The MUFONUFO JOURNAL

NUMBER 126 MAY 1978

Founded 1967 $1.00

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.

I"UFO" LIGHT ENGULFS TRUCKERS (See story, p. 3)

The MUFONUFO JOURNAL

103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155

RICHARD HALLEditor

ANN DRUFFELAssociate Editor

LEN STRINGFELDAssociate Editor

WALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFON

PAUL CERNYPromotion/Publicity

REV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOs

LUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

MARJORIE FISHExtraterrestrial Life

MARK HERBSTRITTAstronomy

ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publicity

TED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO Propulsion

NORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLY

DENNIS HAVCKEditor/Publishers Emeritus

The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Subscription rates: $8.00 per yearin the U.S.A.; $9.00 per yearforeign. Copyright 1978 by theMutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. Publication identificationnumber is 2970. POSTMASTER:Send form 3579 to advise change ofaddress to The MUFON UFOJOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas 78155.

1 FROM THE EDITORAn understanding of the six factors of UFO investigation should

help promote more thorough and objective research: (1) theinvestigator's experience and skill; (2) the sighting report(interviewing, documenting, cross-checking); (3) witness credibility(additional witnesses, human psychology, tests); (4) analysis ofphysical or instrumented data; (5) the case report (summarizing all

. the evidence); and (6) interpretation.Investigators will bring to bear more or less experience and

skills. Their abilities and objectivity will determine the usefulness of areport. Obviously, there is a need for accuracy and thoroughness.First, the details of a sighting must be elicited from a witness,documented, checked, and converted into a written or tape-recorded report. This document then becomes a working paper.Whether or not the initial report includes some personal characterinformation, witness credibility should be continually investigatedthrough whatever tools are available (polygraph, PSE, characterstudy), especially in controversial or "high strangeness" cases. Inphysical effect or photographic cases, appropriate tests or analysesneed to be conducted.

Ideally, all relevant information then should be summarized in acase report that becomes one more datum among thousands,subject to critique by all interested parties as a check against errorsor inconsistencies. Interpretation of any single case as supporting ordisconfirming a given theory is not likely to be meaningful and shouldbe avoided. Since we still are in the primitive stages of trying togather and analyze data, I would go further and suggest that any"theory" at this juncture is merely someone's personal hunch orguess. For any theory to have merit, it must be based on carefullyvalidated evidence. The larger a body of thoroughly investigatedcase reports we are able to compile, the more likely it is that we willbegin to obtain some final answers.

In this issue

TRUCKERS ENGULFED BY "UFO" LIGHT 3By Charles L. Tucker

TELEPORTATION OF A CAR IN BRABANT (BELGIUM) 4By Emile Techeur and Jean-Luc Vertongen

POLISH HUMANOID CASE: PRELIMINARY REPORT 8By George Wielunski

THE SOCIAL DYNAMICS OF UFO MULTIPLE WITNESS REPORTS.. 10By Joseph A. Blake

Other Features and Columns

The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL aredetermined by the editor, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of MUFON. Opinions ofcontributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflectthose of the editor, the staff, or MUFON. Articles may beforwarded directly to MUFON.

Permission is hereby granted to quote from this issueprovided not more than 200 words are quoted from anyone article, the author of the article is given credit, andthe statement "Copyright 1978 by the MUFON UFOJOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd, Seguin, Texas" isincluded.

TRUCKERS ENGULFED BY "UFO" LIGHTBy Charles L. Tucker

(MUFON State Director for Indiana)

It was Wednesday night, between9:30 and 9:45 PM, on March 29, 1978.The location was one mile fromhighway 465 on 1-70 East, on thefreeway bypass, Indianapolis, Indiana.

.The sky was clear. It is a very busyhighway. There were two 18-wheelersemi-trucks in a caravan, along withone Ford super-cab 1978 truck. Thetrucks were running 58 miles per houron the freeway. The three men weretalking back and forth on their CB'swatching for patrol cars.

All at once, like someone turnedon a giant light bulb, a bright blue lightcovered the three vehicles. They werenot able to see out beyond the hood oftheir trucks. Everything went quiet —all noise, all sounds seemed to stop.The trucks sputtered as if the motorswere stopping. (This happened for anestimated 3 to 5 seconds.) Then, like alight bulb, it was turned off. CB's beganto work, and the road noise becamenormal. Once again the motors wererunning smoothly. •

The three drivers on the CB'scouldn't believe what had happened.The driver of the rear truck (CB"handle" in MUFON files) shouted outon the CB, "Hey, UFO, if you have yourears on, I want to go with you." Andthen almost as suddenly as before thestrange bright blue light came downover the trucks like a lampshade again.Again they could not see out, nor seethe trucks in back. (This time it wasestimated that the strange big blue lightlasted about 15 seconds.)

The trucks were pulled down to 5to 10 miles per hour, jerking andjumping. Again while in this bath of bluelight the three drivers said they felt likethere was no one else in the world.Everything was restful and quiet. Theyfelt almost as if they were in limbo,everything in invisible blue. One of thewitnesses stated, "It is the mostpeaceful state I have ever experienced.

I did not believe in this crazy stuffbefore, but I certainly do now. I driveabout 130;000 miles a year, pullingtrailers for Mewmar Industries inNappanee, Indiana. I do not drink, noruse any drugs, and I have neverexperienced anything like this in my life.Every time I go by this place inIndianapolis I feel as though it couldhappen again."

When asked by Charles Tucker,the interviewer, how did it affect yourmind?, he said "I think about itconstantly, knowing it could happen tome again." As I continued theinterview, I asked him if he noticed anyphysical effects on his truck or theother trucks. "My clock is now losingabout an hour a day, " he said, "andbefore this incident my clock workedjust fine." He also stated, " It took thebattery about l'/2 hours to regain fu l lcharge."

When asked if he could furnishnames of the other drivers, he said heonly met the drivers in the caravan,although the man in the rear was knownby his CB handle as "If I ever meetthe others again | will give you thenames and addresses," he said. "But atthe time I was too scared and neverthought about getting the names andaddresses of the men."

After these two experiences, theCB's were full of excited people askingwhat had happened. (The witnesses areestimated to be over 100 people,consisting of 50 cars stopped across thefreeway to view the phenomenon.) An

. older woman from across the highwaysaid on the CB, "It looked like a bigbright blue lamp shade over the threetrucks." All the observers said theycould not see the three trucks and thatthe light was only on the three trucks.

There was no UFO visible, only along spout estimated at 25 feet long.

~ The light came from the bottom. Theblue light was approximately 250-300

feet in length.

CORRECTION

John Lutz, Baltimore, Maryland,has submitted the following informationcorrecting an error and supplementingthe data in "UFO Windows andMagnetic Faults" (No. 122, January1978):

In the t ab le of m a g n e t i cdisturbance areas, the ChesapeakeBay entry should read "MD" (forMaryland). Delaware (DE) does notadjoin the Bay. John, a representativefor the Center for UFO Studies(CUFOS), also points out that duringthe 1972-77 period indicated on thesighting density map, he submitted 272cases to CUFOS, about 63 of whichappeared to be unexplainable. Whetherthe cases were evaluated differently byCUFOS is not known.

D u r i n g 1977 alone, Johnprocessed 63 UFO reports, an averageof about one per week. He has offeredto make some of the better casesavailable to MUFON for publication.

TELEPORTATION OF A CAR IN BRABANT (BELGIUM)By Emfle Techeur and Jean-Luc Vertongen

(Edited from the September, 1977 SOBERS News Bulletin, ([1] No. 11,— by Ann Druffel)

Although the event to be describedoccurred almost 13 years ago, thecontent and subsequent informationreceived from the witness make it ofexceptional interest to UFOlogists.

In 1973, SOBERS became aware ofthe incident through a communicationfrom Mr Ph. Ressos. We set aboutmaking an inquiry.

The incident occurred on a smallsecondary county road which links thecommunities of Hoeilaart andRixensart in Belgium. This.road passesthrough Malaise (Maleizen) andRosieres about fifteen kilometers (9.3miles) southeast of Bruxelles.

Mrs. A. V. (name withheld onrequest) was driving this road about7:30 or 8:00 PM. Dusk was falling, butMrs. A. V. knew the route well, beingaccustomed to driving it twice daily toand from her work in Bruxelles. Thedate was September 1965.

Mrs. A. V. was alone in her MGsports car, traveling about 90kilometers per hour (56 mph). Herheadlights were on, but her radio wasnot. Her husband was following about500 meters behind her (1/3 mile) in hisown car, because they had leftBruxelles together.

Traffic was extremely light, and thelack of curves made the driving easy.To the left, when the configuration ofthe ground allowed it, the track of theAutoroute to the Ardennes was visibleabout a kilometer away, and theimposing radio transmission towers ofWavre could be seen in the distance.Cutlivated fields, orchards, pastures,and an occasional picturesque dwellinglined the route.

Mrs. A. V. reached a low hill at thelinguistic frontier of Belgium nearOverijse and Rosieres.. Here, where the

ancient Chateau of the Princes ofMerode at Rixensart stands, was acurve in the road, alongside the "WooField," the agricultural holdings of thechateau.

As Mrs. A. V. reached the bend inthe road, she. suddenly had thesensation that the car was notresponding to the steering wheel, whichturned from left to right for no apparentreason. She immediately thought of aflat tire or a tire rapidly losing air. Shestarted to slow down.

It was then that, bizarrely, she feltherself lifted in her car somecentimeters off the ground. At the sametime, a'"small neon light" appearedseveral centimeters f rom herwindshield and remained there for a few

. seconds, slightly to her right. The lightseemed solid, opaque, and uniformlyluminous, but not dazzling to the eye.Its color was light yellow. Its shape wasthat of a tube about 4 centimeters (1%inches) in diameter and about 70centimeters long (27 inches). It wasslightly curved toward the top. Its endswere well defined and its contoursclear.

Mrs. A. V. was stupefied. Thewheel no longer wobbled, and the entirecar felt as though she were driving on acushion of air without Mrs. A. V.controlling it in any way. Sheremembers seeing some dust airborneon her left hand side about a meter fromthe ground, but could not rememberexactly at what moment thisphenomenon was produced.

