TheMUFONUFO JOURNAL

NUMBER 135 MAY 1979

Founded 1967 $1.00.OFFICIAL PUBUCATION OF JIMJiFOJV/ MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.

Shadow

Identifiesside -facingobserver

Object No.l Mra Sturg ell's impression of Shape, Z views

MODEL AND SKETCHES OF UFO IN MISSOURI

LANDING-TRACE CASE

TheMUFONUFO JOURNAL

(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.

Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALL

Editor

ANN DRUFFELAssociate Editor

LEN STRINGFIELDAssociate Editor

MILDRED BIESELEContributing Editor

WALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFON

TED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,

Humanoid Study Group

PAUL CERNYPromotion/Publicity

REV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOs

LUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

MARK HERBSTRITTAstronomy

ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publicity

TED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO Propulsion

NORMAE. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLY

DENNIS HAUCKEditor/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 1979 by theMutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. POSTMASTER: Send form3579 to advise change of address toThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.

FROM THE EDITORAs Bruce Maccabee's "report in this issue indicates, the

December 1978 New Zealand movie film and associated radar-visualsightings appear to be of extraordinary importance — contrary tothe premature opinions of many "scientific" non-investigators. PhilipKlass, whose skeptical views were publicized as authoritative onnational television and in the New Zealand press, deserves to becriticized for his unscientific attitude. Indeed, if he and the numerousscientists remote from the scene who pontificated withoutinvestigation controlled UFO investigations, we wouldn't have Jo,bother investigating because we would know the answers in.advance. Such blatant pre-judgment is supposed to be a cardinalsin in science. More objective "ufologists" are not so cock-sure andprefer to gather and analyze more complete evidence before passingjudgement. Dr. Maccabee is a credit to the scientific profession; the"skeptics" (a term misapplied to consistent debunkers) are not.

In this issue

MISSOURI LANDING-TRACE CASE .3By Donald L. Seneker and George M. Koch

1979 MUFON SYMPOSIUM UPDATE 7By Walt Andrus. - .

COSMIC SEARCH: A REVIEW 8By Thomas P. Deuley ' -

NEW ZEALAND FILM REPORT : . . . . . . . . . 9By Bruce Maccabee .

NORAD LOGS PILOT SIGHTING 14"THE ANDREASSON AFFAIR" (Book Review) 15

By Ted Bloecher"HELICOPTER-UFO ENCOUNTER OVER OHIO" (Book Review). . . . . 17.

By Richard HallIN OTHERS' WORDS 19

By Lucius ParishDIRECTOR'S MESSAGE . ; . . , - . ; . . . . . . . . . 20

By Walt Andrus ^

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 reflect"those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON. Articles may beforwarded directly to MUFON.

Permission is herby 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 1979 by the MUFON UFOJOURNAL,, 103. Oldtowne Rd., Sequin, Texas" isincluded.

MISSOURI LANDING-TRACE CASEBy Donald L. Seneker and George M. Koch

(Edited by Walt Andrus)

Sunday, October 8, 1978, was tobe an exciting day for the MarlettSturgell family as dawn illuminated their500-acre farm in rural Barry County insouthwestern Missouri. Having theirdaughter, son-in-law, and grandsonhome for the weekend from KansasCity was the first big event. From thewindow of their farmhome at 7:00 AMC.D.S.T., Mrs. Marlett Sturgell and hergrandson were scanning the pasturebelow them in the bend of Flat Creekfor coyotes which frequently appear atthis time of the morning. The grandsonwas thrilled when they spotted onecoyote in the early morning light about250 yards from the home. In addition tothe coyote, a cow and calf were alsostanding in a group near what appearedto Mrs. Sturgell as a white cow lying inthe green fescue grass pasture.

Having seen the coyote, Mrs.Sturgell and her daughter Mrs.Raymond L. Morgan (Frances) started

. preparing a big breakfast for the menwho were now getting up and startingtheir farm chores. After a leisurelybreakfast and the usual family visiting,the subject turned to the coyote and thewhite cow in the pasture. When MarlettSturgell advised his wife that they didn'thave any white cows, he went to thewindow to try to identify what she hadobserved. The time was now 9:00 AM.The coyote was now "hunched down,"the cow and calf were still peering at theobject, but the "white cow" in the brightsunlight looked more like a tarpaulincovering something. After furtherscrutiny from that distance, he was surethat it was something that had fallen offan airplane, since it was metallic andaluminum in color.

The Sturgell's adult son Normanhad gone back to the bam to continuehis morning chores, when Mr. Sturgell,his sonrin-law, Raymond L. Morgan,and grandson went outside to try toidentify what looked like a piece of

sheet metal in the pasture. Seeing hisfather come outside, Norman called tohim to ask him drive their tractor fromthe house to the barn. Ray Morgan aridhis son started walking down towardthe pasture as Mr. Sturgell pulled up tothe barn and cut the engine. At thismoment, to the amazement of thewitnesses, the metal "thing" in the fieldstarted rising and went over a nearbywalnut tree, moving at an angle towardthe west. Mr. Sturgell said that it was analuminum color and very shiny. Theobject continued to climb at an angleinto the western sky that was dottedwith white clouds. There was noappreciable wind.

As the group of six people watchedthe ascending object diminish in sizewith distance, their eyes were drawn toa second object that they at firstthought was an airplane. "It looked likea big aircraft — it was long—just layingthere motionless in the sky" is the wayMarlett Sturgell described the secondobject. The "thing" that had taken offfrom the pasture flew directly towardthe hovering craft high in the blue sky.As the witnesses followed the smallobject, it either flew under the"airplane" or went directly up to it. Asthe two objects converged, the familywas shocked when both simplydisappeared in the clear blue sky. Nosound was heard at any time.

W h e n Mr . S t u r g e l l wasinterviewed and quizzed about theshape and size of the landed UFO, thestated it was about 4 feet thick, but hecouldn't figure out how wide it was dueto the angle at which he viewed it attakeoff. He said it could have had arounded or flat top, he wasn't sure,because as it got up to tree-top level, hecould only see the bottom side. He felt itwas egg shaped. The group estimatedthat the elapsed time for the UFO to flyfrom the pasture to the secondhovering object in the sky was 5 to 10

minutes before both instantly vanishedfrom the sky.

Mr. Sturgell initially assumed thatthe long, dark-colored, log-shapedobject in the sky was an airplane, but nowings, motors, tail, or vertical fin werevisible to identify it as a conventionalaircraft. Even though he had a goodview of the bottom of the UFO, MarlettSturgell could not see any legs orlanding gear. Mr. Sturgell is 71 years ofage, has good eyesight, and waswearing corrective lens glasses duringhis observation from near the barn. Henoted a vertical dark streak on the sideof the UFO closest to them, contrastedto the aluminum color. He had driventhe tractor from the house to the barn,as he continued to glance toward theunknown object restingin the field. Thetractor performed normally. He hadjust cut the ignition switch off, when theobject started its ascent.

During subsequent 'conversationswith friends, he had been asked "if hewas afraid to go down to the pasture toinvestigate at close range?," or "why hedidn't go down to it and kick it over?,"and "why he didn't get his gun andshoot a hole in it?" He said "it neverdawned on him to do either, and hedefinitely wouldn't have shot at it — asilly thing to do."

Mrs. Marlett (Dora) Sturgell wasinterviewed on two occasions, thesecond simply a follow-up on thelanding site pasture conditions. OnlyMrs. Sturgell's observations thatdiffered from that of her husband, oradditional information, will be related inthis report. She confirmed that the longobject in the sky .had no visible wings,tail, or motor. She described the"airplane" as a "long grey-white boardor something, laying up there." Herson-in-law, Raymond L. Morgan, alsoreiterated this detail. She only notedone white cloud in that portion of the

(Continued on next page)

(Missouri Landing, Continued)western sky and the object wasn't closeto the cloud. As for the small object inthe pasture, she stated that it hadslanted sides that reflected the sunlightfrom its brilliant surfaces. She alsodescribed a round dome shape thatslanted away and had a dark streak onthe lower side.

Considering the length of theobservation time (ascension was 5 to 10minutes), she said that they had time tophone their neighbors to observe theobjects, but "they all wanted to seewhat it was going to do." She didn'teven think about UFOs at this time. Itmust be noted that Mrs. Sturgell firstobserved the object in the pasture at7:00 AM and it didn't take off until 9:00AM when the family went out in theyard to investigate. She estimated thelength of the "airplane" as the width ofher two thumbs placed side by side atarms length.

Mrs. Raymond L. (Frances)Morgan, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs.Sturgell, was interviewed by telephonein Kansas City, Mo., and offered thefollowing additional comments. Shealso went to the window at about 7:00.AM to see the coyote that her motherhad pointed out to Mrs. Morgan's teen-aged son. In the dawn light, Francesthought the object in the pasturelooked like a "big white feed sack madeof plastic or something, sort of standingor hanging up on the weeds." She alsonoted that the cows seemed to beobserving the object and a coyote wassitting nearby. She observed the "liftoff" from the window at the front porchof the Sturgell home. Frances gopherbest view when the object rose to fence-post height. She said that it wentstraight up to tree-top level and thenangled off to the right (west). Mrs.Morgan observed that the object wasvery "shiny," and had a black strip on it,and it seemed to float upward duringthe lift off. She then rushed outside toget a better view as it climbed, joiningher husband, mother, and son down bythe front gate where their cars wereparked.

She described the small object as"looking like a big wash tub —. a biground thing." When it was sitting in thepasture, she couldn't detect anycurvature and it looked white in color,

*• -?-• .f*i

Investigators at scene, I to r, Deputy Sheriff Steve Breeden, TomYapp, and George Koch fPhoto by Donald L. Seneker)

however, after it took off and got up intothe bright sunlight it was very shiny —like aluminum. When she was askedabout the black stripe, she said it waswider than the pin stripe on anautomobile and ran the length of theegg-shaped object. Mrs. Morgan alsoobserved the "airplane pretty high inthe sky" and stated that the width of herthumb at arms length would just coverthe object's length. She couldn't seeany wings on the "airplane." It was Mrs.Morgan's telephone call to the BarryCounty Sheriff's Office in Cassville,Mo., at about 11:30 PM, against herfather's wishes, that touched off thissighting investigation. She personallyfelt it should be reported and wascurious to know if anyone else hadobserved anything.

Norman Sturgell, the grown son ofMarlett and Dora Sturgell who lives athome, was at the barn and viewed theUFO from the same vantage point ashis father. The teenage son of Mr. andMrs. Morgan picked his ownobservation point in the yard when partof the family started down to thepasture to identify the object. Of themany photographs taken of the landingsite, Raymond Lassiter, their neighboracross the road, took the first set about10:30 AM.

