NUMBER 117 THE MUFON AUGUST 1977

UFO JOURNALFounded 1967 $1.00

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF MUFOKi MUTUAL UFO NETWORK.

The MUFON UFO JOURNAL revisits the 1977 MUFON UFO SYMPOSIUM

in Scottsdale, Arizona on July 16 and 17, 1977.

IjMUFON UFO'JOURNAL

103OldtowneRd.Seguin, Texas 78155

FROM THE EDITOR

DENNIS WILLIAM HAUCKEditor

WALTER H.ANDRUSDirector of MUFON

L

PAULCERNYPromotion/Publicity

REV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOs

ANN DRUFFELCalifornia Report

LUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

MARJORIEFISHExtraterrestrial Life

RICHARD HALLAssociate Editor

MARK HERBSTRITTAstronomy

ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publicity

TED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

DAVIDA.SCHROTHSt. Louis/Mass Media

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO Propulsion

NORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYEditor/Publishers Emeritus

LENSTRINGFIELDCommentary

The MUFON UFO JOURNAL Is pub-lished by the Mutual UFO Network,Inc., Seguin, Texas. Subscriptionrates: $8.00 per year in the U.S.A.;$9.00 per year foreign. Copyright 1977by the Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin, Texas.Publication Identification number Is002970. Return undellverable copiesto: The MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155.

With this issueiI regretfully an-nounce my resign-ation as editor.

I feel that,at the present timetmy efforts in ufo-logy can best bespent in privateresearch.

I wish to thankail my correspond-ents for their en-couragement andadvice. In part-icular, I wish tothank Lucius Far-ish, Ann Druffel,and Richard Hall

for their help inpreparing eachmonth's JOURNAL.

To all of thosewho submitted mat-erial to the JOURN-AL, my special thanks.I hope to see manyof you on my upcom-ing travels through-out the nation.

In the meantime,I hope the MUFONUFO JOURNAL willcontinue to be apublication of ob-jective, scientificufology. Good Bye!

In this issue

UFOs OVER THE WALDVIERTEL HIGHLANDS 3By Ernst Berger

1977 MUFON SYMPOSIUM 6By Walt Andrus

UFOs OVER ESSEX COUNTY 8By Raymond Fowler

THE PENTAGON PANTRY IS NOT BARE! 10By -Ray Stanford

BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS CONTINUE 14By Stan Gordon

CORRECTIONS TO 1975 EDITION OF FIELD INVESTIGATOR'SMANUAL 15

WITNESS RUNS UNDERNEATH OBJECT 16By T. Scott Grain, Jr.

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE 22By Walt Andrus

RECAPPING AND COMMENTING 23By Richard H . Hall

The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL aredetermined by the editor, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of MUFON. Opinionsof contributors are their own, and do not necessarilyreflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON.Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON .

Permission Is hereby granted to quote from this Issueprovided not more than 200 words are quoted fromany one article, the author of the article Is givencredit, and the statement "Copyright 1977 by theMUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin,Texas" Is Included.

UFOs Over TheWaldviertel Highlands By Ernst Berger

MUFON Central European Section(Edited by Richard Hall)

On January 9, 1975, a cold andclear Thusday with a starry eveningsky and a slight southwesternbreeze, Mr. Josef Pritz, uncle ofHans Pritz, went outside his houseat the Wachtstein road to watch thestars at 8:00 p.m. The thick-setold man (age 65) glanced down thehill into the low northwest wherea path around Wachtstein, thefamous granite boulders, is flankedby large slender pine trees. Helater described to us in broadhighland dialect what he saw.

"Well, tellya, I came out andsuddenly I saw it...up there (ele-vation 13/15 degrees) betweenthose trees (see sketch). And itmoved to the right, the stuff, andgot hands—first three upwards,then two long ones downwards...at a glance. Funny show, I thought,huh." A sketch prepared by thewitness, who is fond of drawing,shows the most bizarre shape wehave ever come across in our Aus-trian investigations: A round bodywith a cornflowerblue rim meltinginto a yellow center and around itfive hand-like projections with blue,celadon (grayish yellow-green-Ed.)and yellow sections, in apeculiararrangement like a colorful "skyclock."

(Uncle Pritz, an artist, pointedout the colors on a color chart. Hesaid the entire object appeared flat.Reconstructing the scene, Bergerobtained measurements of about50 min for the . round object,2 degrees 10 minutes for the upper"hands," and 3 degrees 40minutes

for a lower "hand." Somethinglike thin thread filled the gaps be-tween the "hands."—Ed.)

Seconds.after the hands appear-ed, Uncle Pritz continued, "thewhole gadget thundered donw withits hands, at a twitch, and wasgone. Switched off, call it what youwant. I noticed a dark shape inthe place (the object had left), likethe new moon or a dark some-thin' behind a curtain." (For 15minutes therafter, Pritz watchedsome star-like objects apparentlycavorting up and down and side-ways. A pattern of three star-likelights between 7 and 8 o'clock, thelargest at the top. and the smallertwo forming the base of a triangle,has been seen repeatedly by Josefand Hans Pritz.—Ed.)

On the clear evening of January13, 1975 at 7:40 p.m., Uncle Pritzstepped out of the front door of hishouse. "Now, I said, what's that?That star was standing up .there.(Josef Pritz always called the ob-jects "stars" regardless of theirsize-E.B.)

Suddenly it had two clock handswith a blue sparkle, no red edgesthis time, and I read: nine o'clock."The motionless object had a yellowcenter and a blue edge again, butthe "clock hands" were a uniformbluish color, a long one upwards,a short one to the left forming the"nine o'clock" position. "Thehands shone like the star," UnclePritz said, "and (downwards) therewere two transparent hands, yousee, not filled up, only yellowish-

green." Thin rays or "thread"again filled the gaps between thehands: The small "hour hand"changed back and forth from leftto right to left, between the 9 and3 o'clock positions. The hands werevisible for about a minute, thenvanished.

"Well, seems they needed nohands for the next round.(UnclePritz grinned). The star stood stil},and you'd see clearly somethingpushed out, like a two meter can-non barrel, or a big car exhaustpipe. Said to myself: Hey, what'sthe matter now? ARe they goin' toshoot?" (Pritz was a soldier inWorld War II for four years). Hepointed at brown in our color table,but added that there was no il-lumination to the shape which cameout quickly from the lower right,pointing towards the woods atabout 45 degrees. ''Would say thebarrel was even longer than thestar. And they didn't give me achance to stop wonderin'. A longtrail of sparks, .a real burst of fire,spurted out of the barrel. I thoughtBoy, they're shooting! Take coveror you'll be killed! Flung myselfright there (in the corner behind thefront porch). The sparks flew pret-ty far."

The scene, as described by JosefPritz, was a stationary thing ofroughly full moon diameter shoot-ing out a sloping stream of parallel-flying, long sparks down into theWachtstein woods, "like glowingnails, blood red, falling like bundlesof sparks from a locomotive...no

SOME STRUCTURED OBJECTS SEEN IN THE.TRAUNSTEIN AREA(August 1973 through March 1975)

^O>

M«r/Apr '

B

w . ,clock

Dee

Ja h 75

' N 3/ \ *

6-— -63 Gross We.{**«Hi<c*k Mar

\ \ \ l / / / /h. ^ ^^ . x

" Q ; *Q'-*^ *,**? * "lArtJUl,

Jf

sound, the thing was silenceitself." The sparks seemed to burnout in flight; the "target" was at320/325 azimuth, behind two oldconifers, which were not affectedor illuminated. After 10 minutes"all was gone at a glance, even thestar," except for a "small star"zig-zagging again at the end of thesighting.