The light stayed fixed near thewindshield for what seemed to thewitness an interminable time, though inreality it was only 3 or 4 seconds. Thenit suddenly disappeared. With thelight's disappearance the car once again

made contact with the ground. Mrs. A.V. had traveled 50 meters (51 yards)along the road, but could not explainhow. Back on the road again sheregained full control of the car.Although very frightened, shecontinued on her way, trying to seewhether there was anything or anybodyabove, at the side of, or behind her. Shesaw nothing unusual, and the carresponded perfectly, At no time did theengine behave irregularly, even duringthe levitation. Badly shaken, Mrs. A. V.hurried home as fast as she could.

She arrived home excited andpale, and her husband arrived homemoments later. He asked her whethershe felt alright, but her nervous tensionas well as fear of ridicule prevented herfrom telling her story immediately. Itwas not until 3 days later that she wasable to relate her adventure. Herhusband had seen nothing unusualduring the journey, but it is possible hewas too far behind Mrs. A. V.'s MG.

A few hours after the incident,Mrs. A. V. noticed on the outside of herwrists, marks similar to a thick line,about two fingers wide. These marksseemed composed of a multitude ofsmall points very close together, eachabout the size of a pinhead and red,blue, and black in color. The mark onher left wrist was especially noticeable.This mark, generally a reddish color,was sharp in'outline and itched like alight burn. It appeared suddenly anddisappeared 1 week later. Mrs. A. V.was not unduly alarmed and did notconsult a doctor.

Two years later, in 1967, this markwas again visible in the same locationand later disappeared as previously.Since that time, there has been norecurrence of this phenomenon.

VerificationsThe rapidity of the levitation

incident and the shock its witness feltprevents her from remembering withprecision her conduct and sensations atthe time she regained control of herv e h i c l e . This i s c o m p l e t e l yunderstandable. Nevertheless, thesalient points of the actual levitation areclear in her mind. We do not doubt forone moment the veracity of herstatements.

At the time of our inquiries, Mrs. A.V. unburdened herself, telling the storyin detail for the first time. It was evidentthat she felt a great feeling of relief indoing so. In subsequent conversationswith us, no contradictions were evidentin her testimony. . .

As far as proof is concerned,unfortunately the only traces were themarks on her wrists, and they are nolonger present for anlaysis. The car wassold several years ago, and it .is,naturally, hopeless to try to find anyevidence on the site of the event after solong a time. However, we didaccompany Mrs. A. V. to the scene ofthe sighting where she related herexperience on the site. According toMrs. A. V., she noticed no change in herbehavior or health, and apart fromnormal aging she carries no effect fromthe incident.

Returning to the marks whichappeared on her wrists — on theevening in question, Mrs. A. V.remembered that she was wearing adress with long sleeves, which left onlyher wrists uncovered. Inquiry broughtout that she was driving the car with herhands resting in a four o'clock and eighto'clock position. The "neon" tube-lineobject was placed halfway up thewindshield at about the center of thecar, and it is quite likely that it produceda radiation effect on the wrists.Logically, it would seem that the leftwrist should suffer more than the right,in view of its position vis-a-vis the"neon". Such proved to be the case.

As far as the apparition of the"neon" and the levitation of the car areconcerned, the witness states that they

lasted 4 seconds at a maximum. At aspeed of 90 km/hr, the car would havecovered a distance somewhat less than100 meters, which brings us to the edgeof Woo Farm as indicated by thewitness' testimony.

An attempt at explanationAt this stage of the inquiry, one can

only pose a multitude of questionsregarding the r ea l i ty of thephenomenon observed. If we omit thetraces of "burns" on the wrists, whichmay have had nothing directly to dowith the observation, but rather werethe result of the witness' shocked state,we are left with no physical proof that aUFO could have produced the effectsdescribed. However, we are not able todoubt the good faith of the witness.

In reviewing the conditions of thesighting, we might hope to find a clueleading to a rational solution of theproblem.

Meteorological conditions werenormal for autumn. The weather w,asdry and the sky clear. Visibility wasgood.

Witness' personal condition: Mrs.. A. V. was not wearing spectacles andhad no trouble with her eyes. She hadnp problem relating to the drive. Sheknew the route well, was relaxed andcalm,. and had never before noticedanything unusual at this location.

Existing public lighting:* Thoughthe public lighting in this area is nottroublesome or inconvenient, thethought immediately springs to mind,"What if the public lighting hadproduced an intensive glare in the car'swindshield? This is not likely for anumber of reasons:

1. If the vehicle was moving, thefixed lights would produce a movingreflection on the windshield.

2. The duration of such areflection on a curve would hardly lastone second.

3. The outline of such a reflectionwould not be well-defined.

4. A reflection had never beennoticed at this site before or since.

Even cons ider ing tha t a

momentary light and reflection hadproduced the "neon," how does oneexplain the sensation of "moving on acushion of air," and the panic lastingseveral seconds to the point of losingcomplete control of the car? Thatseems most unlikely.

On the site, nothing provides anysupplementary clues. If one admits theau then t i c i t y of this case, thephenomenon cannot be explained in asimple, rational manner.

There remains the possibility of aUFO. A small material machine — seenby the witness as a "neon" tube-shapedobject — might have provoked thephysical manifestations on the witnessand altered the behavior of the car.Thus we have an extra report toprovide clues to the statistician.

However, in this case there arefurther details which bring it out of theusual pattern of such cases. It proves tobe rather more than a "simple" case ofinteraction between UFO and witness.Did the phenomenon show a moredirect link with Mrs. A. V., which couldbe the psychic "catalyzer" of themanifestation, or even subconsciouslyinduce it?

Before proceeding to this delicateproblem — that of the parapsychol-ogical nature of certain manifestationsclassified as UFOs — it is necessary forthe readers to familiarize themselveswith the personality of the witness. Mrs.A. V. is a calm, composed person whohas cooperated wholeheartedly withour inquiry, desiring only to remainanonymous for professional reasons.Active socially, she also assumes theresponsibility of a very busyprofessional. She has three daughtersand leads a normal family life. Beforethe September 1965 observation, Mrs.A. V. had never attached the slightestimportance to the UFO phenomenon,apart from reading an occasional pressarticle. Even since her experience, herattitude has not changed. The eventhad been completely forgotten until one

(Continued on next page)

*We presume that this Belgian phrase means theequivalent of American "street lights".

(Belgium, Continued)

day another incident occurred, asbizarre and unbelievable as thepreceding one.

A few years ago, Mrs. A. V. wasworried about the health of her seconddaughter who, though not seriously ill,was experiencing a troublesome andundiagnosable illness. Despitenumerous measures taken by doctorsand specialists, nothing seemed to givethe expected results. This state ofthings continued for some time.

One morning upon awakening,Mrs A. V. immediately had the feelingthat there was someone in herbedroom. She opened her eyes and sawher second daughter (adolescent)facing her, standing at the head of thebed. The girl was fixed and immobile.This daughter at the time was absentfrom home and Mrs. A. V. realized theabsurdity of the situation. At first shethought she was having a bad dream orhallucination. Suddenly, however, asmall yellow "neon" appeared near herdaughter. It seemed to assume theshape of her stomach and digestivesystem and remained stationary in thisposition for several seconds. Then theentire vision disappeared.

Many questions came into Mrs. A.V.'s mind. Why again the "neon" andwhy the vision of her daughter? Whatwas the s i g n i f i c a n c e of thephenomenon? Why was she, onceagain, a witness to this incrediblemanifestation? In Mrs. A. V.'s opinion,the vision could only be explained as asign sent by a supernatural source, withan aim of clearing up her daughter'sillness. She must be suffering fromstomach trouble or upsets in thedigestive system, and the doctors hadnot diagnosed this.

Mrs. A. V.'s analysis turned out tobe correct and, given subsequentadequate treatment, the young girlcompletely and quickly recovered. Thevision of the "neon".was seen no more,and no other related phenomenaoccurred.

From that time forward, Mrs. A. V.became interested in parapsychology.

She declared, "Actually I don't" knowwhy but I feel attracted . . by all thattouches on the paranormal aptitudes ofcertain people. All my leisure time isspent on the study of thesephenomena, although I have neverbefore felt the slightest interest in thissubject. I believe that I possess a gift forthis sort of thing, especially for healing. Ihope to develop this aptitude if I can."

Recent ly , other "bizarre"phenomena have taken place which arepersonal to the witness and add nothingto the present subject at hand.

Complementary informationThe adventure experienced by

Mrs. A. V. remains a unique case inBelgium. However, we find two similarCanadian cases which were the objectof an article published in our Revueunder the title, "Flying Vehicles brHypnotized Drivers?" [2]

To briefly review these cases, thefirst one occurred on 18th February1969, in Craigmyle, Province of Alberta.[3] Mrs. Barbara Smythe, a teacher,while traveling to school in a car saw abrilliant, reddish-rose colored machineon a hill. It was about 15 meters (16yds.) in diameter, revolving slowly andshowing two enormous white lights.The witness was traveling slowly.Suddenly the machine changedposition, and the witness felt her car"floating" noiselessly and smoothly, asif she were hypnotized. The sensationlasted about 3 minutes during which thecar traveled for a mile. After the objectdisappeared, everything becamenormal. There were no physical tracesof the adventure.

The second case occurred 24thMay 1971 on the reserve of theBlackfoot Indians, Alberta. Mr. andMrs. Raw Eater were returning homeby car at the speed of 70 km/hr (43mph) over a bumpy, poorly paved road.Suddenly a brilliant light cut throughthe night sky, striking the right-handside of their car. Within a few secondsMrs. Raw Eater cried out, "The car hasleft the ground!" The speedometerremained at 70 kmh as the car floated

smoothly above the road at anestimated 60 centimeters (two feet).The car continued thus for 400 meters(1/4 mile), making contact again withthe road the moment the strange lightwent away. There were no physicaltraces of the adventure.

CommentaryTogether, the A. V., Smythe, and

Raw Eater cases make three of a kind!Table 1, below, gives a resume of thecommon points between the Raw Eatercase and the case v/ith which we areinvolved.

As can be seen from the table, theanalogy which exists between thesetwo cases is too strange to becoincidental. On the Malaise secondaryroad, a small luminous object caused adriver to lose control of her vehicle andthe car left the ground completely.Nevertheless, the car followed thecurve of the road, and its motorcontinued to function both during andafter the incident.