The initial investigation by DeputySheriff Steve Breeden that afternoonprobably produced the best detaileddescription of the landing site. Whileworking at the Sheriffs Office onSunday morning, October 8th, Stevereceived a telephone call at 11:00 AMfrom Mrs. Frances Morgan asking whoone should contact when you spot aUFO. This whetted his appetite andimmediate interest. She stated that sheand her family had spotted one nearJenkins, Mo., where her parents live onFlat Creek. Since Deputy SheriffBreeden was on duty at the office, hecould not leave until 3:30 PM toinvestigate. Accompanied by his father-in-law, they drove to the MarlettSturgell farm, which is about one andone half miles east of Cato, Mo.

Upon arriving, he found thatFrances Morgan, her husbandRaymond and son, had already left toreturn to Kansas City. Mr. Breedenimmediately took a statement of,theepisode from Marlett Sturgell for hisofficial report. He was taken to thelanding site where he obtained soil andgrass samples and made Polaroid colorphotographs. When examining thearea, his first impression was that atripod had been resting inside the 4-foot-diameter circle of scorched grass.

Pasture at Marlett Sturgell farm; Ref. 1 - start of pasture; Ref. 2 -position of Sturgell during lift-off of object (Photo by Donald L.Seneker)

The three 6 to 8 inch diameter circleswere spaced in nearly an equilateraltriangle, however, the two closest toeach other were spaced about 2 feetapart at their edges and were both 2l/2 to3 feet away from the third on the northside. The outer edges of each tripodcircle had the fescue grass removedexposing the bare soil, while the innerpart of each circle "had the burnt grasstwisted as if it was caught in some kindof an auger or looked like someone hadset an eggbeater down there and justtwisted the .grass in a clockwiserotation."

The fescue grass was entirelyremoved in a doughnut shape about 3inches wide on the outer edge of eachtripod circle. (The grass was twisted orswirled. within the hole of eachdoughnut-shaped area.) The fescuegrass in the remainder of the 4-foot-diameter circle had turned a darkpurple-black color, not exactly burned,but very dried out. The remainder ofthe pasture was a lush green, since thiswas prior to the first frost of the season.Pplaroid color photographs taken bythe Deputy Sheriff at 4:15 PM on

'October 8th show the areas of barevegetation and the purple color of the

fescue grass within the large circle.When we conducted our first

interview with Mr. and Mrs. Sturgell onOctober 29, 1978, they found that eventhough the frost had caused the grass inthe pasture to start turning brown, aring of bright fresh green fescue grassnow appeared outside of the originaldiscolored and dehydrated area, just asif it had been fertilized. Steve Breedenobserved the site on October 8th andagain after the frost, so he could testifyto the changes that had transpired as itrelated to the bright green ring of grass.We took photographs that confirm thisunusual transformation. The apparentgreen enriched area is 10 to 12 inches inwidth surrounding the 3% to 4 footdiameter brown and dried circle.

When Deputy Sheriff Breeden wasasked for his impression and reputationof Marlett Sturgell in the community, hestated that "he had known him all his lifeand had never known Marlett to doanything in this sense that would makehim question his word. He seemed to bea very honest man, raised an honestfamily and has better things to do on hisfarm than to make up or dream upsomething like this if it wasn't true."When questioned about his personal

thoughts on this investigation, SteveBreeden had this to say. "In the courseof my business we work with evidence.The evidence that 1 have compiled atthe Sturgell farm leads me to believethat there has definitely got to besomething — I don't know what — I'mnot that smart — I can't answer that. Iwish I could, but I do know there has gotto be something that these people areseeing." Steve made a drawing of thelanding site showing the large circle andthe three smaller doughnut ringedcircles that were in a tripodc o n f i g u r a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h emeasurements.

This case was first reported to theCenter for UFO Studies on October 8,1978, by the Sheriff of Barry County onthe hotline number. Two differentpeople from CUFOS responded bytelephone the same evening and askedthat "the case be kept under wraps untilan investigator could be dispatched tothe scene." Mr. Sturgell literallycooperated to the degree that hespread a large tarp over the area topreserve it. Ted Phillips, a member ofMUFON's Board of Directors fromSedalia, Mo., and a recognizedauthority on UFO landing trace cases,was directed by CUFOS to conduct aninvestigation as soon as convenientlypossible. Ted visited the scene andconducted a very thorough one-dayinvestigation on October 14th.MUFON's State Section Director andAssistant State Section Director forsouthwest Missouri were alerted to thecase when it was reported in The Jop/inGlobe newsletter on Tuesday, October.24th. We responded on October 29thand performed an in-depth study thatrequired several weekends forinterviews and investigations, herebybeing reported in the MUFON Journal.The.Barry Counfy Advertiser featuredan article about the case and TedPhillip's visit in their October 18thedition, with photographs.

The vital specifics, details, andlaboratory analysis follows.

Date and Time: Sunday, October8, 1978; 7:00 AM-9:00 AM C.D.S.T.

Location: Marlett Sturgell Farmapproximately one and one half mileseast of Cato, Mo., (S.H. 39) in a bend of

(Continued on next page)

(Missouri Landing, Continued)Flat Creek, northeast corner of plat 8 inBarry County, Missouri. (Flat Creekseparates the Sturgell farm from thenorth edge of the Mark Twain NationalForest.)

Witnesses: (1) Marlett Sturgell, 71,farmer, Jenkins, Mo.; (2) Mrs. Marlett(Dora) Sturgell, wife, Jenkins, Mo.; (3)Mrs. Raymond L. (Frances) Morgan,daughter, Kansas City, Mo.; (4)Raymond L. Morgan, son-in-law; (5)The Morgan's son, 16; (6) Norman

. Sturgell, grown son of Marlett Sturgellwho lives at home.

Prime Investigators for the MutualUFO Network, Inc.: George M Koch,State Section Director, 115 Gum Road,Carl Junction, MO 64834, and DonaldL. Seneker, Director, Criminal JusticePrograms, Missouri Southern StateCollege, Joplin, MO 64801, residence:434 East College, Mt. Vernon, MO65712.

Interviews conducted by DonSeneker and George Koch: Mr. MarlettSturgell, October 29, 1978; Mrs.Raymond L. (Frances) Morgan,October 31,1978; Mr. and Mrs. MarlettSturgell, November 5, 1978; DeputySheriff Steve Breeden, November 5,1978; Mrs. Marlett (Dora) Sturgell,November 23, 1978.

An extensive set of black and whitephotographs were made at the site byDon Seneker with 8 x 10 enlargements.(Some of these photographs appearwith this article.) Copies of the colorPolaroid pictures by Deputy SheriffSteve Breeden on October 8th are alsoon file for comparison purposes.George Koch obtained a large numberof 35 mm color slides of the landing sitein the pasture and the Sturgell home inrelation to it. A 360-degree panoramaphotographic view of the entire areataken from the pasture in black andwhite was assembled, identifying thedirections of the compass and depictingthe ascension of the UFO and the 30 to40 degree angle flight to the object'hovering in the western sky (255 to 2%degrees azimuth).

We meticulously obtained soilsamples, fescue grass samples, cowfeces, and bone samples from the site,plus samples of grass and soil outside ofthe circle for control purposes andcomparison. All of the samples were

Bent and curlad 0ra«s with rodca,dirt and /c«cu« Gced tnwde

SKateh by 8t«v« Braadin, P«futy Shlrlf-f

Barry County* Miwuri of Landing Seta

Polaroid photo of landing sitemade on October 8,1978

taken to the regional criminalisticslaboratory at Missouri Southern StateCollege in Joplin, Mo., by DonSeneker. Plastic bags of grass sampleswere placed in a deep freeze at thehome of George Koch to preserve thempending detailed examination.

Radiation measurements weremade at the site on October 28, 1978,using a Detectron Model DG-2 with themeter setting of 0.2 multiplier for fullscale. The sample rate was set at fast.An extensive set of readings was madeand tabulated within the landing sitecircle and extending out 44 feet in eachdirection. All measurements weremade in milliroentgen per hour (MR-HR). The roentgen is the internationalunit of x-radiation or gamma radiation.Statistical average of the readings,sigma, and three sigma values werecomputed, and upper and lower controllimits established. Based upon theindividual readings and computationsmade, no significant radiation was

„ detected within the 88-foot-diametercircle compared to the 4-foot-diameterarea. Ted Phillips found no radiation inhis measurements on October 14,1978.

A synopsis of the grass samplescollected at the site of the reportedUFO landing is taken from theinvestigators report. Petri dish sample#2 was taken within the 3-foot-diameter dead grass area and petri dish#3 was collected .south of the dead areain the "green" area designated in thisreport (outer 10-12 inch ring). Nounusual material was observed on thesamples under a microscope, however,the green samples were about twice aslarge as the grass samples from thedead area, indicating dying or shrinkingof the "dead" grasses. A lOx and 20xpower binocular microscope was usedand photographs made. (Laboratorydetail is available from MUFON or theprime investigators.) The conclusionfrom the microscopic examinations isas follows: Samples were taken fromthe field on October 28, 1978 (20 daysafter the incident). They appearedvisually normal except that the sampleremoved from the site had shrunk toapproximately one-half their normalsize and turned brown (datedNovember 1, 1978 by Donald L.Seneker).

A preliminary physical evidencereport on the soil samples completedon December 4,1978, from the Sturgellfarm reports the following: (1) Apreliminary report from Melvyn W.Mosher, Ph.D., Associate Director ofthe Regional Criminalistics Lab atMissouri Southern State Collegeindicates no unusual substances ordifferences between the comparativesamples submitted. (2) There are novolatile compounds present. (3) Thereare no microscopic differences of note.(4) Testing is not complete. A soilculture is being prepared along withother tests. (5) Reports will follow ascompleted. (George Koch isconduct ing his own tests ofcomparative growth of seeds in thecontrol soil versus the circle soil).

The weather conditions at the timeof the initial sighting, October 8, 1978, \at 7:00 AM C.D.S.T. were supplied byDean Woodin, F.A.A. Flight Service forSouthwest Missouri at the JoplinAirport. Surface wind 8 knots, direction

150 degrees (southeast by south-southeast), visibility 15 miles, andceiling 10,000 feet scattered clouds withadditional scattered clouds at 25,000feet.

George Koch placed a telephonecall to Lonnie Nine of the NationalWeather Service in Monett, Mo., tocheck for balloon launchings from thatlocation, since it is the closest suchlaunching point to Jenkins, Mo. He wasadvised that their launch time is 6:00AM C.D.S.T. and the balloon isnormally in the air for 90 minutes or 110minutes at the most. They ascend at arate of 1,000 feet per minute and arenormally visible up to 10,000 feetaltitude. The balloon is made of Deer-Rex, an artificial rubber product thatexpands to about the size of fouraverage rooms before bursting anddropping the red paper parachute withits instrument package. (A few yearsbefore, Mr. Sturgell had observed aballoon caught in the trees.) Furtherdiscussion tentatively eliminated otherballoon launches by the military orother government agencies known tothe National Weather Service.

As part of this thoroughinves t iga t ion , Donald Senekerconducted a background andcommunity reputation on MarlettSturgell, an attitude, personality, and.habit evaluation plus an analysis of whyhe didn't see more details concerningthe object in the pasture.

