of what took place seems quiteclear.

If we assume that the observer'srecollections are approximately correctregarding the UFO's 35,000-footvertical height, 70° elevation angle^three-second descent, and approxi-mate 10-mile-distant entry point, thenwe can infer that the object's 30°descent path covered 14 miles at aspeed of about 17,000 miles per hour-inthe neighborhood of a slow meteor'sveolocity!

ANOMALOUS PROPAGATION

The radar target apparently wasnot confirmed visually. This situationwould ordinarily lead one to believeanomalous propagation might beresponsible. AP arises when abnormalatmospheric conditions interfere withthe normal propagation of radar waves,causing a display of false targets inplaces and at altitudes where nophysical object should appear. Forexample, superrefractive layers in the10

atmosphere may bend radar beams atsuch an angle that they pick up distantsurface or airborne targets below thehorizon and make them appear atelevated locations on the radarscope.Nothing would be evident to the nakedeye in the sky.

Nevertheless, according to thewitness, none of the conditions thatmight lead to AP were in fact present atthe time.

But there are other argumentsagainst anomalous propagation andnatural phenomena in general being thecause of the radar-sonar targets. Was itjust a coincidence that the targetsuddenly darted away at the momentthe jets approached after havingremained stationary for quite possiblysome 10 or 15 minutes? Was it acoincidence that an unidentified, high-speed sonar target, appeared in thesame direction of the airborne target'spoint of disappearance below theradar horizon and within seconds ofloss of radar contact? What sort ofairborne natural phenomenon cansuddenly submerge and maneuveralmost equally well through a waterenvironment?

EVASIVE ACTION

The image on radar gave all theoutward appearances of reacting to thejets' approach and then successfullye luding f u r t h e r detection bysubmerging in the ocean and eventuallyretreating from view. Another exampleof apparent intelligent behavior: Thetarget appeared to follow the fleet'sevasive "Z" maneuver.

Owing to (1) the lengthy passage ofmore than two decades since theexperience occurred and the resultantdiminished accuracy of remembereddetails, (2) the unavailability of writtendata or records concerning theinst rumented readings, (3) theavailability of only a single witness, and(4) the lack of visual confirmation, Imight ordinarily have listed thisreported experience as "simply" an"unknown."

But because of the credibility of thewitness and the report's unique andpotentially important nature as acombined radar-sonar UFO contact, Ihave elected to upgrade the status of

this report to that of "significantunknown."

IVIUFON

"ALL THE NEWS"

As most of you are probablyaware, journalistic standards in thiscountry are set by The New YorkTimes. Indeed, the paper's front-pagelogo reads "All the News That's Fit toPrint," as if the Times were the solearbiter in the land of what constitutes"news" and what does not. Too oftenthat judgment has weighed against thereporting of UFO sightings and relatedanomalous phenomena.

Subtle signs are afloat, however,that the rigid editorial policy of theTimes may be undergoing a change. Inlate August, for example, the paragonof the eastern press yielded to whatmust have been the pressure of localevents and reported on the hundreds ofsightings of a huge, triangle-shapedUFO which had been plaguing lowerNew York state and westernConnecticut for several months. InSeptember of this year the subject evenmade the editorial pages in an article bySydney Schanberg, "Must We IdentifyUFOs?" The author concluded, if I readcorrectly, that UFOs are a sort ofhealthy mystery and need not bebrushed aside surreptitiously nornecessarily explained away altogether.

Other recent developments havealso been encouraging, including thecontinuing Times coverage of reportsof "Chessie," an elusive, perhapspreviously unknown sea creature seenswimming Chesapeake Bay, and anarticle which appeared in theprestigious Tuesday "Science Times"section about the "wildmen" of China.

We've known all along UFOs andother anomalies were worth reporting.Thanks to the Times, the rest of thecountry may soon realize it, too.

-EDITOR

Page 11: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

ALCALDE UFO ANALYZEDBy KENNETH EWING and JOHN WARREN

SUMMARY

' Mel Medina of Alcalde, NM,reported to the state police and the RioGrande Sun newspaper having seenbright lights and a strange-shapedobject from approximately 7:05 to 7:30PM MST, April 24, 1984. The objectwas nearly stationary from 7:10 toabout 7:25 in the direction northeast byeast. At that time it started to movefrom left to right in front of him and thenturned east toward Truchas Peak.Eventually it disappeared from view.Upon f u r t h e r investigation weuncovered 16 other groups ofwitnesses, whose stories more or lessconfirmed Medina's story. We wereable to obtain radar data from the FAAthrough the Freedom of InformationAct, which contained the tracks of 22identifiable commercial or privateflights near the area the object was seenduring the time from 7:00 to 8:00 PMMST. In addition, a military craftentered the area from the east at 7:25,turned south, then back east and wasout of the area by 7:30. It was laterdetermined to be a KC-135 aerialtanker on a refueling mission, whoserendezvous point was northwest of LasVegas, NM. The KC-135 is the size of aBoeing 707 and according to an FAAmilitary liaison officer is usually "lit uplike a Christmas tree" when making arendezvous. The radar data indicatedthat it remained at its assigned altitudebetween 22,000 and 24,000 feet, butthat it slowed down from 360 MPH to185 MPH as it turned back east.