"First I thought the Czechs (theIron Curtain is only 35 km to theNW--E.B.) were busy with somemilitary operations, but they can'tmake up a star with their search-lights, and you'd see the cpneleading up. There were no cloudsand no such beam, I can't under-stand it." We were struck by theFrench photograph of an object andfour "bars" pointing downwards,allegedly taken by a doctor nearTavernes, France, on the night ofMarch 23, 1974 which reached usafter our first talk with Uncle Pritz.

On January 17, 1975, Hans andJosef Pritz went outside at 8:45p.m. and saw the triangular forma-tion of three "stars" in the.north-ern sky, the uppermost as bright asJupiter. The upper object, exactlyin the place where the first "Clock"had appeared, was in motion. HansPritz, who used his binocularsthroughout, provided us with thebest technical description of a"classical dogfight" we have inour records so far. "The big(upper) one would go left and right(horizontally), then up and down(vertically), then do a circle (clock-wise)," he said. "One time I evensaw it approach us in kind ofa slalom race motion, wiggling, anddraw back qucikly...And besidesyou's see it move along within thenext half hour more than a star

would do." (More details of themotions, collectively moving to theright very gradually, and the posi-tions follows-Ed.) ":

Hans Pritz, his fiance and somefriends, left Traunstein headed forZwettl in Pritz's Renault about7:45 p.m. March 1, 1975. About8:00 p.m. they reached B-36 atGrafenschlag. At a bend beforeentering Gross Weissenbach anobject caught Pritz's eye. (It waspossible for me to drive the samestretch with Hans before comple-ion of this report). "It looked likeit was over or behind the wood tothe left, a red spot, but not only aspot, it had a certain shape, likea dirigible...it was red, a fiery redglow of an oblong body.'' We inter-rupted with the color table. "Can'tfind the red color, only carminewould fit it...Do you know how thesun looks at sunset, red?...allthe landscape around it was bathedwith light."

(Pritz started to slow the car, buthis companions urged him to con-tinue, insisting it was only a fire.A later check revealed no fire inthe area. To the right of the el-liptical object Pritz saw threeevenly-spaced spheres about1 degree apart, gleaming yellowand seemingly segmented intomany parts like a jig-saw puzzle,and at least half the size of thefull moon. He didn't point theseout to his passengers, but drove onand saw the ellipse again fromanother angle. A triangulationbased on the two observation pointsgave a size of 50 meters by 10-12meters for the ellipse fro a distanceof 900 meters; assuming the samedistance for the spheres gave thema diameter of 5 meters.-Ed.)

1977MUFONSYMPOSIUMPROCEEDINGS

(166 pages)

UFOs: WHAT'S YOUR BALL GAME? by

Thomas M. Gates, Sunnyvale, CAIIf. MUFON

Consultant in Astronomy

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF UFO RADIATION

BY James M. McCampbell, Belmont, Calif.,

MUFON Director of Research and Author of

UFOLOGY.

UFO INVESTIGATIONS by Bill Pitts, Fort

Smith, Ark. MUFON State Director for

Arkansas

WHY THE COVER-UP? by Richard Gottlieb,

Phoenix, Arizona Member of Ground Saucer

Watch (GSW, Inc.) Research Board

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF INVESTIGA-

TING UFOs by John L. Warren, Ph.D. Los

Alamos, New Mexico. MUFON Consultant

in Physics and State Director for New Mexico

FUTURE PHYSICS AND ANTI-GRAVITY by

William F. Hassel, Ph.D., Woodland Hills,

Calif., MUFON Consultant and State Section

Director

MODERN IMAGE PROCESSING REVISITS

THE GREAT FALLS, MONTANA AND

TREMONTON, UTAH MOVIES by William

H. Spauldlng, Phoenix, Ariz., Director of GSW,

Inc., MUFON State Director for Arizona and

Photographic Consultant

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM. HYPNOSIS

OF IMAGINARY ABDUCTEES? by Alvln

H. Lawson, Ph.D., Garden Grove, CAIif.

MUFON State Section Director for Orange

County

SCIENCE FICTION, SCIENCE, AND UFOs by

Stanton T. Friedman, Nuclear Phyalclst, UFO

Lecturer, and MUFON Consultant In Nuclear

Physics

Price: $5.00 Post Paid From:

MUFON

103 OLDTOWNE ROAD

SEGUIN, TEXAS 78136 U.S.A.

1977 MUFONSymposium

The Eighth Annual

MUFON UFO Symposium

Scottsdale, Arizona

July 16 and 17, 1977

by Walt Andrus

"Scientific UFO Research:Position of the UFO Movementon our 30th Anniversary!' Thistheme commemorated the anni-versary of Kenneth Arnold'sfamous sighting on June 24,1947 inaugurating the modernera of flying saucers. Thefacilities of the beautiful SafariResort Hotel in Scottsdale,Arizona were ideal for thissymposium, since all of theaccomodations were confined toone location. The people ofGSW, and MUFON of Arizonaare to be congratulated for theprofessional manner in which

they planned and implementedthe conference. The roster ofspeakers and workshop modera-tors was truly superb.

For those people who wereunable to attend, we recommendthat you purchase a copy of the1977 MUFON UFO SymposiumProceedings which contains notonly the published papers of thespeakers, but two additionalpapers submitted by James M.McCampbell titled "FurtherEvidence of UFO Radiation"and the second by RichardGottlieb asking the question"Why the Cover-Up?" MUFON

is indebted to the fine peoplewho helped to make the 1977Symposium Proceedings one ofour very best. Commendationsare due to Mrs. Virginia Castnerfor typing the published papers,Donald R. Tucker for the uniquecover artwork, Bill Slaughter fortypesetting titles and to Mrs.Diane Slaughter, our MUFONOffice Secretary, for typing.

Since all of the speakerspapers are available in thepublished proceedings, wewould to like to present at thistime only the highlights of eachspeaker's presentation:

THOMASGATES

"UFOs: What's Your BallGame?" presented by ThomasM. Gates, a planetarium directorliving in Sunnyvale, CA, actuallyprovided the keynote speech toset the stage for those whofollowed him. A sub-title toTom's speech could have been,"So, what's a nice guy like youdoing in UFOs?" This wasprompted by his evaluation ofwhy people have an interest inUFOs and their specificmotivations. Too often, some ofthe people involved lose sight ofour mutual goal to resolve theUFO phenomenon and becomeengaged in a struggle for status,using ridicule, guilting and a

variety of other tactics to pursuetheir emotional aims. Hediscussed some of the studiesdone by Dr. Harold Puthoff, oneof the principal investigators ofESP phenomena at StanfordResearch Institute at MenloPark, CA, and how thisinformation could be utilized inobtaining reliable informationand descriptions from witnessesto UFO sightings.

ALVIN

LAWSON

With the apparent increase inreported abduction cases wheretime lapses have been involved,the paper titled "What Can WeLearn from Abduction Cases?"by Alvin H. Lawson, Ph.D. ofGarden Grove, CA, was a studyto determine the validity andvalue of hypnotic regression as ameans of recovering details bythe witness of the UFOexperience. Dr. Lawson, bestdescribes the study beingconducted by Dr. William C.McCall, a medical doctor withdecades of clinical hypnosisexperience and himself in hisabstract.

A series of imaginary UFO"abductions" were inducedhypnotically in a group ofselected subjects of varied ageswith nc significant knowledge ofUFOs. Eight situationalquestions comprising the majorcomponents of a "real"abduction were asked of eachsubject. Responses indicated awide range of imaginativeinvention, but an averagedcomparison of the imaginarysessions with "real" regressionsfrom the literature indicatedalmost no substantive differ-ences. Many presumablyobscure "patterns" from UFOliterature emerged in theimaginary narratives. In addi-tion, there was evidence thatESP-type effects were manifest-ed during some of the hypnosissessions. The implications of thestudy for future hypnoticregression of Close Encountercases, and for abduction casesnow deemed of the highestcredibility, are unclear at thistime.