In order to get a better idea of theshape of the object in the field, Mrs.Sturgell was asked to form a modelingclay replica of what she saw, since it wasvery difficult for her to sketch theunique shape. This technique provedvaluable, since sketches andphotographs were made from hermodel.

(This very f ine and well-documented report has beencondensed so that it could be coveredin its entirety in one issue of theMUFON UFO Journal. Don Senekerand George Koch are to becommended for the throughness oftheir investigation and the professionalmanner in which it was conducted. Thenumber of witnesses to the sightings,the length of observation, and thelanding trace evidence ranks this GE IIas one of the most significant ones forthe year 1978.-Walt Andrus.)

/ .mpo?-A £> A£*DC3£^BOCjiHIU

(JBSOQ

ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS FOR 1979 MUFON

UFO SYMPOSIUM IN SAN FRANCISCO

Published papers to be presentedat the MUFON Symposium on July 7and 8 at the beautiful Airport MarinaHotel will include the followingspeakers: James M. McCampbell,MUFON Director of Research,Belmont, Calif.- "Forbidden Frontier--Communication with UFOnauts"; TedPeters, Ph.D., Consultant in Theology,Berkeley, Calif. - "The ReligiousDimensions to the UFO Phenomenon";David Stupple, Ph.D., Consultant inSociology, Yps i la r i t i , M i c h . •"Contactees, Cults, and Culture";William. H. Spaulding, State DirectorFor Arizona, Phoenix, -- "InformationRetrievals: A Case for UFO CoverUp"; Walter H. Greenawald, WoodlandHills, Calif. •• "Newspapers and UFOs";Richard F. Haines, Ph.D., Los Altos,Calif. - "A Review of Selected Sightingsfrom Aircraft from 1973 to 1978";Thomas E. Bearden, M.S., Consultantin Nuclear Engineering -- "AMind/Brain/Matter Module Consistentwith Quantum Physics and UFOPhenomenon"; J. Allen Hynek, Ph.D.Director for Center for UFO Studies,Evanston, 111.; Stanton T. Friedman,M.S., Consultant in Nuclear Physics,Hay ward, Calif.; and Dennis Regan,Ph.D., Consultant in Aeroacoustics,Santa Monica, Calif.

Speakers have been selected bothfor technical subjects and publiceducation information, thus appealingto all interests. Simultaneouspresentations will be made in differentrooms so that a participant will have achoice of speakers. Speakers who willnot present published papers are TerryHartman, State Director for Oregon,Portand; Alvin Lawson, Ph.D., GardenGrove, Calif.; Tom Gates, Consultantin Astronomy, Mountain View, Calif.;Marvin Taylor, State Section Director,Sonora, Calif.; Ms. Jean Richards; andWalt Andrus, International Director,Seguin, Tex.

Festivities will start Friday evening,July 6th, for those arriving early. Apress conference is sceduled for Fridaymorning. A special package price forthe two days of July 7 and 8 is available

at $15.00 by sending your order toNorthern California MUFON, P.O. Box1072, Mountain View, CA 94042, with acheck or money order payable toMUFON Northern California. Uponreceipt of your advance reservation youwill be mailed a postcard so that youmay make your lodging reservations atthe Airport Marina Hotel. If you do notuse the special card, please indicate onyour correspondence that you areattending the Mutual UFO NetworkSymposium so that they will assign youone of the rooms "blocked" for thispurpose. Otherwise inquiries to thehotel, may be answered by "sorry, weare booked up," which happened inAkron, Ohio. An application foradvanced reservations for theSymposium was included in all issues ofthe January-February 1979 edition ofthe Journal to subscribers in theCentral and Western Regions for theirconvenience. Make your plans now toattend the only International UFOSymposium being held on an annualbasis for the past 10 years.

MUFON

r Cosmic Search: A Review, "Cosmic SEARCH, The first

magazine about the Search forExtra-terrestrial Intelligence,"(SETI), Volume 1, Number 1,January 1979.

It is unusual to be reviewing anentire magazine, but in this case I feelsufficient reason exists to bend thereviewing rules, particularly since thispublication is so close to home, andbecause I am reviewing the first issue ofa publication which is bound to bringboth praise and-ridicule from our variedUFO readership. This will be "that firstimpression."

This first issue cover depicts aportion of the metric scale with apointer at 21 centimeters (the"waterhole") overlaid on thephotograph of a galaxy and with adashed line connecting the pointer witha particularly bright star. The editorialboard includes some names that arefamiliar to the UFO reader. Under thetable of contents is a statement to theeffect that the publication intends topresent all aspects of the Search for ETIin a responsible yet popular manner.

The magazine is edited by RobertS. Dixon and John Kraus. In their firsteditorial they explain, in brief terms,what SETI is all about and that theirintent is to provide interesting articlesinvolving the many aspects of SETI. Asecond editorial is included by RichardBerendzen, a member of the editorialboard. This editorial is probably the lowpoint of the entire publication in that ittakes pot-shots at those in the UFOcommunity who prefer to search forETI through the study and investigationof UFO reports.

The first and second articles arehistorical in tone: the first is a reprint ofthe original article, by GuiseppeCocconi and Phi l l ip Morrison,"Search ing f o r I n t e r s t e l l a rCommunications," which appeared inNATURE in 1959. The second article isby Morrison and is titled "Twenty yearsafter. .' .". He reminisces how the firstcame about and goes on to support theneed for further work in this fascinatingfield. The third article, "A Reminiscenceof Project Ozma," by Frank D. Drake,

8

again adds historical perspective to theSETI.

Five pages are devoted to afeature, "The SEnTInel," whichconsists of highlights and up-to-datearticles on today's discoveries andthinking. One item of particular interestis "Protection of SETI 'FrequencyBands in Jeopardy" wherein the readeris requested to write to the FCC or theirelected representative in support ofreserving SETI frequency bands. Ithoroughly agree and feel the UFO com-munity should support such a stand.

John Kraus, one of the editors, hasincluded an educational feature, "ABCsof SETI," which might be the beginningof an encyclopedia for certain aspectsof UFO research. His four shortdiscussions on "The GalacticP e r s p e c t i v e , " "The CosmicPerspective," "Numbers and theSETI," and "The Wavelength Picture(The 'Waterhole')" are bits ofinformation that should come to theattention of every UFO enthusiast inorder to keep our study in perspective.

Walter Sullivan offers his article inthe form of a question, "What if weSucceed?." He embraces both thepositive and negative philosophies ofSETI, f rom Nobel-Prize-winningbiologist George Walds' view that he "..

can conceive of no nightmare soterrifying. . .," to the opinion of atheologian that, " . . . some of them(SETI) may be nearer to the divine mindthan we are."

If there are any politicalimplications at all, it is that thismagazine will be used as a lever beforeCongress to show how far thiscommunity of SETI researchers areseparated from the UFO community.They resent our encroachment on theirterritory to the extent that theirsubtitle, "The first magazine about theSearch f o r E x t r a - T e r r e s t r i a lIntelligence," makes a claim that I amsure many UFO publishers woulddispute, showing their intention toignore our existence. •

This group, that is the majority ofit, intend to avoid facing up to thequestion of the UFO, and those whostudy the UFO, except to attribute to

us the capability of our work to detractfrom their congressionally appropri-ated funds. They fail to understand orgive any hope to our aspirations ofbecoming a scientific endeavor,presently and historically with no publicfunding, while they are busy toutingthemselves as super-scientists whoshall see us safely into the future, savingall manfind. They shall, as they have inthis issue, continue to refer to us as the"pseudo-science" or "those espousingdisreputable UFO accounts." Theypresent no evidence of having any realidea of what we are doing or what weare about, and fail to realize that ourpaths will surely cross, even though it isbecoming more apparent thatastronomy may have no associationwith UFOs.

We should keep in mind thatshould we make any breakthrough inthe study of UFOs that would lend anycredence to an ETI-UFO connection,this is the same group of scientists whowill demand that they alone be allowedto explore the implications of such aconnection. They shall be the first tosteal our smoke and our fire; and noteven complain about burning theirhands. It is well within their capability to.back-peddle into our work, with noapologies, no begging of our pardon, orany recognition of our existence. Theyview us as an unnecessary evil to beeliminated ' and shall attempt tointimidate us out of existence. Shouldthey, list "UFO" in their glossary, Iwould think that the definition wouldnot come near that of Dr. Hynek, butwould in some way be a put-down to allwe have worked toward.

I would prefer that they stay off ofour backs, but I doubt that will happen.Rather, I see that finally there' is afraternity for Phil Klass to Join. (Nodoubt we will see his articles in thismagazine.) Further, Cosmic SEARCHis a minor declaration of war on ourefforts. Though it may not mean ourdoom, it may well set back our efforts ofrecognition. With this declaration wecan but force ourselves to a new secondwind, and to a cleaning up of our ownact. We must thoroughly investigate

(continued on page 17)

NEW ZEALAND FILM REPORTBy Bruce Maccabee

(Note: Dr. Maccabee travelled to New Zealand and Australia at the end of January to investigate the UFO film at the expense ofChannel O in New Zealand. He has kindly provided a draft of his investigation report to MUFON for publication. Dr. Maccabeeis Maryland State Director for MUFON, a Board Member of the Center for UFO Studies, and a Consultant to NICAP. He is aphysicist specializing in optics for the U.S. Navy.--Editor)

March 26, 1979, Press Release, New York City

The investigation was conductedon behalf of the National InvestigationsCommittee on Aerial Phenomena(NICAP) by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, aNavy physicist. He spent ten days inNew Zealand and a week in Australiainterviewing the witnesses andanalyzing the film. He subsequentlypresented his findings to several groupsof scientists in the U.S. Not one of thescientists was able to explain the radar-visual-photographic sightings inconventional terms....

Dr. Hynek stated his opinion thatthe New Zealand evidence clearlysuggests some phenomenon thatcannot be explained in ordinary terms.He criticized those in responsiblescientific positions who had publiclystated that the New Zealand filmshowed Venus, Jupiter, meteors, etc.,without even bothering to talk to thewitnesses, or to find out at what timesand in which directions the variousportions of the film were shot.

Some of the other scientists joiningDr. Maccabee and Dr. Hynek in theopinion that the film shows somethingunusual are Dr. Peter Sturrock, aplasma physicist, Dr. Richard Haines,an optical physiologist, Dr- GilbertLevin, a biophysicist, and Neil Davis, anelectronics specialist. Other scientists,most notably several government andindustry radar specialists, requestedthat their names not be used because oftheir sensitive positions.

Channel 0 of Melbourne intends toproduce a documentary of the UFOsighting and the analysis of the film andradar detections. Channel O reporter,Quentin Fogarty, was aboard the plane

when the UFO sightings took place.Mr. Fogarty was there with a film crewat the request of Channel 0 to obtain astory about previous early morningradar-visual UFO sightings that hadtaken place on the 21st of December,1978.