We believe that this military craftcan account for many of the eyewitnessaccounts, but not all. It is difficult tounderstand how Medina could haveobserved the craft for 15 minutesbefore it crossed the Sangre de Christomountains and entered the EspanolaValley. Almost all observers estimatedthe object's size as substantially largerthan a commercial airliner. Medinaobserved the object through

binoculars, but could not see any wings.As with so many cases of this type

(lights in the sky) we will never know forsure if there was a large unidentifiedobject there that evening, which wasinvisible to radar, or if the large numberof witnesses who saw the object weresimply unable to recognize the KC-135in the dim twilight or judge accuratelythe size of the object.

We learned many interestingthings during the course of theinvestigation, which will be recordedhere for future use of our localorganization. Some of these items mayalso be of use to investigatorselsewhere. The next two sections willdiscuss the eyewitness reports and theradar data. Following this- will be adiscussion of what the object was NOT.We then make our analysis of thesightings in terms of the KC-135explanation. We learned a few thingsabout investigating techniques whichwe have recorded in a separate section.The final section acknowledges helpwe received from many sources.

EYEWITNESS REPORTS

The firsthand observers discussedin this report represent a cross-sectionof the Hispanic population in northernNew Mexico. Their educational levelvaried from highschool or less toMasters level college degrees. TheirEnglish language proficiency variedfrom excellent to minimal, in thesituation where Spanish was theirdominant language. Some observerswere long term businessmen in theircommunities or they simply work there,while others commuted from theirrespective towns to various jobs in LosAlamos County (location of the LosAlamos National Laboratory).

There were 17 independent groupsranging from 1 to 4 persons for a total of34 people (27 male and 7 female). Manywere interested in talking to us, butmany others did not want to be

associated in any way with UFOs. Weare not using names beause manypeople want no publicity. We have notasked permission of the others. Thenames themselves have no publicrecognition value outside their owntowns. We believe the statistics of theobservations are most important. Weinterviewed a member of each of the 17groups either in person or bytelephone.

The eyewitness data aresummarized in Table I. Of our 17groups, 7 people could give angularsize; 11 people gave elevation. Almosteveryone could give direction orcompass bearing. Five people gaveboth angular size and elevation. Manyor most people do not think in terms ofangular measurements. They said itwas "big as a house," etc. We tried toget them to think of a finger at arm'slength or something similar. Within theaccuracy of our data, a finger at arm'slength is about 1.5 degrees or 3 fullmoons. A fist at arm's length is about 7.5degrees. Angular measurement is theonly meaningful number. One cannotestimate size unless one knowsdistance. We planned to get thesedistances by triangulation. Distanceestimates by witnesses can be verydeceptive.

Compass bearing was obtained byasking the individual to face in thedirection of the phenomenon and point.We all carried magnetic compasses.

Elevation is a bit more difficult.Pointing can be off by a factor of 2 or 3.We had a protractor with a plumb lineand by sighting one can obtain an angle.We would ask people to think in termsof draftman's triangles which easily give30, 45, and 60 degrees. Most peopleunderstand that. The object was seenfrom Medanales and Truchas andChimayo at least 15 miles and possibly20 miles apart. Figure 1 shows a map ofthe area with an estimated trajectory

(continued on next page)11

Page 12: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

To TaosCa BolsE

Rio GrandeRiver

S Charaa River

iMedanalesToVChan

and1

Tierra*Ararilla\

Estimated Trajectory*

- fr"ora Eyewitness TeporV Penls^o^

Lvelarde

MountainousArea

(To Chaconand Mora

To OjoCaliente

Empty BarrenCountry Side

? i 2 8 <

ispanola UFO#2J

I 7 i l 5

-7>19

• TruchasVillage

I

Scale in Kiles10

J15

iPojoaque

BridgeTo Tesuqueand Santa Fe

> i 0 2UFO#1

Path of KC-135Military Jet

Sangre

Truchas Peak

—- ch

-|- Pecos Baldy

i8tO

Ktns.

ALCALDE, CONTINUED

based on eyewitness observations.Based on these distance and angularsize estimates, we calculated the size ofthe object in feet, shown in Table II. Wecalculated a minimum size of about1000 feet. The maximum numberseems too large to be worth considering— about a mile in size.

Another difficulty we had was inestablishing clock time estimatesneeded to establish a space-timetrajectory. Rural communities, ingeneral, are not as tied to a clock asthose of us in more urban areas. Weknow that something very large passedover part of northern New Mexico onthe night of April 24 (Tuesday),between 7 and 8 PM MST with most ofthe observations at about 7:30. Wecannot be more accurate.

Figure 1. Map of the 17 separate eyewitnesssightings of the April 24, 1984, UFO in theEspanola valley. Also shown are paths of theKC-135 aircaft and 5 other unidentified radartrajectories occurring during the timeinterval from 7:00 to 7:30 PM.

RADAR DATA

Through experience with searchand rescue operations, we were awarethat the Federal Aviation Administra-tion (FAA) radar covers our area.Computerized data output are kept onmagnetic tape for 15 days and may beobtained by private citizens under theFreedom of Information Act for thecost of producing computer listings. Ittakes about three weeks to get the data.