(Continued oh page 19)

By Raymond Fowler

Appeared to be solid

.̂ Bright White - not like, aircraft contreils.

Glowing

Subject: MUFON UFO ReportType Of Report: GeneralDate Of Report: 28 Jaunuary 1976Date Of UFO Sighting: 9 Jan. 1976Time Of UFO Sighting:1330hrsESTPlace Of UFO Sighting: Gloucester,Massachusetts, Essex County, USALocal Evaluation: Unknown •

Witness Robert Sampson report-ed his UFO sighting by phoning myhome on the evening of 9 January1976. Robert is volunteer radio-logical monitor for MUFON MASSand thus was acquainted with me. ~

At the time . of .the sighting,Robert Sampson, age 45, of 9Juniper Road, Gloucester, Mass,a high school teacher, was adminis-tering an examination to his scienceclass at the Ralph B. O'Maly Mid-dle School, Cherry Street, Glou-cester, Mass.

Joseph Aiello, age 14, 4 LeightonCourt, Gloucester, Mass., calledRobert's attention to an object hehad observed through a window forabout 10 seconds. Robert andJoseph viewed it for another 5seconds. It was white, globe-8

shaped and exhibited a yellowglowing band around its circum-ference. It was first noticed inthe NE and moved in an arc tothe N like a bullet would fall in tra-jectory before disappearing overthe horizon. It left bright white,rapidly dissipating streaks in itswake which were totally dissimilarto normal aircraft contrails. It wasfirst noticed at an elevation of 60degrees and moved over the distanthorizon. When first sighted byJoseph, its apparent diameter wasthe apparent size of the full moon.When first sighted by Robert,distance had shrunk its apparentsizeto that of 1/4 that of the full moon.No one else in the class viewed theobject. The object's flight path wascontinuous with no abrupt maneu-vers. The weather was clear,visibility 15 miles with no ceiling.

Balloon spider web reflecting sunhas been reported as a UFO in thepast but in the Autumn months.Wind direction and speed appear tonega^ this possibility. No othernatural phenomena fits the UFO'sdescription.

Weather balloon was ruled outbecause sighting was not compa-tible with normal launch times fromChatham, Ma (75 miles to SSE)and because UFO moved contraryto wind direction and speed. Pin-pointing the presence of conven-tional aircraft in this area would beimpossible because many aircraftdo not file flight plan, etc. SeeEvaluation for further commentre. possible aircraft.

Witness well-known to Inves-tigator. He holds a responsibleteaching position and is a realtorpart-time. He holds a MastersDegree in Biology and was a radar/sonar operator in the U.S. Navy. Iconsider Robert Sampson a reliableand competent observer. JosephAiello is one of Mr. Sampson'sbest science students.

Sighting Evaluation

A weather balloon was ruled outbecause of object description;speed; contrails; NWS launch timesand wind direction/speed. Thewind was from the WNW at 10 mphThe UFO was moving S-N at 4degrees per second. (It moved

v MUFON MASS UFO REPORT #76-01('• 9 January 1976^ Gloucester, Massachusetts

TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP/LOCATION

\ i -\j' ':/.i 'o )~ i\ A- V." -DU-nV1 1 - VI'O':/̂ ;' VhW^ " ' -'

N V *

. . , i •'<, S'-'f.e: :^p/ \ l -K * •'lk''ld

Tenpound -. Island*;.\

'

G L 0 U C E S T ER

• - £/ •••'•'/* J?/.'('HARBOR31 '

MEAN

DECLINATION. I960

from an elevation of 60 degrees would appear to move much sloweito the horizon in an estimated 15 than the reported object. to ̂ sun an^ observers wouldseconds.) A low-flying aircraft would pro- change rapidly.

A high flying aircraft reflecting bably have been recognized as Seeing conditions (althoughsunlight and emitting a contrail is such. In-either case, an aircraft/ through a window) were optimum,unlikely if the object was reported reflecting sunlight would not be It is my opinion that two reliableaccurately because of the UFO's— clearly-defined but a fuzzy bright witnesses sighted an unusualClearly-defined shape; color; light source which would be short- object. I would classify this reportangular size and speed. Such an iived because the reflecting posi- as being in the .UNKNOWNaircraft, even at supersonci speed, tion of a moving aircraft in relation ("Ordinary") category. 9

A Response to Richard Hall'sCommentary by Ray Stanford

P&tfayw Pastfay % Tfot faant2

As far as Hall's claims that I wentto Goddard with foreknowledgethe Frankel had done analysisof alleged UFO artifacts for thegovernment, that is true. The factthat I did not react with fear tosuch knowledge should disproveHall's intimations ot paranoia onmy part. Hall's reference to myomitting a sentence from his letter(June 25,1964) regarding Frankel'sprior connection with governmentUFO analysis is a non sequitur.That played no part in my agreeingto use Goddard and Frankel forthe analysis. I did not take that factas in any way ominous and onewonders why Hall should eventhink that I should have (at thetime)—as he seems to be saying.

Hall's bringing up all that historytends to conceal the fact that hetold me, in a 1975 phone conversa-tion that (see p. 151), "I found outlater (my italics) thai Frankelworked closely with the FBI overthe years, and was possibly evenunder contract with them from timeto time." Hall says this is a "gross-ly misleading distortion...) wassimply reminding him of what weboth knew at the time (1964)."That statement seems to be evi-dence in other circumstances).The reason I say this is that the firsttime I ever learned from Hall ofFrankel's FBI involvement was inthe 1975 phone conversation withDick quoted earlier. Hall said hehad subsequently (since 1964)learned it from a kinfolk of hisinvolved In work with a federalintelligence gathering operation,the nature and name of which Hall10

made it clear should not be di-vulged. If Hall knew of Frankel'sreported FBI involvement back in1964, then his memory lapsed whenhe said on the phone in 1975 "Ifound out later," and was negligentin 1964 in not telling me. (His June25, 1964, letter only says thatFranker had analyzed reported UFOmaterial for the government.It does not mention the FBI.)

Hall did tell me he could now be-lieve that a coverup might haveoccurred, because of Frankel'sFBI past. I have no reason todistort the facts as Hall suggests.I did not say, as he implies, thatHall was, in 1975, "believing"(Hall's word in his article) in acoverup. I said that he said he"Could" believe, that .a coverupmight possibly have occurred,considering his new knowledge ofFrankel's FBI connection.

Hall says that, "Stanford (p. 151-152) characterizes my publishedreport on the analysis as 'highlydistorted' and accuses me of 'in-tellectual dishonesty' in the way itwas reported." Yet he never tellsthe MUFON JOURNAL reader justwhere he published that report.In the first place, I had no way ofknowing who at NICAP had writtenthe report and my reference wasonly to NICAP, never mentioningHall in that context. I did notaccuse Hall. Hall says, "I publish-ed the results of the one and onlyanalysis report ever given me..."Yet, in his own MUFON JOURNALarticle he admits that Dr. Frankelcalled him and reported the findingof "a zinc-iron alloy." Yet, the

report (now self-acknowledged tohave been written by Hall) inNICAP's The UFO INVESTIGA-TOR, September-October, 1964,only said the Socorro sample"...has been identified as silica."IT DID NOT TELL OF THE FIRSTAND HIGHLY SIGNIFICANTREPORT.

I recommend the reader do exact-ly as Hall suggests and compare histreatment of the facts of the Socorrozinc-iron alloy incident as reportedin NICAP's The UFO INVESTIGA-TOR to my own. Hall did* not dojustice to possibly importantevidence or to the NICAP member-ship by not mentioning Frankel'sfirst report by telephone. He alsostated that the analysis was doneby "a top Wahsington laboratory,"but calling Goddard that is not aserious distortion.