Decidedly, we are far from theclassic manifestations of UFOs withtheir perturbations on witnesses, thestopping of car engines, marks ongrounds, etc. In addition, a physicalimpossibility exists here. How can onereasonably assume that the car,traveling about 90 km/hr, couldnegotiate a bend in the road while itswheels were not in contact with theground and while it had no exteriorsupport?

Estimating the mass of the A. V.vehicle to be one thousand kilograms(2,205 Ibs) and the radius of curvaturefifty meters (55 yds), the enormouscentrifugal force which was operating atthis moment was on the order of 12,500newtons (i.e., 1,274 kilograms/force[4]:)

Must we think that Mrs. A. V.dreamed her experience, or that sheinvented this fantastic story? The goodfaith of the witness is above allsuspicion, and her adventure is notunique as we have been able to show.But how can we reconcile suchinconceivable physical events within

the terms of our science?We will try another line of

argument and try to reconcile both ofMrs. A.V.'s adventures — that is, thecar levitation and the later appearanceof the "neon" in her bedroom. In bothincidents, the same type of objectappeared — a luminous yellow "neon"which appeared and disappearedsuddenly, directly acting upon thewitness' psyche which interpreted theevents as "real". And were they not, inthe final analysis, real for her?

Here we are confronted with theproblem of the paranormal domain andwith that of the "psi" facilities of certainpeople who seem able to captureextrasensory perceptions or, at times,exercise a direct effect on matter. Thispsychokinetic ability is usuallyinvoluntary and seems to occur duringfavorable states of mind. By "favorable"is meant either a relaxed state ofconsciousness or within a seriouslymind-troubling period. There remainsalso the problem of the marks on Mrs.A.V.'s wrists. [5]

We find ourselves at the frontier,not yet clearly delineated, between twonewly-born branches of research —UFOlogy and parapsychology. TheA.V. incident illustrates the seemingconnection between the two domains.

Mrs. A. V.'s car levitation can beclassed as a UFO manifestation, andthe vision in her bedroom falls withinthe domain of parapsychology and thestudy of the mental faculties of thewitness.

Until now we have assumed thatthe UFO phenomenon induces a directaction on the environment or on thewitness, in a manner which is eitherphysiologic or psychic. But could wenot consider the phenomenoninversely: the witness, in a state offavorable consciousness would inducethe described mani/esrafi'ons whichcould, in some cases, take on theaspect of a UFO phenomenon? Inreality, it is not with the phenomenonitself that we should linger, but with thesrudy of the witnesses themselves.That, unfortunately, does not fall withinthe bounds of a conventional inquiry.

NOTES1. This Bulletin prints the principal articlespublished in INFORESPACE No. 35.2. See INFORESPACE No. 13.3. See CANADIAN UFO REPORT, Vol. 2, No. 4(1972) for the two cases.4. Centrifugal Force F = mu2

R5. The reader can consider these problems inthinking of the classic case of "Doctor X". SeeINFORESPACE No. 26, March 1976.

UFO NEWSCUPPINGSERVICE

The UFO NEWSCUPPING SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOactivity, as it happens! Our service wasstarted in 1969, at which time wecont rac ted wi th a r epu tab leinternat ional newspaper-cl ippingbureau to obtain for us, those hard tofind UFO reports (i.e., little knownphotographic cases, close encounterand landing reports, occupant cases)and all other UFO reports, many ofwhich are carried only in small town orforeign newspapers."Our UFO Newsclipping Serviceissues are 20-page monthly reports,r e p r o d u c e d by p h o t o - o f f s e t ,containing the latest United States andCanadian UFO newsclippings, withour foreign section carrying the latest-British, Australian, New Zealand andother foreign press reports. Alsoincluded is a 3-5 page section of"Fortean" clippings (i.e. Bigfoot andother "monster" reports). Let us keepyou informed of the latest happeningsin the UFO and Fortean fields."For subscription information andsample pages from our service, writetoday to:

UFO NEWSCUPPING SERVICERoute 1 — Box 220

Plumerville, Arkansas 72127

Table 1 — Comparison of two "levitation" cases

Features A. V. (Belgium) Raw Eater (Canada)

TimeDuration of phenomenonVehicle speedDescription of phenomenonDistance of witness to phenomenonAppearanceDisappearanceFinish of phenomenonNoiseVehicle functioningEffects experienced

Secondary effects

Physical traces

Evening8 seconds90 km/hrLight yellow, luminous "neon"Very close to windshieldSuddenSuddenDisappearance of UFONoneNormal (imprecise);Sensation of flying;Absence of shocks;Vehicle control lostGreat .fear;Marks on wristsNone

Evening20 seconds70 km/hrBrilliant light-like lightningAgainst right side of vehicleSuddenSuddenDisappearance of UFONoneNormal (no comment);Sensation of flying;Absence of shocks;Vehicle control lostGreat fear

None

POLISH HUMANOID CASE: PRELIMINARY REPORTBy George Wielunski

(MUFON Correspondent in Lublin, Poland)

According to the Polish dailynewspaper Kurier Po/sfci, 17 May 1978,in a village not far from Lublin a farmer,while driving his horse-drawn wagonthrough the woods at about 8:00 AM,saw two creatures in unusual blackuniforms such as those used by diversand "frog-men." The uniforms weresort of like diving suits, tight fitting. Thecreatures had green faces and squintingeyes, and membranes between theirfingers. They walked in a gently jumpingway (bouncing or bobbing?--Ed.). Theymade inarticulate vocal sounds. Theirfaces had protruding cheekbones.

Rectangular traces were found inthe muddy road. In addition to the 71-

year-old farmer, two children and twopolicemen saw the creatures. Thecreatures forced the farmer to entertheir vehicle, which was situated hot faraway hovering just above the ground.He entered the vehicle and wasexamined with an X-ray like apparatus.The creatures offered him whatappeared to be transparent food, but herefused it. His stay on-board the bus-like vehicle (resembling a bus bothbecause of its shape and dimensions)was not long, and then they let him go.

On returning to the village, thefarmer told everybody about hisexperience. Others in the village alsosaw the object, and heard a loud noise

as it disappeared in the sky.I shall try to get more details and

prepare an article for the Journal. Theencounter was just 60 km from Lublin. Ihave learned that psychiatrists andother specialists have carried outinterviews with the witnesses, and areof-the opinion that the reports of thefarmer and the children are valid andcorroborate each other in all details.

(Editorial Note: Basic details of thisreport were carried on the newswiresby Agence France Presse on June 5,1978, from Warsaw, Poland.)

TRUCK DRIVER PACED IN DESERT(From UFO Research of South Australia Newsletter, No. 30, March-April 1978)

A truck driver from Adelaidereported an interesting observation tous which occurred on the 5th March1978. As he provided a graphicdescription of his experience we willrelate it in his own words. The time was2AM.

"I was travelling south from LeighCreek toward Hawker. I had a blowoutjust before Parachilna and while I waschanging the wheel I had a feeling thatsomething or somebody was nearbywatching me. I had a good look aroundand as I could not see or hear.anything Ifinished changing the tire. I climbed inthe cabin of my truck, had a cup ofcoffee and a cigarette, and I started offagain.

"About 2-3 minutes later I noticeda bluish green light ahead, 6-8 feetabove the road. I did not take any noticeof it because the railway line was on myleft-hand side and I thought it was a

8

reflecting sign. It then started to moveslowly up and down about 2-3 feet. As Ididn't know what it was I had put highbeam on to have a look, but before thebeam could hit it, two smaller red lightsappeared under the green (one on eachside) light and it took off about 45° tothe right, so quickly that I could only seea small flash and it disappeared.

"About 30 seconds later it cameback again, about 15-20 feet above theroad. I could then only see the greenlight. It started to lower itself towardsthe road, and when it was about 5 feet,off the ground I switched on to highbeam. Again, before the beam hit it, thetwo red lights came on and it shot upinto the air at great speed. It came backvery soon afterwards but would notcome below 20 feet above the road andit always kept 150-200 feet ahead of meregardless of what speed I wastravelling. I had tried time after time to

catch it but the result was always thesame. This went on for at least 15minutes.

"A semi-trailer was coming upfrom behind me so I stopped, turned offmy headlights, arid while I was watchingfor the semi to come closer the greenlight was still there ahead of me. Istopped the driver and the semi-trailerpulled up about 100 feet in front of me,so I drove my truck alongside. I took mytime getting out and walking about 10feet across the road to the semi and atthe same time kept my eye on the greenlight. When I climbed up into his cabinand looked through the windscreen, ithad gone. After he left I waited for about10-15 minutes but the light did notappear again so I started out myself...nothing more happened."

Investigations are continuing.

LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST CIABy Richard Hall

In 1976 MUFON established sixInformation Centers in Europe, Africa,and Asia, to encourage internationalexchange of UFO data. Many loyalcorrespondents and colleaguesoverseas supply a steady flow of reportsto MUFON (numerous examples ofwhich have appeared in recent issues ofthe Journal). Special effect cases arechanneled to MUFON specialists in theUnited States for contLiuing researchon recurring and possibly significantaspects of UFO cases. It is up toMUFON members — especially activeresearchers who benefit from theexchange — to return the favor.

Copies of case investigationsreports, books, newspaper clippings,etc., should be sent to any or all of thefollowing:

Africa: Mrs. Cynthia Hind, P.O.Box 768, Salisbury, Rhodesia

Australia: Keith Basterfield, 24Castle Ave., Prospect, S.Australia 5082

England: J. B. Delair, 75 NorreysRd., Cumnor, Oxford, OX2 9PU,England

Germany: I. B. von Ludwiger,8152 Feldkirchen-Weterham,Gerhar t -Hauptmann-St r . 5,Germany (BRD)

Japan: J. I. Takanashi, MSFA, 2-7-12, Yuuhigaoka, Toyonaka City,Osaka, Japan

Belgium & France: JacquesBonabot, Leopold I laan, 141, B-8000, Bruges, Belgium.

Just as their information iscirculated to U.S. researchers, theseCenters photocopy and circulatereports and documents to other seriousresearchers in the countries named.This provides a framework for truly

A discovery motion was filed earlyin June against the Central IntelligenceAgency by Lawyer Peter Gersten ofNew York on behalf of Ground SaucerWatch, Inc., of Phoenix, Arizona,requesting detailed UFO informationfrom CIA files. The suit is beingcontested in U.S. District Court,Washington D.C.; a preliminaryhearing was held on July 7 and anotherhearing is scheduled for September.