We have one hour's worth of radartraces encompassing the event. Duringthat period 22 flights of aircraftcontaining transponders passed overthe area of interest. These are probablymostly commercial flights. They were atan altitude of about 30,000 feet or 4 or 5miles above the surface. One of the

tracks was a military plane and as welater found out by telephone from theFAA in Albuquerque, it was a KC-135 ona refueling mission from an airport atAmarillo, Texas. The KC-135 was at analtitude of about 22,000 feet above sealevel. The plane slowed down whileturning around Truchas from 375 mphto 185 mph. The plane was lit up forrendezvous purposes. The radar traceshowed the plane came in from theeast, turned around the town ofTruchas to the west and was at a slantdistance of about three miles from thewitnesses at Truchas and then left at abearing of about 100 degrees. We weretold that it was to rendezvous withanother plane near Las Vegas, NM.The circuit took less than five minuteson our radar trace. The time of thisoccurrence was about 7:25 to 7:30 PMEST. The path was at the height of our

(continued on next page)

12

Page 13: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

I «ltl»t U*.IM• IK ntl. I4»S Ht» •/!«'•« Ml1 OMilhi 444.4J9 U41II » II«MI

IMM IKMI ••!! 1*11 •!• •!•• *U«K« M HOI »«•! M«UCCM)t MUl

411.111414.141•It.Ill4f».94l411.1114n.ui414.1114I4.MI•n.»*411.414•Iktll411.411411.144•11.111411.414•II .Ml4II.4M•n.in••••IN449.M9•4I.9W•M.I4T441.IM44>.m441.114

444.4M4M.UI4U.4II4I1.MI441.194441.111444.911««i.til••1.IH44).n<441.1114H.9II• M.MI4I9.99I4M.4II4M.1I4•II.Ml4II.«U4IY.C41•U.*M414.1194U.MI414.944•I*.Ill414.144•II.Ill411.141411.Ill4ti. u*• II. Ut•II.t«•11.111• U.IU•19.441

t< /A 143

PEAK

4 4 4 9 4I I I 4 t9 I I 1 I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

IU IIIUMCI I

II

!• ao*« *t_tit. UK.* •«•• »!••IM«t AA.tkl* IUC.» •»*• •>«•.

' llt.'llll " 41*. 4II« ~I14.MM 4T9.4IW

IlkMII 4II.IIM

Figure 2. Typical FAA computer plot for our area, 7:45 to 7:50, greatly reduced. We haveidentified some of the symbols on the plot.

UFO sighting and was on the pathdescribed by the people of Truchas.

The KC-135 is similar to the Boeing707 airliner, and has a wingspan of 131feet and a fuselage length of 136 feet.From Truchas the plane would haveappeared as an object the diameter ofthe full moon. From Medanales theplane would have appeared to be lessthan one-tenth the size of the full moon.The KC-135 did not come near Dixonand Penasco.

Figure 1 shows the path of themilitary jet based on the computer-produced radar map for the period 7:25to 7:30. Since most readers have neverseen a radar computer map from theFAA, a map is reproduced in Figure 2.The straight lines in Figure 2 are

probably commercial jets and theletters are identification codes from thecomputer. The dots and colons areunidentified radar returns, which caninclude ground scattering, highbuildings, private pilots not using theiridentifying transponders, and of courseUFOs.

The Albuquerque Center of theFAA was very kind in helping us tounderstand these plots and inidentification of the KC135 aircraft, it'sorigin and mission. They also explainedwhy, with so much commercial trafficto watch, they do not have time to try toidentify all the tracks in their data.

An interesting statistical effectturned up in the analysis of theunidentified radar returns during the

period 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. There weremore unidentified returns per fiveminute interval in the period from 7:20to 7:35 than in corresponding fiveminute intervals outside of that period.There are three possible explanationswe can think of. One hour's worth ofdata is insufficient to understand thefluctuating background; the KC135produced some sort of multiplescattering effect; or there was anotherlarge object present almost capable ofhiding itself f rom radar. Theexaplanations are given in order ofdecreasing likelihood. The statisticalanalysis is given in the Appendix.

WHAT OBJECT WAS NOT

In the course of our investigationseveral other explanations for theobject were suggested, includingblimps, weather balloons, aurora, andlaser experiments originating at the LosAlamos National Laboratory.

The Goodyear blimps were inHouston and Los Angeles on the nightin question. The National Center forAtmospheric Research at Palestine,Texas, did not have any large balloonsgoing up or coming down on this day.

Sunspots were very active duringthe week of April 23. There was a verybright X-ray flare on the east limb of thesun about 5:00 PM MST on April 24.Aurora usually occur 12 to 24 hourslater, which would have been too late toexplain our event. In any case, aurora atour latitude is unlikely and cannotexplain the bright headlights that weredescribed to us.

Newspaper accounts describedthe UFO as being the result of a laserbeing used on that night forenvironmental studies. The laser hadbeen fired for six years since 1978 andthis was the first coincidence of thelaser firing with a UFO sighting. Thereare other reasons why the laser couldnot possibly have caused thisphenomenon:

a) The laser pulsed; the UFO didnot flicker.

b) The laser had relatively lowpower (10 MW) and diverges by a factorof a million in area by the time it is overthe Espanola valley.

It still has enough intensity to be

(continued on next page)13

Page 14: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

OOO

ua.

15

10

IS

10

L i X E O F FU6HT H C I J 3

30M.V5MITV 6 3 f i 0 M P H

SANS RE DE CfrlSTOMOUNTAINS

I

107:1 SP*

HO

DISTANCE

80W5PM

100 \10

7-.IOPM

Figure 3. The KC-135 could not have beenseen over the mountains 15 minutes before itentered the valley if it was traveling at 360mph.

ALCALDE, CONTINUED

visible by scattering from theatmosphere, but is so large that it couldnot possibly look like headlights orlanding lights.

KC135 PROBLEMS

There are at least five problemswith the KC-135 aircraft as anexplanation of all the witness sightingsand the radar data. These areenumerated below.