Hall is fencing with a straw manin his criticism of my mentioningthat police personnel, for whomZamora described or drew thesymbol first-hand, told me whatseemingly contradicts the laterreports. Objective reporting de-manded that I do so. But, Halloverlooks my reason (explained inthe book) for telling the wholestory. Concerning my handwrittenletter of May 3, 1964, to Hall, myintentions were certainly not tosuggest that NICAP "coverup"anything. Instead,, I was recom-mending the temporary withhold-ing of information on the actualsymbol seen on the side of theSocorro object, so that there mightbe an otherwise impossible toobtain outside independent valid-

ation via subsequent reports. Thenthe publication of the actual symbolwould be particularly meaningfulonce the scientific 'control' of tem-porarily withholding the facts hadserved its purpose or until itseemed unlikely that correspondingaccounts would come in. SomeUFO researchers' all too great en-thusiasm to rush stories into printmerely to say "we got it first"tends to prevent otherwise valuableoutside substantiations whilefueling the fires of hoax. A littleconstraint could go far towardproviding more substantial conver-gent evidence in the long run.

Hall makes indefensible accusa-tions reflective upon my personalityand basic character, not to mentionreputation. I shall now demon-strate, by quoting Hall's article andletters from him to me, that hisattack on my former, t eenagedbeliefs (I am now 39), and upon mywork as a psychic, showed disre-gard for facts of which he had longbeen aware.

First, Hall says that I present my-self in the book as the scientific"brains" (his quote marks) ofProject Starlight International(P.S.I.). Here, as elsewhere in hisarticle, Hall uses a propagandatechnique never used in carefulreporting: he encloses words inquote marks as if they were said byanother (me in this case) when theyare really his own creations. Thebook only says that I am the P.S.I,director, not the equipment en-gineer, nor that I occupy any otherof the paid staff positions in P.S.I.

Hall goes on to state, "WhatI did not know at the time...wasthat Stanford himself was a full-fledged 'contactee'." He quotes

a foolish article I wrote at the ripeold age of eighteen—when I wasa full believer in Adamski and be-fore I uncovered material to exposeAdamski—in order to impugn myreputation now, twenty years fater.

The facts are that Hall has longknown, from the contents of myMay 8,1964; tape recording to himexplaining my position on the 1955-1957 UFO events, that I do not inany way uphold the childish,wishful thinking expressed in thearticle from Cribble's FLYINGSAUCER REVEIW, September,1956, from which he quotes. (Ad uplicate of that May 8, 1964,tape to Hall has now been deposit-ed with MUFON directgor WalterH. Andrus, Jr. for documentation.)

I should explain, however, thatI wrote the 1956 artjcle in a greatstate of excitement and wide-eyed enthusiasm because of recentUFO sightings, one of them a close-range one which, because of theinfluence of Adamski's writings, Islmplisticly assumed to have beentelepathically mediated by extra-terrestrials. Although the mostexciting of the involved sightingsbefore the article was a fine, vilid,clear and close-up one, my errorwas unquestionaingly assuming thesighting was a "contact," and inadopting the belief systems of thetypical 1950s contact cultists. ASas result of this general state ofmentality, I often assumed that'information' which may merelyhave been surfacing from my un-conscious was coming to me fromspace beings. Of course, I havelong since abandoned such assump-tions. But, I would ask Hall, whyall the concern about that? Thesedays it is a common thing for 'ab-

duct ees' to claim far more spectac-ular experiences that I ever had,and to report that 'humanoids'telepathically influenced them. ButHall's article does not make itclear just what he is so disturbedabout regarding my 1950s UFOexperiences. Is it my belief intelepathy, my UFO sightings, myteenage inability to report themobjectivley, or what?

Hall does not speak factuallywhen he says, "Stanford has nevershared with us what allegedlytranspired during the contacts, orwhat surprising things he learn-ed." Can he not now rememberwhat he wrote to me on May 5,1964? In the letter he named mybook LOOK UP! (written and pub-lished at my own expense, when Iwas eighteen and nineteen, toshare what transpired during the'contacts'), and said, "I have notread your book, but have scannedit and am aware of its generalcontents and approach. It has beenmy feeling that it represents anearlier stage of your intellectualdevelopment, and that you mighteven repudiate this approach tothe subject, now, judging by yourcomments." (Myemphasis.)

In response I sent Hall the afore-mentioned tape-recorded letterexplaining in depth my change inattitude, stating that the UFOsightings reported in LOOK UP!were real, multi-witness ones,but that I no longer felt myself to bea contactee. I told of how I wisedup to certain of the major contac-tees, Adamski included. Thischange in attitude had made mefeel I misinterpreted the sightingsas being necessarily mediated bytelepathy from UFO operations

11

and as Indicative of any specialrelationship between myself andUFOs.

In response, Hall wrote me onMay 19, 1964, saying, "Thanks foryour tape letter explaining yourcurrent attitudes toward the UFOsubject, contactees, etc. I am gladto know that you are more objectiveand scientific in your outlook now."Thus, as of May 19, 1964, Hallknew that my subjectivity as ayouth had changed to objectivityand rejection of my earlier claims.In his MUFON JOURNAL articleHall asks, "Does he now renouncehis former (my emphasis) claimsof privileged contacts with space-men? If he does, to what does heattribute them? Self delusion?"Yet his question clearly impliesknowledge that I have alreadydenounced my former interpreta-tions in that he uses the word"former." He also knows, ofcourse, that I attribute them to real,even excellent, UFO sightingswhich incorporated many witnesses(policemen included) and one day-light, color, movie film as evidence,and cedrtainly not to self-delusion.The only delusion was in the sub-jective interpretation I made of theevents as an Adamski-followjngteenager.

Next, Hall alleges, "In .1975Stanford (my emphasis) took out anad in the National Enquirer offeringto sell tape cassettes of 'voices'obtained through 'a meditation-induced unconscious state' frompeople calling themselves 'Bro-thers'." Hall adds, knowingly,"Adamski and other 'contactees'claimed to be contacted by 'SpaceBrothers'."12

The records of the Association forthe Understanding of Man provethat they (my employer), no I(as Hall asserts), took out the ad.I am responsible to a board ofdirectors and am an employee ofthe organization. If Hall reallywanted to know what my employerwas sell ing, he should have orderedand listened to one of the tapesadvertised, instead of making un-founded intimations that "SpaceBrother" supposedly speakthrough me. (If Hall did ordercassettes, he has not revealed it.)On each cassette it is clearlyexplained that the phenomenonintroduced thereon is not claimedto be any manifestation of any per-sonality external to my unconsciousmind. Instead, the materials arepresented because they haveproven helpful and meaningfulto many persons who have listenedto them.

Publications of the Associationfor the Understanding of Man andrecords of our membership confer-ences clearly prove that I do. notinsist that voices obtained throughme in the unconscious state areanything other than that. Weremain objective and take an at-titude of open inquiry. I personallydo not believe that any of the mani-fested personalities are UFO oc-cupants. The 'voices' that speakthrough me simply call themselves"Brothers" (not "Space Bro-thers")—a term in use long beforethe contactee cults. So, I hope thissettles the matter once and for all:The information coming from myunconscious, whether or not onebelieves it to be of a 'psychic'nature, is a thing which belongs to

the realm of altered states of con-sciousness and possible paranormalphenomena, and should in no waybe a part of UFO research. I shouldadd, however, that the work of theAssociation (the parent organiza-tion of P.S.I.), and, hence, thep.s.i. laboratory of instrumentedUFO research, is financed in partby proceeds from sale of informa-tion and discourses obtained frommy unconscious state. We do notregard that as anything of whichto be ashamed.