Just Cause, the newsletter ofCitizens Against UFO Secrecy(CAUS), reports that the documentfiled .consists of 635 interrogatoryquestions, 274 requests for documents,plus 60 CIA documents attached asexhibits. The questions are so specific,it is believed, that the CIA will eitherhave to produce the documents oracknowledge that their UFOinformation is classified.

In the interest of informing thepublic and to raise funds to support the

international cooperative study,supplemented by the work of MUFONDirectors and Representatives in some30 countries on all major continents ofthe world.

Please do your part. A clipping, amagazine article — any amount ofinformation to the Centers will beappreciated.

MUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN,TX 78155

lawsuit, GSW is making copies of thediscovery motion documents availablefor sale (110 pages) for $35. Make checkpayable to Ground Saucer Watch, Inc.(13238 North 7th Drive, Phoenix, AZ85029).

Also, CAUS (191 East 161st St.,Bronx, N.Y. 10451) is making recentlyobtained government documents onUFOs available at a nominal price tohelp support the lawsuit:

1. Loring AFB UFOOverflights $5

2. Wurtsmith AFB UFOOverflights 5

3. SAC Missile SitesOverflights 5

4. Iranian F-4/UFOEncounter 3

5. State Department MoroccanUFO Reports 3

6. SAFOI (Air Force) UFOInstructions, '75 .. 2

7. Ralph Mayher/CIADocuments 3

8. Air Force IntelligenceUFO Log Entry,'75 ...... 1

9. CIA Ops Center .UFOLog Entry 1

10. NASA UFO ProjectMemos 5

11. White Sands UFOFilm Analysis 2

12. Crashed SaucerReport, '48 5

Order these documents fromCAUS at the above address and makechecks payable to CAUS/W. ToddZechel. CAUS hopes to establish anoffice in Washington, D.C., tocoordinate the lobbying effort insupport of the lawsuit. Contributionsfor that purpose would be appreciated.

It would be a tragedy if such apromising effort were to fail for lack offinancial support.

The Social Dynamics of UFOMultiple Witness Reports:

A Cautionary NoteBy Joseph A. Blake

(Department of Sociology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)

The basic data of ufology is theUFO report (Michel, 1958; Hynek,1972). Most UFO reports are ofincred ib le events . Many aremisidentifications. Close encountersseem to be the most incredible and theleast likely to be misidentifications.Since they are so incredible, we requirestringent evidence. Hynek's emphasison the importance of multiple witnessesfollows from this difficulty. On a scale of0 to 10, he says that he will not "assign aProbability Rating greater than 3 to anyreport coming from a single reporter,and then only when it is established thathe has a very solid reputation"(1972:26). On this basis most closeencounter reports would have to beassigned a very low probability ofoccurrence.

Table 1 summarizes data on closeencounters from Vallee (1969), Webb(1976), and Bloecher (1975). Theoriginal number of cases from Valleewas reduced from 923 to 869 bybeginning with Case No. 55 (June 10,1947). This was reduced further byeliminating seventy-one cases thatprovided no information aboutwitnesses, leaving 798 cases foranalysis. Webb provides 75 cases andBloecher provides 37 cases. Themajority. of close encounter reportsindicate a single witness (51.9%, 65.3%,and 70.3%). A substantial proportion ofthe remainder involve either twowitnesses or members of a family unit(22.6%, 24.0% and 24.3%). Multiplewitness cases account for 22.0% of theVallee sample, 8.0% of the Webbsample, and 5.4% of the Bloechersample. An additional point to note forthe Vallee set is that the data are poor.The composition of the group andnumber of witnesses "were frequentlyunspecified, as were the actual numberof witnesses within the group in somecases. Some of these 175 cases

10

involved clear authority figures:employers (6 cases), school teachers(3), and policemen (many, but notcounted). What are usually taken to bethe besf cases, those involving multipleindependent witnesses, accounted foronly a tiny proportion of the total (3.5%,2.7% and 0.0%), and, frankly, some ofthem sounded suspiciously like eitherhoax or a combination of error andaltered state of consciousness.'

Unless a multiple witness sightinginvolves independent witnesses it is asocial situation. Many'. of the-closeencounters were social situations(44:6%, '32.0%, and 29.7%). This shouldnot be passed over as glibly as someresearchers do with snide references tothe unlikelihood of "hallucination,""delusion," or "hysteria," as thoughthese were the only factors to consider.The fact that most multiple witnesssightings are social situations deservesas much attention as the contents of thereport, since social factors caninfluence those contents. We willexamine this problem by focusing onfolie a deux and conformity.

folie a deuxWe must seriously consider the

possibility of folie a deux (literally"madness of two" or shared madness).We need not assume witnesses to be"mad." Schwarz (1968) informs us thathe has never found any psychiatricpatients who speak of UFOs, nor havethe few close encounter witnesses hehas tested demonstrated psychiatrictendencies. While this is valuableinformation it may divert us from the

fact that surprisingly high proportionsof the American population reporthaving had experienced wide awakespontaneous altered states ofconsciousness (ASC) at least once intheir lifetimes (see, e.g., Bourque, 1969;Greeley, 1975; Shor, 1960). An alteredstate of consciousness or emotionallystirring but ambiguous stimulus may beinterpreted by the dominant member ofa group in such a way as to mimic theeffects of folie a deux. We should beaware of the conditions under whichthis may occur.

Gruenberg (1957) offers athorough, if dated, review of theliterature. He suggests that werecognize this strange state as a groupphenomenon rather than focus whollyon issues of individual pathology orabnormality. The means of assigningtru th-value to 'our perceptions(avoiding "delusions") is throughreality-testing; one of the mostimportant means of reality-testing isthrough consensual validation —comparing our perceptions to those ofothers. If the perceptions of others are"delusions" or filtered through analtered state of consciousness, thenreality-testing may be impaired. AsGruenberg (1957:214) puts it, "if one isdependent on a psychotic person forconsensual discrimination of one'sfantasies from reality, and if hisdelusions correspond with one'sfantasies, one is likely to have difficultymaking the distinction or even is likelyto make the wrong choice."

Again, we must emphasize thatfolie a deux need not involve

FOOTNOTE1. These were, for the Vallee sample, numbers 60, 151, ISO, 204, 234, 259, 284, 317, 330, 357, 366, 384,393, 394, 495, 513, 547, 585, 622, 635, 664, 676, 710, 713, 761, 777, 791, 810. For the Webb sample, theywere numbers 48 and 33,34,35 (which were counted as a single episode). In some of these cases we mayquestion whether independent witnesses were observing the same phenomenon, since many involvesome people reporting a light or object in the sky as one or two others report a landing (with or withoutoccupants). Timing of such reports is obviously crucial, since the former could trigger the latter.

"madness." Pulver (1963), in fact,suggests that dynamics similar to thosein /o/ie a deux occasionally occurbetween an. analyst and patient,especially when hypnosis is used.Fischer (1975:223) even refers to "beingin love" as "classic folie a deux"!Whether a person is psychotic or hassimply experienced some transientform of ASC probably matters little, ifthat person has in his company one ormore others whose fantasies arevalidated by his "delusion. "Gruenberg,citing Gralnick, lists conditions underwhich folie a deux can appear. Theseinclude a dominance-submissionrelationship between or among theparties, family relationship, a prerpsychotic personality, sex and age. Of118 combina t ions of .people(representing 103 episodes) studied byGralnick (Gruenberg, 1957:217), 109involved members of the same family; in83 of these 109 combinations a womanwas the dominant party, in 26 a manwas the .dominant party. Those casesinvolving women usually consist ofsisters or a mothe r -daugh te rrelationship. We should also note thatyounger people are likely to berecipients from older.

conformityThe discussion of folie a deux

suggests caution when investigating

certain multiple witness reports,particularly those involving members ofthe same family. Other multiple witnessreports need to be investigated withcaution as well. Processes ofconformity may determine the report(see, e.g., Krech, Crutchfield, andBallachey, 1962; Tedeschi andLinkskold, 1976; and Wrightsman,1977, for discussions). Conformity ishere taken to mean "yielding to,grouppressures" (Krech, Crutchfield, andBallachey, 1962:506). The fact is that,"substantial amounts .of yielding areproduced by group pressure, and this istrue despite the fact that the bogusgroup consensus to which the personconforms may be manifestly wrong"(Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey,1962:509). In reported experimentsproportions ranging up to 46% of theparticular, samples yielded to grouppressures. It is important to note thatmany people can be pressured intoyielding (conforming) even on items ofpersonal importance to them; it shouldbe no great surprise to expect a greaterlikelihood of conformity about things ofsmall personal importance. Finally, aslong ago as 1937 Sherif. (Sherif andSherif, 1956:551-554) had .discoveredthat the judgments of individual groupmembers tended to converge whenjudging ambiguous-stimuli. Accordingto Sherif and Sherif (1956:134):

"When the stimulus situation lacksobjective structure, the effect ofo t h e r s ' j u d g m e n t s is . : .pronounced .... In one ... study of

, social ' factors- in perceptionu t i l i z i n g t h e a u t o k i n e t i cphenomenon, an individual judgeddistances of apparent movementfirst alone and then with two orthree other subjects. Thisunstructured situation' arousesconsiderable uncertainty. Eventhough they were not told to agreeand were cautioned against beinginfluenced, the individuals, intogetherness situations shiftedtheir judgments toward a commonstandard or norm of judgment....The i n f l u e n c e of var iousindividuals differed, and theemerging common norm forjudgment was in various instancesabove or below the average ofindividual judgments in the initialsession alone.

In such a situation, a dominant personmay shape consensus.

People are much more likely toyield to group pressures on items aboutwhich they know, little. They are alsolikely to yield if no public commitmenthas been made to a contrasting position(e.g., if a known UFO skeptic orbeliever is in the group, his previous

(continued on next, page)

Table 1. — Number and Relationship of Witnesses in Close Encounter Reports.