The KC-135 crossed the SangredeCristo mountains and entered theEspanola valley about 7:25. By 7:30 ithad turned back east and crossed themountains again. Many of the witnessesclaimed to have watched the lights for along time. Because it was difficult to getgood time estimates from witnesses, weare not sure whether a long time means5 minutes or 20 minutes. The mainwitness, Mel Medina, did note the timethe UFO appeared and disappeared(7:10 and 7:30). If we deduct the 5minutes that the KC-135 was in theEspanola Valley, then for 15 minutesMedina was seeing something elsethrough his binoculars. At 7:10 the KC-135 should have been about 90 milesaway to the east of Alcalde and 8000 ft.above the valley floor. Figure 3 showsthe geometry with the vertical scaleexaggerated. The earliest that the KC-135 could have been seen is about 7:20.

A second problem with the KC-135explanation is that many witnessesclaimed to have seen two distinct brightlights when they were anywherebetween 8 and 18 miles from the path of

the KC-135. At this distance the twolanding lights should have appeared asone, except to someone with veryunusual eyesight.

One of the stars in Ursa Major isreally a double star system (Alcor andMizar). The two stars are about 11minutes of arc apart. This was used bythe ancient Arab armies as an "eyetest." Let us assume that the landinglights on the KC-135 (wing span of 135ft.) are about 50 ft. apart. At 18 miles(roughly the distance of closestapproach to Medanales) the angularseparation calculates to be 1.8 minutesof arc. The witness at Medanalesdefinitely stated that the lights lookedlike the headlights of a car (SeeAppendix A). Even the witness atAlcalde (about 8 miles from thedistance of closest approach) shouldhave had difficulty because the angularseparation is only 4.25 minutes.

Many of the observers saw a redlight above and between the two brightlights. It is difficult to understand how anavigational tail light could have beenvisible at such large distances. Ourmajor witness in Alcalde saw the objectthrough his binoculars and could easilysee seven lights along the side of theobject. Furthermore, he reported thatthe red light separated from the objectand flew out of the binocular view andlater returned to its original position.

If the reader has any doubt aboutangular resolution, there is a simpleexperiment that can be done. Take twoflashlights; separate them by 6 incheson center; and then back off until youcan't resolve them as separate lights.The angular separation is 12' of arc at

143 ft., 8' at 215 Ft. and 4' at 430 Ft.The third problem with the aircraft

explanation is the size of the objectreported by so many witnesses. Theangular size of the whole KC-135 at adistance of 8 miles is approximately 12'.A thumb held at arm's length is about 2degrees. Many witnesses thought that itwas much larger than that.

The fourth problem is the fact thatthe radar trajectory does notcorrespond very well with thetrajectory as determined by thewitnesses in Penasco and La Bolsa nearDixon. One of the witnesses in Penascosaid that the object passed directlyoverhead (See Fig. 1).

Finally, the fifth problem is that, inaddition to the radar track for the KC-135, the radar data contain severaltracks of unidentified nature before theKC-135 showed up and almost nounidentified tracks after it left the area.These tracks are also shown on Fig. 1.While the tracks corresponding tocommercial aircraft and the track of theKC-135 can be seen entering andleaving the region of the radar plot, theunidentified tracks appear to originateand end in the middle of the region. Weare not familiar enough with the quirksof radar to be able to discriminatebetween ground clutter and thesignature of UFOs. All that we can sayis that there are an above averagenumber of unidentified radar returns inthe time interval before the KC-135 andin the region where Medina claims tohave been seeing the UFO. The sourceof these returns is unexplained.

We have come up with severalpossible hypotheses to explain theavailable data. These will be listed inorder of increasing strangeness:

1. The object was only the KC-135;many of the witness recollectionswere inaccurate or influenced by thesubsequent article published in the RioGrande Sun.

2. There were two aircraft; a smallprivate plane with landing lights on,which wandered around the valley from7:05 to 7:25 (to. account for Medina'sobservations and some of the extraradar returns) and the KC-135 reported(again, with much accuracy) by thewitnesses. The small plane left as the

(continued on next page)

14

Page 15: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

Table ISummary of Sighting Information

LocationLaBolsaTruchasTruchasTruchasMedanalesAlcaldeAlcaldeAlcaldeChimayoChimayo RdChimayo RdMoraMoraChacon??PenascoPenasco

NumberM F4112311241111

3

1

1

1121

1

SizeAngle

7.5

——7.51.56.0—1.5——3.0• ———4.0——

Noisenonenonehumnonenone

——

hum———

none

—none

—motor

Time7:30-88:007-87:10— •

7:357:15-307:02-30aft 7:00

—7:307:157:309:007:307:157:00

ElevationAngle

1045153015—155——5

—overhd

——10

ovrhd

Speed—

slowslow—

stopped—

stoppedslow

—stopped

——

——

slow

Location1st Last

E SE SE

E SEE SE

EastEast—

EastEast

From ESE NWSE NW

Twd TruchasFmSETo W

LightsWhite

741222

many2

many. —

2some

2—

222—

Red

11

8

1—

1

ALCALDE, CONTINUED

KC-135 came in and Medinamistakenly thought that there was onlyone object.

3. There was a large UFO in thearea that did not register well on theradar but was seen by many witnesses.It flew out of the valley when the KC-135arrived. Some of the witnesses saw thetrue UFO but most saw the KC-135.

