M U T U A L U F O N E T W O R K

UFO JOURNALMARCH 1997 ~J NUMBER 347 $3

SPHERE FROM DELTA II LAUNCH VEHICLE

Todcf P. Friesenhahn (left) and Stephen MooreGuadalupe County Deputy Sheriffs

M U F O N U F O J O U R N A LO F F I C I A L PUBL ICAT ION OF THE MUTUAL UFO NETWORK SINCE 1967

MARCH 1997 NUMBER 347

STAGE TWO OF DELTA II ROCKET LANDS IN TEXAS Walter H. Andrus, Jr.

NEWS OFF THE NET CNI News 8

ABDUCTION REPORT CONSISTENCIES ASSCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF ALIEN ABDUCTIONS Stuart Appelle, Ph.D.

THE UFO PRESS David M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

MUFON FORUM

READER'S CLASSIFIEDS

THE APRIL NIGHT SKY

CALENDAR

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

Todd, Hamilton, Stoecker

Walter N. Webb

Walter Andrus

12

17

19

21

22

22

24

COVER — SPHERE FROM DELTA II Photographs by Walt Andrus

MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)

(ISSN 0270-6822)103Oldtowne Rd.

Seguin,TX 78155-1099Tel: (210) 379-9216FAX (210) 372-9439

EDITOR

Dennis Stacy

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Walter H. Andrus, Jr.

COLUMNISTSWalter N. Webb

John S. CarpenterT. David Spencer

ART DIRECTORVince Johnson

Copyright 1997 by the Mutual UFO Network. All Rights Reserved.No port of this document inai/ be reproduced in any form without the u'ntten permission of

the Copyright Owners. Permission is hereby granted to quote up to 200 words of any one arti-cle, provided the author is credited, and the statement, "Copyright 1997 by the Mutual UFONetwork. 103 Oldtowne Rd, Seguin, Texas 78155," is included.

The contents of the MUFON UFO Journal are determined by the editors and do not necessari-ly reflect the official position of the Mutual UFO Network. Opinions expressed are solely thoseof the individual authors.

The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Tax under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code MUFON is a publicly supported organization of the typedescribed in Section 509 la) <2). Donors may deduct contributions from their Federal IncomeTa\. Bequests, legacies, dci'ises, transfers or gifts are also deductible for estate and gift purposes,provided they meet the applicable provisions of Sections 2055, 2106 and 2522 of the InternalRci'cnue Code. MUFON is a Texas nonprofit corporation.

The MUFON UFO loumat is published monthly by the Mutual UFO Network. Inc.. Seguin,Texas. Membership/Subscription rales' $30 per year in the U.S.A.: $30 foreign in U.S. funds.Second class postage paid at Seguin, TX.

POSTMASTER: Send form 3579 to advise change of address to: MUFON UFO IOUR-NAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, TX 7S155-4099.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

Stage Two of Delta II Rocket Lands in Texas

by Walter H. Andrus, Jr.

The United States Space Command is-sued a News Release No. 1-97 onJanuary 22, 1997, from Colorado

Springs, CO, announcing that a Delta IIrocket body entered the Earth's atmosphereat approximately 3:30 a.m. central time thismorning over the south central portion ofthe United States. The Delta II waslaunched from Vandenberg Air Force Base,April 24, 1996, carrying the BallisticMissile Defense Organization's (BMDO)Midcourse Space Experiment satellite.

The January 23rd edition of The DailyOklahoman reported "It was like somethingfrom the movies—a fireball crashing fromthe sky. The spectacular event was seenearly Wednesday in five states as a smallpiece of a military rocket reentered Earth'satmosphere. It looks like an airplane on fireand crashing," said Wayne Wyrick with theKirkpatrick Planetarium in Oklahoma City.The rare occurrence led hundreds of resi-dents in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, andKansas to report the sighting. (Even a MU-FON member in Oklahoma City, TimothyL. Stanford.)

The object burst into flames about 3:30a.m. CST as it came within 50 miles ofEarth's surface, said Major Steve Boylac.spokesman for NORAD, the NorthAmerican Aerospace Defense installation inColorado Springs, CO. NORAD reportedthe cylindrical tube of the Delta rocket wasabout 7 feet long and about 4 feet in diame-ter.

This may have been a spectacular eventfor eyewitnesses, however, it was evenmore exciting for Texas residents whofound an unusually well-preserved piece ofthe second stage of the Delta II launch vehi-cle lying on their property the next morning.Even though they did not hear the crash ofthe tank-like object that fell within 100 feetof their home, Steve and Verona Gutowskiwere amazed to find a piece of space junklying just outside of their fenced front yard.The Gutowski residence is 3 miles east ofGeorgetown, Texas, on State Highway 29.Their neighbors about 200 yards east, Joeand Joy Bohanan, abruptly sat up in bedwhen they heard the sonic boom and crash

Coincidenceshappen!

Pieces of a

Delta IIrocketlaunched inVandenberg,

CA, rain downnear the

MUFON

office inSeguin, TX.

Photo: Theinitial Delta II7925

commerciallaunchoccurred on

January 7,

1991,

successfullyorbitingNATO IV-A,

the first of anew

generation of

NATOsatellites.

Photo pro-vided by JohnF. Schuesslerand MDSSC.

March1997Number 347Page3

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

The major

portion of the

second stage

of the Delta II

launch

vehicle fell

less than 100

feet from the

residence of

Steve and

Verona

Gutowski,

pictured

center and

right. The

man on the

left is the

cameraman

from TV

station KEYE

in Austin, TX.

March1997Number 347Page 4

of metal at 3:37 a.m. Joe's brother-in-law,who lives a short distance north, was alsodisturbed by the noise.

Lieutenant Randy Traylor of theWilliamson County Sheriff's Office calledNASA in Houston, Texas, to report thecrumpled tank on the Gutowski's property.NASA spokesman Ed Campion said itseemed unlikely that the object could befrom space. Franki Webster, a spokes-woman for the U.S. Space Command inColorado Springs said her agency hadn'theard about the case, but it would look intothe matter. She said the Air Force uses radarto track all the 8500 man-made objects inEarth's orbit, making sure that falling ob-jects are not mistaken for missiles.

The author was alerted by Austin, TexasTV Station KEYE. Walt conducted an inter-view and made photographs on January29th of the 6 feet diameter and 9 feet longtank with round ball-shaped ends. The bot-tom was crushed due to impact and was soheavy that several men could not move it.BMDO said it weighed 1500 pounds. It wasconstructed of heavy aircraft steel nearlyl/8th inch thick with inside reinforcing ribsfor added strength. Several brass fittingswere noted, but in particular the circularheavy brass flange, containing 28. 1/4 inchbrass screws, which apparently held the ex-haust nozzle of the stage 2 rocket motor.The brass flange also contained a four-finned exhaust fixture noted in one of thephotographs. Walt removed four of the

Allen head screws with his fingers as sou-venirs.

The major physical damage during thereentry was a burned-away triangular-shaped hole three feet long by one footalongside one of the seams in the front.(Phillips head screws were used as expand-ing type rivets to fasten both round ends tothe tank.) Another split, three feet long, wasnoted on the bottom, but it could have oc-curred on impact, since no metal wasburned away.

Dr. Nick Johnson, a NASA orbital debrisscientist, visited the scene on February 3rdand definitely identified the large capsule-shaped tank as part of the second phase ofthe Delta II satellite carrying rocketlaunched on April 24, 1996. (See drawingof the Delta II 7925 Launch Vehicle manu-factured by McDonnell-DouglasAstronautics.) Dr. Johnson said in the lastfive years, scientists have documented 328man-made orbiting space objects that havecrashed into the Earth's surface, and fewerthan 12 have landed on the continentalUnited States. (Considering the rare occur-rence of such events, the editors of the MU-FON UFO Journal felt the three items re-covered warranted a feature article.)

The Air Force expressed an interest inpicking up and returning the tank to thecontractor for analysis, however, it was stilllying in the field.at the time this article waswritten.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

FUEL SPHERE RECOVERED INGUADALUPE COUNTY

The metal sphere 23 inches in diameterfound by rancher Ed Longcope in a pasturewas the item that received national attentionfor Seguin and MUFON when it was re-leased by the Associated Press. The SanAntonio E\press-News gave the metal ballfront page coverage on three occasions. Allthree San Antonio TV stations covered theevent for several days.

The Guadalupe County Sheriff's officewas called by rancher Ed Longcope at 1:40p.m. on January 24. 1997, to report that aUFO had landed in one of his pastures.Deputy Sheriffs Todd P. Friesenhahn andStephen Moore were immediately dis-patched to Wade Road and FM 3353 to re-spond to the incident north of Kingsbury,Texas (sixteen miles northeast of the MU-FON office in Seguin). Mr. Longcope statedthat he was feeding his cattle and noticed ametal sphere imbedded in the field.Deputies Friesenhahn and Moore pulled thesphere out of the depression and examinedit. They noticed that the sphere wasscorched and pitted on one side and ap-peared to have the remains of a valve orpipe that was burned-away. They madePolaroid photos of both the sphere and theball-shaped hole that was eight inches deep.

When I interviewed Ed Longcope. hefound it humorous that the deputies treated

the ball like a potential bomb dropped froman aircraft. Upon returning to Seguin, theytook the ball to the National WeatherService, who could not identify it and ad-vised them to contact NASA. Todd con-tacted NASA in Houston (281-483-3111)and they advised they would contact theproper authorities. Friesenhahn then re-ceived a call from Colorado Springs statingthey think they knew what it is and wouldhave someone pick it up on Monday,January 27th.

Walt Andrus was contacted by RogerCroteau, a staff writer for the San AntonioExpress-News about 3 p.m. and was askedto help identify the ball at the GuadalupeCounty Sheriff's office in Seguin.