These sightings involved pilotswho were flying between Wellingtonand Christchurch and also theWellington Air Traffic Control radar.Wellington radar had picked up manyanomalous targets east of the ClarenceRiver and along the Kaikoura coast ofthe South Island of New Zealand. Thepilots saw lights in the directionssuggested by Wellington and at least inone case picked up a very rapidlymoving object on the airplane radar atthe same time they saw a flashing lightfly past them. These sightings madefront page headlines in New Zealandand Australia.

Mr. Fogarty was on vacation inNew Zealand when Channel 0 decidedto assign the news coverage oh theprevious UFO sightings. Mr. Fogartycontacted a cameraman, DavidCrockett, whose wife, Ngaire Crockett,operated the recording equipment.

The Crocketts were unknown toFogarty before this initial contact.Fogarty and the Crocketts interviewedand filmed the Wellington Air TrafficControl radar operators and one of thepilots involved in the previous sightings.By prearrangement, they boarded asimilar newspaper flight to obtainbackground footage of takeoffs,landings, • etc., for use in the newscoverage for Channel 0. Fogarty andthe Crocketts did not know the pilot,

Captain Bill Startup, nor did they knowthe copilot, Robert Guard, before theflight.

The crew and passengers were inthe four engine -turboprop Argosyaircraft flying south from Wellingtonwith a full load of newspapers when theflight crew first noticed unusual lights inthe direction of the Kaikour^ peninsula.The flight crew contacted Wellingtonradar and was told by the operator,Geoffrey Causer, that he had seenunusual targets in the direction theflight crew was looking. The flight crewpointed out the unusual lights toFogarty and the Crocketts.

David Crockett obtained a shortsegment of film footage of the lightsseen on the way south. Wellingtontower observed targets around theairplane, and, for a period of time,reported that there were targetsbehind, and beside, the airplane. For aperiod of several minutes thepassengers saw a flashing light on theright side of the aircraft at about thesame time that Wellington radar toldthem that some object was flying alongwith them.

The plane landed at Christchurchat 1:00 a.m. local Daylight Savings Timeabout 50 minutes after the unusuallights were first seen. After thenewspapers had been unloaded theairplane took off again to fly toBlenheim, New Zealand. On this flight areporter from Christchurch, DennisGrant, who was a friend of Fogarty,took the place of Ngaire Crockett, whodidn't want to fly back through the areaof the previous sightings.

(continued on next page)

(New Zealand, Continued)The original plan had been for

Fogarty and the Crocketts to leave theplane at Christchurch, having obtainedsufficient footage for the news coverageon the previous sightings. However,because of the incidents on the flightsouth, Fogarty and David Crockettdecided to fly back to obtain better filmof the unusual lights.

The plane took off f romChristchurch at 2:16 a.m. D.S.T. andclimbed up through a low layer ofclouds. As they broke through theclouds about 3 minutes after takeoffthey saw a very bright light ahead and tothe right. The captain, who compared itwith a featureless full moon, turned onthe airplane radar in the mappingmode.

Several minutes later, when theradar warmed up and the plane wasabout 15 nautical miles (n.mi) out ofChristchurch, the radar detected astrong target at about 20 n.m. in thedirection of the bright light. As the planeflew northeast, the object remained tothe right of the plane and the radardistance decreased to about 10 n.m. Aconsiderable amount of film footagewas obtained by Crockett during thisportion of the flight.

When the plane reached 13,000fee t , about 37 miles out ofChristchurch, the pilot turned towardthe object. After a 90 degree turn,however, the object was still notdirectly ahead, appearing to havemoved to the right as the plane turned.The plane flew southeast for a minuteor so, during which time the objectappeared to be at a lower altitude andappeared to move to the right of theaircraft.

When the pilot turned to the left toregain his original flight path put ofChristchurch he was surprised to seethe bright object, which had been onthe right side of the plane, appear aheadof him. He thinks the plane then flewover it. They did not see the brightobject again after they regained theoriginal flight path. !

When the plane was east ofKaikoura, Wellington radar again saidthat there were targets around theplane. Several of these were apparentlyseen by the passengers and crew, andone brightly flashing light was filmed.

10

The film shows a light which oscillatesrapidly from very bright white or yellow-white to dim red and orange. The planelanded about 3:15 a.m.

Dr. Maccabee states that the filmshot when the plane was 10 to 40 milesnortheast of Christchurch shows a lightthat has various shapes including nearlyround, sort of triangular, and "bell-shaped." The bell-shaped image,obtained with a 240mm lens, has abright bottom and a less bright top, inagreement with a description given atthe time by the cameraman.

Many of the images are over-exposed, suggesting a very brightyellowish-white light. An estimate of thebrightness of the source,,if it were 10n.m. away from the plane, shows that itcould have been as powerful as severalhundred thousand candlepower.Candlepower is a measure of theamount of visible light given off by asource of light. For comparison, a100,000 watt incandescent bu lb ,radiating in all directions would haveabout 200,000 candlepower. Dr.Maccabee also stated that the sizes ofthe images on the film suggest a sourcewhich, if it were 10 n.m. away, would beabout 100 feet wide.

The scientists hope to be able tocontinue working on the film todetermine further characteristics of theUFO.

The InvestigationBefore summarizing the events

and presenting certain analysiscompleted thus far, I would like tosummarize the investigation and mypart in it.

When I first heard of the NewZealand film via ABC news on January2,1 didn't think much of it. Then it wasshown on CBS (Walter Cronkite tookup about 5 minutes of Evening Newstime). Explanations were rampant andinformation was, as with most media-reported UFO cases, lacking. I tookpictures of the TV screen so that Iwould have something to look at afterthe news show. (Little did I know thatless than a week later I would havecomplete access to the original.) Whatwas shown on TV looked interesting,but there was something wrong. Thereporter's commentary did not seem toagree with the film, and the images

would alternately be big and small. And,of course, there was a large amount ofimage motion (unlike Phil Klass, Iimmediately assumed that during theshort times that images stood still theywere showing single "stopped" frames).Although I didn't really think the filmshowed anything very conclusive (afterall, as pointed out by Klass at the end ofthe CBS news segment, Venus was inthe sky in the morning — no one knewwhat time the film had been shot). I didthink the case was interesting,especially with the Wellington radarinvolved and the .on-the-spotrecordings by the news reporter, so Isaid to myself "Some lucky person at theother end of the earth — New Zealand— will get to look at the film, and, whoknows. . . .maybe he'll find something."

That was on Tuesday, January 2,1979. On Thursday I got a phone callfrom Jack Acuff, former president ofNICAP: "An Australian news team isbringing the New Zealand film here forNICAP to investigate. Would you bewilling to look at it?" Within a second orless I had responded "Yes," or words tothat effect. I still wasn't that impressedwith the case, especially because a dayafter this film had been obtained a NewZealand news crew had set up a cameraon the bank of the Clarence River andhad photographed a "UFO" for severalhours. (That UFO was definitelyVENUS!) Nevertheless, I didn't haveanything to lose and besides, how oftendoes one get to analyze aninternationally famous UFO movie. Itold Jack to suggest to the Australiansthat they wait a week so that I could getsome photo interpretation equipmenttogether (and so I could complete mypracticing for a piano concert I wasgoing to give the following weekend.)The next day Jack called and said"They're on their way... .they'll be hereSunday."

I saw the complete original film forthe first time on January 8. It took mealmost four microseconds to realizethat I wasn't looking at Venus, ormating mutton birds, or light reflectedfrom a cabbage patch. However, therewere many hours of work on a copy ofthe film still ahead of me before I couldrul out every source of light known tobe in the area. In order to reach such aconclusion I had to talk to the

witnesses. By the end of January I haddone about everything I could do on thefilm but I still hadn't talked to all thewitnesses. I had talked to the pilot,cameraman, and Wellington Air Trafficcontroller by phone during the secondweek of January. The interview^ werearranged by Leonard Lee, the TVproducer who had brought, the filmfrom Melbourne, Australia where heworked for Channel "O" (as in O'Hare". . . please avoid the term 'zero' ").Channel O had commissioned the newsreporter, Quentin Fogarty, to do anews story on a previous set of radar-visual sightings, and it was during hisattempts to obtain background footagefor his news story that "the NewZealand film" was obtained.

. By the end of the third week inJanuary I had decided that the filmreally did show something unusual, andI told Leonard confidentially that on ascale of 1-10 the probability that he hada "UFO" (something that.couldn't beidentified) was about 11. By this time hewas convinced that in order to reach afirm conclusion on this case it would benecessary to have me fly to NewZealand to interview the witnesses andpossibly to refly the flight. He went backto Melbourne with this intent, but theTV station at first balked at theexpense. Also during'the third week Ishowed the film copy to RobertSheaffer, who agreed that whatever itwas, it wasn't astronomical.

It was quite amusing during thoseweeks in January to read of the ratherpositive identifications offered by thearmchair experts. Venus was, ofcourse, high on the list. Oneastronomer stated on the day after thesighting that he was 99% sure that thefilm showed Venus. Then after he sawthe portion shown on TV he was "99%sure it was Jupiter." Of course, by theend of the second week of January Iknew that a major portion of the filmhad been taken about 30-45 minutesbefore Venus was due to rise (rise timewas calculated by Brad Sparks ofAPRO). I also knew that the imageswere too large and too bright to beJupiter. "Meteors" (Sir BernardLovell) were out of the question: theunusual lights were seen for manyminutes. Mating mutton birds (flocks ofbirds that fly around the coast of New

Zealand in the early morning) reflectingfishing boat lights? Light reflected froma cabbage patch? Comets? Balloons?Other Aircraft? Ground Lights? I wassure that the film showed none of these.Secret Military Maneuvers? Hoax? Ididn't think so, but I couldn't prove it . .yet!

During the last week in January Iprepared for a trip that I only halfbelieved would ever happen (eventhough Leonard was convinced itwould happen). I had decided that Iwould pay my own way to Wellington —I could barely afford it — but I could notafford to go to Australia to interview thereporter himself. Then on January 26the word came: the TV station will payfor everything! Two days later I was ona plane to California, where I had someimage enhancements made and where Ibriefed Peter Sturrock and RichardHaines, and then off to New Zealand.

Very briefly, I was in New Zealandfor 10 days, during which time Iinterviewed 7 of the total of 8 witnessesinvolved. The taped interviews lastedanywhere from 4 to 8 hours at a session.The witnesses were all very friendly andhelpful. I also talked to the RNZAFofficer who directed the officialgovernment investigation into thesightings. He was convinced that theyall resulted from misidentifications andhighly unusual atmospheric conditions.He ruled out -the "secret militarymaneuvers" hypothesis and suggestedthat I talk to the scientists at theDepartment of Scientific and IndustrialResearch (DSIR). These scientist haddone the actual investigation, so I wentto visit them. I took along thecameraman, David Crockett, becausethey had never talked to him.