Vallee (%) Webb . (%) Bloecher

Single Witness

Two Witnessesunspecified or combinationchildrenboysgirlsmenwomen

Single Family Witnessesspouses or couplesparent-childfilialcombinations

Multiple Witnesses

Multiple Independent Witnesses

Total number

414 (51.9)

105 , (13.1)225

106

6110

76 (9.5)24266

20

175 (22.0)

28 (3.5)

798 (100.0)

40 (65.3)

10- (13.3)52

3

. " • • 8 (10.7)51

2

6 (8.0)

2 (2.7)

75 (100.0)

(70.3)

. . 3 (8.1)3

6 (16.2)41

1

2 (5.4)

37 (100.0)

11

(Dynamics, Continued)

public commitment will affect hisdegree of conformity), there are bothpersonal and situational factorsproducing conformity. Personal factorsinclude past experience as a yielder,sex role (women are more likely toconform than men), and personality.Conformists, or yielders, tend to be lessintelligent than independents, "lower in'ego-strength' and an ability to copeunder stress ... tend to exhibitemotional constriction, lack ofspontaneity/repression of impulse, andindirect expression of hostility ... tendto be more anxious" (Krech,Crutchfield, and Ballachey, 1962:526).They are also more likely to lack self-confidence*, to be concerned with whatother people will think about them, andto have a low tolerance of ambiguity.

There are situational factors thatare relevant. Group composition maybe most important. A person is likely toyield to those perceived as beingcompetent, to those of higher status, orto members of a group to which he orshe aspires to membership. It is alsoworth nothing that the mostconforming person is likely to be themember having second-highest statuswithin a group. Group size andalignment is also relevant toconformity, to the extent that theremay be group discussion of anambiguous stimulus with initial

disagreement (say, for example,be/ore an investigator arrives). If onlyone person within the group opposes aposition there is very little yielding tothat person; if two people oppose thereis some yielding and if either three orfour oppose there is maximum yielding.However, yielding becomes less likely ifeven one other person supports thepotential yielder. A final factorinfluencing yielding in groups of any sizeis the potential that group membershave of applying coercion or sanction tothe deviant member. This may beespecially important in family groups.

How pervasive and extensive is the"yielding effect'? Although some of theeffect (i.e., some conformity) ismaintained over time, most is not. Thismay vary by the way in which a personinitially deals with judgmentaldiscrepancies or disagreement withinthe group. There are at least fivepossibilities:

1. the individual comes to believethat his own judgment is inerror, explains away that error,and conforms;

2. the individual comes to the con-clusion that the group's judg-ment is in error and resists;

3. the individual tries to reconcilethe differences by claimingthere are none, that both sidesare correct; he compromises;

4. the individual simply accepts

that differences will occur;5. the individual may avoid the

problem by avoiding evidenceof discrepancy (e.g., he will nothear opposing statements).

The first position is the "trueconformist ," the second, theindependent, and the last three aree x p e d i e n t c o n f o r m i s t s . Theindependent is, of course, most likely toprovide the investigator with adissenting view if he is still around. Hewill be the target of much interaction(Schachter, 1951) and may decide toleave. Whether an expedientconformist will provide dissentinginformation at any time is probably afunction of both his own attachment tothe group and the initial degree ofpublicly stated support for the accountoffered by his group.

some suggestionsFrom one point of view the social

dynamics of a UFO report represent asource of error. From this point of viewone ought to be aware of theimportance of structured relationshipsbased either on moral authority or fearof sanction. Family groups are mostsuspect since they involve both.Reports coming from groups consistingof an adult among young people, anemployer among employees, apolicemen among civilians, a high

(continued on next page)

REFERENCESBloecher, Ted

1975 "A Catalog of Humanoid Reports for1974." MUFON 1975: UFO SymposiumProceedings. Seguin, Texas: Mutual UFONetwork

Bourque, Linda Brookover1969 "Social Correlated of Transcendental

- Experience." Socio/ogica/ Analysis, 30(Fall): 151-163.

Fischer, Roland1975 "Cartography of Inner Space," in R. K.Siegel and L. J. West (eds.) Hallucinations:Behavior, Experience, and Theory. NewYork; Wiley.

Greeley, Andrew M.1975 The Sociology of the Paranormal.Beverly Hills: Sage.

Gruenberg, Ernest M.1957 "Socially Shared Psychopathology," inAlexander Leighton, John A. Clausen andRobert Wilson (eds.), Exp/oran'ons inSocial Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.

12

Hynek, J. Allen1972 The UFO Experience: A ScientificInquiry. Chicago: Regnery.

Krech, David, Richard S. Crutchfield and EgertonL. Ballachey

1962 Individual in Society. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Michel, Aime1958 Flying Saucers and the Straight-LineMystery. New York: Phillips.

Pulver, Sydney E.1963 "Delusions Following Hypnosis." TheInternational Journal of Clinical andExperimental Hypnosis. 11 (Jan.): 11-22.

Schachter, Stanley1951 "Deviation, Reject ion, andCommunication." Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology 46:190-207.

Schwarz, Berthold Eric1968 "UFOs: Delusion or Dilemma."Medical Times. 96:10 (October): 967-981.

Sherif, Muzafer and Carolyn W. Sherif1956 An Outline of Social Psychology, Rev.

Ed. New York: Harper and Row.Shor, Ronald E.

1960 "The Frequency of NaturallyOccurring 'Hypnotic-Like' Experiences inthe Normal College Population."/nternafiona/ Journal of Clinical andExperimental Hypnosis, 8 (July): 151-163.

Tedeschi, James T. and Svenn Lindskold1976 Social Psychology: Interdependence,Interaction, and Influence. New York:Wiley.

Vallee, Jacques1969 Passport to Magonia: From Folkloreto Flying Saucers. Chicago: Regnery.

Webb, David1976 1973-Year of the Humanoids: AnAnalysis of the Fall UFO Humanoid Wave,Second Edition. Evanston, El.: Center forUFO Studies.

Wrightsman, Lawrence S.1977 Social Psychology, Second Edition.Monterey, Ca.: Brooks-Cole.

UFO TECH NOTEAn Introduction

By John F. Schucsslcr

UFO investigators, critics, andbelievers alike too often accept or rejectcases based on too little real data.During this past year I have noted anumber of cases where investigatorshave rushed to give an explanation forcertain sightings; the usual planet,balloon, or helicopter variety, wherethe investigator used the data at handbut never entered the field. To do thisthey chose to let their experienceoverride facts. The witnesses may havepatiently told the investigator thatVenus was visible at the same time, orthat the balloon in. question wasn'tlaunched until several hours later;nevertheless, the case was safely listedas an IFO. Nobody gains from all this,but science does suffer.

If we are to ever find a responsibleset of explanations for the UFO enigmawe must drop the excuses for notthinking creatively or scientifically andtry to never pass up the potential forpaydirt. Specialists often have troublekeeping up with advances in their own

> fields and are often totally out of phasewith changes in the state-of-the-art inother fields. It is not necessary to havean "Answer" for every. UFO that isreported; but it is important to getinvolved in observation, study, andexperimentation concerned withestablishing and. systematizing facts,principles, and methods, as byexperiments" and hypotheses. Dr. J.Allen Hynek summed it up well in PalmBeach when he said, "I'm merely

reporting to you what has beendocumented." We need more of thisreporting of documented facts.

These UFO TECH NOTES areoffered as an alternative tool in thecomplex field of UFO investigation andanalysis. The plan is to cross alldiscipline lines and present ideas, studysummaries, techniques, devices, .andconcepts of potential value to theresearcher. The goal is to stop-beingsatisfied with statements about certainaspects of UFO behavior beingimpossible — to find out what is reallyhappening. Maybe we. can create afuture of understanding in this field andovercome the nonsense factors. As afuturist I plan to try.

(Dynamics, Continued)

ranking uniformed authority amongthose of lower rank, must be evaluatedwith these factors taken into account.One ought also be concerned withdifferential status within a group.

Wi th in peer groups theinvestigator should try to identifydominants and subordinates. Theformer are usually easy to spot sincethey act dominant. They often talk themost, give orders, interject or overrideothers' comments, etc. Theirdominance may be expressed in moresubtle ways but it will be expressed.Among subordinates, remember thatthe number two person is likely to bemost supportive of the dominant'saccount (as a wife will often support her.husband). Remember, also, thatindependents may have left or been

expelled from the.group long ago. Donot expect to find any unless the groupis composed of strangers.. In this case,independents may have been verballydriven away before an investigator getsthere: Always ask (repeatedly) for thenames of other witnesses or possiblewitnesses. If a witness seems upset ordisturbed by the account given beprepared to see him (or her) later. Donot force the witness to make a hardpublic choice.

If any witnesses seem unduly silentdo not press them. If they are expedientconformists it is better to interviewthem later than to force public supportfor the group account. Remember thatif they have seen an. ambiguousstimulus they can very easily become atrue conformist. Remember, also, thatif they knew or cared little about theUFO phenomena before the event this

is not, contrary to accepted wisdom,necessarily a point in their favor. It maypredispose them to conformity. Finally,remember that everything that I havesaid consists of suggestions, notinvariant rules of evidence. The groupsituation is a dynamic situationrequiring skill and perception on thepart of an investigator trying to fathomit.

As a final note let us also be awareof a perspective other than that seeingsocial dynamics as a source of error.The UFO phenomenon has manyfacets.. The UFO, as an "existentialcorrelate" of the phenomenon, is onlyone of these. It must be apparent thatthe phenomenon has cultural andmythic elements. For those interestedin these cultural and mythic elements,the social dynamics of multiple witnessreports should be one focus of study.

13

I"

By Ann DruffclThe Importance of the Past

The current trend is fornewspapers, magazines, and researchjournals to select fresh new sightings forpublication. The fact remains, however,that many UFO occurrences ofpotentially great significance occurredyears ago and have been kept secret forone reason or another. Such a casesurfaced on March 6,1978, as a result ofpublicity given SKYNET in the LosAngeles Times. SKYNET is a localizedfilter center and tracking system whichis an adjunct of MUFON in the LosAngeles Basin area.

A local businessman, requestinganonymity, shared the details of afantastic UFO experience thatoccurred when he was on active dutywith the Air Force Air DefenseCommand in the late 1950's.

We shall call our informant Mr. C.,for he cannot be sure that the U.S.Government will take kindly to hisdisclosure regarding a UFO incidentthat endangered the life of an F-86Dpilot and nearly destroyed his valuableaircraft. I have tried to seek permissionfor the former airman to speak outpublicly, but-the government officialscontacted, typically, prefer to hidebehind vague regulations and trickanswers.

Mr. C. said that he was on dutywith the 740th AC&WS Squadron atEllsworth AFB in South Dakota. Theyear, as far as can be determined, was1957.