He immediately drove to the sheriff's of-fice with a minimum of equipment to mea-sure the ball's dimensions, metallic content,etc. The ball measured 23 inches in diame-ter and 75 inches in circumference. It hadtwo flanges with three hex Allen headscrews on opposite sides; one with aburned-off pipe protruding and the oppositeside covered with a flat plate. (The screwswere well-preserved and could be rotatedwith my thumb and finger.) A neat weldedseam united the two half spheres. A magnetindicated that the ball was constructed of anon-magnetic metal and weighed an esti-mated 60-75 pounds. Some heating from thereentry showed a copper color on one sideand aluminum on another surface. It may

The exhaust

end of the

second stage

booster. Note

brass fitting

with screws

and configu-

ration of

miniskirt and

support truss,

(bottom view)

All photos by

Walt Andrus

except page 3.

March1997

Number 347Pages

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

View of the

sphereshowing where

helium or

nitrogen

tank was

connected

to bottom of

stage 2 >booster. The

tank was

contracted of

titanium andother metals.

March1997Number 347Page6

have been brass, but this was not deter-mined at the scene. I photographed the balland receptacles for the record. It could berolled around with ease, but was too heavyand clumsy-sized to lift easily. DeputyMoore jokingly told me that he might losehis hair due to possible radiation.

NASA alerted the Air Force in ColoradoSprings who in turn called Randolph AirForce Base to arrange for the pick up of theball before 6 p.m. It was loaded on a pickuptruck, and driven to Randolph AFB, whereit is still being held. A major announced ontelevision that the sphere would be returnedto Ed Longcope via Sheriff MelvinHarborth the following week, but to-datethis has not been done. Ed Longcopepromised that he would donate the metalball to the MUFON UFO InformationCenter and Museum after it was returned tohim.

A diagram of the Delta II 7925 LaunchVehicle shows four spheres containing he-lium and nitrogen attached to the bottom ofthe second stage of the launch vehicle, thusthe mystery has been solved. Since MU-FON is very serious about adding this metalsphere to our UFO Information Center, Ihave contacted Lt. Col Rick Lehner, thepress officer for the Ballistics MissileDefense Organization, and Major PeterKurucz, the program manager at thePentagon. I was advised by Lt. Col. Lehner

that Major Kurucz would make the final de-cision on the release of the sphere.

NOZZLE OF STAGE 2 RECOVEREDNEAR SEGUIN

On February 7, 1997, Burl I I I , Burl andJennie Little who live on a farm three mileseast of Seguin on U.S. Alternate 90 reportedto Walt Andrus that some unusual debrishad fallen into a pasture alongside theirhome. The cone-shaped section of the stagetwo booster rocket nozzle was found intact,however, the fiberglass and gasket materialwas pulled away where it was formerly at-tached to the brass flange on the bottom ofthe stage two tank found at Georgetown,Texas. The bottom end of the nozzle and topend were both damaged on impact. Ofcourse, the internal portion of the nozzlewas burned black during the burn-period ofstage two. The nozzle is composed of spe-cial fiber circular gaskets stacked on top ofeach other and further insulated with sheetsof fiberglass. The well-preserved portion ofthe cone is 10 inches in diameter at the top,15 inches at the bottom and 21 inches inlength. The cone is covered with layers ofsilver colored fiberglass..

Keith Hutson, a fiberglass engineer-con-sultant and MUFON State Section Directorfor Guadalupe County, is conducting astudy of the sheets of fiberglass to deter-

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

mine if they were manufactured in Seguinby Hexcel Corporation, a nationally knownproducer of space and defense textiles.

If fewer than 12 out of 238 man-made or-biting space objects have fallen upon thecontinental U.S.A. in the last five years, thisis indeed a relatively rare event, especiallyconsidering the pristine condition of the re-covered objects. For this to occur, the sec-ond stage had to reenter the atmosphere at avery shallow angle so as to be subjected tothe minimum amount of friction and conse-quential heating. Objects entering the at-mosphere at a slighter angle are known tohave skipped off the planet Earth's atmos-phere never to return or else go back intoorbit for a later fall. This is the same prob-lem that our Mercury, Gemini and Apolloastronauts faced upon their return to Earthafter each flight.

In the eventuality that the recoveredsphere is not returned to Mr. Ed Longcopeand subsequently the UFO InformationCenter, a secondary plan is being instigated.Since three check points have been estab-lished where the above items have been re-covered, the other three fuel cells shouldhave fallen on this same line, probably inGuadalupe or possibly Caldwell County.Walt prepared a map of Guadalupe Countyfor distribution, showing the exact locationline where the three missing spheres shouldhave fallen. Melvin Harborth, Sheriff ofGuadalupe County, has alerted his deputiesto be on the lookout. Articles will be pub-lished in the Seguin Gazette-Enterprisenewspaper bringing this to the attention ofcounty readers. News announcements on ra-dio station KWED in Seguin will also beutilized to advise their listeners. Since thespheres are only 23 inches in diameter andwill be partially imbedded into the soil, onemust be reasonably close to observe them.If the balls were to hit a residence, theywould penetrate not only the roof and ceil-ings, but damage the contents of the roomdue to their weight and speed. We can bereasonably certain that this has not oc-curred. For updates on our progress, pleaseread the MUFON UFO Journal and wish usluck in our quest.

Delta II 7925LaunchVehicle

Standard Fan ing

Typical Spacecraft

Helium Spne'es

Nitrogen Spneres

^ Fuel Tank

r Tani.

• ThiuSt Augmentation SoI'dS

The Delta II Launch vehicle wasmanufactured by:McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co.McDonnell Douglas Commercial Delta5301 Bolsa AvenueHuntington Beach, California 92647

The exhaustnozzle of the

secondbooster

rocket ondisplay at theMUFON UFO

InformationCenter.

Portions of

the damagedcircular gas-ket ringsfrom the top

and bottomare also on

display.

The preservedportion of the

nozzleweighs overfifty pounds.

March1997Number 347Page?

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

The images

accompanyingthis article

were down-

loaded fromthe CNINews

Web site at:http://www.cni

news.com

Other stills,

including

video clipswith sound,are available

at the same

site.

March1997Number 347PageS

NEWS OFF THE NET

From: CNINews I @aol.comDate: Wed. 26 Feb 1997 13:32:22 -0500(EST) Subject: EXTRA! CNI News SPE-CIAL EDITION — February 25, 1997

This is a special unscheduled edition ofCNI News, reporting on an important newdevelopment in the "alien autopsy" investi-gation. This edition also corrects two errorswhich appeared in the February 16 editionof the news.

The subject matter of CNI News is inher-ently controversial, and the views andopinions reported herein are not necessarilythose of the editorial staff.

CNI NEWS BEGINS "MANHUNT" FORTHE AUTOPSY CAMERAMAN

CNI News has launched a full-scale searchfor the man who claims to have shot RaySantilli's controversial "alien autopsy" film

footage. Our hunt for the mystery camera-man wi l l use the interactive power of theworldwide web as its primary asset, sup-ported by the latest and best evidence wecan acquire.

Full details of the CNI News Manhunt arenow posted on our web site atwww.cninews.com/Manhunt.html. Fea-tured at this site are sti l l and motion pic-tures of the man, as recently shown onJapanese television.

CNI News urges all our readers to examinethe evidence presented at our web site andto send us any information that might helpto identify the mystery cameraman. A di-rect-response page is included in the newManhunt section of the site. We also urgeall related web sites to announce this ini-tiative and link directly to CNI News toassist in this search.

The stakes are high. Despite the best effortsof dozens of top researchers in the U.S. and

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

Image as captured from Japanese video.Delnterleaved, mild contrast stretch.

Hand shades backlight.

Straight shot, no glasses.

elsewhere, the autopsy controversy has re-sisted solution since it began in early 1995.Resolving the cameraman's identity willsurely help to resolve the greater mysteryof the footage itself.

CNI News "Manhunt" is comprised of thefollowing parts:

• Background on the new cameramanvideo• The cameraman images — stills and

video with sound• Two versions of the cameraman's story,

as told by Ray Santilli and the man himself• A history of the cameraman's possible

whereabouts, past and present• A response page, for you to tell us what

you know

Robert Kiviat, executive producer of the1995 FOX TV special "Alien Autopsy:Fact or Fiction," has strongly encouragedthis new CNI News initiative. In a recentinterview, Kiviat said:

"This project at the CNI News site... maywell be where the story breaks. We respectthe direction you're going and we wouldlike to help in every way we can to find thisindividual and to cover that on our [next]show."

BACKGROUND ON THE LATESTVIDEO EVIDENCE

As long ago as January, 1996, CNI News re-ported rumors that the alleged autopsy cam-eraman would participate in an interviewwith U.S. television producer Robert Kiviat,in cooperation with English producer RaySantilli.

Although Kiviat publicly acknowledgedthat he was negotiating to do an interview, itwas not clear that the cameraman had actu-ally been videotaped until U.S. researcherBob Shell announced in September, 1996that he had been shown the taped interviewin Ray Santilli's London office.

At Santilli's invitation, Kiviat had written25 detailed questions for the cameraman toanswer. On tape, the cameraman respondedbriefly to about half of these questions, butKiviat himself was not present for the tap-ing.

Kiviat: "This isthe first timethat anyone

has shown thefootage to theAmerican pub-

lic through

some mediaoutlet. People

need to seethis face and

see if theyknow who thisperson is."

March1997

Number 347Page 9

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

On February

21, 1997,

producer

Robert

Kiviate spoke

with CNINews editor

MichaelLindemann

about this

latest devel-

opment in thealien autopsy

case and thenew search

for the mys-

tery camera-

man.

March1997Number 347Page 10

The video was reportedly shot by the cam-eraman's own son on a non-professionalcamcorder. However, due to an apparentmistake in lighting, the cameraman's plan toobscure his own face failed. Though the sondid turn this tape over to Santilli, he re-quested that it not be shown unless the faceand the voice could be suitably disguised.