It turned out that even though thegovernment report says that theytalked to all the "important witnesses,"they in fact only talked to three people(pilot, copilot, ATC controller). Also,they had never seen the film thatCrockett made. When I showed themmy copy they were immediatelyinterested. I went back to see themagain before I left New Zealand, at theirinvitation. They told me about someunusual radar target properties thatthey had observed several nights afterthe film was made when they had an AirForce Orion aircraft available to look

for "UFOs." They told me aboutseveral apparently "solid" targets whichdisappeared from the radar scopeseconds before the Orion arrived at thepositions of the targets (note: thealtitudes were not known, only thedirections and distances)! What did theOrion f i n d ? T u r b u l e n c e . (Didsomething depart suddenly?) Frominterviewing the witnesses I decidedthat the UFO film was not part of ahoax. Most of the witnesses had notknow each other before the flight of theaircraft, and the government operatedradar was involved. I was able to obtaina complete tape of the. ATC-airplaneconversations. Unfortunately becauseof adverse publicity and "fear" of theRNZAF, the company which owned theaircraft would not allow me to refly theflight, even though the witnesses werewilling to do so.

After. New Zealand I flew toAustralia where I interviewed QuentinFogarty. .and did some work with theoriginal film. I also collected theevidence together and wrote a historyof the flight. By the time I left Australia Iwas sure that all the public explanationsfor the case were wrong. However, I didnot publicize my conclusions. Instead, Ipresented the evidence to interestedscientists in the U.S., including, Dr.Richard Haines, Dr. Peter Sturrock,Dr. James Harder, Neil Davis, BradSparks, Stan Friedman, and others at ameeting at Stanford University; Dr. J.Allen Hynek and Allan Hendry atCUFOS; Dr. Gilbert Levin ofBiospherics in Rockville, Md., andabout 10 government-related scientists(experts in optics and radar) who mustremain unnamed because of the"ridicule factor." No one offered asolution or even a combination ofsolutions that could fit the details.

The results of the investigationwere announced publicly on March 26at a news conference in New York Citythat was organized by Channel O. Atthe conference Acuff, .Hynek, and Ispoke for a total of about two hours.The bulk of the time was taken up by arecitation by myself of the history of theNew Zealand film and the surroundingcircumstances. The story made thescience section.of the New York Timesand some other papers scattered

(continued on next page)

11

(New Zealand, Continued)throughout the U.S., but there was nobig reaction. Unfortunately it was a badday for news conferences because itwas the same day that President Cartercompleted his "cash for peace"agreements with Israel and Egypt.Then, if that wasn't enough news forone week, two days later prospects fornuclear power nearly fizzled as theThree Rivers Plant spouted and theU.S. was confronted with an "atomicterror" for the next week and a half.

Sources of InformationThe p r i m a r y sources of

information are the memories of theeight witnesses who were involved.These memories contain a wealth ofinformation which, nevertheless, is"soft information." However, this caseis unique for the amount of hardinformation which was available afterthe events were over. The hardinformation includes a tape recording ofthe conversations between theWellington ATC Center and theaircraft. This recording establishes anirrefutable time line for the events.Then there is the tape made on theaircraft by Quentin Fogarty (how manyUFO sightings have informationrecorded in sifu?). Although this tapecannot be exactly synchronized withthe Wellington tape, the approximatetimes of Fogarty's statements can bedetermined from the content (heoccasionally repeated what Wellingtonhad told the plane). Then there werescribbled pencil notes by Dennis Grant,the Christchurch, New Zealand,reporter. (He took the place of thecameraman's wife, Ngaire Crockett, onthe trip north.) He was apparently theonly one who actually wrote anythingdown during the sightings. And finally,there is the film, which is a veritable tourde force of UFO images.

The film contains pictures ofairport lights (landings and takeoffs),pictures of the airplane cockpit,pictures of Quentin Fogarty atChristchurch Airport, and pictures of... . UFOs. The landing light sequencesand the cockpit sequences serve toestablish that the film was taken frominside the aircraft. A study of the edgenumbers of the original film (edgenumbers are put on by the

manufacturer) shows that they arecontinuous, except for a change in filmat Christchurch (they needed a new rollfor the journey north). Thus the film isnot a hoax. The landing light sequences

' provide color and brightnessinformation which can be used tocalibrate the film and the optical qualityof the airplane window. All of this hardinformation (acoustic and optical) issupplemented by the memories of fivewitnesses on the aircraft at any timeand one or two witnesses at theWellington ATC (two witnesses for partof the trip south; one witness at all othertimes).

As the interviews proceeded Ifound that the statements of the variouswitnesses tended to complement ratherthan contradict one another. Therewere some variations in descriptions ofevents, etc., as might be expected fromdifferent observers after a time lapse ofover a month, but I found no outrightcontradictions. To my surprise (anddelight) almost every new "bit" ofinformation I learned supported ratherthan contradicted the previous "bits."From this wealth of information I haveabstracted a summary of the eventswhich, when read in conjunction withthe "Event Descriptions and MapLegend," will give the reader anoverview of the New Zealand radar-visual UFO case. The associated maps,Figures 1 and 2, show the overall path ofthe aircraft as a dashed line. The T-shaped symbols represent the aircraftat various points along the path and thenumbers refer to events in the "Event"sheet. The events are primarily thoseassociated with radar targets referredto by Wellington ATC. Specifically, thelocation of the airplane each timeWellington referred to a target (ortargets) is shown on the map. Thelocations are believed to be accurate towithin 1 or 2 miles. The specific radartarget(s) associated with a specificposition of the airplane is (are)connected to the airplane symbol by aline(s). The events that occurred as theplane flew away from Christchurch (21-27) are reconstructed from the witness

' statements about what they saw andwhat the airplane radar screen showed.The path of the plane from Event #25 toEvent #27 is approximate and is subjectto further revision.

The path of the object wasestimated from witness statements,airplane radar data, and from the imagesizes on the film. The film image sizes(except when defocussed) are neverlarger than several milliradians inangular size. Assuming that the objectwas of a fixed size, this means that itnever was closer than some minimumdistance, probably about 10 miles,during the time it was being filmed. Onthe other hand Fogarty rememberslooking almost straight down on theobject out the right window (his lastview of it), and the captain is quitecertain that the plane passed over it. Atthese times the cameraman was notable to film it because it was movingrapidly with respect to the plane andbecause the film magazine and theoverall size of his camera made itdifficult to shoot at large downwardangles (for example, the top of the filmmagazine could have bumped some ofthe overhead switches in the cockpit).The remainder of the airplane path(eve ry th ing except 25-27) isreconstructed from the standard flightplans and from the memory of theWellington Air Traffic Controller,Geoffrey Causer.

To obtain a good impression of thebewildering number of unusualoccurrences during those earlymorning flights I suggest that the readerread the summary first and then readthe "Event" sheet, paying rather carefulattention to the details of the events.

Summary of Events(NOTE: all miles are nautical and timesare local D.S.T.)

FLIGHT SOUTHAt 11:46 pm on December 30,

1978, a four-engine turbo prop Argosyfreighter left Wellington, New Zealand,on a standard Saturday evening-Sunday morning newspaper deliveryrun, from Blenheim, New Zealand, toWellington to Christchurch, and thenback to Blenheim. Aboard the aircraftwere the pilot, Captain Bill Startup, theco-pilot, Robert Guard, the Australiannews reporter, Quentin Fogarty, and afilm crew which consisted of acameraman, David Crockett, and hiswife, Ngaire, who operated the taperecorder. The reporter and film crewhad been commissioned by a

12

Melbourne TV station to fly tcChristchurch to obtain film footage foruse in a news story about a previousUFO sighting that had been made bypilots on a similar aircraft flight. Duringthe flight south the pilot and co:pilotobserved lights that were first seen inthe direction of Kaikoura, from a pointjust southeast of Cape Campbell (seemap and Event Sheet). Coincidentally,Wellington radar picked up andreported targets which were in thevicinity of the plane. It appears that atleast two, and perhaps several, of theseanomalous radar targets wereobserved by the passengers on theplane.

The cameraman obtained 16 mmcolor film footage of the inside of theplane, the lights of Kaikoura, and ofanomalous bright objects that wereseen occasionally in the 12:00 to 3:00(front to. rightside) quadrant withrespect to the direction of travel. Thereporter recorded on-the-spotcomments and descriptions andoccasionally referred to statementsmade by Wellington Air Traffic Control(ATC). The anomalous lights seen onthe trip south were observed to bemainly in the direction of Kaikoura orahead of the plane, except for one,which was seen off the right wing afterthe plane was south of Kaikoura.

Radar targets that were reportedto the plane by the Wellington ATCwithin about 20 miles of the plane as ittravelled from a point just south ofCape Campbell to a point about 57miles northeast of Christchurch: Theairplane radar was not used on the flightsouth.

One part icularly interestingsequence of events invo lv ingWellington ATC occurred just after theplane had turned toward Christchurchat a non-geographic reporting pointcalled "Kaikoura East" (see map). Theplane had shifted to the Christchurchcommunication frequency whenWellington saw a target appear behindthe plane about one or two miles (EventSheet #12). ~ Wellington told' :theChristchurch controller, who asked theplane to shift back to the Wellingtonfrequency. Wellington then told theplane that the target was about fourmiles behind, them. About half a minutelater Wellington said there was a further

target about four miles to the right ofthe plane. About 45 seconds after thatWellington told the plane thatsomething was flying in formation withit. The plane and the unidentified targetflew side by side for at least half aminute, after which the radar targetreduced to that of the plane alone(Event Sheet # 15 and 16). About aminute later the plane contactedWellington and reported a "target,"which was a flashing light, at the right ofand falling behind the airplane (EventSheet #17). Wellington agreed thatthere was a target at the right of theplane that was drifting behind as theplane moved forward.

The plane landed at Christchurch,N.Z., at 1:01 a.m., December 31. Whilenewspapers were being unloaded thecrew discussed the sightings with theChristchurch radar operator, whodescribed to the crew an anomaloustarget that was hot particularlyimpressive to him. In order to obtainmore film footage, Crockett andFogarty decided to fly back toBlenheim. One of the passengers, thewife of the cameraman, decided not tomake the return flight and her place wastaken by a reporter from Christchurch,Dennis Grant, a personal friend of theAustralian reporter (the only personinvolved that the Australian reporterhad known before the flight).

FLIGHT NORTHThe plane left Christchurch on its

flight north to Blenheim at 2:16 a.m.About 3 minutes later, as the planeclimbed through a low cloud cover, thepilot, co-pilot, and cameraman, whowere all in the cockpit at the time,observed a bright yellow/white/orangelight apparently at about their level,which would appear and disappearthrough the tops of the clouds. It wasbetween 10 and 30 degrees to the rightof the aircraft, which was flyingnortheast. This light was pointed out tothe two reporters who arrived in thecockpit several minutes after thetakeoff. The captain obtained a strongreturn from , his radar which wasoperated in its "mapping mode." Thesize of the radar "blip" was estimated bythe flight crew to have been 3 to 5 timeslarger than the blip from a large fishingboat. The flight crew and theChristchurch reporter, who had a good

view of the radar display and of theobject, repeatedly compared thedirection of the bright light with that ofthe target as indicated by the azimuthmarkers on the radar screen. Theyassured themselves that the radartarget and the bright light were in thesame direction. The radar distance wasinitially 18-20 miles.