At 2:00 or 3:00 AM a call camefrom an adjacent radar site requestingconfirmation on an unknown airbornetarget that was behaving strangely. Theother radar site had painted it hovering,then suddenly rushing forward at 100miles per hour.

The 740th Squadron radar plottedthe target and confirmed it fully, makingmany checks to be sure the blip was notcaused by weather or some electrical

14

phenomenon. It was determined thatthe radar signal was from a solid,unknown object at 30,000 feet.

Mr. C., who was the Air Forceradar controller on duty, scrambled afighter from the 54th FighterInterceptor Squadron to investigate.The fighter squadron and the radarbase were both part of the 29th AirSquadron.

The night was calm and dark, as anF-86D radar-equipped jet rushedtoward the vicinity of the object. Thejet's radar picked up a contact in thesame spot where both ground radarsites painted it. But there was no visualevidence of an object. Suddenly, at theexact spot where the object wassupposedly hovering, the pursuingaircraft met severe turbulence. Thetarget disappeared simultaneously onall three scopes, then about 3 secondslater reappeared 60 miles away. Thefantastic speed of the maneuverindicated that the object had traveledon the order of 10,000 mph.

Again the plane was vectoredtoward the object, which was, asbefore, being painted on three radarsbut still presenting no visualappearance. As the plane passeddirectly through the blip, the turbulencewas so severe that the F-86D waspractically knocked upside down. Itwas only with valiant effort that the pilotwas able to control it.

Once again the object disappearedoff the scopes, simultaneously with theteeth-shattering turbulence,. andreappeared a few seconds later, milesaway in another part of the sky.

Mr. C. prepared to vector the F-86D toward the object a third time. Butthe jet's pilot had had enough. Refusingto approach the object again he said, "Ifyou want to see what that thing is, comeup here and do it yourself!" With that,the pilot flew off and landed at his base.

The radar control crew of the740th Squadron dutifully noted thepuzzling incident in their log. The nextday they received orders throughofficial channels that the logs must bechanged. All reference to the object andthe jet chase were ordered erased.Though greatly puzzled, the crewfollowed orders.

In 1958, after serving 4 years, Mr.C. left the Air Force and at present isemployed in a position of responsibilityin the Los Angeles area. As the yearspassed, he said nothing to anyoneregarding the incident, for he did notknow what regulations might be ineffect to enforce silence, even on acivilian. Of one thing, however, he wascertain. The object had been real, solidand large.

Not only that, its speed wasincredibly beyond any aircraft knownon earth. He theorized that theturbulence that had severely shakenthe F-86D might have been due to atemporary vacuum left by the rapiddeparture of the object, and into whichthe jet unwittingly flew.

At least two of the airmen in thecontrol tower on the night in questionlive in the Southern California area andwill confirm the incident, according toMr. C. He wishes before they arecontacted, however, that the problemof governmental regulations be clearedup.

The popularity of the film "CloseEncounters" and the resultantacceptance of the UFO phenomenonby press and other media persuadedMr. C. early in 1978 that now was thetime to make the incident known. Buthe wished to find out where he stoodbefore making his experience public.He asked the questions, "What wouldbe the situation of a former military manreleasing information on a UFOexperience since all UFO data has,

ostensibly, been "declassified"?In accordance with Mr. C's

request, I wrote to Secretary ofDefense Harold Brown at the Pentagonon March 11, 1978, giving Mr. C. fullanonymity. On March 21 the followinganswer came from Colonel Charles D.Cooper, USAF, Deputy Chief ,Community Relations Division, Officeof Information, Dept. of the Air Force,Washington, D.C.

. . . in 1978 all AF documentation regardingUFO phenomena was transferred to the NationalArchives and Records Service in Washington,D.C. to insure greatest public .accessibility.However, the alleged sighting [Mr. C.'s] may haveresulted in a Communication Instructions forReporting Vital Intelligence Sightings (CIRVIS)

" report which' is used to document various'sightings of unexplained or unusual events . . .Blanket releasability of CIRVIS reports is notpossible due to the wide range of defense topicscovered by them. Each report would have to bereviewed on an individual basis . . . to determine

"releasability. . .If this sighting did not generate a CIRVIS

report, we know of no reason why the incidentcannot be presented to interested organizations.If the former AF member has any ' furtherquestions . . . advise him to correspond directlywith this office . . .

The above letter was discussed atlength with Mr. C. As far as he coulddetermine, the incident had notresulted in a CIRVIS report, at least notto his knowledge. Although it hadoccurred in the: course of' the dailyfunction of his radar crew, the reportsthey had made of it had been Orderedscrubbed. Mr. C. could not see how inany sense it could be part of a CIRVISreport if there was no record of theincident existent. But how could heapproach the AF with this? He would beaccusing them of "scrubbing the log"and talking about something thattechnically had never happened.

In my opinion, the AF was handingMr. C. a two-edged sword. How couldhe be aware that ah incident was part ofa CIRVIS report if such a report hadbeen filed concerning the incident bythe higher officials who ordered thecrew to delete the incident from theirlogs?

At this point, however, Mr. C. issatisfied that the above facts can safelybe given publicity, provided hisanonymity is protected for the'timebeing. He is hopeful some other UFO

research organization or independentresearcher has private knowledge ofthe same incident from another source,perhaps even the jet pilot himself. Sincethere is safety in numbers, it is onlythrough this means that the puzzlingsecrecy with which the U. S.government still treats some UFOcases can be fought.

As an addendum to this report, Iwish to suggest an alternative theoryregarding the "turbulence" caused bythe UFO. This theory might explain theinvisibility of the unknown object aswell.

If the object was not "material" inthe ordinary sense, yet was capable otmaintaining sufficient solidity to be"painted" as a solid blip on threeseparate radar sets simultaneously, is itpossible that" it had the ability tomaterialize and dematerialize at will?Could the object have been able todeflect light waves from its surface,thereby remaining invisible to the jetpilot, even as the aircraft was rushingtoward it? Could it have dematerializedat the instant the jet rushed into'it,creating a vacuum or near-vacuum inthe space it had occupied? Didonrushing air filling this vacuum causethe turbulence severe enough to nearlyoverturn a heavy jet fighter?

Mr. C.L prefers the theory statedabove to explain the turbulence — thatthe object had the ability to speed awayat 3 miles per second, leaving atremendous: wash of air into which thejet flew twice. But knowing of numerouscases where UFOs have been seen byreliable witnesses to materialize anddematerialize,' evidently at will, Iwonder what really happened.

I 1978 MUFONSYMPOSIUMPROCEEDINGS

(131 Pages)

A SURVEY OF CEIII REPORTSFOR 1977 by Ted Bloecher.New York. NY Co-Chairman ofHumanoid. Study Group .andMUFON Sta te . - . S e c t i o nDirector.

-1 967: THE OVERLOOKED UFO .,WAVE AND THE COLORADO

. PROJECT by Richard H. Hall.Brentwood. MD. Editor of THE.MUFON UFO JOURNAL andformer International Coordina-tor. . .

RETRIEVALS OF THE THIRD .KIND by Leonard H.S.tringfield.C inc inna t i . - OH. MUFONDirector of Public Relationsand State Section Director..

UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJEC-TS by Illobrand von Ludwiger,

-West Germany. Director of.Mutual UFO Network CentralEuropean Section/MUFON-CES.

UFOS AS A SPACE-TIMESINGULARITY by Dr J AllenHynek, Evanston, IL. Director ofthe Center for UFO Studies

.(CUFOS) and former Astro-. nomical Consultant to theUSAF, .

BEHIND THE UFO SE.CRECY by. Major Donald E. Keyhoe.USMC. Ret.. Luray. VA, Author

.and former Director of NationalInvestigations Committee on .Aerial-Phenomena (NICAP)., .

Price: $6.00 in' U.S.A. and$7 00 in all other countriesPost Paid from — •

MUFON .103 Oldtowne Road

Seguin, Texas 78155 U.S.A.

15

SUMMARY OF 1977 AUSTRALIAN CLOSE ENCOUNTERSBy Keith Basterfield

(MUFON Representative for South Australia)

During the year 1977, Australiaexperienced reported occurrences ofclose encounters types one, two andthree. The year started off with aninteresting event reported from nearLithgow, New South Wales, on January4 at about 9:30 PM. Noting an orangeglow in the distance, two peopletravelling in a car put it down to abushfire at first, until it approachedtheir vehicle. As it seemed to beoverhead they saw it was in fact a hugecircular, diffuse glow which wasconfined within its own parameters. Atthis point their car became enveloped ina fog bank which persisted until theglow had passed by.1

Following this, on January 20 at1:45 AM a Port Kenny, SouthAustralian farmer stepped outside torelieve himself and noticed that therewas a bright flashing in the sky likelightning, which lit up the ground. Uponlooking up he saw a bright ball of lighttravelling along, at close range. This ballthen took off at high speed.2

What was to be the first of twoclose encounter type three reports forthe year happened on February 3 atSeven Mile Beach, Tasmania, at 9:30PM. Some children at a youth campheard a noise and saw a spinning"dome" with flashing lights andwindows. In the center window theysaid they saw a figure. The figureappeared to be thin with a largishrounded head above what looked like ahigh collar. It had an arm visible to theright. It moved its head and changedpositions in the window. After 1 or 2minutes observation the object movedaway.3

On April 18 a man standing by theside of his truck at Port Macquarie,New South Wales, at 4:30 AM saw anestimated 16-meter-diameter brightwhite light ascending over sand hillssome 150 meters away from him. Hestood there amazed until the light came

16

towards him, and when it got to within30 meters he entered the truck cabin.Watching from there he saw it back offand descend over the dunes, thenspeed away out to sea only a few metersabove the waterline. After a while it leftthe sea surface and climbed into thesky.4

South Australia featured 4 dayslater when at about midnight a younglady driving home had car trouble of anunusual sort. She saw an oval-shapedlight coming toward her car and upon itseeming to pass overhead, the lights onthe car died, the engine stopped, andthe car radio cut off. Four seconds laterthey all returned to normal. Thoroughlyfrightened she continued on her wayhome.5

On May 2 a man out camping onthe river Murray at Cal Lai wasconfronted with a very unusual sight.He and his son were sitting by acampfire when he turned around andwas surprised to see a blue "trapezoid",some 2 meters high by 75 cm wide at thetop tapering to 45 cm across thebottom, stationary in front of a tree 10meters away. He looked away and uponlooking back it had gone. No sound washeard.6