No doubt there are many otherpossible hypotheses and much morethat could be done to discriminateamong these hypotheses, but we mustask ourselves what is to be gained.There are no physical traces orunnatural accelerations associated withthe event. With the military aircraftvisible on the radar, skeptics wouldnever admit that this is a solid UFOsighting no matter what supportingevidence is brought forth. About all thatwe can do is chalk it up to experienceand wait for another UFO to appear.

LESSONS LEARNED

We have learned the followinglessons for future reference:

1. Let the newspapers and radioknow you are investigating an incident.It is a quick way to get more leads.

2. FAA radar is available almosteverywhere. It is well worth the cost of$100 to $200 for a 90 mile square area

and a half hour of time. The FAA wasvery cooperative and helpful.

3. Be aware of LIDAR installationsin your area (See APPENDIX C). TheLIDAR beam can occasionally be seen.There are approximately 15 suchinstallations across the country,according to our local expert. Inaddition there are mobile units inairplanes and even the space shuttle.

4. An investigation of this sort canbring out stories about other sightings.During this investigation many UFOstories came to the surface, only threeof which might bear on theinvestigation. These are your"standard" UFO stories with basicdetails like dates and times forgotten,but they represent what a surprisingnumber of people have experienced.

This spring some people werecoming home from a ski trip inColorado and were driving the roadbetween Pagosa Springs and TierraAmarilla in the evening, and lo andbehold, southwest of the road was ahovering, large, football-shaped objectwith two bright lights. They keptdriving.

About a year or two ago acoworker was going home to Velardeon the road from Espanola, and east ofthe road, above the rolling hills was alarge, glowing, football-shaped object.Many cars were stopped along the roadand many people were watching. When

the object left suddenly, everyone gotinto their cars and drove off.

Another coworker, who lives inDixon, was sitting on his patio with hiswife about 10 PM, when a rectangularobject passed overhead. He estimatesthat it was about % degree in longdimension and the perimeter was lit upwith various colored lights. It seemed tomake a low electrical hum as it passedover. The informant thinks thisoccurred on May 16, 1984.

Another interesting lead was calledin by a resident of Espanola who claimsto have a film he took of a "half-dollar-sized" UFO New Year's Eve severalyears ago. We are still waiting for him tofind the film among his collection.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like toacknowledge help in this investigationfrom David Platts, Bob Lanter, Louyand Bernice Burkhardt, Sid Stone, GilMiranda, Robin Hoard, Ross Gravesand the fine people at the AlbuquerqueCenter of the FAA.

APPENDIX

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OFRADAR BACKGROUND DATA

(continued on next page)

15

Page 16: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

ALCALDE, CONTINUED Any statistical textbook contains thesame table of Chi Square. For example

Arbitrarily the area on the radar at 13 degrees of freedom the table readsplots was broken into four areas as follows:defined in figure B-l. The visualsightings were basically inside thetriangle and these statistics relate to Timethose visual sightings and notsomething else. Different areas will give 07:02.5different numbers but the basic 07:05significance will not change. By 07:07.5inspection this data is not random. We 07:10are expecting a track similar to that for 07:15an airplane but we got an area effect 07:20only noticeable after superimposing all 07:25the data on one sheet of paper with the 07:30aid of a light table and a box of colored 07:35pencils. 07:4°

07:45

U zo

UJ\J

I

\ '\ NE-Area.

\(t>ixon)W-Area 7\

/ \ \ */ \/ itis;de-\

• _ ^ _ _ _ _ / Area. \

Ucunoli) (Ch'linay°)~"" ' — -^^^(TrocWjJ

Pe»tOS-Areat

i i

07:5007:55 -08:00SumAverageChiSqD. F.Chi Sq.Prob. (%)

7.04 19.8110.00 90.00

Table Rl

Inside

0000010005100305030100020603392.839.413

3.570.50

22.3695.00

NE

1815171418252423202722162117

27719.810.513

4.111.00

24.7497.50

W

0000026330

: 2

051

221.6

33.313

S

051006061418111212160905091314610.420.713

5.01 5.89 -2.50 5

27.6999.00

00 -

29.8299.50

10DtSTAHCE

30

Figure B-l. Division of the area into subareasfor statistical purposes.

There is a large group of unknownsin the NE-area in the mountainsnorth east of Penasco. There is also agroup of unknowns in the S-area in theregion of Otowi bridge. The FAA doesnot have an explanation for this. Thesebasically remain constant in time.

We counted all dots (.) as one unitand all colons (:) as two units. We willuse the Chi Square statistic and assumethe null hypothesis—that there is aconstant time — invariant number ofunknowns in each area. The data aresummarized in Table B-l below. Thedata are also plotted in Figure B-2below.

Chi Square is a statistical test usedto determine the probability of datadeviating from an average expectedvalue. Experimental data do scatter andtoo good a fit is just as peculiar as toobad a fit. There are 13 degrees offreedom in the table because thereare 14 time groups — always one less.

16

A Chi Square of 10.5 is within the10 to 20 percentage level of probability,meaning that it is not significant. A ChiSquare of 20.7 is approachingsignificance at the 91% level. ChiSquare's of 33.3 and 39.4 are very highlysignificant. There is only a .5%probability of a Chi Square+29.82occurring by chance. There is a 99.5%probability of some nonrandomexplanation. Our values of Chi Squareare more significant than this.

The statistics show that somethingincreased the unknown returns in anon-random way during the timeinterval 7:00 to 8:00 PM. We do notunderstand this.

UFOs are not simple phemomena.

ALCALDE TABLES & GRAPHSCONTINUED ON

FOLLOWING PAGE)

LETTERS

UFO-MERCURY LINK?