Futhermore, any personal beliefthat I or my associates may haveconcerning the nature or reality ofthe 'voices' that call themselves'Brothers' through my unconsciousis not related to our UFO researchwith technological instruments.Scientists and laymen alike have aright (I hope they still do) to theirown philosophical or religiousbeliefs without that reflecting ontheir day-to-day work as objectivescientists or otherwise. After all,do we condemn Einstein becausehe was a Jew or because he be-lieved in intuition as a source ofmany of his breakthroughs in devel-oping his theories—or otherthinkers or researchers becauseof their personal philosophies orreligions/

Hall suggests that I "passion-ately" desire to obtain "objectiveproof of these subjective experi-ences, hence his commitment tothe Socorro sample being 'met-allic'." This is hardly the type ofperson of whom he spoke in hisMay 5, 1964 letter to me, saying,"Your taped report arrived, and Ifound it extremely thorough andintelligently done." I believe Hall

has changed his position concern-ing me because I have discussed(in the book) .his and NICAP's1964 oversight in not following upon Frankel's report of a zinc-ironalloy.

In previous issues of the MUFONJOURNAL, Dick Hall has spokenvery positively and encouraginglyof the work of Project StarlightInternational and of its laboratoryof instrumented UFO research.Now, with publication of Socorro'Saucer' in a Pentagon Pantry, Hallsuddenly .makes statements thatcou Id, ;if accepted without objectiveinvestigation of the facts, impugnthe reputation of that ongoing,instrumented research endeavor,because of his attempts to castdoubts upon my objectivity. Know-ing Richard Hall to be a person whocares for valid efforts in activeUFO research, I hope he will, intime, rectify any bad image hemight have given the P.S.I. RE-SEARCH EFFORT.

In fact, until Hall's recent privateactions and the MUFON JOURNALarticle, I had considered hjm avalued friend and champion ofobjective UFO investigation (hisoversights in the summer of 1964notwithstanding). I never imaginedhe would take my reporting of pre-cisely what happened that summerso very personally.

In defense of Socorro 'Saucer'in a Pentagon Pantry, I shouldpoint out that the material offensiveto Hall constitues only a smallportion of the book. Actually, manynew Socorro case facts are broughtout, and I think it only fair to beallowed to speak, briefly, on be-half of the book and its value. Itis traditional, in reviewing a book

as Hall did, to list the publisherand price (Blueapple Books, P.O.Box 5694, Austin, Texas 78763,$8.95 postpaid). But that courtesywas not afforded in Hall's account.

Now, please consider these facts:(1) Paul Kies and Larry Kratzer

are named (and photos of themshown) as additional visual witness-es to the Socorro landing.

(2) I reveal that there werethirteen total (visual and auditory)witnesses.

(3) There were at least threetypes of strange physical evidencesother than those hitherto revealed:a calcined rock, seeming irradiationof film exposed very soon after theUFO event (a highway.patrolman'sfilm was possible radiation dam-aged and resultantly retained bythe Air Force) and, of course, themetallic slivers on the rock.

Of the book's' contribution toUFO facts and to the Socorro case,Dr. Hynek said in a letter of July6, 1976, written specifically forpurpose of publication in promotingthe book:

"In SOCORRO 'SAUCER'INA PENTAGON PANTRY, RayStanford not only tells the storywell but has brought to it a greatdeal of painstaking and intensiveresearch, presenting a far morecomprehensive and coherenttreatment of this important case.The Socorro .case has alwaysbeen a thorn in the side of UFOdetractors who have tried to dis-miss it either as a deliberate at-tempt by the town fathers ofSocorro to promote the touristtrade—or as atmospheric phe-nomena. Ray Stanford hasshown these attempts to be pa-tently untenable. Stanford has

transformed the case from a one-witness matter to a multi-witnesscase and thus has accomplishedwhat the Air Force failed to do.In the preparation of his book,Ray Stanford has exhibited a rarepersistence in tracking down vitaldetails of this remarkable andpivotal UFO sighting."John F. .Schuessler, an aero-

space engineer well-known toMUFON members, made thiscomment on Socorro 'Saucer' ina Pentagon Pantry, and has givenpermission to be quoted:

"It is a bombshell, obviously wellresearched and should make asignificant impact on the world ofufology."I hope that no reader misinter-

prets what I have tried to do herein setting the facts straight con-cerning Socorro 'Saucer' in a Penta-gon Pantry and myself. I shouldpoint out that, despite RichardHall's highly personal reaction toparts of the book involving himself,he is an individual in whom I havemuch confidence and I regard himas one of the most discerning con-tributors to ufology in general.MUFON should be proud to havehim as their international coordin-ator and I hope that none of thefacts reported in the book detract(in the mind of anyone) from Dick'shigh level of competence. I trulyregretany personal offense to him.It was simply necessary for me toreport things as I saw them happenduring the Socorro investigation.Now Dick has told his side of italso. I hope readers will actuallysutdy the boook and make up theirown minds which of us is morefactual on the important issuesinvolved. .-

Bigfoot Sightings Continue By Stan Gordon

Dozens of reports of hairy Big-foot-like creatures were made byeyewitnesses during 1976, and thistrend continues through 1977.These creature accounts haveoriginated from Oregon, Washing-ton, Mississippi, Montana, NewJersey, New York, Pennsylvania,Colorado, Texas, California as wellas other areas. Even though nodirect connection can be made,in almost every area where thecreatures had been reported,UFO's were also being sighted.My own conclusion as I have statedbefore, is that we are dealing withseveral different types of Bigfootcreatures. The five toed foot-prints seems to be related to thetypical Bigfoot of the PacificNorthwest, whereas the three toedvariety seems to be closely relatedto the UFO phenomena. Therehave been instances where boththree and five toed tracks haveshown up in the same geogra-phical area. It's impossible tojudge just how many verifiablecreature sightings have been madesine 1976. The following is anexample of some of these reports.

Whitehall, New York, Mid-August, 1976:

Several witnesses includingpolice officers reported seeing acreature between seven and eightfeet tall, very hairy and with pinkor red eyes. In one instance thecreature came within twenty fivefeet of a Whitehall police car,before being scared off when astate trooper flashed a light in thecreature's eyes. The light causedthe creature to cover it's eyesand run away screaming.14

This cast one of several prints found in September of 1973 near Penn.Hills, Pa. The print is not the typical Bigfoot track yet was found inan area where creature sightings had occurred. The print is apelikesimilar to what an orangutan would have except zoologists who haveseen it state that the fingers are to short for any known ape. Zoo'sand circuse's had been checked and no animals were found missing.

Goldsboro, North Carolina-Septem-ber, 1976:

A seven foot tall apelike creaturewith black hair and emiting a death-ly scream was haunting the CapeFear River area. Investigations atthe scene of some of.the sight-ings uncovered footprints eighteeninches long and with three toes.

Wenatchee,. Washington-January23,1977:

Two men on the Brender Ranchat Blewert Pass heard a disturbancecoming from the chicken pen. Themen observed a creature betweenseven and eight feet tall standingbetween the pig pen and chickenhouse. The creature had a strong

odor like "someone who hadn'ttaken a bath for a year". Severalchickens were found dead at thescene.

Uniontown, Pa-May 15,1977:A large apelike creature was

observed crossing a road. It movedin a slumped over position with it'shead tilted down. The creatureappeared to be shaggy and hadreddish brown colored hair. Itwas estimated as being over sixfeet tall.

Jeanette, Pa-June 29,1977:Police investigated reports of

strange screams coming fromwooded area. The next day resi-

dents found a trail of three toesfootprints sixteen inches long andten inches wide.

Outside the United States

Bigfoot creatures are reportedinternationally. The following aresome recent examples.