Eighteen days later and only a fewkilometers away, a young nurse was onher way by car to work, when she cameacross a red glowing ball sitting a fewmeters away from a road, in a paddock.Seemingly 5-10 meters in diameter, itrose into the air and was lost to sight.7

Some six days after this, on the26th, a physical trace case came to lightin Orange, New South Wales, and wasquickly investigated by UFOR(NSW).Around midnight a boy observed anorange sphere with "windows" in it, atlow altitude, possibly resting on theground, near a farm. His mother wascalled and also saw it before it movedover a hill and was lost to sight. Physicaltraces were found in the paddock

where it was observed. The tracesconsisted of four small cleared patchesarranged in a trapezoid. The grassesand thistles within the area were notaffected in any obvious way. Uponanalysis it was found that if any ionizingradiation was involved the groundwould have received less than 100 radand that any heating involved in formingthe cleared patches would have beenbelow 205°C.8

On May 30 at 10:30 PM, a personout shooting near Opossum Bay,Tasmania, reported seeing a "silverball, edged with red and with a red tail",10 meters off the ground about 400meters away. It passed silently over theriver Derwent and rose into the sky.9

Tasmania featured two reportsduring June, the first on the 23rd. Arectangular shape with a pink flashinglight 3 m long by 1 m high seemed tofloat close to a woman who watched itfor a while before deciding to drive to abetter position to observe it. However,as she did so it departed soundlesslyinto the northwestern sky.10

In Casino two days later, twofriends were returning home at 3 AMwhen they noticed flashing lights abovethe car that seemed to "pace" them,then disappear into the distance. Therewas no visible "object," merely a groupof 6-8 lights flashing yellow andpink/red.11

Just over a week later, on July 2,another Tasmanian car eventoccurred. A bright red light 3 m off theroad and 200 m behind a car was notedby the occupants. The car lost powerfor 15-20 seconds and had to be clutchstarted. The light by then haddisappeared. Some time later exactlythe same thing happened to the car, butthis time there were no lightsobserved.12

A very large (200 m.long) pinkcolored "Jumbo jet" looking object wasreported to have touched down

beneath some high power electricitylines near Birdwood, South Australia,on July 30 at 3:45 PM. (See No. 120,November 1977.) It was then said tohave taken off vertically, though it madeno noise while moving at what wasstated to have been supersonic speed.13

At least 12 people were witness tothe next encounter during daylighthours, near Meekatharra, WestAustralia. A disc-shaped object rosefrom behind a rocky outcrop (outcropwas only 50 m from house). As it rose, asort of vapor rolled down the rocks.The disc, with domes on top andbottom, gave "birth" to a smaller redobject that came out of the side of thelarger one, then shot out of sight at highspeed. The larger one then rose anddisappeared from view.14

To round off the year's events asfar as close encounters go, as it seemsto have gone "quiet" since then until thebeginning of 1978, we have a fairly goodbut in some ways nebulous type threeevent. On October 17 at Mt. Magnet,which is near Meekatharra, two peoplewere paced in their car by a light whichstayed some 50 m from them. Theycalled in at a hotel and were informedthat some employees of the hotel alsohad been pursued by something. Eightpeople then drove to the spot where thelight had been last seen. They reportedseeing three round pulsating red andgreen objects landed in paddocks some3 km from the hotel. The objects tookoff-and moved around, landing severaltimes before they left. There appearedto be "objects" moving around thesethree objects. They were of human size,and weren't animals.

REFERENCES1..UFOR (NSW), ACOS Bulletin no. 11..2. UFOR (SA), ACOS Bulletin no. 11.3. TUFOIC, ACOS Bulletin no. 11.4. K. Blackman, ACOS Bulletin no. 12.5. UFOR (SA), Personal investigation.6. UFOR (SA).7. UFOR (SA), Investigation notes and report

form.8. UFOR (NSW), Copy of detailed; investigation notes.

9. TUFOIC, Annual report 1978.10. TUFOIC, Annual report 1978.11. TUFOIC, ACOS Bulletin no. 11.12. TUFOIC, ACOS Bulletin no. 13.13. UFOR (SA), Investigation notes and tapes.14. Newspaper only, UFOR (NSW) Newsletter

53 pp 8-9.15. Newspaper only, UFOR (NSW) Newsletter

53 pp 8-9.

BOOK REVIEWBy Mildred Biesele

Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955

By Isabel Davis and Ted Bloecher (Center for UFO Studies, 1978).

A comprehensive study of thebizarre CE III case that is usuallyanthologized as "Kelly-Hopkinsville"has been released by the Center forUFO Studies in a new publication,Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of1955, by Isabel Davis and Ted Bloecher.It is a model of UFO research andreporting: well documented, wellorganized, and well written.

The abundant detail, more thanwould be necessary for a popularmagazine but welcomed by a seriousstudent of the subject, builds like brickon brick a solid wall of evidence toprotect the authors from the skeptics.

A reader, especially one whoknows the rural South, can picture theunpainted two-room frame housestanding back behind the trees on theOld MadisOnville Road in northernKentucky, where the events of August21, 1955, took place. The charactersare well drawn: the stern, church-goingwidow, Glennie Lankford , ofuncompromising honesty; her oldestson, "Lucky," the dominant male figurein the family; his friend, Billy RayTaylor, the only one who probably sawthe UFO landing, but no one ever tookwhat he said seriously. Of the twelvemen, women, and children in the housethat night, all but one saw the grotesquevisitors who supposedly came from thecraft. Billy Ray's young wife was just tooscared to look! In a work of fiction, thatwould be a deft touch.

Note: ACOS =. Australian CoordinationSection, Center for UFO Studies.

Most MUFON UFO Journalreaders will be familiar with the generaloutline of the Kelly case, which involvedan isolated farm house that was"surrounded" by small luminouscreatures that appeared at thewindows, on the roof, and in the trees.(There may have been only two or threewhich popped up at different places.)Responding to what they thought wasan attack, the men in the house openedfire, but the creatures, even when hit atclose range, only flipped over andfloated away.

Finally, the terrified family boltedfor the two available cars and speddown the road to Hopkinsville, about 10miles away.

Isabel Davis is prepared for thecritics and the skeptics. She repeats thequestions and the arguments that thecase has provoked, and she answersthem persuasively. She concludes:

"Questions and riddles still remain— but they are questions about the'little men,' their origin, their nature,their motivation. If the story was true,the behavior of these beings was indeedincomprehensible; but if the story wasfalse, then the behavior of the humanbeings was twice as incredible." Afterreading her account of the events atKelly, we can only agree.

The second section of the book,written by Ted Bloecher, brings to lightsome of the less well known encountercases of 1955. Though none comparewith Kelly, they round out the picture,and it is good to have them on therecord where they are accessible to theresearcher.

The Center for UFO Studies canbe thanked and congratulated forpublishing this book. Copies areavailable for $10.00 from CUFOS, 1609Sherman Avenue, Rm. 207, Evanston,IL 60202.

17

Journal Tribune, Biddeford, ME - Jan. 24, 1978

Were lights atEstes Lake

seen by SanfordmenUFOs?

By MICHAEL LATAV011SUff Writer

SANFORD -Was i ta close encounter ofthe third kind in York County ?

Last Thursday evening at about 8:45,three Sanford men, Richard Wakefield, hiscousin, Robert Gammon, and LinwoodNoble were snowmobiling on Estes Lakenear the New Dam Road when. Wakefieldsays, he spotted two large, oval shapedobjects covered with red lights hoventtover the trees that surround the lake.

Wakefield says he pointed the objectsout to his companions and the three ap-proached for a closer look. The men saythey shut off their snowmobiles andwatched for a moment as the thing*hovered over the trees before "shootingoff at a high speed in the opposite direc-tion."

An encounter with unidentified flyingobjects' The men aren't sure.

"They looked like big. tubs with lots ofholes in them," says Wakefield, who, aloagwith Gammon works at the Aerofab plantin Sanford. "They were spinning and hadred lights all over then."

Gammon describes the objects asresembling "frisbees covered with redChristmas lights," and Noble, who worksas a truck driver and mechanic in SouthPortland, says the objects rotates slowlyas they hovered in the sky.

One fact made a distinct impression onall three men —the objects made no noise.

"We shut off our machines and therewas ao noise at all coming from thethings," says Noble. "They couldn't havebeen planes because we were fairly closeand there was no sound. I have no ideawhat they were, but I know I've never seenanything like them."

the men didn't have long to scrutinizethe objects for, shortly after they stoppedtheir snowmobiles, according toWakefield, "the things zipped off and were

18

out of sight in seconds."Noble says the objects, which traveled

sUe-by-tide at what he estimated as 40 or50 feet apart, moved through the airsmoothly f'not like any helicopter or air-plane I've ever seen."

"We were going to follow them but theymoved too quickly and they were gone inseconds." says Gammon

The men decided not to report thesighting to the authorities, because, saysNot4e, people would just call us crazy "

Police in Sanford. Kennebunk and Wellssay no reports of strange objects in the skywere received Thursday evening

Shirley Fickett, who operates the EastCoast headquarters of the InternationalUFO Bureau out of her home in Portland,says she hasn't received any reports ofUFO sightings in Southern Maine recentlyeither.

However, she says a similar sightingwas reported by three West Paris womenlast September and a few weeks ago anobject "covered with red lights' wasreportedly sighted in the Bangor area

The women in West Paris reportedseeing two objects with similar descrip-tions, ' she says. "They said the objectswere hovering over a field there.

"It's hard to explain how three peoplecan see the same thing at the same time,"she says. "I don't think people are seeingthings out there. It's hard to explain but Idonf think people are hallucinating whenthey see these things "

In her opinion, the objects are "ex-traterrestrial" (from outer spice), andare here "to give us a good going over andcheck us out. '

The three men from Sanford agree thatthey'll probably never know what it is thatthey saw.

Says Gammon, "I don't know what theywere, but all I can say is I wish I'd had acamera with me at the time. That wouldhave been great."

CANADIANGALLUP POLL

(From the Toronto Star,March 22, 1978

A Gallup Poll taken in Canadaduring February 1978 shows that 46% ofCanadians believe UFOs are "real"(compared to 57% of U.S. residents; seeNo. 125, p. 18). Awareness of the UFOsubject was 81% .(compared to 93%among U.S. adults) and 10% thoughtthey had seen a UFO (compared to 9%of U.S. adults). As in the United States,those under 30 tended to believe inUFO reality more often than those over30 (58% vs. 70% for the comparableU.S. age bracket).