In the July/August, 1984, issue ofthe MUFON Journal, Ann Druffelcommenced a two-part article entitled"Mercury A Possible Clue to UFOPropulsion?" Having read both parts, Ifind myself unable to resist making afew comments.

Ann would seemingly have usbelieve that there is a growing body ofevidence linking UFOs to the metalmercury. As I have followed the UFOliterature rather closely for many yearsthis came somewhat as a surprise.Nevertheless, I was certainly preparedto examine the anecdotal evidence Iassumed Ann would muster linking thetwo. My contention is that no realevidence to that effect was presented.

The first evidence adduced, forexample, was a sighting at Rio Vista,California, in May of 1964. The primarysource of information appears to havebeen two newspaper accounts.Subsequent information turned up thata Northern California investigator, notreferenced, claimed that mercury wasdiscovered missing from an oilfield overwhich the craft hovered. That's it?That's the evidence? Weak as it is, it isperhaps the strongest presented in theentire article.

The second sighting offered asevidence was made by a 16-year old in1973. The sighting itself did not involvemercury, but the percipient theorizedthat the UFO was powered by "anincomplete MIT concept" involving twomercury pools, rotating in oppositedirections, as part of a nuclear fusiondevice. Ann admits not knowing if thecase proved genuine, but that point isstrangely irrelevant. Clearly, thepercipient's theorizing that the UFOmay have used mercury does not meanthat it did!

Much of the "evidence" culled upin support of a possible link betweenUFOs and mercury is in a similar vein.Because sulphurous odors aresometimes reported with sightings, thesynthesis, by McMasters University

(confirmed on next page)

Page 17: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

ALCALDE, CONTINUED

30

7:00 rnLOCAL TIME ON TUESDAY, APRIL Z4,

Figure B-2. Plot of the number of unknowns per 5 minute interval versus time in each of thefour areas.

Table II SIZE ESTIMATES(a)

WitnessLocation

AlcadeMedanalesChimayoLaBolsaTruchas

ClosestApproach

in miles

81517104.5

AngularSize

in degrees

1.51.53.0

. 7.57.5

DiameterEstimate

in feet

iioo2060460069003100

EstimatedElevation

in degrees

5.015.05.0

, 10.030

EstimatedElevationin feet(b)

10,00025,50013,00015,00020,000.

a) Size + distance X angle in radians; 1 radian+57.3(o)b) above sea level.

LETTERS, CONTINUED

chemists, of a mercury compoundusing sulphur dioxide, becomess ign i f i c an t . This is somewhattantamount to saying salt smells ofchlorine. It certainly does not indicatean association of mercury with UFOs.Nor does the rather common use ofmercury in electrical switching devices,discussed in Part II.

In Part II, Ann showcases analleged abduction case where thepercipient purports to have been givenan interstate ride. But the case is farfrom convincing, being filled with ratherstandard psuedo-scientific fare. Eventhe percipient's description of the"mercury" is erroneous. Having chasedmany a globule of mercury acrosslaboratory tables and floors, I canassure the reader that it is anything but"jelly-like."

Ann discusses briefly ancientSanskrit writings alleged to describewars between two antediluviancivilizations fought with nuclear-likeweapons and flying vehicles called"vimanas." Mercury was supposed tobe an essential element in theirpropulsion systems. As I vaguelyrecalled hearing such tales before, Ichecked the reference given - Ivan T.Sanderson's Invisible Residents. Andindeed, Appendix B of the bookconta ins t r ans l a t ed passagesdescribing airships powered with ironengines that contained mercury. Butwhere did Sanderson get his material?By kind permission of Desmond Leslieand his publishers.

The name Desmond Leslieimmediately raised a red flag of caution.Checking Sanderson's only referenceon this matter, I found, as reference261, "Leslie, Desmond and Adamski,George, Flying Saucers Have Landed,etc.-- This is not an acceptablereference in legitimate ufology, and Ithink I know Ann well enough to saythat she would not have used thismaterial had she realized its source.

In Part I, Ann points out that herbackground was in sociology, andmuses as to whether a non-technicalperson should theorize about possiblemodes of UFO propulsion. I personally

(continued on next page)17

Page 18: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

LETTERS, CONTINUED

have no objection as long as twoprovisos are met.

The first is simply that theinvestigator seek out professionalexpertise and opinion. In the southernCalifornia study group of which Ann is apart, there are three physicists and twoengineers, three of whose training andexperience includes plasma physics.They certainly would have been helpfulin assessing the teenager's claim of "anincomplete MIT concept," and perhapsprevented a number of technicalmisconceptions that appeared in thearticle. Beyond the study group, therewas the UCLA Fusion Laboratories,and the physics and engineeringdepartments of many junior and 4 yearcolleges in the southern California area.Similar resources exist throughout thecountry for other iifologists.

The second proviso is that someattempt be made to assure oneself abasic science education. Not all layufologists have a problem with basicscience, but for those who do, I have

for several years recommendedtaking high school or college freshmanlevel courses in physics, chemistry, andmath. With the plethora of adultschools and junior colleges in mostparts of the country, it really isn't a verytall order, and is a reasonableprerequisite for the rigors of ufology.Perhaps for the con t r ibu t ingsubscriber, who is concerned primarilywith keeping abreast of developmentsof ufology, such t ra in ing isunnecessary. But I firmly believe thatthose who have the time to writearticles in ufology have the time toprovide themselves with a reasonablescience education, and are obligated todo so.