As the plane proceeded along astraight northeasterly path and climbedto its cruising altitude, the distance tothe bright light gradually decreased, asindicated by the radar," and the sightingline tended to move around to the right.By the time the plane was about 11minutes (32 miles) out of Christchurchat an altitude of 11,500 f t . the bright lightwas about 70 to 90 degrees to the rightof the aircraft (southeast of the aircraft)and about 12 miles away and no longeron the plane radar. All observersagreed that the object appeared to be ata lower altitude than the aircraft, withdepression angles below horizontalestimated to be between 5 degrees and30 degrees. The radar in the map modecould only pick up targets withdepression angles between about 3°and 15° below the centerline of theaircraft.

The cameraman obta inedseveral minutes of film out the far right-hand cockpit window during thisperiod. Images on the film range fromyellowish white elliptical shapes withreddish fringes to overexposed, nearlytriangular and circular shapes. Typicalangular sizes were on the order of 1-2milliradians.* He also obtained severalfeet of film showing a cockpit meter justbelow the image of the bright light. Atabout 12-13 minutes (35-38 miles) out ofChristchurch the plane reached 13,000feet and a speed of 215 knots. At thistime the flight crew decided to turn tothe right toward the bright light. As theplane turned, the sighting line to theobject moved toward the front of theaircraft, but even after a turn of about90 degrees, the object was not directlyahead of the aircraft, as if the object hadmoved to the right. The captain

*Divide the distance to the object by 1000 andmultiply by the number of milliradians to find thesize. For example, an angular size of 1 milliradiancorresponds to an object size of 1 foot at 1000feet:.(1000 feet/1000)x(l millirad.) = 1 ft.

(continued on next page,)

13

(New Zealand, Continued)proceeded in a straight line along asoutheast heading and again thesighting line to the object moved fromnearly directly ahead toward 90 degreesto the right as the plane flew. Thedepression angle below horizontal wasapparently very noticable at this time.The object was not picked up on radarafter the turn, even though the objectwas nearly ahead of the aircraftimmediately after the turn, whichsuggests that the depression angle wasgreater than 15 degrees. After travellingon this new heading for 1 or 2 minutes,the captain began a turn to the left backtoward his original flight path, at whichtime the light was observed to movequickly to the left-front and above theaircraft and then to the left and downand apparently below the aircraft. Theobject was not seen again after theplane completed its left turn.

During the time that this objectwas seen by the plane passengers, itwas not seen on the Christchurch orWellington radars. This may have beenbecause it was too low to be picked upby either radar and/or because it was aweak target for 50 cm radar.

After the aircraft gained its originalcourse and approached a pointsoutheast of Kaikoura, Wellingtoncontrol tower again began to call theattention of the flight crew toanomalous targets which were within20 miles of the plane as it travelledtoward Cape Campbell. Occasionally,unusual bright lights were visible in thedirections indicated by the Wellingtoncontrol, and in at least one instance theplane radar picked up a target thatappeared to the captain to be in thesame position as that indicated byWellington control. There were alsoapparently temporal coincidencesbetween appearances and disappear-ances of visual and radar objects.

One particularly bright object thatwas seen as the plane approachedCape Campbell was photographed bythe cameraman. The film shows abright light which alternates in aregular, cyclic manner from brightwhite to dim red and orange. Itapparently travelled in a series of loops,described as "rolling and tumbling" bythe reporter (see Event #33).

The plane landed at Blenheim

FOIA YIELDS PILOT SIGHTING

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEHEADQUARTERS 25TH AIR DIVISION (ADCOM)

McCHORD AD< FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON 98438

Reply To •Attn. Of: CC

Subject: Request for Copies of 25NR/AD Senior Director's Log for the Monthsof October 1978 and January 1979

[Addressee deleted here]

1. A determination has been made that the records requested in your letter of29 January 1979 are releaseable under the Freedom of Information Act, 5U.S.C. 552.

2. Air Force Regulation 12-30 provides that a charge of [deletion] be assessedfor providing these records. Please make your check in this amount payableto the "AFO, McChord AFB, WA 98438" and forward it to 25AD/DA,McChord AFB, WA 98438.

3. Copies of the information you requested are attached.

Harold A. Homan, Colonel, USAFCommander 1 Attch

Extracts from 25NR/AD SD'sLog for Jan 79 and Oct 78

Extracts from 25th NORAD Region/Air Division Senior Director's Log forthe Months of October 1978 and January 1979

23 October 1978 .

0056Z - Received a call from Seattle Watch Supervisor (Mr. Jim Miller).United Flight 868 @ 0020Z @ 40 SE Klamath, Org @ fit level 33.0. DepartedSpokane for San Francisco. Pilot reported traffic above him at little fasterspeed. The pilot reported @ 0040, 90 NE San Francisco that the traffic wasstill above him. Seattle Center, 25NR, 26NR nor Oakland Center had anyradar contact. As per Sea Center request, data was relayed to 26NR.However, they had been briefed by Oakland. The United A/C was @33.0/460 Kts ground speed. Pilot estimated traffic @ or above 60,000 ft. LTCWaters NCOC Command Director advised. 26/DM NCOC/JB. FP

(continued on page 16)

airfield at about 3:10 a.m.

(In the next issue will be a detailedbreakdown of the UFO sightings, radartrackings, and filmings — event byevent — plotted on maps.-Editor)

MUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN,TX 78155

14

BOOK REVIEW

The Andreasson Affair, by RaymondE. Fowler (240 pages) Published byPrentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,N.J. Price: $8.95

One of the most fascinating— andquite probably important—books onthe UFO subject to appear recently is"The Andreasson Affair," and theauthor is the veteran UFO investigatorRaymond E. Fowler, MUFON'sDirector of Investigations. Theintroduction is by Dr. J. Allen Hynek,Director of the Center for UFOStudies.

This book is the culmination ofmore than a year's intensive inquiriesby the author and his associates,among whom is my colleague, DavidWebb, co-chairman of MUFON'sHumanoid Study Group. It is theextraordinary story of BettyAndreasson, much of which emergedthrough numerous hypnotic regressionsessions conducted by Dr. Harold J.Edelstein, Director of the New EnglandInstitute of Hypnosis. It describes herconfrontation in 1967 with a group ofbizarre entities in her SouthAshburnham, Massachusetts, home;her subsequent experiences on boardthe beings' vehicle; and her incredibletrip to some Magonian realm with itsclimactic encounter which can only bedescribed as an ecstatic religiousexperience. Betty Andreasson seemsto be, according to exhaustivebackground checks, an honest andstraightforward person; moreover, sheis blessed with keen observationalacuity and artistic ability, and the bookcontains numerous examples of herillustrations.

Let the unwary reader beforewarned: this is very special stuff.We are fortunate in having Mr. Fowlerto present such controversial material,for his reputation as one of America'smost competent and knowledgeableUFO invest igators gives theAndreasson story authority andcredibility that less expert hands couldnot manage. Even so, the story assailsour credulity. There is no abductionreport or onboard experience that

quite equals the Andreasson affair in allits breadth and scope, its detail andcomplexity. Comparisons will be made,of course, to the Hill case, and to TravisWalton's abduction in 1975. There aresimilarities in each case but, jut asimportant, there are differences. Still,none has been so exhaustivelyexamined and so t ho rough lydocumented as has the Andreassoncase, and certainly none has producedthe rich expanse of detail and nuancethat we find in Mr. Fowler's engrossingbook.heavy going for readers not reasonablywell-grounded in the subtleties of high-strangeness UFO case material. In allfairness, its contents do confoundreason. The book will most certainlysend the professional skepticsscurrying madly off to their respectiveeditors and publishers in their efforts toreduce it to an absurdity. This isunderstandable, for if the Andreassonstory is authentic, the implications ofthis fact are staggering. What if, forexample, there are thousands of otherBetty Andreassons around thecountry, the world, just waiting, like somany time bombs, to "go off?"Information in the files of the HumanoidStudy Group suggests that thispossibility — at least in part — may notbe so farfetched as some of us wouldlike to believe. High strangeness caseslike Andreasson's tend to contain theelements of their own protectiveinvisibility by the very outrageousnessof their contents. Even so, in my ownwork with regressive hypnosis, mycolleagues and I have discovered that"on-board" experiences are not all thatrare. What is really going on in suchcases, of course, remains to bedetermined. Mr. Fowler's book,however, provides the reader with thedefinitive example of the genre, in all itsmost perplexing detail.

The book is not without someflaws. A good portion of it is composedof parts of taped transcripts of thehypnotic sessions. Excerpted, thesesegments tend to be too fragmentaryto sustain the effect of the completetestimony. I have heard nearly all of thetaped regressions and they aretremendously compelling; I have alsohad a copy of Mr. Fowler's massive,three-volume report, the impact of

which, by sheer weight alone, isundeniably impressive. It would beimpractical,'of course, to expect such agargantuan product in a commercialpublication. .But like some of EugeneO'Neill's good, later plays, we areoverwhelmed not so much by the partsas by the accumulated force of thewhole work. The published version ofMr. Fowler's report simply lacks thepower and muscle of the original. Thisis, na tura l ly , n i t -picking by thespecialist. Most readers of the book willnot have the benefit of the comparison,and the published account isnevertheless quite sinewy and stunningin its own right.

The reasonable reader will comeaway persuaded that something quitemysterious is going on here. Whetherthe source of the mystery is actuallyextraterrestrial intervention (whateverthat condition might entail), as itliterally appears, or whether somethingelse is really going on, it matters little.Mr. Fowler 's account of theAndreasson a f f a i r convincinglydemonstrates that there is a particularphenomenology in operation here; thatit is typical in many ways of many othersimilar experiences; and that it is timefor responsible professional people tobegin making inquires into what it isthat is going on.

Mr. Fowler only briefly mentionsthe extended period that elapsed fromthe time that Betty Andreasson wroteher letter to the Center .for UFOStudies to the actual commencement ofthe investigation 17 months later. Itwould be useful to get the facts of thesituation into the record. Betty wroteher letter to the Center on August 20,1975, where it remained until early in1976 when Margo Metegrano, who wasthen the Center's "-administrativeassistant, sent me the original. I tookone look at it and put it away in my"unfinished business" file; it had beensufficiently off-putting for me to let itrepose there until the following August.At that time I received a letter fromDavid Webb in which he remarked thatthere was a new MUFON investigator(Jules Vaillancourt) in Ashburnham,Massachusetts. The name of the townrang a bell and sent me back to my files,where I found Betty's letter. I

(Continued on next page)

15

(Andreasson, Continued) (NORAD Log, Continued)

0110Z - LTC Waters called and request to talk to the pilot of United 868. SeaCenter advise pilot's name, Jim Morrison and that he would be returning toSeattle tonight on Flight 246. NORAD/CD believed he knew what UFO was.