Canberra, Australia-August 1976:Dozens of skiers claimed to have

seen the Australian version of Big-foot loping up the side of MountKoscivsko. The "Yowie" is des-cribed as being about eight feet inheight, covered entirely in dark hairand walks in a stooped position ontwo legs.

Mission, British Columbia-May 15,1977: . , •

A Pacific Stage Lines driver andfour passengers reported to RoyalCanadian Mounted Police that theysaw a seven foot tall hairy creaturecross the highway in front of them.The driver pursued the creaturedown a dry creek bed and wasable to approach within twelvefeet of the animal. Fourteen inchfootprints were photographedby the RCMP and they estimatedthe weight of the creature as beingapproximately300 pounds.

Anyone having information onBigfoot reports, especially caseswhere UFO's might be directlyrelated can write to me at 6 OakhillAvenue, Greensburg, Pa 15601.

CORRECTIONS TO 19?5 EDITION OFMUFON FIELD INVESTIGATOR'S MANUAL

Since over 1200 copies of theMUFON's Field Investigator'sManual are presently being used asthe primary guide by UFO invest-igators world wide, it is imperativethat it be accurate. Raymond E.Fowler, the Editor, is recommend-ing that each copy be revised in thefollowing manner to eliminate afew typographical errors or over-sights in proof reading. Most in-vestigators have probably placedtheir manual in a three ring binderof their choice for greater preser-vation to handling damage. To

Page#

45

Description

The Form 2

84

85

128

Chart/April

Chart August

Last Paragraph

keep your manual current, futuremajor revisions or additions willbe announced in the JOURNAL.Incidentally, this is the first.

The MUFON Field Investigator'sManual is an essential tool forevery UFO investigator or research-er. If you do not already have yourpersonal copy, one may be securedfrom MUFON. The price is $2.00for current MUFON paid-up mem-bers, $3.00 to investigators for theCenter for UFO Studies, and $4.00to all others.

Change To Be Made

Captions under Latitude and Long-itude should read:

Degrees—Minutes—Seconds(Not Hours—Minutes—Tenths asnow denoted)

The Azimuth for Deneb - NE (NotNW)

The Azimuth for Spica - W (Not E)

Should read - The equation on page128 can be solved.. .(etc.)

15

Witness Runs Underneath ObjectBy: T. SCOTT GRAIN, JR., MUFON State Section Director

FIELDS

MOON A&OVT 70° ANGLETO THS RICHT OF o

OBJECT HEIGHTABOVE 6COUND

40 YARDS

FirstPictuii*r«

WOOPS

Highway 970 W

On the night of March" 28, 1976, atapproximately . 12:30 / a.m., thewitness was awakened by a loud,humming noise. Mr. Woods racedto the porch of his mobile home tosee a hugh teardrop-shaped objectgliding along at treetop level infront of his house. Woods des-cribed the object as being between150 to 200 feet long'and about 60feet wide. Blimplike in appearancethe machine had a dull metallicfinish, no seams, windows or doors,and carried a green glowing panelon the underside approximately20 feet wide and 50 feet long.16

t

EWoods described the panel as being"like a long, green light, or a bigpiece of flouorescent silk cloth."The startled witness ran back intothe house, grabbed his camera andwest into the field where the objectwas hovering about 70 feet in theair. "I got so close I could haveclobbered it with a baseball,"Woods said. Woods took two colorpictures with a kodak instamaticcamera before the object sped

First . -Ob»ervation

rapidly away in a southwesterlydirection. The object vanished inseconds.

The witness described . thehuming sound like that of a "twirl-ing rope," that seemed to be emit-ted from the top of the craft. Woodsalso noticed the tops of the treeswere shaking or vibrating but therwas no noticeable downward force.As Woods approached the craft,the object rolled slightly, keeping

BURTON WOODS SIGHTING MARCH 23, 1977, I?:30 A.M.

Looked like a Canoe upside down

Very, darklooking

Description byBurton Woods3/29/77

REAR. VIEW

Tapered up

Green panel.

Length:170-200 ft.

Width:14.0 - 60 feet

Height:40 - 60 feet

Green Glowing PanelEstimated 20 feet wideand 14.0 feet long.

Taper nay have been higher

/No fin. or holesin sides.

Roll to formtear droptaoer.

Object Described byBURTON WOODS3/29/77

Tapered to formnarrow but flat atone end.

SIDE VIEW:Metal looks like dull brownishgrey. No glare from the moon.

17

the glowing green panel in hisdirection at all times. "I almost gotdirectly under it before it took off,"Woods reported. The encounterlasted 5 minutes.

Woods turned his undevelopedfilm over to the PennsylvaniaCenter for UFO Research on March31. Project Dir. Joan Jeffers saysshes convinced he really did see analien craft. Upon developing thefilm, Robert Cowell, Co-Directorof the Center, said the Woodsphotos failed to turn out, a majordisappointment to UFO centersacross the country. However,he added, the blank negatives inno way discredits Wood's story ofwhat he saw.

Woods was close enough to knowwhat he was seeing. His detaileddescription illuminates what he wasseeing was not a common manmadeaeroform. . After a lengthly tele-phone interview and a personalvisit with Woods, it appeared to mehe was genuinely shaken up by theencounter. Woods said he washaving severe headaches, a burningsensation in the eyes and generalfatigue after the incident. Thesymtoms were apparent for severaldays.

The reliability of the witness isnot in serious question. Woods,45, is employed by Piper AircraftCorp., and is also a Dupty ClearfieldCounty Waterways patrolman.Woods had nothing to gain bymaking up such a wild story.

The failure of his pictures to showany image is not surprising sincethey were taken at night with noflash. One thing I did find curious isthat Mr. Woods did not awaken 3other memers of the householdwhen he sighted the object. He saidthere wasn't time. Single-witnessreports always come into questionwhen it comes to UFO reports.18

THEY REQUESTED A REPORTON AN UFO FROM THE CAPTAINOF A BOAT IN CHILE

Santiago, Chile (ANSA)—inValparaiso it was learned that theDirector of the National MerchantMarine ordered the captain of theCabo de Homos to report in detailregarding the sighting of a presum-ed Unidentified Flying Object(UFO) on Wednesday afternoonwhen the ship travelled from thenorth to the south of the country.According to the initail reports,the object was cigar-shaped andgave off a red light; it stopped forover 5 minutes over the ship at analtitude between 2,000 and 2,500meters, to later disappear. Thisfirst cablegram was sent to theAir Force to determine if at the timeindicated their craft had beenperforming maneuvers in the area.The Director of the Litoral indicatedthat the report of the captain of theCabo de Homos will be sent tointernational organizations inter-ested in studying the origin of thisphenomenon.

Postage Stamp ExchangeBy Richard Hall

I would like to acknowledgeadditional contributions of cancelledforeign stamps in June by Mrs.Barbara C. Mathey, Los Angeles,California; Fred Merritt, Lombard,Illinois; and Ted Bloecher, NewYork, NY. These are used to ex-change for current U.S.postage,;and in that way help to underwritethe expense of corresponding on alarge scale with MUFON represent-atives and supporters in othercountries. The net result is not onlya regular flow of UFO informationfrom overseas, but also the goodwill and unity of purpose inherentin maintaining regular communi-cation with overseas colleagues.To support this worldwide informa-tion network, please send yourcontribution of cancelled foreignstamps, in any quantity, to me at4418 39th Street, Brentwood,MD 20722.

MUFON AMATEUR RADIO NETS (weekly)

DAY FREQUENCY NET TIMEC. S.T.