-JOE KIRK THOMAS

OLYMPIC UFO REACTION

Tonight I watched the concludingceremonies for the 1984 Olympics. Iassume you did.too. (If you didn't, youcould probably get a tape of them fromABC.)

Anyway, what happened duringthe concluding ceremonies: A "UFO"(a prop, of course) showed up completewith flashing lights.

There had to be at least 100,000people at the Los Angeles Coliseumand probably a billion more watching onTV.

No one in the audience knew that aUFO (and it was a well-done UFO atthat) was going to show up.

What did the audience do whenthis light-flashing UFO appeared overthe stadium? (Interestingly, the ABCannouncer referred to it as a spaceshipand did not use the term UFO or flyingsaucer.) Did they panic, freak out, runfor the gates? Did people watching onTV head for the hills or the nearest highbridge or skyscraper?

No way.Those in attendance at the L.A.

Coliseum (and they represented peoplefrom every race, walk of life, nation,etc.) cheered, clapped, applauded,oohed and aahed. (Granted, if it had

(continued on next page)

IWONDEJZ IFT00PY

15 STILL

" . * • • . . • I • • - • * • * * . * * . • " • ' • ° . • " " * ' . • • .„ • • • • . * •• * * • ' • • • " « « • • •

18

Page 19: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE(continued from back page)

After receiving very constructivefeedback from our State Directors andsome members of the Board, DanWright has prepared the fourth draft ofhis "Field Investigator's Examination"composed of one hundred multiplechoice, true-false, and fill-the-blankquestions. It is broken down intosegments that cover the followingsubjects: (1) Light and Optics, (2)Sound, (3) Measurements, (4)Electrical/Magnetic, (5) Human andAnimal Reactions, (6) Physical Traces,(7) Photography, (8) Radio and Radar,(9) Celestial Objects, (10) Atmosphereand Weather, (11) ConventionalVehicles, and (12) The UFOExperience.

New books that have recently

been published include the following:Investigation Ovni (UFO Investigation)by Vincente-Juan Ballester Olmos(MUFON Representative for Spain)with the forward by Dr. J. Allen Hynek.Published in Spanish, copies may beobtained for $8.50 in U.S. dollars or theequivalent in other currency by sendingyour order to Plaza y Janes, S.A.Export Department, Virgen deGuadalupe 21-33, Esplugas DeLlobregat, Barcelona, Spain.

* * *

One of the most exciting UFOcases recently brought to the attentionof the news media and known as theRendlesham Forest UFO is the subjectfor the book titled Skycrash - A CosmicCover Up, authored by the primeinvestigators, Brenda Butler and Dot

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION

1. Title of publication: MUFON UFOJOURNAL (USP 002970) (ISSN 0270-6822)

2. Date of filing: Sept. 25, 19843. Frequency of issue: monthly4. Location of known office of publication:

103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Guadalupe, Texas78155

5. Address of the headquarters: 103Oldtowne Road, Seguin, TX 78155

6. Names and complete addresses ofpublisher, editor, and managing editor:

Publisher: Walter H. Andrus, Jr., 103Oldtowne Road, Seguin, TX 78155

Editor: Dennis W. StacyP.O. Box 12434, San Antonio, TX 78212

7. Owner: MUTUAL UFO NETWORK,INC. (MUFON), 103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin,TX 78155

Average No. copieseach issue during

preceding 12 monthsA Total No copies printed . . 1460B. Paid circulation

1. Sales through dealers and carriers, streetvendors and counter sates 02 Mail subscriptions . . . 1287

C Total paid circulation 1287D. Free distributions by mail, carrier or other

means: samples, complimentary, and otherfree copies 61

E Total distribution . . 1348F. Copies not distributed

1. Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiledafter pnntinQ 1122 Returns from news agents 0

G Total . . 1460

A not-for-profit corporation incorporatedunder the State Laws of Texas.

The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exemptfrom Federal Income Tax under Section501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.MUFON is a publicly supported organization ofthe type described in Section 509(a)(2).

8. Known bondholders, mortgagees, andother security holders owning or holding 1percent or more of total amount of bonds,mortgages or other securities: NONE

9. For completion by nonprofitorganizations authorized to mail at specialrates: Publication is issued by an organizationeligible for these rates in accordance withSection 423.1 and 422.2.

10. Extent and nature of circulation:

Actual No. copiesof single issue published

nearest to filing date1400

012141214

631277

. 1230

1400(signed) Walter H. Andrus, Jr.

Publisher

Street in collaboration with JennyRandies. Published by Nevi l leSpearman, Ltd, in England. The pricewas not available at the time of thiswriting. Some of us had the privilege ofmeeting Dot Street and Jenny Randieswhen they attended the UFOConference at the University ofNebraska in November 1983.

MUFON still has an adequatesupply of the best seller Clear Intent(paperback) for $8.95, plus $1.50 forpostage and handling. We will maintainthis outstanding book on ourpublications list.

News'n'NotesGeorge Fawce t t , MUFON

Assistant State Director, NorthCarolina, reports on some of his recentactivities on behalf of ufology. Asidefrom several speeches to various civicgroups and appearances on three localTV stations, George says:

"From September 8-15th, I had atwo-window display in downtownLincolnton, N.C., for their 13th AnnualApple Festival. The exhibit consisted ofp h o t o g r a p h s , s l i d e s , m a p s ,illustrations, books, scrapbooks,models and posters of UFO mattersworldwide, which has drawn a greatdeal of interest and comments. 'How toJoin MUFON' was one of the manyposters in the windows which includedat least 100 framed photographs andalmost 95 UFO books and publications,including the MUFON Journal,MUFON UFO Investisator's Manual,and a copy of each of the annualMUFON Proceedings."