0123Z - Maj Schmidt called United Airlines (206-433-4161) and left a msg forMr. Morrison to call 25NR. FP

0138Z - LTC Bohrer (D/O) and Col Monk advised by SD. FP

0446Z - Colonel Mulligan (NORAD-CD) talked to Mr. Morrison (UnitedAirlines pilot). The gist of conversation was that neither NORAD nor the pilotwas able to explain this event. Col. Mulligan had previously queried SAC andSpace Defense Center for possible identification. FP

0500Z - Received call from Lt. Smith, Information Officer, about a U.F.O.report he received from an unidentified individual in Spariaway. Objectdescribed was X'mas tree shaped with 3 lights at the base. The lights werered, blue and white. Sighting was at 0420Z. The object moved very fast withno noise according to the report. No other info available. NCOC/JB. ERS

0505Z - Called Seattle Center and McChord RAPCON on above U.F.O.report. No traffic in area to their knowledge that could cause report. ERS

25 January 1979

2055Z - UFO report called in from MCPC Mayhew at C-21. On 25/0500-0510Z, a Mr. Siscus said he saw a UFO out of his frbntroom window. The lightwas red and blueish green and lit up his front room. Sky condition - cloudy.The window faces south and the light was travelling north to south at a highrate of speed. Mr. Siscus notified RCMP and MOT who told him to call C-21.Mr. Siscus lives in Clearmont (5 mi. north of Grand Prairie, Alberta).NCOC/Sgt. Smith. RCW

Humanoid reported by BettyAndreasson

immediately sent it on to David, therebyassuaging my own guilty conscience forhaving held it for so long without anyaction. But his reaction to the lettermust have been similar to my own, for itwas not until January 1977 thatVaillancourt got the inquiry under way.Webb told me later that he had beenreluctant to refer the case to theinvestigator as his first assignment.

Betty's letter is not even reprintedin the book—a serious oversight. It isunlikely that Mr. Fowler would haveomitted it from his submitted text, as itis a most important document. Can it

16

be that the editors at Prentice-Hallsuffer from the same myopic bias thatafflicts Hynek, Bloecher, and Webb?How many other letters like this mightthere be stuffed away in variouspersonal and organizational filesaround the country? The world? Meacu/pa: I have just re-examined my ownfaithful repository for "unfinishedbusiness" and I confess that there are atleast a half-dozen unattended lettersright here. How many might bedeveloped into another BettyAndreasson Affair?

The implications of Mr. Fowler'sbook may not be merely staggering; .they could indeed be unthinkablyfearsome.--Ted Bloecher, Co-Chairman, Humanoid StudyGroup.

Ted Bloecher, contributor ofthis review. He and colleagueDave Webb have joined theJournal staff and will becontributing articles. Photo byMarilyn Epperson, taken at1978 MUFON Symposium,Dayton, Ohio

(Cosmic Search, from page 8)the good UFO cases and must quicklyput aside, with our signature, themisperceptions of natural and man-made phenomena and the work ofhoaxters.

We must come together in ourefforts, sharing our works andknowledge, with an acceptance ofconstructive criticism. We must staywith the truth and the facts and we mustlearn to appreciate, as even CosmicSEARCH has said, "science fact ismore fascinating than fiction." We mustbe the first to keep the study of UFOshonest.

We have here in Cosmic SEARCHthe banding together of a group for apurpose, and we must take the hint.They have access to wide publicdissemination of their ideas. We donot! They have all got sheepskins andother levers to get into the public till.We do not! They have, throughavoiding sensationalism, gainedrespected recognition. We have foughtto avoid this problem but are kept downby a form of muck-raking.

Cosmic SEARCH offers usinformation that we can use, though itmay be far in the future before theyadmit we have information they mightfind useful. That admission will be aturning point for both CosmicSEARCH and ourselves. Theirpublication can be a useful item ofintelligence to many who desire tofollow every aspect of UFO research.Cosmic SEARCH is a sign of changingattitudes in science and is a welcomeaddition to my magazine rack.Although • subscribing may requireadditional funds, I can recommend thisperiodical as a scientific, though slantedon UFOs, viewpoint on SETI.-ThomasP. Deuley

Cosmic SEARCH Magazine,P.O. Box 293, Delaware, Ohio43015. $11.00 for one year inthe USA, $15.00 outside of theUSA; $20.00 for two years inthe USA, $28.00 outside of theUSA.

BOOK REVIEW

A Helicopter-UFO Encounter OverOhio, by Jennie Zeidman (Center forUFO Studies, 1609 Sherman Ave., Rm.207, Evanston, IL 60201) 122 pages,$9.00 including postage & handling.

During the Fall 1973 UFO wave as t ructured UFO "buzzed" thehelicopter commanded by Captain(now Lt. Col.) Lawrence J. Coyne ofthe Army Reserve and shone a greenlight into the cockpit. In this well-writtenand well-organized report, the authorhas done an admirable job ofassembling the testimony, analyzingthe. appearance and behavior of theUFO, studying the anomalies thatoccurred during the sighting,, andcomparing the case with others that aresomewhat similar.

The report is amply illustrated withphotographs, diagrams, maps, andcharts that supply technical data aboutthe helicopter and other explanatory

iMarkR.Herbstritt

AstronomyNotes

THE SKY FOR MAY 1979

Mercury — Early in the month, it canbe seen with very great difficulty, low inthe east at sunrise, but by the 29th, it isin superior conjunction. It is 2 degreessouth of Mars on the 5th.

Venus — It rises about an hour beforethe sun. On the 20th it is 1.1 degreessouth of Mars.

Mars — Moving from Pisces into Aries,it can be seen very low in the east beforesunrise. On the 5th, it is 2 degrees northof Mercury and on the 20th it is 1.1degrees north of Venus.

Jupiter — In Cancer it is high in thesouthwest at sunset, and sets about 4hours later.

Saturn — In Leo, it is due south atsunset and sets shortly after midnight.

Jennie Zeidman reportingfindings at Dayton MUFOIMSymposium

information helpful to an understandingof the event. One perplexing omissionin this regard is a photograph ordiagram of the front windowarrangement that might help toevaluate the significance of Lt. Jezzi'sdiscrepant testimony. Nowhere is thisquestion confronted directly, exceptfor the inadequate suggestion that hisview was "obstructed." Why, and bywhat?

Lt. Jezzi failed to observe the twosalient features of the UFO as reportedby the others: its distinct structure andthe green beam of light. Yet he was inthe left front seat looking out of a largewindshield panel (see Figure 3). Sgt.Yanacsek, who was seated to the rightrear (behind Coyne) said the object"...easily filled up the entire windshield.If I had been sitting in the front seat Iprobably wouldn't have been able tosee anything but the aircraft, orwhatever it was." (p. 27). Sgt. Healey,seated to the left rear (behind Jezzi)and looking down the aisle betweenpilot and co-pilot, said "...it appeared totake up the entire—both—frontwindows." (p. 24).

Nothing in Figure 3 explains whyJezzi should not have been able toclearly see an object so large and soapparently close once it hovered infront of the helicopter, nor especiallywhy he failed to see the green beam oflight. His view to the right wasobstructed during the object'sapproach, but unless he closed his eyes

(continued on next page)

17

(Director's Message, Continued)reporting the Lawrence Coynehelicopter case in this 122 pagepaperback (8% x 11) book. Richard Hallhas reviewed the report for the Journal.Warren Nicholson, State SectipnDirector for the Columbus, Ohio areaand Wil l iam E. Jones, FieldInvestigator, were instrumental inlocating and interviewing groundwitnesses. It was my privilege to haveshared the podium with Jennie at the9th Annual MUFON UFO Symposiumin Dayton, Ohio, when she related thissignificant case.

Ann Druffel's column "CaliforniaReport" in the November-December1978 issue of the Journal is a bookreview of the Etherean Invasion byJohn de Herrera. At least foursubscribers have written to.MUFONreporting that their checks had beenreturned and a form letter was enclosedstating "Thank you for your order. Dueto difficulties beyond our control, thebook is not presently available for sale."(signed Hwong Publishing Company,10353 Los Alamitos Blvd., LosAlamitos, CA 90720.) Your Directorhas written to Mrs. Druffel to inquireabout the problem and if the book isavailable elsewhere.

On Friday, April 20,1979, SenatorHarrison H. (Jack) Schmitt (R.-New

. Mexico) and a former astronautchaired a panel of inquiry into the cattlemutilation cases currently disruptingrural areas of northern New Mexico. Itwas convened at the Public Library inAlbuquerque, N.M. with the followingMUFON people' planning to attend:Tom Adams, State Section Director,from Paris, Tex.; Richard B. Caudell,Acting State Director for New Mexico,from Albuquerque; Thomas P. Deuley,former State Section Director fromNorth Carolina and now living in Ft.Meade, Md.; and David L. Perkins,State Section Director for Coloradofrom Farisita. This very importantmeeting may disclose whether UFOsare involved in some cattle mutilationcases. A round silent aircraft with asearchlight aimed at the ground,hovering only 50 feet above the terrain,was observed by police officers on April9, 1979, near where animals were laterfound mutilated. Tests made on liveanimals by Gabe Valdez, State Police

Officer in charge of the investigation,using ultraviolet light, disclosed thatsome animals had a powder substanceon their hides that was composed oftwo rare earth elements and one"transitional metal. According to theSchoenfeld Research Labs inAlbuquerque, N.M., this powder wasidentical to the substance depositedupon a pickup truck by a hoveringUFO. MUFON has amassed a large fileby state on these mysterious events inan effort to determine if they are UFO.related. A report by one or more of theattendees to the April 20th meeting willbe .published in the MUFON UFOJournal.

Another phenomenon that mightbe related to UFOs is the appearance ofthe Bigfoot or Sasquatch creaturethroughout the world. For furtherinformation on this specialized aspect,we suggest that you write to Bigfoot-Sasquatch Information, P.O. Box 3035,Seattle, WA 98114, who publish amonthly newsletter.

The MUFON Journal has beenreceiving the NASA News, whichconsists of a series of news releasesconcerning the activities, announce-ments, contracts, and technicaladvances of the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration. Excerptsfrom this publication will be publishedwhenever the subject matter isapplicable.

You will note from the cover of thisissue, Number 135-May 1979, that theJournal is now current. This has beenaccomplished through the aid of threedouble-monthly issues, Numbers 132,133, and 134, and the wonderfulpatience of our members andsubscribers. Everyone will still receivetwelve issue numbers for their annual

• subscription as previously announced.The National Enquirer UFO Blue

Ribbon Panel and the Mini-Panel met in'a combined meeting in Mexico City onMarch 13, 1979, to select theiroutstanding UFO case for 1978. Firstprize went to two Charlotte, N.C.police officers Ron Arey, pilot, andHoward Dellinger, officer, and F.A.A:Control Tower Operator Ray Bader fortheir radar-visual case involving a policehelicopter. This case was submitted byMUFON, reported by investigators P.Wayne Laporte, Henry Morton, Jr.,

David Oldham, and George D.Fawcett, and edited by Walt Andrus inthe December 1977 issue of theMUFON UFO Journal, Number 121. Asecond award was presented to policeofficers in Semi Valley, Calif., for theirsighting experience.