Despite the cameraman's wishes, RaySantilli soon decided to sell the unalteredvideo to a Japanese television network. TheJapanese aired the footage in Japan inDecember, 1996. Soon, copies of thatbroadcast arrived in the United States. CNINews acquired a copy in early February.Though the video quality was poor, thecameraman's face was visible and his voicewas clear.

On February 21, 1997, producer RobertKiviat spoke with CNI News editor MichaelLindemann about this latest development inthe alien autopsy case and the new searchfor the mystery cameraman. Excerpts fromthat conversation follow:

Michael Lindemann: When and how didyou first see the cameraman's videotapedinterview?

Robert Kiviat: We got the footage in mid-July, 1996. The alleged son of the camera-man brought the footage to me in NewYork. I and one of Santilli's associates metthe son. He seemed to be very nervous andconcerned that the father had gone througha lot. He handed us the tape. The son saidhe felt the father had had enough, and thefamily wished the guy had never come outwith the footage because it caused a lot ofproblems. Subsequent to the son leaving thehotel room, we—myself and Ray Santilli'sassociate—watched the tape, which is whateventually aired in Japan.

Lindemann: Now that Ray Santilli has re-leased the footage to the Japanese, whatwould you like to see happen?

Kiviat: At this point, my goals would be tohave the cameraman's image shown on na-tional television to the widest possible audi-ence, so that if somebody knows who thisperson is, they would contact me or the net-work or anyone connected to the program,and we would have an answer. This basi-cally is where we are headed. My company

is now in preproduction on a possible newFOX UFO special. This is not official, but Ican say fairly certainly that there is going tobe a UFO special that will recap the alienautopsy/cameraman issue in every way pos-sible, based on what is known at the timewe finalize the show for airing. And myguess is, this show would be timed to air, asone would guess, around the anniversary ofRoswell and the 1947 UFO wave.

Lindemann: Does the man you met, whoclaims to be the son, look enough like theman on the film to be family-related?

Kiviat: Ironically, yes. He does look like thefather to some degree. I could say, if he's anactor, they probably picked an actual fatherand son. It struck me right away. The sec-ond the tape was popped in the machine inthe hotel room, when the son left and westarted watching it, I thought immediatelythat it looked like him.

Lindemann: Was this meeting specificallyfor the purpose of handing over the tape?

Kiviat: It was supposed to be a meetingwhere I would both meet the cameramanand receive a copy of the tape from him.Ray even promised there would be an op-portunity for me to discuss with the camera-man the potential of him doing a full inter-view with me. Unfortunately, that neverhappened. A last minute "emergency" cameup and Ray couldn't make it. So he sent arepresentative. And that, according to Ray,is the reason the father himself did notcome. When Ray said that he couldn't makeit, the cameraman apparently decided hewouldn't come either. So the emissaries metwith me.

Lindemann: Who is in possession of thefirst generation copy of that film?

Kiviat: Ray Santilli controls the actual ma-terial, the first generation airable copy ofthe interview. I have not maintained any po-sition, publically at least, as to what therights are to that. At this point, what's doneis done, and he did give it to the Japanese.Unfortunately for Ray, it is now appearingon this [CNI News] web site. I think Raywould prefer that it not be on the web.However, I have no way of inhibiting any-one, and I don't think I would choose to in-hibit anyone from sharing this man's image.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

I'm the one, from the beginning, whowanted every possible clue, because wewere approaching this as a detective story,and this is not closed yet. So any clue Icould possibly get would be used in the up-coming show that we're in preproductionon, and that's why I think it's imperativethat Ray consider the importance of sharingmore information about this individual withme, the network and everybody else. It iscritical, for everyone, to close this out.

Lindemann: Ray Santilli evidently sold thevideotape to the Japanese with no stipula-tion that the man's face and voice be dis-guised. Is it your impression that the cam-eraman is OK with this, or has Ray Santillinow broken faith with this man after al-legedly protecting his identity for nearlytwo years?

Kiviat: That's an issue right now. I can sayfor sure that at one time the cameramanwanted to be silhouetted. But now it appearshe doesn't mind not being silhouetted. Ithink the most proof-positive thing youcould say about that is that he himself shotthe interview. He could watch it. You've gotto figure that someone who took this muchtime to think about coming out, while Rayand I courted him, would take the time toadjust the contrast on his television to see ifhis face shows. I'm wondering what's goingon here, because to me, this man and his sonwere bright enough to know that they couldhave guaranteed silhouette, but they didn'tdo that. They sent it in as is. That may wellbe the biggest clue to his willingness tocome out.

then compile and distribute informationfrom this database to key researchers, ofcourse including yourself. For the benefit ofall visitors to this web site, especially poten-tial eyewitness contributors to our search,would you please explain your own view of,and involvement in, this effort?

Kiviat: Since I'm in preproduction on a po-tential new UFO special for FOX, it's veryimportant to view this as a possible elementin the show. If we can close this thing outduring preproduction, we'll cover how thisweb site and this project led to a closure.This is the first time that anyone has shownthe footage to the American public throughsome media outlet. People need to see thisface and see if they know who this personis. This is a big step, in my opinion, becausethe internet is going to become a majorsource for cooperation between televisionshows like mine and the viewing public.This project at the CNI News site is a greatbeginning — I can't stress that enough — toget information out to the public and to helpclose some of these nagging issues in one ofthe greatest mysteries of perhaps the last 25years. It's time to close this out now.

We want daily reports on anything thatcomes in. Eventually, this may well bewhere the story breaks. So we respect whatyou're doing at CNI News. We respect thedirection you're going and we would like tohelp in every way we can to find this indi-vidual and to cover that on our show.

WHO IS THE MYSTERY CAMERA-MAN?

You've got tofigure thatsomeone whotook this

much time to

think aboutcoming out,

while Ray andI courtedhim, would

take the timeto adjust the

contrast on

his television

to see if his

face shows.

Lindemann: Was the cameraman paid to dothis interview?

Kiviat: My understanding was that he waspaid. I have absolutely no idea how muchmoney, but my understanding is that therewas an exchange of money for tape.

Lindemann: As you know, CNI News isnow determined to do everything possibleto discover the identity of this man. Notonly are we posting still images and a shortvideo clip of the cameraman on this web-site, but we have also created an interactivearea so that people who may have informa-tion on this man's identity or whereaboutscan enter that information in the new data-base we've built for this purpose. We will

Almost from the moment the autopsy filmfirst came to light in early 1995, questionswere raised regarding its authenticity. Inthe two years that have elapsed since then,the majority of researchers involved withthe film have labeled it a probable hoax.Still, some researchers are staunchly con-vinced the film is exactly what it purports tobe — actual military footage of an alien au-topsy — and most others concede that theclaim of hoax has not yet been proven.

Now, a man has proclaimed himself to bethe cameraman. We have his face, his voiceand his words. The identity of this man isnow the critical link in establishing, once

Continued on Page 18

March1997

Number 347Page 11

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

Abduction Report Consistencies as Scientific Evidenceof Alien Abductions

Stuart Appelle, Ph.D.

Stuart Appelleis the editor of

the Journal of

UFO Studies.

1. Wright, D.

Sorting entities.

MUFON UFO

Journal, June,

1996, 3-6.

2. Appelle, S.

Abduction

report consis-

tency and

statistical

inference.

MUFON UFO

Journal,

September,

1996,9-12.

3. Wright, D.

Dan Wright

replies. MUFON

UFO Journal,

September,

1996, 12-13.

March1997Number 347Page 12

Background

In the June 1996 issue of this Journal [1],Dan Wright describes consistencies inabduction report content as found in the

MUFON Abduction Transcription Project(MATP) database. He argues that these con-sistencies occur at a frequency so beyond"chance" that scientists' failure to acceptthe reality of alien abduction can be under-stood only as a reflection of their "herdmentality," and their being "plainly afraid tocontemplate" the possibility of extraterres-trial visitation.

In a subsequent commentary [2] I sug-gested that limitations in meeting the stan-dards of science, rather than limitations inthe personalities of scientists, could accountfor this lack of acceptance. Wright, how-ever, continues to reject this possibility [3].Although his comments indicate no quarrelwith my view that the MATP deviates fromstrict scientific methodology (e.g., obtainingnormative response measures, controllingfor conventional sources of influence, etc.),he argues that such an approach should notbe considered necessary because of the sta-tistical significance of his findings. In fact,he defends his position by re-arguing thecase for statistical significance, suggestingmy call for stricter scientific methodologystems from three "serious oversights" in un-derstanding the mathematical probabilitiesinvolved.

However, my position was argued interms of two issues of statistical inference,only one of which was about the determina-tion of chance (discussed in regard to the in-dividual commonalities Wright reported).The other dealt with problems of interpreta-tion where a non-chance outcome is granted(such as the "correlations" to be discussedlater). To quote from my original article:

"Even if a set of data cannot be attributedto chance, what they can be attributed tomay still be unclear. That is, a non-chanceoutcome only precludes a random event. Itdoes not, in itself, identify the cause of theevent.... Interpreting the results of the[MATP] database as proof of alien visitationis by no means necessary even if the results

were unquestionably beyond chance [origi-nal emphasis]."

I went on to give examples of this prob-lem. But because of his singular focus onestablishing a non-chance outcome, Wrightcharacterizes those examples as "sidebars"and my commentary as a "lecture on proba-bilities."

It may be useful, therefore, to elaborateon my original discussion while addressingthe "oversights" Wright mentions. In doingso, I do not discuss the reality of alien ab-ductions per se, nor any data pertaining tothe abduction experience other than the datareported by Wright.

Instead, I take the position that (a) a fun-damental responsibility of science is toevaluate alternative explanations for a phe-nomenon, (b) where the data do not permitsuch an evaluation, the scientific commu-nity cannot responsibly accept any particu-lar explanation, (c) scientific evaluation fol-lows certain rules; if you don't play by therules of science, you can't expect the sup-port of science. With this perspective, I ar-gue that whether or not commonalties in ab-duction reports reflect common experienceswith alien abductors, these data as reportedso far do not meet traditional scientificstandards of evidence.