SAT 40 meters 7237 KHZ. 0700

SAT -75 meters 3975 KHZ. 0800

SUN 20 meters 14,284 KHZ. 1300

NETCONTROLS

N1JS

WA9ARG

NUS&WjfNC

(Continued from page 7)

BILL

PITTS

Bill Pitts, MUFON StateDirector for Arkansas, sharedwith the participants at thesymposium some of the basicguidelines and techniques to beused during and after a UFOsighting report investigation inhis speech titled "UFOInvestigations!' He utilizedactual cases to demonstrateeffective and meaningful report-ing by investigators. Heenumerated several methods ofachieving good public relationsin a community so that thepublic is thoroughly aware of theinvestigators presence andinterest. Bill gained nationalattention when he organized theFort Smith UFO Conference in1975, serving as Chairman-Director designed around thetheme "United for Objectivity!'

WILLIAM

HASSEL

William F. Hassel, Ph.D.,MUFON Consultant in Propul-sion Methods and State SectionDirector for Los Angeles Countychallenged the scientists presentwith his presentation "FuturePhysics and Anti-Gravity!' Theabstract to his paper bestdescribes the content. "Someevidence for existence of aphenomenon which might beclassified as anti-gravity isexplored. First historic experi-ments are discussed whichindicate that there are anomaliesin gravitation-related experi-mental data which do not fit thewidely accepted Einstein'stheory of gravitation. Severalrecent diverse experimentswhich demonstrate small magni-tude forces which may begravitational in nature are thendiscussed in detail, along withthe postulated explanations of

the observed phenomenon.Certain similarities among thetheories proposed to explain theexperimental phenomena lead tothe tentative conclusion thateach of the phenomena mayresult from the same physicalmechanism. The evidence seemsto indicate that gravitational, oranti-gravitational effects couldbe associated with the gyrationalmotion of charged particles.

JOHN

WARREN

The theme "Scientific UFOResearch: Position of the UFOMovement on Our 30thAnniversary" was very preva-lent in the lecture presented byJohn L. Warren, Ph.D., MUFONConsultant in Physics and State

19

Director for New Mexico. Hisspeech is summed up very nicelyin his "abstract" as applied toUFOs.

The so-called scientificmethod is an aid to the naturalthought process people use tosolve problems. That processconsists of three parts: 1.recognition of the problem, 2.subconcious construction ofpossible solutions, and 3.acceptance or rejection of thesesolutions by the reasoningfaculty. A problem is a set offacts which is apparently notconsistent with our previousknowledge. The solutionconsists Jn either explaining thefacts or recognizing that they arethe basis for developing newknowledge. Although, scientificinvestigation is an art, there are.five major steps involved: 1.critical review of the relevantmaterial, 2. collection of fielddata supplemented by labora-tory examination of specimenswhere possible, 3. carefuldefinitions of the problem andbreakdown of the problem intospecific questions, 4. construc-tion of hypotheses which givespecific answers to the ques-tions, and 5. devising andcarrying out experiments to testthe answers. Along with thesesteps goes a set of rules usefulfor avoiding errors. One of theserules is: Only consider hypothe-ses that can be tested byexperiments. The investigationof UFO's by the CondonCommittee was indeed scienti-fic, but the committee wasunable to devise any tests ofExtraterrestrial Hypothesis(ETH) which could be experi-mentally proven. The problemwas too hard for the limited timeand resources. Based on close

20

encounter cases where occu-pants are seen by reliablewitnesses, we should take theETH as proven and try toreproduce the phenomena asso-ciated with flying saucers in ourlaboratories. Theories of physicsand engineering must bemathematically extended toinclude explanations of theobserved non-inertial behaviorand apparent dematerialization.More complete data from thefield are needed to air ourthinking.

The Specialization Work^shops, conducted by experi-enced personnel, were designedto not only be educational, butthey gave the participants anopportunity to exchange perti-nent information and personalexperiences. The topics present-ed and the workshop moderatorswere 1. "Field InvestigationTechniques" by Bill Pitts, 2."Instrumentation for UFODetection" - Melvin Podell,Solano Beach, CA., MUFONState Section Director for SanDiego County. 3. "How toObtain Good Public Relations" -Paul C. Cerny, Mountain View,CA., MUFON Western RegionalDirector and Thomas M. Gates.4. "Possible UFO PropulsionMethods" by William F. Hassel,Ph.D., Woodland Hills, CA. 5."Computer PhotographicEnhancement" by William H.Spaulding and Richard Gottlieb.

Following the workshop ses-sions, William C. McCall, M.D.demonstrated the hypnoticregression techniques used inhis experiments with Dr. Lawsonon an "imaginary" abductioncase with a female volunteerfrom the audience. He also usedhypnosis to help a young man inthe audience to recall the exact

date of a personal UFO sighting.With the exact date now known,the young radio newsman willsearch the Oakland and SanFrancisco newspapers for thenames of other possiblewitnesses. Dr. McCall's demon-station added immensely to thepaper presented by Dr. Lawson.It was a real treat to watch aprofessional utilize his abilitiesin behalf of UFO research.

Bill Pitts, presently the FirstInternational Vice President ofthe International Brotherhood ofMagicians, entertained theevening dinner guests with aseries of humorous "slight ofhand" demonstrations usingprops and accessories that hecould carry in his brief case.Obviously, he was unable to uselive birds or rabbits for thisoccasion.

STANTON T.FRIEDMAN

Stanton T. Friedman, nuclearphysicist and professional UFOlecturer was the featuredspeaker Saturday evening.Making his fourth speakingappearance at a MUFON UFOSymposium, Stan again pre-pared a new paper for the eventtitled ''Science Fiction, Science,and UFOs!' Stan actually gave alecture that was a combination ofhis college and universityslide/ lecture presentation -titled"Flying Saucers Are Real" andhis new paper for thesymposium, quoting from thelater in a humorous manner. Heencouraged the audience topurchase a copy of the MUFONSymposium Proceedings for thedetails. His short abstract andintroduction is hereby quoted for .JOURNAL readers to provide aclue to the contents of his paper.

Abstract: "Written commentsconcerning UFOs by sciencefiction writers Isaac Asimov,Ben Bova, and Arthur C. Clarkeand by scientific journalsSCIENCE and SCIENCE NEWSand by astronomers J. AllenHynek and Donald H. Menzelare critically reviewed. Itappears that much of what hasbeen written as supposedlyscientific about UFOs is notscientific and creates inappropri-ate notions in the mind of thereader!'

Introduction: "A major diffi-culty for anyone trying to sepa-rate fact from fiction on the sub-ject of UFOs is to know whosewritings to trust. Unfortunately,several science fiction writersand several scientists have beenguilty of presenting fiction asthough it were fact or scientific.The purpose of this paper is toreview the written statements ofsome well known science fiction

writers and scientists and topoint out the fictional characterof the material presented in theguise of fact:'

The Mutual UFO Network,Inc. held its annual corporatemeeting for MUFON memberson Sunday morning. Decisionsmade and actions to be takenwill be reported in the"Directors Message" column ofTHE MUFON UFO JOURNAL.

WILLIAM

SPAULDING

The Sunday afternoon featureof the symposium was acombination of UFO slides andmovie film, titled -'ModernImage Processing Revisits theGreat Falls, Montana andTremonton, Utah Movies"

(Ufology and the UbiquitousComputer) by William H.Spaulding, Director of GSW,Inc. and MUFON State Directorfor Arizona. Computer analysisof these two well known moviesconfirms previous studies thatthey are authentic. BillSpaulding's very detailed paperin the 1977 MUFON SymposiumProceedings may be capsulizedby quoting from his abstract.

Abstract: Modern technologyutilizes all types of pictures assources of information forinterpretation and analysis.They may be portions of theearth's surface viewed from anorbiting satellite, the internalcomposition of a complexorganic structure seen with theaid of x-rays, or chromosomesviewed through a microscope.The proliferation of these basesof pictorial data has created theneed for a vision-basedautomation that can rapidly,accurately, and cost effectivelyextract the useful data containedin images. These requirementsare being met through the newtechnology of Image Processing.