(Helicopter, Continued)at the moment of presumed collision, itwould seem that he should have seenthe UFO as the others did at its closestpoint. This discrepancy does notseriously detract from the consistenttestimony by the others but it doesremain a puzzle.

Another bothersome point is inAppendix C where it is stated thatCoyne received a phone call from theArmy Surgeon General's Office from a"metaphysician" who inquired aboutCoyne's dreams. Coyne did reporthaving unusual dreams, including oneabout an out-of-body experience. Sodid Sgt. Healey, it turns out, except thathe attributes multiple phone calls to"the Pentagon" and states that Coynesent periodic written reports about theafter-effects to the Pentagon. Sincewhen is "metaphysics" a legitimatemedical discipline, and how do we knowthat the caller was authentic? To whomdid Coyne mail written reports asalleged by Healey? The reader is left,dangling about this intriguing turn ofevents and the many unansweredquestions it raises.

The case itself is clearlyestablished as a highly significant oneby the overwhelming weight ofevidence; the testimony by groundwitnesses literally adds a new andimportant dimension to the sighting.There can be little doubt that a "real"UFO was present, and that itsexplanation as a conventional aircraftor as a meteor (a strained hypothesis tobegin with) is untenable, as the authornotes. A thorough review of thesehypotheses is presented in Chapter II.

The report is an outstandingcontribution to the literature and couldserve as a model for badly neededcompilations and analyses of evidencein numerous other important cases. Itdeserves wide circulation —

Richard Hall

18

Lucius Farish

In Others' Words

The NATIONAL ENQUIRER iscontinuing its series of detailed reportson recent worldwide UFO activity. TheFebruary 20 issue spotlights someBrazilian cases involving injuries -caused by UFOs. The case of threesilvery humanoid creatures seen inSouth Africa is detailed in the February27 issue. A pilot for Continental Airlines,tells .of his sighting of a large UFO overWestern Texas in the March 6 issue.Also in this issue are articles on Erichvon Daniken's claim of a "lost city" inBrazil which houses the bodies ofextraterrestrials in a state of suspended -animation, plus a report on ProjectVISIT'S study of UFO abductions. TheMarch 13 issue tells of mutilated zooanimals in England arid the possibility ofUFOs being involved. An Italian .professor of meteorology describes hisUFO sighting in the.March 20 issue.; The February 20 issue of THE

STAR reported on the release of CIAmaterials relating to UFO activity. Dr.Stuart Greenwood, a consultant inaerospace engineering, gives hisopinions in. the February: 27 issue;regarding ancient Central and South ;

America medallions which seem todepict vehicles much like•'_ spaceshuttles. The New Zealand film whichgenerated so much publicity in earlyJanuary has been analyzed by Dr.Bruce Maccabee and has been found tobe a genuine UFO, according to' anarticle in the March 20 issue.

The January issue of BOULDERMONTHLY has an excellent article byDavid Perkins on cattle mutilations andUFOs, as well as a profile of UFOresearcher Richard Sigismond andother UFO/"mute" material. Copies ofthis issue are $1.50 each from the;

magazine's office at 1200 Pearl Street,Boulder, CO-80302.

SCENCE NEWS for February 17reports on last August's meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association in

Toronto, at which Dr. Alvin H. Lawsondiscussed his experiments with"imaginary abductees" and regressionsof "real" abductees.

The March 6 issue of US has asummary o f _ t he recent CIA"disclosures," as well as WilliamSpaulding's claims of computer analysisof UFO photographs.

The #3 issue of UFO UPDATEcontains a goodly portion of familiarmaterial, but the presentations seem tobe fairly reliable.

Again, the less said abo'ut IDEAL'SUFO MAGAZINE, the better.Therefore, be advised (or warned) thatthe #6 issue is now available.

The May issue of UFO REPORTfeatures articles by Jerome Clark,William L. Moore, Keith Lawrence,John A. Keel and others. Thepublication schedule for this magazinehas been revised again; it will now beissued seven times a year.

Some changes are apparently in^the works for OMNI magazine's "UFOUpdate" column. While Jame E. Obergwill continue to contribute columns,there will also be. occasional "guestcolumns" by other UFO researchers.-This is a definite move in the rightdirection for OMNI, which has shown.overall improvement since its first fewissues. The total elimination of Oberg'scontributions on UFOs would help stillmore.

. A previous column contained amention of K.W. Behrendt's booklet,UFO PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ORIGINS, AND PURPOSES. At thattime, Mr. Behrendt had formed a-corporation, Nova Enterprises, tohandle sales of the booklet. Thiscorporation, has now been dissolved,although photocopies of the bookletare still available from Mr. Behrendt(P.O. Box 890, Elizabeth, NJ 07207;$3.00) and checks should be madepayable to him, rather than to Nova

Enterprises.Local UFO. groups may be

interested in knowing that films (16mmor super 8mm) or video cassettes of the"In Search Of...." TV series areavailable for sale or rent. The programs,narrated by Leonard Nimoy, explore alltypes of unexplained .phenomena,including UFOs. They would be very

"good for club meetings or for publiclectures. Additional information may beobtained by writing to Pyramid Films,Box 1048, Santa Monica, CA 90406(Telephone 213/828-7577).

UFO NEWSCLJPPINGSERVICE

The UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOactivity, as it happens! Our service was'started in 1969, at which time we"con t rac ted with, a reputableinternational newspaper-clippingbureau 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 2(Xpage monthly reports,reproduced by photo o f f s e t ,containing the latest United States andCanadian UFO newsclippings, with-our foreign section carrying the latestBritish, Australian, New Zealand and

.other 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 NEWSCLIPPING SERVICERoute 1 — Box 220

Plumerville. Arkansas 72127

19

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE byWaltAndnu

Michael Sinclair, InternationalCoordinator, has announced theappointment of Emila Popik, 80-958Gdansk, Gdansk SKR, POC2T305,Poland as our new representative forthat nation. Emila holds a Master of ArtDegree and his prime interests lie in theareas of Biblical exegesis andparapsychology. During a recent visitto MUFON in Seguin, Texas, Paul B.Norman, 18 Hanby St., Brighton,Victoria 3186, Australia, agreed tobecome MUFON's representative toVictoria, working closely with KeithBasterfield, Continental Coordinator.Jules P. Vaillancourt, East RindgeRoad, Ashburnham, MA 01430 hasbeen selected to become the new StateSection Director for Worcester Countyby State Director Joe Santangelo.When Joseph A. Blake moved toDayton, Ohio, Timothy J. Carter, Ph.D., 1004 Montgomery St., Blacksburg,VA 24060 volunteered to accept theposition of State Section Director forthe counties of Montgomery, Craig,Giles, Pulaski, Roanoke, and Floyd inVirginia and also serve as a Consultantin Exo-Soc io logy . G. DavidMendenhall, Ph. D., 5392 Eric Place,C o l u m b u s , Ohio 43220 wasrecommended by both Warren B.Nicholson and James M. McCampbellto the position of Research Specialistand Field Investigator.

The Third Annual North CarolinaMUFON Training Conference isscheduled for July 14 and 15, 1979, inWinston-Salem, N.C. as announced byGeroge Fawcett, State Director andMs. Gayle C. McBride, Secretary/Treasurer of the Tarheel UFO StudyGroup. Your Director has been invitedto be a guest speaker at thisconference. MUFON members inadjoining states are invited to attend;this will be one week after MUFON's10th Annual UFO Symposium in SanFrancisco, Calif., on July 7 and 8. (See

an update on additional speakers in aseparate article in this issue of theJOURNAL.)

The British UFO ResearchA s s o c i a t i o n ( B U F O R A ) h a sannounced "The First LondonInternational UFO Congress" to beheld August 26 and 27, 1979, at theMount Royal Hotel, Marble Arch,London Wl (adjacent to Oxford St.).Guest speakers will be Dr. J. AllenHynek; J. Bernard Delair, MUFONRepresentative to the United Kingdom;and Norman Oliver, Editor of theBufora Journal. Richard F. Haines wastheir featured speaker in 1978 and TedBloecher, Co-Chairman of MUFON'sHumanoid Study Group, spoke inNovember 1976. Congratulations andbest wishes are extended to DavidWebb, the other Co-Chairman, and hisbride as they enter matrimony.

A nationwide publicity program byPrentice-Hall Publishing Co. tointroduce Raymond E. Fowler, authorof the new book The Andreasson Affairwill take Ray from coast to coast duringApril and May. The book is sub-titled"The documented investigation of awoman's abduction aboard a UFO." Itis a 304-page hardcover selling for $8.95in your local book stores. JohnSchuessler and Walt Andrus met withMr. Fowler in Houston on April 23rdwhen he appeared on TV, was a gueston radio station KTRH, and had a newsconference w i t h the HoustonChronicle. Paul Cerny, LeonardStringfield, Robert Greer, and Mrs.Idabel Epperson are helping with thepublicity arrangments under thedirection of Ms. Patty Neger, Prentice-Hall Publicity Director, when Ray visitstheir cities. Becoming involved in thepublicity for Ray Fowler, MUFON'sDirector of Investigations, is a naturalfunction, since the entire investigationof the Andreasson Affair was aMUFON project by our Massachusetts

people. The investigation and hypnoticregression sessions started in 1977,with 667 minutes of taped cassettes,,three volumes containing the reports,and transcriptions totaling 528 pages oftyped 8% x 11 sheets attesting to the"detail that the investigators filed withMUFON and CUFOS last year, prior towriting the book. The followingMUFON people were the primeinvestigators in addition to Ray Fowler:Dr. Harold J. Edelstein, Consultant inHypnosis; David Webb, Co-Chairmanof our Humanoid Study Group andformer Eastern Regional Director;Joseph Santangelo, State Director,Amateur Radio Director, and EasternRegional Director; Jules Vaillancourt,State Section Director; and Fred R.Youngren, State Section Director forMiddlesex County. Ted Bloecher hasreviewed the book for the Journal. Thiscase is listed as CEII/MA-77(67-4lA) inthe MUFON file. All of us in MUFONare proud of the detailed work that wasdone on this highly significant case byour Massachusetts colleagues.

Dr. Bruce Maccabee, StateDirector for Maryland and aConsultant, has submitted his 75-pagereport titled "What Really Happened inNew Zealand" on the radar-visual-motion picture film case that occurredearly on the morning of December 31,1978. He spent ten days in Australia andNew Zealand interviewing theparticipants and witnesses. His reportis presented in this issue of the Journal.

A Helicopter-UFO Encounter overOhio by Jennie Zeidman, a MUFONField Investigator, has just beenreleased and may be ordered from theCenter for UFO Studies, InformationServices, 1609 Sherman Avenue, Room207, Evanston, IL 60201 for $8.00 plus$1.00 for postage and handling. Mrs.Zeidman has done a very professionaljob of investigating, researching, and

(continued on page 18)