The Cited "Oversights"

1. "At no point does [Appelle] ever addressthe correlations of odd factors" (i.e., in-stances where the same set of two or morecontent items appear in two or more abduc-tion reports).

In fact, the "correlations" were ad-dressed. They just were not addressed interms of statistical probability. Because, asWright stresses, the correlation findings areclearly beyond chance, probability is not anissue here. What is at issue is why correla-tions appear at a frequency beyond chance,not whether they do.

Even the phenomenon's critics concedethat abduction report content can't be attrib-uted to a random process. The MATP dataare very useful in confirming that impres-

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

sion; but they do little to establish why theseconsistencies occur. Their appearancemeans only that certain items are associatedwith each other (in statistical parlance, thoseitems are "non-independent"). They do notdistinguish between associations establishedthrough actual experience with aliens, asso-ciations established through mundane expe-rience (e.g., through conventional medicalroutines), and associations that may exist inthe psychodynamics of the human mind(e.g., the association of "fog," or "cloak"with the mysterious).

Indeed, it is not the presence of common-alties, but their absence that would require

an exotic explanation. This is because corre-lations are to be expected regardless ofwhether abduction accounts stem from ac-tual or imagined events. First, any large col-lection of stories based on a highly specifictheme (e.g., "abducted by aliens") shouldhave many content items in common,whether similarities in actual experience orcommonalties in imaginative and social in-fluence are the source of those stories.Second, in any story, certain content ele-ments will tend naturally to go together(e.g., an "examining table" and "restrainingstraps"). Therefore, item correlations arealso to be expected within any collection oftheme-specific stories.

By way of comparison, consider a seriesof reports about conventional "abductions"(i.e., terrestrial kidnappings). Across a largenumber of reports, certain commonaltieswould be expected in either real or fictionalreports (e.g., vehicles of the same color,make, vintage, etc.; the same restraining de-vices — rope, duct tape, etc.; the same typeof weapon). Across a large number of kid-napping accounts, some will share morethan one of these specific content factors.These correlations may occur with a fre-quency well beyond chance, but their pres-ence cannot distinguish between accountsbased on real kidnappings and made-up ac-counts.

As another illustration, consider theThematic Apperception Test (TAT). This isa psychological instrument in which sub-jects are asked to make up a story associ-ated with a simple picture (for example, adrawing of an elderly woman standing withher back turned to a young man). Eventhough the "theme" for such a story is farmore ambiguous than that of alien abduc-tion (for each test stimulus it is only sug-

gested by the picture, and may be perceiveddifferently by each subject) normative datafrom these tests indicate many commonal-ties found across subjects' stories in regardto the characters mentioned, their describedbehaviors, reported motives, associatedemotions, environmental details, and nu-merous other factors [4]. But the stories re-flect consistencies across subjects' psyches,not consistencies in precipitating events.

One might argue that "alien abduction" isa subject so far beyond normative experi-ence, that unlike kidnappings or responsesto conventional drawings, abduction reportcommonalties could not plausibly be attrib-uted to imagination or the human psyche. Inactuality, the unusual nature of the subjectmatter only makes it more difficult to antici-pate (predict) content for fictional reports inadvance, a fact that makes determining whata control population would generate moreimportant, not less.

In summary, the basis of any "story" canbe memory of actual events, imagination, orvarious psychosocial influences. Therefore,where the basis of the story is unknown, anappropriate research protocol must be fol-lowed that can distinguish among the poten-tial causal alternatives. In the absence ofsuch methodology, the inferences drawn(correctly or incorrectly) stem from subjec-tive judgment, not experimental validation.And validation is the core of the scientificmethod.

2 . The "comparison of odd-factor correla-tions with the... four primary characteristics[of] entity height, skin tone, garment typeand garment color" was ignored.

This approach to the data should be ig-nored. Each of these four characteristics isquite commonly portrayed in abduction ac-counts, and as indicated by Wright each ismentioned in over half of his 216 cases.Accordingly, they fit neither his descriptivedefinition of an "odd" ("obscure") factor("rarely if ever mentioned in print or elec-tronic media") nor his operational definition("repeated in at least four cases, but not sooften as to be considered common"). SinceWright's entire argument rests on thepremise that only "obscure" items are beinganalyzed, using familiar factors to bolster acase for obscure ones is methodologicallyinappropriate.

Indeed, it isnot the pres-

ence of com-monalties, buttheir absence

that wouldrequire an ex-otic explana-

tion. This isbecause cor-

relations areto be ex-

pected regard-less of

whether ab-duction ac-

counts stemfrom actual or

imaginedevents.

4. Henry, W. E.

(1987). The

analysis of fan-

tasy. Malabar,

Florida: Robert

E. Krieger

Publishing

Company.

March1997Number 347Page 13

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

5. (No author).

Aliens: Silver

Lining.

Newsweek,

September 16,

1996, p. 10.

6. Gabriel, T.

Alien beings

abduct pop

culture. New

York Times,

September 12,

1996.

7. Associated

Press. UFO hys-

teria invades

holy land.

(September 22,

1996).

March1997Number 347Page 14

3. "The potential universe [of abduction re-port factors] is not just 2174 factors [thenumber of factors in the MUFON data-base]; in fact it is infinite."

Conventional measures of statisticalprobability use the sample size associatedwith the study. In this case the 2174 items inthe MUFON database is the correct samplesize and any interpretation of probabilitiesmust be based on it. (If the number of con-tent items evaluated were indeed infinite,normal predictive tests of probability wouldnot be possible. The probability of any po-tential content item being mentioned wouldbe I/infinity = 0; i.e. for all practical pur-poses there would be zero probability of anyparticular content item appearing!)

Besides, the number of potential abduc-tion reports is not "in fact infinite" (a num-ber which is greater than that of all words inthe English language). Even to be recogniz-able as an "abduction report" an accountmust be consistent with a highly specifictheme (i.e., being kidnapped by non-humanentities) which places considerable con-straints on potential report content.

The Issue of Factor "Obscurity"

One of the more popular hypotheses forabduction report consistency is familiaritywith the abduction report scenario. Becauseof this possibility, Wright uses factor obscu-rity as a control for such concerns, since ob-scurity is so central to Wright's arguments,it is important to examine this characteristicmore closely.

Item selection. Wright selected 68 con-tent factors as meeting his definition of "ob-scure." However, he provides no informa-tion about his factor selection protocol. Forexample, he indicates that "a hundred more[obscure factors] could have been selected".On what basis then, were these particular 68chosen? How did Wright determine that afactor was "obscure"? Did he just use hissubjective impression based on his own ex-posure to media sources? If not, what mediasources were surveyed? What time perioddid this media search cover? What actuallyconstitutes "rarely mentioned"? For exam-ple, did a single ("rare") mention in awidely accessed media source still meet thecriterion of "obscure"?

These are not unreasonable questions. Injust the week during which Wright's objec-

tions to my comments appeared in the MU-FON Journal, TBS had a two-hour specialchronicling the events in five abduction ex-periencers' lives, a major insurance house inBritain began offering insurance for alienabductions [5], a story in The New YorkTimes [6] highlighted a rash of art exhibitsin SoHo, each focusing on an alien abduc-tion theme, and an Associated Press article[7] reported that "Israeli media join craze of... alien abductions." With the abductionphenomenon this well established inAmerican and international culture, evi-dence that content items are indeed "ob-scure" must be established by much moredefinitive means than an investigator's dec-laration.

Control for familiarity with abduction re-port content. Even if properly determined,factor obscurity (as defined by Wright) isonly a control for media influence, not otherpossible sources of influence. As just oneexample, I discussed in my original articlethat obscurity in the media does not equateto obscurity among those contributing to theMATP database. Specifically, I pointed outthat opportunities exist for social influencebetween experiencers and investigators.

Wright insists that such contagion is min-imal and can easily be dismissed, suggest-ing that "a very strong commitment of con-fidentiality" among his database investiga-tors precludes this possibility. The issue ofinvestigator confidentiality is simply not apersuasive argument against exposure to ab-duction report content. Factors identified byWright as obscure (including examining ta-bles, flashlight-like instruments, railingsand tunnels, feelings of love for the abduc-tors, items of apparel, etc.) are all widelycited in the abduction community. Throughsupport groups, conventions, newsletters,UFO publications, abduction books, etc. thepotential for sharing specific details amonginvestigators and experiencers is consider-able.

In addition, I know of experiencers whohave "worked with" more than one investi-gator, investigators who have shared hypno-sis session transcripts with each other (al-beit with abductee consent), and at least onecase in which a transcriber for the MATP it-self is an abduction experiencer. Given thatthe MATP database is derived from re-peated sessions covering months or years of

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

an experiencer's interaction with investiga-tors and other experiencers, the opportunityfor such information exposure to influencethe data is very real indeed.

Of course, I don't know the extent towhich any of these influences have actuallyaffected the MATP database. And that isjust the point. In the absence of appropriatecontrols and a careful description of datacollection protocols, one can only guesswhat effect this information mill has had onabduction report commonalties.

Among other things, Wright's analysisprovides no information on how common-alty frequency varies with time (i.e., fromthe earliest abduction reports to the most re-cent), or across multiple hypnosis sessions(i.e., from initial sessions to later sessions),or for cases common to a particular investi-gator (as compared to cases from differentinvestigators). No comparison is providedbetween MATP data and earlier descriptionsof abduction report content (e.g., Bullard'smassive review). Science requires proce-dures that can clarify these matters, not sim-ply Wright's guess as to their importance.