LETTERS, Continued

been a real UFO, there would havebeen a few freakouts, but again, peoplefreak out everyday.)

An "alien" stepped up on apedestal and made a short speech. Avery authentic-looking alien, too.Anyway, once again no one freaked outor ran for the exits. They (the audience)applauded when he finished.

If this was some sort of test forhuman reaction to a landing, then myhat is off to the powers-that-be. If it wassimple coincidence, then such anexample should be proof enough thatpeople are ready and can handle it.

-FRANK TOBEY19

Page 20: MUFON UFO Journal - 1984 11. November

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGEby

Walt Andrus

The second printing of ClearIntent was sold out immediately after itsrelease on August 21st. Prentice-Hallpublicist, Renae Biale, has advised thatthe third printing will be available in lateSeptember or early October. Ms. Bialehas suggested that MUFON'snationwide publicity campaign bedelayed until the book stores haveadequate supplies. The local emphasismust be coordinated with the managersof your respective bookstoresthroughout the nation, since we cannotpredict a specific date. Each local UFOgroup should use their own ingenuity inpromoting the book from personalhandouts on MUFON, UFO displays orvideotapes of UFO documentaries.

It is a pleasure to announce thatBarry J. Greenwood, co-author ofClear Intent and Assistant StateDirector for Massachusetts hasadditionally accepted the Staff Positionof Historian for the Mutual UFONetwork. He has one of the finestpersonal collections of UFO literature,videotapes, books, publications,documents and photographs in theworld today. David M. Jacobs, Ph.D.,author of The UFO Controversy inAmerica and a MUFON Consultant inHistory, can attest to this fact after hisrecent tour of Barry's UFO library.

On October 18, 1984, PMMagazine, a syndicated national TVprogram, featured a segment on thework of the Mutual UFO Network,providing favorable exposure to 14 or15 million viewers. Considering that thecrew of PM Magazine in San Antoniofilmed for four hours in the MUFONoffice, only a small portion appeared onthe network program.

* * *

According to the MUFON Bylaws,Regional Directors on the Board ofDirectors will be elected each year tofour year terms. In 1985, the CentralRegional Director will be elected by a

postal ballot prior to the annualcorporate meeting in St. Louis on June30, 1985. This will be followed in 1986for the Canadian Director, 1987 for theEastern Region, and in 1988 theWestern Regional Director will beelected. The Central Region iscomposed of twenty states in themiddle of the United States starting onthe west with North and South Dakota,Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma andTexas and extending to the easternboundary composed of Michigan,Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee andAlabama. Charles L. Tucker, IndianaState Director, is the present CentralRegional Director. Only currentMUFON members residing in theCentral Region are eligible to vote or tobe candidates for this distinguishedresponsibility. To nominate a person,permission must be obtained from theprospective candidate so as to beassured that they will accept if elected.The names of all candidates for theCentral Region must be submitted inwriting to MUFON in Seguin, Texas,before April 15, 1985 so a mail ballotmay be executed in adequate time. ARegional Director may succeedhimself/herself if duly elected to asecond four year term, but may nothold his or her office for more than twosuccessive full terms. The name of DanR. Wright, State Director for Michigan,has been submitted for nomination.

Vance George Reed, StateDirector for Colorado, has selectedMrs. Judy Brigham of Wheat Ridge tobe the Assistant State Director. EdPlanz has appointed Edward O. Brownto the post of State Section Director forthe Alabama Counties of Tuscaloosa,Fayette, Lamar, Pickens, and Greene.Mr. Brown recently retired as theDirector of Public Relations for theUniversity of Alabama and is active asan amateur radio operator in theMUFON Net with the call lettersN4JUB. Ed has been a member ofMUFON for ten years.

The UFO Study Group of GreaterSt. Louis is hosting the MUFON 1985UFO Symposium at the Chase Hotel inSt. Louis, Missouri on June 28, 29 and30. The theme for the 1985 symposiumis "UFOs: The Burden of Proof." Markyour calendar now so that you may planyour vacation to "Meet Me in St.Louis."

Marge Christensen has announc-ed that the National UFO InformationWeek has been scheduled for mid-Augus t of 1985. Every stateorganization may now start makingtheir plans, displays, public events, etc.so they will be prepared. As MUFONPublic Relations Director, Marge hasinitiated a newsletter uniquely titled"P.I.P.E. Line" (Public Information andPublic Education). It has beenestablished as a means of providingmembers of bur National Committeeon Public Information with an up-to-date account each . month of theirprogress in the areas of publicinformation and public education. It willalso provide the members of thiscommittee with a "pipeline" for sharingtheir ideas and suggestions. The areacoordinators are Paul Cerny, WestCoast; Tom Deuley, Southwest States;Dan Wright, Central States; andMargeChristensen, East Coast. CommitteeAssignments consist of the following:Walt Webb and Dennis Stacy, PressReleases; Barry Greenwood, TomGates, and Dan Wright, compile slidepresentation available to members forP.R.; John Schuessler and WaltAndrus, contact electronic media andwire services; Tom Deuley, ArtDirector, to design posters for NationalUFO Information Week; and MargeChristensen, coordinate all State P.R.Directors, publish "P.I.P.E. Line," workwith area coordinators, furnish copiesof syllabi for UFO courses, editMUFON Newsletter, and coordinate1985 UFO Information Week.

(continued on page 19)