Image Processing combinescomputer applications withmodern image scanningtechniques to perform variousforms of picture enhancement,distortion correction, patternrecognition, distance factoringand object measurements.

This technology was mated tothe images in.the renown andcontroversial U & M movies.Since this bit of UFO pictorialdata was photographed in adaylight mode, great quantitiesof information can be obtained ina computerized frame by frameexamination. This paper coversthe complete analysis andconclusions of these images.

21

Director's Message w

Walt AnJrusIt is a distinct pleasure to

announce the appointment ofJulius L. Benton, Jr. Ph.D. tothe dual role of State Director forSouth Carolina and Consultantin Astronomy. Mrs. MargaretPine, a State Section Director inMauldin, SC has been the actingState Director for the past twoyears. Dr. Benton is a planetaryastronomer and Director of theThornwell Museum, P.O. Box60, Clinton, SC 29325. He alsoserves as an investigator for theCenter for UFO Studies(CUFOS).

Dr. Glenn Underbill, StateDirector for Nebraska, hasreassigned Gordon E. Gruber asState Section Director for CusterCounty. Gordon resides at 1216North 13th St., Broken Bow, NBand is the former State SectionDirector for.Cedar and DixonCounties in Nebraska.

Ken Potter has advisedMUFON that the NationalEnquirer will sponsor a"National Sky watch" starting atdusk on Saturday, September 10until dawn on September 11th.They have arranged for a tollfree telephone number, withreporters manning the tele-phones to receive UFO sightingsfrom throughout the UnitedStates and Canada. Due to theshort notice and delays indistributing the JOURNAL, thisevent will have occurred beforeyou read this item. The NationalEnquirer also failed to give theirreaders adequate prior notice tomake this ambitious venture thesuccess that they anticipated.MUFON has suggested that thisbecome an annual event as acontinuing experiment.

Dr. J.B. Kloosterman has sentMUFON the first two issues of a22

new magazine titled CASTA-STROPHIST GEOLOGY. This isa journal of academic levelconcerned with subjects notdirectly related with Ufology,however both issues had UFOarticles. The magazine may beordered by writing toCATASTROPHIST GEOLOGY,C.P. 41.003/Santa Teresa, Riode Janeiro-RJ-20,000 BRASIL.

Advance notice has beenreleased by Andreas FaberKaiser, Director of MundoDesconocido in Spain, announ-cing a worldwide exercise titledOPERATION "UFO WATCH "This operation is planned duringJanuary, February, March andApril of 1978 when the planetMars is in opposition to ourEarth. Jesus Beorlegui Diaz,Director of Operation "UFOWatchJ' states that the aim ofthis international operations is toeither confirm or deny thesoundness of the "MartianHypothesis:' Past records indi-cate that UFO sighting reportsincrease substantially orcoincide with the periods whenMars and the planet Earth are inopposition. This is not a programto deny or support the "MartianHypothesis", but to make astatistical worldwide sampling todetermine the current validity ofthis hypothesis.

Some of us had the pleasure ofmeeting Andreas Faber Kaiserat the First International UFOCongress in Acapulco, Mexico.This program is another step inattempting to further the aims ofthe Congress to secure inter-national cooperation in UFOresearch. UFO sighting reportsduring the specified monthsshould not only be sent toMUFON for our statistical

tabulation, buy may also bemailed to Jesus Beorlegui Diaz,MUNDO DESCONOCIDO,Balmes, 391-393, 2.° - 2.a

Barcelona (6) SPAIN.It is with sincere regret that

MUFON accepts the resignationof Dennis W. Hauck, who hasbeen the Editor of THE MUFONUFO JOURNAL for the pastyear. Dennis will continue toserve as State Director forIndiana unless his new jobresponsibilities in publishingrequire that he relocate toanother area of the country. Weare taking this opportunity of notonly utilizing our JOURNALStaff to edit specific monthlyissues, but this is taking placesimultaneously, so that we mayget back in a current statusmode. Dennis Hauck and yourDirector completed the Augustissue. Richard H. Hall,Associate Editor, has completedthe September issue, while yourDirector is assembling theOctober issue. Untilwe haveselected a new Editor for theJOURNAL, all columns, articles,and submitted papers should bemailed to Walt Andrus at 103Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Texas78155. Material for the Novem-ber issue is now beingassimilated. All of us at MUFONextend our best wishes to Dennisin his new professional endea-vors and to his continuedresearch in Ufology.

MUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEQUIN, TX 78155

RECAPPING AND COMMENTINGBy Richard Hall (MUFON International Coordinator)

[Comments in this month'scolumn are based, In part, onarticles appearing in tha April1977 MUFON UFO Journal, No.113.]

The various attitudes andtheories expressed, explicitly orimplicitly, in this issue stimu-lated a number of thoughts onthe state-of-the-art of ufology.The influence of those pushingthe notion that "psychical" or"extra-dimensional" eventsmay have something to do withUFOs is visible in LenStringfield's commentary, RonWestrum's article, and—indi-rectly-in Ann Druffel's thesisabout possible "mimickingUFOs:'

Once again I feel compelled tocite the Latin saying ignotiumper ignotius, which roughly tran-slates into "explaining the un-known in terms of the even moreunknown!' One might as wellsay that UFOs emanate from thechronosynclastic infindibulum; itwould have about as muchmeaning. Not that I am unable toexercise some imagination andsuppose that there is some realmout there about which we havelittle or no knowledge, residentsof which may be impinging onour world. It may be so. Thepoint of unending fascination tome is why certain "UFOresearchers" so readily discardknown realms in favor ofunknown realms as an explana-tory device. ("Explanatory" thatis).

One of the most notorious andinfluential discarders is JohnKeel. His data are cited as ifthey were established facts byRon Westrum, who proceeds toadvise ufologists on the need tobe healers when UFO witnessesbecome overwhelmed by theirenhanced psychic abilities. I metRon again at the InternationalFortean Organization (INFO)"Fortfest" symposium where hegave a good, intelligent paper onthe sociology of anomalyreporting. He is clearly asincere, honest person delvinginto important areas of UFOresearch, bringing to bear theinsights of sociology. I wishmore sociologists and psycholo-gists were involved in UFOresearch; they are badly needed.Especially those knowledgeableabout the history of science andinterested in anomalistic data,as Ron is.

This being said, I have to onceagain strongly disagree withRon, both about his data and histheories. He is treading onextremely dangerous ground byapparently encouraging laymento take up therapy on an amateurbasis. If UFO witnesses reallyare experiencing psychologicaldisorders of the nature de-scribed, they obviously needprofessional help.

All of this f i ts the patternwhich is becoming increasinglyclear to me of well-meaningufologists, typically amateurs inthe areas under consideration,rushing into the vacuum createdby professional non-involvement

in UFO studies. Bearing thecross of the world, ufologistsnaively attempt to be physicist,psychologist, priest, and healer.They attempt to take on theirshoulders problems that wouldtax the abilities of the world'sgreatest scientists.

A more modest and realisticappraisal of the situation wouldcause us to realize that we areoften way over our heads intrying to sort out and makesense of UFO data. I remainunconvinced that the "data" weneed to explain is that describedby John Keel. Jacques Vallee,and Jerome Clark. But if it is,then more than ever do we needthe participation of the bestminds in the world if we hope toget a handle on the situation.Otherwise we leave ourselves atthe mercy of a handful ofself-appointed priests whoprofess to have a direct pipelineto truth, arrived at individuallyand without any concertedscientific effort. And to that Isay, "bunk!"

By Richard Hall[MUFON International

Coordinator]

23