Factor specificity. A corollary of factorobscurity is factor specificity. Can one ar-gue that repeated mention of an unusuallyspecific item (let's say a particular uniforminsignia) is prima facie evidence for abduc-tion report veridicality? Certainly suchspecificity argues against the likelihood thatits mention is due to chance. But withoutcontrol data we cannot know if the fre-quency of its mention is in fact greater thanthat for the general population (for reasonsnot immediately apparent), or the degree towhich awareness of this factor exists withinthe experiencer community. Is the re-searcher who waits for control data on thisreflecting (as Wright suggests) a bad atti-tude, or just a legitimate concern for goodscience?

Quo Vadis Ufology?

Research in ufology has been (perhaps bynecessity) more of an investigative enter-prise (fact finding through the examinationof case studies, documenting facts and testi-mony, categorizing and tabulating descrip-tive data) than a scientific one (hypothesistesting through systematic observation andexperimentation). This investigative work isabsolutely necessary, and (like the work ofWright with the MATP database) should be

applauded, supported and encouraged. It hashelped establish that experiences of uniden-tified flying objects and alien abduction arewidespread. It has clarified the characteris-tics of those experiences. It has demon-strated that sometimes those characteristicscannot be easily accounted for with prosaicor conventional explanations.

Some have argued that even in the ab-sence of scientific verification, this body ofevidence would be enough to establish anextraterrestrial basis for these phenomena ina court of law. That proposition has notbeen tested. Clearly, however, the evidencehas been enough to convince many in thecourt of public opinion. Like law and publicopinion, science also deals with evidence.Like law and public opinion, science alsohas its own unique standards of evidence.And like the jurist who is asked to separateconclusions based on personal standardsfrom those based on legal ones, scientiststoo must separate personal belief from be-lief based on science. .

Mindful of this, the present article is notabout personal standards of evidence

nor legal standards. It is about the standardsof science. Its purpose is two-fold: to en-courage a fair-minded perspective on whythe scientific community at-large has notembraced the idea that alien abductions aretaking place; and to illustrate what ap-proaches to the data need to be taken beforethe scientific community can realisticallyevaluate that possibility. The case I make isnot predicated on the well known skepticdictum that "extraordinary claims requireextraordinary evidence." Nor is it based onthe suggestion by Budd Hopkins that "anextraordinary phenomenon requires an ex-traordinary investigation." While the evi-dence Wright has presented falls short of ei-ther goal, more importantly, it falls short ofbasic scientific protocol as applied to mun-dane claims and phenomena.

Of course, the reader may choose to re-ject traditional scientific standards. Thereader may insist that a compelling case hasbeen made in spite of these standards. Orthe reader may argue, as do some, that theabduction phenomenon is "beyond" sciencealtogether. My comments do not addressthese perspectives either. Instead, they areaimed at those who wish the field of ufol-ogy to measure up to scientific standardsand, thereby, increase the involvement of

Through sup-

port groups,conventions,

newsletters,UFO publica-

tions, abduc-tion books,etc. the po-

tential forsharing spe-

cific detailsamong in-

vestigatorsand experi-encers is

considerable.

March1997Number 347Page 15

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

Some have

argued thateven in the

absence of

scientific ver-ification, this

body of evi-

dence wouldbe enough to

establish an

extraterres-trial basis for

these phe-

nomena in acourt of law.

the scientific community in the study ofthese phenomena.

For this reason, it is unfortunate thatWright continues to attribute the failure toaccept the reality of alien abductions to sci-entists' personalities, rather than to short-comings in the way the evidence has beencollected and presented. Not only does hedefend his earlier ad hominem remarksabout the scientific community, he persistswith additional insults — this time stereo-typing scientists as "entrenched" individualslacking in "common sense." This is a cheer-leader's come-on, not the kind of reasonedcomment one would hope for (and expect)from a representative of an organization thatpromotes itself as dedicated to the scientificstudy of UFOs, prides itself on the scientistsin its membership, and holds annual con-ventions to address the science of ufology.

For the same reason, it is disappointing tofind a MUFON representative rejecting "ad-herence to a strict scientific method of orga-nizing control groups...replicating... find-ings and so forth," in favor of "the need tomove on" with other projects which presup-pose alien abductions as established fact.This lack of concern for scientific rigorseems inconsistent with the public imageMUFON is trying to present.

If MUFON's promotional message is atrue reflection of its attitude toward science,its representatives should speak as advo-cates of science, not as detractors.Alternatively, MUFON can accept themetaphor advanced by Wright: Ufology as a"train" having long since "left the station"of scientific accountability.

John Schuessler is presenting Dr. Clyde Tombaugh with a picture ofthe NASA space station.

March1997Number 347Page 16

DISCOVERER OF PLUTODIESby John F. Schuessler

Clyde Tombaugh, the astronomer who dis-covered the planet Pluto, is dead at the ageof 90. Tombaugh died at his home inMesilla Park, New Mexico on Friday,January 17, 1997.

Dr. Tombaugh has the distinction of dis-covering a planet, reporting two UFO sight-ings, and finding 3,969 asteroids, 1,807variable stars, a large globular cluster, acouple of comets, and 29, 548 galaxies.

Tombaugh was born in Streator, Illinoisin 1906. While in his early twenties,sketches he had made of Mars attracted theattention of V. M. Slipher, Director of theLowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona,and he was invited to join the staff of theobservatory as an observer. His assignmentwas to find Planet X, the then unknownninth planet outside the orbit of Neptune.For six months, he would photograph thesky during the dark of the moon and "blink"the planets the rest of the time. He wouldlook at an average of 35,000 stars per day.Finally, on February 18, 1930, he made hisdiscovery. His examination of photographicplates of the sky near delta-Geminorum re-vealed a dim object, moving at the pre-dicted rate for a trans-Neptunian object. Itwas Pluto.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

IJaeJUEGLERESS

by David M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

M ost readers of the MUFON UFOJournal will instantly recognize the

"Linda" Case. It occupies an unusual posi-tion in UFO history because the UFO com-munity has engaged in a passionate debateabout it without knowing much about it.Because the case is so complex, BuddHopkins has been able to discuss only lim-ited aspects of it in his presentations at UFOconferences. As a result, the case is well-known but the vast array of details and themain threads within it have not been gener-ally known.

I am not a dispassionate observer in theLinda case and therefore this review mustbe read with that in mind. It started for mein 1991, when Hopkins called me up andtold me that he had received a stunning let-ter. Two "police officers," Richard and Dan,wrote that they had witnessed a UFO abduc-tion. They had seen several "people" float-ing out of a window of a high-rise apart-ment building in the middle of Manhattanand into a hovering UFO. When he read theletter to me we both puzzled over whetherthis could have been Linda Cortile, an ab-ductee who lived in the immediate area andwith whom Hopkins had been having a se-ries of hypnotic regressions. He remem-bered that she had been abducted sometimeduring that time period. I said that thechances were against it because there mightbe many abductees l iving in that area, andwe were not even sure that they were look-ing at Linda's apartment building.

A short time later, to our astonishment,the two police officers knocked on Linda'sdoor and told her what they had seen. Thechances that they could have known thatLinda was an abductee were extremely re-mote. The chances that they knew Lindahad been abducted on that particular nightwere astronomically small—only Linda andHopkins knew this. Thus begins the casethat would ultimately see print asWitnessed: The True Story of the BrooklynBridge UFO Abductions, one of the mostextraordinary abduction cases of all time.

During the course of his investigations,Hopkins would spend five years tracking

down every lead, every fact, and every wit-ness. Working with a loose team of peopleexpert in different areas of investigation, hediscovered that there were a number of wit-nesses besides the two police officers. Forinstance, there were people on the BrooklynBridge, just a few blocks away, who hadseen the event. He traveled to upstate NewYork to interview one of them, a retiredwoman who had absolutely no stake or con-nection to this abduction other than as a wit-ness.

Hopkins also learned that Richard andDan were not actually police officers.Rather, they were security officials accom-panying an important world leader to a heli-copter pad. The "Third Man," as Hopkinscalls him, was also a witness and an impor-tant participant in the unfolding events. Inthe end Hopkins uncovered more thantwenty players to this abduction drama,some direct witnesses, and others witnessesor participants to events surrounding the ab-duction's aftermath. The case is so complex,that when writing the book, Hopkins had to"corral" the enormous amounts of informa-tion he had collected, eliminating many as-pects of the case that would have made thebook into two long volumes.

Unfolding like a detective novel,Witnessed takes the reader through thelabryinth of events as they happened toLinda and to Hopkins. Each event tends toconfirm the centrality of the abduction witha cohesion that is astounding. Each chapterleads to more revelations and more evi-dence. Each witness adds more depth andmore veracity to the case.

Witnessed contains multi-layers of fasci-nation in the complex series of events. Theactions of the two officers toward Linda, therelationship between Richard and Dan, therole of the third man in the abduction phe-nomenon, the relationship of the third manto Linda and her family, the relationships ofall the participants to each other, and all theparticipants' relationships to Hopkins, com-pose a rich and extraordinary journey intothe countless facets of this landmark case.To this day, Hopkins has never met Richardor Dan, but their lives will forever be inter-twined with his. He has met the allegedthird man. In a short but dramatic encounterin an airport, Hopkins' conversation withthe world leader speaks volumes not onlyfor what was said, but perhaps even morefor was not said.

Witnessed:

The TrueStory of theBrooklyn

Bridge UFOAbductions

by BuddHopkins.

Pocket Books,New York,1996,401 pp,illus., appen-dices, $23.00

March1997Number 347Page 17

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

David

Jacobs, a

professor of

history at

TempleUniversity, is

the author of

Secret Life:Firsthand

Accounts of

UFO

Abductions

(Simon &Schuster,

1992)

March1997Number 347Page 18

Hopkins also uncovered some importantfacts about the abduction phenomenon. Hefound that aliens will sometimes put ab-ductees together as youngsters. They formfriendships while children and then as theygrow older their friendships turn into sexualpartnerships. That this happened to Richardand Linda is not surprising in light of theunusual bond that formed between themwhen they met. As such, it brings up the de-gree of intrusion into the lives of abducteesthat the aliens have accomplished—it sug-gests that the abduction phenomenon is farmore intimate and all-encompassing thanwe had believed. It also implies that thephenomenon's long-term aspects might befar more extensive than most people areaware.