JMarkR.Herbstritt

stronotnyNotes

THE SKY FOR JULY 1978Mercury — Throughout the month itcan be seen very low in the west aftersunset. Greatest elongation east (27degrees) occurs on the 21st, but this isnot a particularly favorable one; theplanet stands about 14 degrees abovethe horizon at sunset.

Venus — Although it is becomingbrighter and moving further east of thesun, it is becoming less favorably placedfor northern observers, and is quite lowin the southwest at sunset.

Mars — Moving from Leo into Virgo, itis low in the southwest at sunset andsets about 2l/2 hours later.

Jupiter — It is too close to the sun forobservation, being in conjunction onthe 10th.

Saturn — In Leo, it is low in the west atsunset and sets about 2 hours later. Onthe 10th it is 0.1 degree south of Venusand on the 19th it is 1.0 degree north ofRegulus.

Lucius Farish

In Others' Words

A UFO sighting by TV personalityOrson Bean was detailed in the April 11issue of NATIONAL ENQUIRER. TheApril 18 ENQUIRER told of the"jellyfish of light" UFO sighting overPetrozavodsk in the Soviet Union.While the sighting was "explained" asthe result of a secret Soviet rocketlaunch, Soviet investigators contendthere was much more to the incidentthan that. A new national poll revealsthat 52% of the American publicbelieves that UFOs could be real,according to the April 25 ENQUIRER.This same issue presents the beliefs ofvarious celebrities concerning UFOs.Elke Sommer tells of her UFO sightingin the May 2 issue; another report in thisissue describes large UFOs seen innor thwes te rn Arkansas d u r i n gDecember 1977. Sightings of UFOsover the so-called "Great LakesTriangle" are featured in the May 16ENQUIRER.

An alleged United Nations probeinto a 1976 Mexican incident involvingthe medical examination of a UFOoccupant was reported in the April 25issue of THE STAR. A new UFO photofrom Dorset, England is featured in theMay 16 issue of THE STAR.

One of the most interesting UFOsighting reports in some time occurredon January 1,1978, over Santa Monica,California. Robert J. Kirkpatrick'sarticle in the June issue of FATE givesall the details of the sighting andsubsequent investigations. (SeeMUFON UFO JOURNAL No. 122,January 1978.)

The June issue of UFO REPORTcontains articles on UFOs and Bigfoot,the new TV series "Project U.F.O.," themoons of Mars and other topics, plusan excerpt from Jim and CoralLorenzen's latest book, ABDUCTED!.

The #10 (Summer) issue of TRUErLYING SAUCERS & UFOs had its

usual assortment of articles, but a goodmany of them pertain to non-UFO-related topics and seem rather out ofplace.

A recent new publication ofinterest is ENERGY UNLIMITED(3562 Moore Street, Los Angeles, CA90066). This quarterly magazine, 56pages in length, is primarily devoted tonew energy sources, "unorthodox"scientific research, etc., but will also beusing UFO-related material in futureissues. The #1 issue contains an articleby co-editor Kathleen Joyce on theresearch of the late Wilbert B. Smith,whose name will be familiar to allUFOlogists. Future issues will containmaterial on Smith's "Project Magnet,"UFO propulsion systems, etc., whilethe #4 issue will be devoted almostentirely to the UFO subject. Thesubscription rate if $15.00 for fourissues, plus $2.00 extra for issues to besent at book rate; $4.00 extra for firstclass mail. Single issues are $4.00 each,plus 50$ for book rate or $1.00 for firstclass delivery.

An interesting new publication onthe subjects of ancient technologiesand mysteries of the past isFORGOTTEN AGES, publishedmonthly by J. R. Jochmans (Box 82863,Lincoln, NE 68501). Jochmans formerlyedited THE OOPARCHIST, whichdealt with similar topics. The first twoissues of FORGOTTEN AGES havepresented articles on the art andreligion of so-called "primitive" man,the mystery of the ancient Egyptiancivilization, the "Greek computer" ofAntikythera, etc. Single copies of thepublication are available at 35C each;subscriptions are very reasonablypriced at $3.00 for 12 issues.

William R. Corliss' latest offering inthe continuing series of books from TheSourcebook Project is ANCIENTMAN: A HANDBOOK OF PUZZLING

ARTIFACTS. As in all the Corlissvolumes, the data are compiled from avariety of scientific periodicals. In thisinstance, much of the material has beendrawn from the files of AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST, AMERICANA N T I Q U A R I A N , A M E R I C A NANTIQUITY, MAN, NATURE,SCIENCE, and other journals. Many ofthe topics have been widely publicizedin books on the "ancient astronaut"theme, but Corliss has drawn from theoriginal sources for many of theaccounts. Subjects covered includevitrified forts, the Baghdad battery,medicine wheels, the Nazca markings,giant skeletons, Stonehenge, theMexican "Messiah" and otherindications of lost cultures andcivilizations. The HANDBOOK has 786pages of source material, with 240illustrations, full bibliographic citations,etc. at $15.95, it is one of the few booksworth the price. Highly recommended,as are all volumes from TheSourcebook Project. Order fromCorliss at: P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm,Maryland 21057.

POSTAL EXCHANGE

Foreign cancelled stamps aretraded with a collector for current U.S.stamps as a means of partiallyunderwriting the expense of theinternational information exchangeprogram. We acknowledge a sizeablecontribution of stamps from IgnacioDarnaude, Seville, Spain, and severalbeautiful sets of Russian stamps fromBarbara Mathey. (Send cancelledstamps to Richard Hall, 4418 39th St.,Brentwood, MD 20722 U.S.A.)

19

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE byWalt Andnit

The 1978 MUFON UFOSYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS (131pages) are now available by writing toMUFON, 103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin,Texas 78155, U.S.A. and enclosing acheck or money order for $6.00 in theU.S.A. and $7.00 all other countriespost paid. Please see details forspeakers and their subjects elsewherein this copy.

It is a pleasure to announce thatHarry G. Willnus, Ed. D., 6601 SevenMile Road, South Lyon, MI 48178,telephone (313) 437-9545, has acceptedthe position of State Director forMichigan. To complement Harry, DanR. Wright, M.A., 931 DeGroff, GrandLedge, MI 48837, telephone (517) 627-!*728, has been appointed State SectionDirector for the Michigan Counties ofClinton, Eaton, and Ingham.

Since Ted Peters, Ph.D.Consultant in Theology and StateDirector for Louisiana is transferringfrom Loyola University in New Orleansto a Lutheran Seminary in Berkeley,CA, it has been necessary to reorganizethe State structure. Michael A.Delhom, 3201 Kaliste Saloom Rd.,#107, Lafayette, LA 70508, telephone(318) 981-6918, formerly a State SectionDirector, has been elevated to theposition of State Director replacing Dr.Peters. Robert J. Romero, Sr., P.O.Box 368, Scott, LA 70583, has becomethe State Section Director for theLouisiana parishes of Lafayette, St.Martin, Acadia, St. Landry, Vermillion,and Iberia, filling the vacancy createdby Mike Delhom's promotion.

James J. LaChute 124 PapworthAve., Metairie, LA 70005, telephone(504) 831-2794, was selected to be theState Section Director for the parishesaround New Orleans of Orleans, St.Bernard, Plaquemines, LaFourche,Terre Bonne, St. James, St. John the

Baptist, St. Charles, Jefferson, and St.Tammany. One of the early members ofMUFON as a teen-ager, Jim is aUniversity student and has visitedMUFON in Seguin while on Air ForceReserve training at Kelly Field. To addto the MUFON coverage in Louisiana,David A. Craig, 1127 North BorderDrive, Bogalusa, LA 70427, has beenappointed State Section Director forWashington, Tangipahoa, Helena, andLivingston parishes. All three of thesegentlemen have organized local UFOinvestigative teams in their areas.

Paul Cerny, Western RegionalDirector, has designated Thomas D.Page, 1728 Moclips Drive, Petaluma,CA 94952, telephone (707) 763-7710, asState Section Director for Somona,Napa, and Marin counties in California.Tom is a science teacher and privatepilot. David L. Perkins, Libre, Box O,Farisita, CO 81037, is MUFON's newState Section Director for Huerfano,Costilla, Las Animas, and AlamosaCounties in Colorado. David is also ateacher.

Due to the inconsistent "skipdistance" of the MUFON 20 meterAmateur Radio Net, Joe Santangelo,N1JS, the Amateur Radio Director, hasannounced that it will be discontinuedas a weekly net. The two nets meetingeach Saturday morning at 0700 and0800 Central Time zone as listed in theJOURNAL have proven verysuccessful for communicating UFOinformation and MUFON activitiesnationwide.

In the "Director's Message" of theApril 1978 issue of the JOURNAL, anannouncement was made concerningthe selection of a new InternationalCoordinator to fill this position on theMUFON Board of Directors. Severalpeople have expressed an interest andhave contacted your International

Director personally, however, thisposition has not been filled. In order tosupplement the work of theInternational! Director and to providebetter communications and services toour foreign and liaison representatives,five new positions have been created.Each continent will have a ContinentalDirector reporting directly to theInternational Coordinator, who willcommunicate directly with the foreignrepresentatives or National Directors.

We will thus cover South America,Africa, Asia, Australia/New Zealand,and Europe in this manner. Mexico andCentral America will be included withSouth America since they are Spanishspeaking nations. People who are fluentin the predominate languages for thecontinent involved, or who havetranslators available would be bestqualified to fill these posts. Writtencorrespondence will be the majoroccupation involved in this position.Please contact your InternationalDirector for further details if you areinterested in volunteering for one ofthese responsibilities.

Charles L. Tucker joined MUFONon October 18, 1975, as the,StateSection Director for Elkhart andKosciusko Counties in Indiana. He hasnow accepted the position of StateDirector for Indiana and will select areplacement for the vacated position inhis new State organization. His mailingand business address is Box 228,Nappanee, IN 46550, where he may bereached during the week at (219) 773-7711 or weekends in Michigan at (517)278-5945. Charles is President ofSuperior, Inc., a manufacturing firm inNappanee, IN. He has traveled widelyin South America seeking documen-tation for both UFOs and ancientastronauts.