The case also speaks to professionalism,or lack thereof, in the UFO community.Amateur UFO sleuths and debunkers suc-ceeded in muddying the waters of this caseby publishing misleading and false materialabout it after a superficial examination ofonly a few facts. The debunkers spread theirinaccurate findings on the Internet and inUFO publications. Before long other UFObuffs made up their minds that the case wassuspicious even before Hopkins had com-pleted his investigation. Thus, it is with re-lief that Witnessed has finally been pub-lished and the record can be set straight.The expert professionalism with whichHopkins conducted this investigation is insharp contrast to the misleading and shoddywork of the amateurs. Hopkins answersevery criticism made of the case and puts torest the qualms that some researchers mayhave had about it.

It is also important to remember that thiscase is dynamic and ongoing. Events havehappened past the writing of the book.

We can only hope that the even morecomplex story of this case and its peripheralactions will someday be told. In the mean-time, we are indebted to Hopkins for addinganother giant step forward in our quest forclarity and truth about the UFO and abduc-tion phenomenon.

News Off The Net -Continued from Page 11

and for all, whether or not the Santilli au-topsy film should be taken seriously.

Is he an actual military cameraman? Oncehis identity is known, we might be able tosubstantiate his military service record andhis actual whereabouts during the crucialperiod of the late 1940s.

On the other hand, is he actually an actor?Is he possibly involved in the special effectsindustry? Is he younger than he is supposedto be? How deeply involved has he beenwith Santilli's project?

CNI News again urges all our readers to as-sist in resolving these questions.We will report on every new developmentas soon as possible.

Except as otherwise noted, the entire text ofCNI News is copyright 1997 by the 2020Group. As a condition of receiving CNINews, all recipients agree not to post CNINews on any Newsgroup, Web site, BBS orsimilar electronic location, nor redistributeCNI News by any electronic means, exceptfor the express purpose of encouraging oth-ers to subscribe, or unless with prior per-mission of the editor. In general, electronicposting or redistribution of single articles orshort excerpts from CNI News will be ap-proved, provided credit is given to theauthor and CNI News in every instance.Hard copy (paper) reproduction and redistri-bution of CNI News, in whole or part, foreducational purposes is permitted.

MUFON COMMUNICATIONNUMBERS

MUFON Headquarters: Seguin, TXTelephone: (210)379-9216

Fax: (210) 372-9439

MUFON UFO HOT LINE 1-800-UFO-2166

THE INTERNET -mufon.com

MUFON e-mail address -mufonhq@aol.com

MUFONET-BBS (901)327-1008

MUFON On CompuServe - "Go MUFON"to access the Forum

MUFON Amateur Radio Net40 meters - 7.237 MHz - Saturday, 8 a.m.

Eastern Time

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

MUFQNJ1QRUMLetter? t&Mufon UFO Journal

Who Saved What?

This is in regard to Ed Stewart's E-mail(reprinted in the January 1997 Journal, p.19) in which he claimed that "urologistshave Carl Sagan to thank for the preserva-tion of the Blue Book files." Stewart statedthat, "After the Condon Report and the AirForce announcement that they were discon-t inuing Project Blue Book, rumors ran ram-pant that the Air Force was going to destroythe Blue Book files. Dr. Edward Condontried to use his influence to do just that."

Where else but in the UFO field wouldrumor be taken as fact? Where is the evi-dence that the Air Force planned to destroythe Blue Book files? The fact is that AirForce regulations required that the projectfiles be maintained permanently, so the AirForce would have had to violate their ownregulations — and invite the wrath of theArchivist of the United States — to destroythe files.

Likewise, where is the evidence that Dr.Condon "tried to use his influence" to havethe Blue Book files destroyed?

Released with the so-called "Bolendermemo" were copies of other records con-cerning the termination of Project BlueBook and the disposition of the Blue Bookfiles. One of these documents, a letter datedJune 21, 1968, from Secretary of the AirForce Harold Brown to Dr. Condon, stated:

"In your letter of 2 May 1968, you rec-ommended that the UFO files at Wright-Patterson AFB (and possibly also the cur-rent files and working office of Project BlueBook) be relocated to the Washington area."

As I understand it, the Air Force an-nounced the termination of Project BlueBook in December 1969, more than a yearand a half after Condon's 2 May 1968 letterexpressing concern about the Blue Bookfiles.

Furthermore, paragraph 8 of the"Bolender memo" says:

"Project Blue Book has accumulatedrecords on over 13,000 sighting cases.During his study, Dr. Condon expressedconcern about [the] possible loss of theserecords and their relative inaccessibility atWright-Patterson Air Force Base. He was

assured by Secretary Brown we would lookinto the feasibility and desirability of relo-cating the files in the Washington area andthat no action would be taken until theColorado report was released ..." SecretaryBrown's June 21, 1968 letter informedCondon that the Air Force would continuenegotiations with the Library of Congressand the National Air and Space Museum"with the intent of eventually transferringthe old cases to one of these organizations."

None of the records released to me madeany mention of Dr. Sagan. Dr. Sagan maywell have circulated a petition to preservethe Blue Book files, but 1 haven't seen ashred of evidence to show that that petitionhad any effect on the disposition of the files,or even that the Air Force seriously consid-ered destroying the files in the first place. IfStewart — or anybody else — has such evi-dence, I would very much like to see it.

As shocking and as radical as this maysound, rumors are not facts. Equally shock-ing is the idea that, based on the availabledocumentation, ufologists have Dr. Condonto thank for the preservation of the ProjectBlue Book files — assuming some villain-ous scheme actually existed within the AirForce to dispose of the Blue Book files tobegin with, in violation of Air Force regula-tions and guidelines established by theArchivist of the United States.

Incidentally, it appears that SecretaryBrown's June 21, 1968 letter was one of thesixteen attachments to the "Bolendermemo," although it was not identified assuch when these records were furnished tome.

— Robert ToddArdmore, PA

Guncamera PictureI would like to comment on the News &

Views article, Weirdness on the Web, in theFebruary 1997 MUFON Journal. There isno doubt there is weirdness on the web, butthere are also an incredible number of datasources.

Unfortunately, just as in oral communica-tion, messages get altered as they pass fromone person to another. When I first met LeeShargel in Philadelphia and saw the photos

March1997Number 347Page 19

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

March1997Number 347Page 20

he projected on the screen of a craft seenover Roswell, NM in 1947 by some unspec-ified pilot, I was receptive and interested.When I heard Shargel's explanation, itseemed reasonable at that time. I forwardedthe picture taken by Dr. Bruce Cornet at thatconference in Philadelphia on November17, 1996 to Mr. Strieber who displayed it onhis website. I expressed the opinion that itwas probably authentic, but it would have tobe examined further.

After I saw Lee Shargel's second presen-tation and additional photos, I had growingdoubts about his photos and his data. WhenI got a close look at the photos, I becameconvinced they were fabrications. I now be-lieve that the photo published on page 13 ofthe Journal is an object (someone suggestedit was identical to a panel found on a vac-uum cleaner) that was placed on a glass sur-face (such as a light table) and then pho-tographed. There is a streak of light thatruns across the surface of the metal objectright into the sky which made me believethat the streak was a reflection off a sup-porting surface. I do not support Shargel'sclaims or photos.

I must add this note. Lee Shargel, to myknowledge, never claimed this objectlooked like the one that crashed nearRoswell. As a matter of fact he originallysaid that this object had a different shape,

I just want to state for the record that I donot make claims unless I have some degreeof certainty that I can back such claims withfacts. This picture was deliberately postedon my website with the heading RoswellCraft? (note the question mark) for the pur-pose of eliciting responses.

Thank you,—Bill Hamilton

Ass't State DirectorMUFON, AZ

MILABsVictoria Alexander (Forum, 2/97) thinks

the claims of Debbie Jordan and others that,having been abducted by UFOs, they werelater harassed and/or abducted by the mili-tary are "fantasies of lonely women." Yetthese women say they either told no one oftheir UFO abductions, or only told a fewclose friends or relatives—yet the militaryseemed to know all about it.

Years ago, I reported to Richard Boylanand others (and later to MUFON) that I wasabducted by strange beings in 1955 and,years later, harassed and driven out of a

government job by former members of theUSAF UFO retrieval unit. If I was lying orhallucinating, how did I describe this unit insome detail before Kevin Randle's article onit was published?

And if Debbie Jordan and the others arefantasizing, how did they, having neverheard my account, make the same improba-ble claim that the military somehow knewof their (often unreported) abductions —just as the military apparently knew ofmine? Since abductions often run in fami-lies, could the military have been simplytracking the families of potential abducteesfor well over 30 years?

—William B. StoeckerSacramento, CA

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE -Continued from Page 23

for $25.00 plus $3.50 for postage and han-dling from MUFON in Seguin.

Congratulations to the people who haverecently taken the Field Investigator's Examand received a passing grade. KathleenMarden now grades the exams and forwardsthe name and score to MUFON headquar-ters, where Phyllis Hutson records the gradeon your membership application, revises theapplication, and mails the new FieldInvestigator their new I.D. card.

ADDITIONAL EVENTS AT GRANDRAPIDSA press conference for all speakers is sched-uled for Friday, July llth from 1 to 3 p.m.The annual State/Provincial Director'smeeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.on July l l th with Dr. John C. Kasher,moderating. Time will be allocated for shortactivity reports from each State andProvincial Director. If the State Directorwill be unable to attend, he/she should des-ignate someone to represent them. The MU-FON Annual Board of Directors meetingwill take place on Sunday, July 13th from 9a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

All State and Provincial Directors willsubmit their annual reports to Dr. Kasher atthe meeting if they or a representative at-tends. If they do not attend, the reportsshould be mailed to Walt Andrus. Here isyour opportunity to share with your col-leagues your accomplishments and ideas inpromoting MUFON.

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

THE ANOMALIST 4Articles by Colin Wilson ("An Egyp t i an State of Mind").Hector Q u i n t a n i l l a ("Project B l u e Book's Last Days"),Montague Keen ("Crop Circles"), Michael Cremo ("ForbiddenArcheology"), Steven Mizrach ("Wired Spirits"), Paul Schlyter(' 'Earth's Second Moon"), Larry Dossey, Loren Coleman,others. 144 pp., i l l u s . Only $9.95 p lus S2.50 s/h. Checkspayable to Dennis Stacy, Box 12434. San Antonio, TX 78212.

FLYING SAUCER DIGESTPublishing for over 30 years. The number one privately pub-lished UFO magazine in the world. Free offer wi th each 4-issue subscription: 10 different UFO maps & 4 unique UFOil lus t ra t ions , ready for framing. SIO.OO to U A P A - M , Box347032, Cleveland, Ohio 44134.

UFO DANGER ZONE:TERROR AND DEATH IN BRAZIL

By Bob Pratt. Over 18 years research. Over 200 cases. Over1700 witnesses interviewed. "Field research as it should bedone": Dr. Jacques Vallee. Horus House Press, Inc.. SI6.95plus $2.00 s&h, PO Box 55185, Madison, WI 53705.

"ALIEN IMPLANTS" VIDEOOne hour nationally-syndicated live TV talk show on implants,produced by UFO-AZ. 4/96. featuring Gail Seymour of IRM.Meet three abductees. Watch Derrel Sims & Dr. Roger Leirsurgically removing implants! (MUFON Journal. 4/96) Checkor money order for US SI9.95 plus $2.50 s/h to IDEAS WestMarke t ing , 1014 Hopper Ave.. Stc. 301, Santa Rosa, CA95403-1603. Messages: 800-336-3780

VIDEO/AUDIO TAPES on UFOs, crop circles, aviation mys-teries, NDE, Face on Mars & other fascinating topics. Free list& sample newsletter from The Eclectic Viewpoint, Box802735-M, Dallas, TX 75380. Future lecture hotline (214) 601-7687

UFO SEMINAR OF THE YEAR: Stanton Friedman (June 21)on crashed saucers, gov't coverup and MJ-12. Dr. John Mack(June 22) will discuss UFO abductions, their social & spiritualimplications. Per day: $65 until March 31; $75 thereafter. Bothdays: $120 unti l March 31, $150 thereafter . OmegaCommunications, Box 2051-M, Cheshire, CT 06410-5051.

JAMES V. FORRESTAL & MJ-12? Recently released Navydocuments on the death of our first Secretary of Defensereveal new insights on this tragedy. A 40-page photocopyreport examines these documents & other sources with start-ling conclusions! Send $4.95 postpaid to: Brian Parks, 2818 W.182 St. #30, Torrance, CA 90504.

Are UFOs in the Bible? Absolutely. God has the answer to thebig question, Why are they here? Read The Agenda by B. Fox.Scriptures & references by John Mack, Travis Walton & oth-ers. Send check or money order to B. Fox, Offer #101, P.O.Box 6057, Walker Branch, Roswell, NM 88202. Rechargeabletelephone card free with each order.

BIBLE PREDICTS ALIEN ATTACK

http://adams.patriot.net/~premil/we/wa/wal.html

NEW!Ron Russell Crop Circle Picture.Book 68 high qual i ty colorphoto copies, 45 pages, pictures, comments, references, S46.50includes tax & shipping within USA. ( 1 0 or more copies, 10%discount.) Send name, address & check to: Ron Russell CropCircles, c/o Hans Holland. 1750-1 30th St. #114 Boulder, CO80301.

CROP CIRCLES DECIPHEREDCrop circles repeat Biblical messages!

The s igns are here! 52 pages, 12 i l l u s t r a t i o n s . For thebook that i s p rophe t i c , v i s i t our web si te:h t tp : / /www.sunshine .net /800/sn0896/crop.h tml Or send$22.20 Canadian, $15.00 US ( s h i p p i n g & taxes inc luded) to

.Sovot Unl imi ted , Site 2 1, Comp 4, RR5, Pell Rd., Gibsons,BC, Canada VON IVO.

YOUR AD HERE!Reach more than 5000 readers and fellow ufologists. Advertiseyour personal publications, products, research projects, localmeetings or pel peeves here. Fifty words or less only $20 perissue. Add $10 for box and bold heading. Send ad copy &check, made out to MUFON, to Dennis Stacy, Box 12434, SanAntonio, TX 78212. Must be MUFON member or Journal sub-scriber.

THE MAGNETIC SOUTH COMPANYMagnetic relax products and far infrared products for peopleand pets. Relieve discomfort and stress. Increase energy. Non-invasive and non-chemical. Global giant new to U.S. now tak-ing applications for distributorships. Phone 800-849-2893. March

1997Number 347

Page 21

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

April 1997

Bright Planets (Evening Sky):Mercury has its best evening appearance of the year in earlyApril, reaching a point 19° E of the Sun on the 5th. Lookfor an orange dot low in the WNW at dusk. (Use binocu-lars.) On April 8 the crescent Moon helps locate the l i t t leplanet 7° to the right.

Mars (magnitude -0.8), in Leo, remains bright but fadesslowly during the month as Earth leaves the planet behind.Telescope users can still find views of the Martian surfaceworthwhile. (See the March column.) The red planet lies inthe SE at dusk and then crosses the southern sky during thenight. It resumes eastward motion on the 29th. On the nightof April 18-19, Mars can be seen about 4° above the gib-bous Moon.

Bright Planets (Morning Sky):Mars sets in the W at dawn.Jupiter (-2.2), in Capricornus, rises in the ESE about 3:30AM daylight time in midmonth and is low in the SE atdawn. The giant stands 4° to the right of the lunar crescenton April 3.

Comet Hale-Bopp:For the first two weeks of April, Hale-Bopp should remainrelatively bright in dark evening skies and about 20° abovethe NW horizon (at 40° lat.) toward the end of dusk. Afterthat, increasing moonlight interferes unt i l late in the month:the comet also sinks lower in the sky. (Observers abo*e lat.50° can see the comet all night.) Hale-Bopp was nearest theSun.March 31 (85 mil l ion miles). As of this writing, thecomet's brightness is still below the early optimistic predic-tions. But the object may yet achieve a magnitude brighterthan -1 or 0 in early April, with u prominent dust tai l 10° ormore in length.Since last November the Internet has buzzed with newsabout a strange companion object next to Hale-Bopp. Theso-called Saturn-like Object (SLO) was imaged through aHouston amateur astronomer's telescope. Despite the wildclaims of some—an alien spaceship, a scientific cover-up,conspiracy—more careful observers identified the SLO as apre-existing 8.5-magnitude star with imaged diffractionspikes (from the telescope's internal mirror system).Apparently the discoverer's star-map software failed toshow the star, implying a new object: this was due to im-proper programming of the software.

Moon Phases: ^̂New moon—April 7 ^P

First quarter — April 14

moon— April 22 O

The Stars:Leo the Lion, with its prominent Sickle and stellar heart ofthe beast Regulus. crosses the celestial meridian high in theS at 10 PM daylight time in mid-April. Leo separates thespring constellations behind it to the E from the waningwinter patterns to the W.To the left of Leo's tail, look for a wig of long hair, a clus-ter of about two dozen stars called Coma Berenices—Queen Berenice's Hair. This asterism honors an Egyptianqueen who cut off her hair in tribute to the goddess ofbeauty and to the safe return from battle of the king.

From the West Coast on April 10, the bright star Aldebaran(the eye of the Bull Taurus) vanishes behind the dark limbof the crescent Moon between 9:30 and 10 PM (PDT).After nearly an hour, the star pops out from behind theMoon's bright edge.

MUFON 1996 SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS"UFOLOGY: A Scientific Enigma"

Fourteen papers — 308 pagesPrice: $25 plus $1.75 for postage and handing, in U.S fundsOrder from: MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Road, Segum, TX 78155-4099

Last quarter — April 29

March 21-23 — 5th Annual Gulf Breeze UFO Conference atBeachside Resort, Pensacola Beach, Florida. For information writeProject Awareness, P.O. Box 730, Gulf Breeze, FL 32562 or tele-phone 904-432-8888, FAX 904-438-1801.

April 11-13 — Ninth Annual Ozark UFO Conference at the Inn ofthe Ozarks Conference Center in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. Forfurther information contact Ozark UFO Conference, #2 CaneyValley Drive, Plummerville, AR 72127-8725 or (501) 354-2558.

May 3 — Mid-Atlantic 50th Anniversary UFO Symposium inBethesda, Maryland. For further information contact BruceMaccabee, 6962 Eyler Valley Flint Rd., Sabiiiasville, MD 21780

June 21-22 — Joint UFO Seminar "1997 - 50 Years On" atRiverwood Legion Club in Sydney, Australia. For information con-tact INUFOR, P.O. Box 783, Kogarah, N.S.W. 2217. Australia.

June 21-22 — The UFO Seminar of the Year, Holiday inn, NorthHaven, CT. For information, write Omega Communications. P.O.Box 2051, Cheshire, CT 06410-5051.

June 26-28 — 18th Rocky Mountain UFO Conference at Universityof Wyoming, Laramie, WY. For information contact Institute for UFOResearch, 1304 So. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524 or call(970)482-3731.

July 11-13 — Twenty-eighth annual MUFON international UFOSymposium, Amway Grand Plaza Hotel, Grand Rapids, Michigan.Theme: "The Fiftieth Anniversary of Ufology." For further informationwrite to MUFON 1997 Symposium, 3628 Aragon Drive, Lansing, Ml48906-3508.

August 3-8 — Ancient Astronaut Society 24th Anniversary WorldConference at Sheraton Plaza Hotel in Orlando, Florida. For furtherinformation contact Ancient Astronaut Society, 1921 St. John'sAve., Highland Park, IL 60035-3178.

October 11 & 12 — "The UFO Experience" at Holiday Inn in NorthHaven, Connecticut. Contact Omega Communications, P.O. Box2051, Cheshire, CT 06410.

March 1997 Number 347 Page 22

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE - Continued from Page 24

2/6/97 and shares Tom's enthusiasm. Tom's telephonenumber is (716) 786-0625.

In order to kickoff the program, your Director sup-plied Tom with our computer list of every AssociateMember worldwide. This will become his mailing listto send letters to associates seeking their ideas andhow they could get more involved. He said one of hismain goals of the project is to boost membership inMUFON. Young people are quite capable of perform-ing in the MUFON classifications of Amateur RadioOperator and UFO Newsclipping Service in additionto Associate Member. Tom and Lynda feel that theMUFON logo T-shirts and ball caps, would appeal toyoung folks, presently stocked in our UFO informa-tion Center.

This is an appeal to other Associate Members thatare anxious to help in this project to contact Tom Lyonat the above address and volunteer your assistance.We are also looking for adult volunteers who will actas consultants and advisors to help the new AssociateMembers Auxiliary in this very important venture.These people should write and offer their services toWalt Andrus so an advisory committee may beformed.

Tom has been very active in the Boy Scouts ofAmerica and high school extracurricular activities. HisSAT scores indicate that he is a bright young man. Atgrade 6 his test grade equivalent was llth grade andhis grade 7 was that of first year of college.

SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS COVER DESIGNCONTESTThe success of the 1996 Symposium Proceedingscover design contest has prompted MUFON to makethis an annual competition. Fran Geremia, wife ofNew Hampshire State Director, Peter Geremia, wasthe 1996 winner. The cover design should reflect thesymposium theme "The Fiftieth Anniversary ofUfology" and include, in addition to the theme, thestatements "MUFON 1997 INTERNATIONAL UFOSYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS," the locationGRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, and the symposiumdates "July 11-13." The contest submissions must be"camera ready" and not simply attractive designs,symbols or artwork. The contest prize winner will re-ceive $100 in cash plus $100 in MUFON publicationsmerchandise. Please submit entries to Walt Andrus,the symposium proceedings editor. Several entrieshave already been received. The deadline for coverdesigns is April 1, 1997.

MOTTO CONTESTWe are searching for a motto that best exemplifiesMUFON's goals and objectives, that is serious, in-triguing, eye-catching, and meaningful. This contestproduced more responses than any other project that

MUFON has proposed in 27 years. Five-hundred andthirty-five mottos were submitted from 58 differentpeople. Nine judges are endeavoring to select whatthey consider the 25 best, in their judgment, thatmeets our objectives. The deadline is March 15th forthe judges. I can envision a run-off vote of the mottosthat rank at the top after we receive the judges'choices, therefore an announcement date for the con-test winner is still pending.

CURRENT UFO SIGHTING REPORTSCurrent UFO sighting reports in the MUFON UFOJournal are conspicuous by their absence. UFO inves-tigations are being conducted and reported in state orchapter newsletters, however, they are not being sub-mitted to the State Director via report Forms 1 and 2for submission to the Regional Directors. It may beexciting to interview a UFO witness and relate thestory to your local group meetings, however, this isonly the first step. Completing the report forms, mak-ing copies for the appropriate officers and mailingsame becomes the essential, but not so exciting part ofthe UFO report. Until our Field Investigators andState Section Directors accept this responsibility, wearen't going to be able to share your investigated caseswith Journal readers. The Regional Directors willwrite short summaries in a narrative style for publica-tion in the Journal. Let's dispel that ugly rumor thatthere aren't any UFO sightings.

MUFON 2001 SYMPOSIUMJan C. Harzan, State Section Director of OrangeCounty, has submitted a bid to host the MUFON 2001International UFO Symposium representing southernCalifornia. Vincent H. Uhlenkott, State Director, andGeorgeanne Cifarelli, Assistant State Director, havebeen contacted by Walt Andrus for their approval andcooperation.

FIELD INVESTIGATOR'S EXAMAnyone who has purchased and studied the 4th editionof the MUFON Field Investigator's Manual is eligibleto take the exam via mail when they feel qualified.The 100-question test may be secured from MUFONheadquarters in Seguin and returned to Kathleen F.Marden, 103 Willow Road, East Kingston, NH03827, for grading. In localities where field investiga-tor training classes are conducted, the instructor mayorder sufficient quantities of the test and administerthe exam at the conclusion of the training classes.However, the majority of people will study the manuallike a correspondence course before taking the exam.It is an open book test and other references may beutilized to broaden the scope of your knowledge. Forcurrent members, the new manual may be purchased

Continued on Page 20

March 1997 Number 347 Page 23

MUFON UFO JOURNAL

Walter AndrusNEWS FROM AROUND THE NETWORK

MUFON 1997 UFO SYMPOSIUMMUFON's twenty-eighth International UFOSymposium will beheld July II. 12. and 13. 1997. atthe elegant Amway Grand Plaza Hotel in GrandRapids, Michigan, hosted by Michigan MUFON.David E. Toth. Ph.D., is the symposium coordinator.The symposium theme is "The Fiftieth Anniversary ofUfology." Several of the speakers will address themonumental events of 1947 to recognize the anniver-sary of the modern era of ufology.

Speakers confirmed are Cynthia Hind (Zimbab-we), Dan Wright. Jan Aldrich, Stanton T.Friedman. M.S.. (Canada). Vincente-Juan BallesterOlmos (Spain). Bruce S. Maccabee, Ph.D.. John S.Carpenter, Warren Aston (Australia), AnnaJamerson. Beth Collings. David M. Jacobs. Ph.D..Budd Hopkins, and J. Antonio Huneeus.

The host committee has announced that pre-regis-tration tickets are now available for $65 for all fivesessions before the cutoff date of June 21. 1997. and$75 thereafter. Individual sessions will be $20 per ses-sion. The cost to attend the reception Friday eveningfrom 6 to 9 p.m. will be $15 per person with a cashbar. Checks or money orders should be made payableand sent to "MUFON 1997 Symposium," 3628Aragon Drive, Lansing. MI 48906-3508. Advanceregistrants will receive a postcard confirming receiptof the attendance fee. An information envelope withyour tickets will be held at the registration desk inGrand Rapids for your arrival. Vendor tables will cost$25 per day. Make your reservations for tables at thesame address above in Lansing. MI.

The Amway Grand Plaza Hotel is located at Pearland Monroe Streets in Grand Rapids. Michigan49503-2666. Special guest room rates for the sympo-sium are for a single (1 person) $82, double (2 per-sons) $89. triple (3 persons) $96, and quad (4 persons)$103 per night. Reservations may be made by callingthe hotel at"(616) 774-2000, 1-800-253-3590 or FAX(616)776-6496.

Plan your family vacation now to visit the beautifulstate of Michigan and the historical sights in GrandRapids.

NEW OFFICERSLinda M. Galvin, B.A. (Great Exuma) has been ap-pointed the Bahamas Representative. Two new statesection directors volunteered their attributes thismonth: David R. Hill, M.S. (Taos, NM) tbrTaosCounty and Earl M. Cronk (Marshalltown, I A) forMarshall. Tama and Grundy Counties.

March 1997 Number 347 Page 24

^

NEW CONSULTANTS AND RESEARCHSPECIALISTSTo expand our growing board of consultants, sevenprofessionals volunteered their expertise this month.They are Raymond E. Baglin. Ph.D. (Hampton Falls.NH) in Zoology; Samuel J. Umland. Ph.D. (Kearney.NE) in English: Charles F. Giddens, M.D.(Scottsboro. AL) in Medicine: Saul Gonzalez. M.D.(El Paso. TX) in Medicine (Orthopedics): Robert B.McCown, M.D. (Wichita, KS) in Medicine: CharlesE. Crouse. J.D. (Algonquin, IL) in Law; and W.Michael Harris, M.D. (Williamson, WV) inOsteopathic Medicine. Four new Research Specialistsjoined MUFON this past month: Robert D. Lyon,M.A. (Urbandale. IA) in Education Psychology;Claudio B. Leitao, Jr.. M.S. (Sao Paulo, SP. Brazil)in Physics; Rahul B. Bandyopadhyay, M.S. (GlenBurnie, MD) in Plastics Engineering; and ElliotVarnell, M.S. (Epsom. Surrey, England) in Solid StatePhysics.

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS AUXILIARYThe entry on the back of MUFON's "Application forMembership" defines a Field Investigator Trainee:The person engages in an open-ended period of educa-tion in the UFO subject under the guidance of experi-enced individuals in order to become familiar with allaspects of case investigation. The trainee is expectedto obtain and utilize the MUFON Field Investigator'sManual and. whenever possible, assist in conductinginvestigations of UFO events reported by the public.The definition of an Associate Member: The samequalifications as a Field Investigator Trainee exceptthat the member is under the age of 18 years.

We are cognizant that the teenagers of today will bethe future scientists and ufologists of tomorrow, there-fore they are significant members of MUFON andshould be more involved in our research activities. Ihave personally felt for a long time that we have notbeen utilizing the talent and unbridled enthusiasm ofour associate members. Now is the time to remedythis situation, since we have some brilliant teenagemembers who are anxious to become more involved.

A 14-year old high school student Thomas J.Lyon. P. O. Box 310. Warsaw, New York 14569-0310,has volunteered to spearhead in what I have tenta-tively named the "Associate Members Auxiliary."Tom joined MUFON on February 8, 1996, and a yearlater started formulating a plan which he refers to asan "involvement drive." He has already enlisted theaid of Lynda D. Pose, another 14-year old student liv-ing in Wyoming. New York, who joined MUFON on

Continued on Page 23