mufon ufojournal

8/14/2019 Mufon Ufojournal

1/19
http://www.mufon.com/http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/


2/19

MUFON UFOJOURNALNUMBER 175 SEPTEMBER 1982

Founded 1967.OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF

$1.50MUTUAL UFONETWORK, INC..

MUFON ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES


3/19

M U F O NUF O JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)10J Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155R ICH AR D HALLEditorA NN D R U F F E LAssociate Editor

LE N STRINGFIELDAssocia t e E d i to rM I L D R E D BIESELECo n t r ib u t in g Ed i t o r

W A L T E R H. A N D R U SDirector of M U FO NTE D B L O E C H E RD A V E W E B BCo-Chairmen,H u m an o id S t u d y G r o u p

PAUL CERNYPromotion/Publicity

R E V . BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

ROSETTA H O L M ESPromotion/Publ icityGREG L O N GStaff Writer

TE D PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERMedical Cases

DENNIS W. STACYStaff Writer

NORMA E. SHORTDW IGH T CO N N E L L YDENNIS HAUCK

Editor/Publishers EmeritusTh e MUFON UF O JOURNAL ispubl ished by the Mutu a l UFO Net-w o r k , Inc., Seguin, Texas. Member-ship/Subscription rates: $15.00 pe ryear in the U.S.A.; $16.00 foreign.Copyright 1982 by the M u t u a lUF O Netw ork. Second class postagepaid at Seguin, Texas. POST-MAST E R: Send form 3579 to advisechange of address to The M U F O NUF O JOURNAL, 103 OldtowneRd., Segu in, Texas 78155.

F R O M T H E E D IT O RThe N O V A "Case of the UFO" broadcast (see Open Letter andGuest Editorial) is a victory for the skeptical propagand ists, and animportant one because of the prestige of this public broadcastingscience series. The one-sided t reatment is nothing new for TV or f i l m"documentaries" in the U.S., but severely disppointing coming fromN O V A . W ha t w i l l it take to get the sort of docume ntary out l ined byD r. Hynek in his editorial? TV and other media producers need to beeducated to the large middle ground between th e sensational an doutrageous tabloids, on the one hand , and the skept ic-debunkers onth e other, as to the nature of truly puzzl ing UF O reports. If w e don'tdo it , w ho will?UFO reports are not all, by any means, unexplainable inconventional terms, bu t neither ar e t hey all (the skeptical position)readily explainable. W e have to start talking about an d focusingat tent ion on the some that are t ruly puzzl ing , and differentiatingsharply between categories. Otherwise, th e skeptics will cont inue toget away with burying th e serious cases among th e trivial, drowningou t th e potential "signal" with th e "noise."

In this issueNOVA: DIRECTOR'S OPEN LETTER 3B y Walt AndrusNOVA: GUEST EDITORIAL 4By J. Allen-HynekUFOs AND THE RAAF-THE INSIDE STORY: PART 1 6B y B i l l ChalkerUFO GENESIS 10

B y John PrytzCALIFORNIA REPORT . . . ' . . . . - 15B y A n n D r u f f e lPROPOSED FEDERATION OF UFO GROUPS 17By Rick HilbergIN OTHERS' W O R D S 19B y Lucius ParishDIRECTOR'S MESSAG E : 20By Walt Andrus

Th e contents of the MUFON UF O JOURNAL ar e determined by the editor, and dono t necessarily represent th e o f f i c i a l position of MU FON. Opinions of contributorsarethei r o w n , and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, th e s t a f f , or MUFON. Arti-cles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to published articles may be in aLetter to the Editor (up to a b o u t 400 words) or in a short article (up to about 2,000words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: th e article author m ay reply bu t will beal lowed h a l f th e wordage used in the response; th e responder may answer the authorb u t w i l l be allowed h a l f th e wordage used in the auth or's reply, etc.All submissions ar esubject to edi t ing fo r style, clarity, an d conciseness.Permission is hereby granted to quote from this issue provided no t more than 20 0words are quoted from any one article, th e a u t h o r of the article is given credit , an d the'statement "Copyright 1982 by the MUFON UF O JOURNAL, 10 3 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.


4/19

NOVA: DIRECTOR'S OPEN LETTER

September 29, 1982To: An Open Letter to all Stateand P rovincial D irectors andBoard of Directors of theM u t u a l U F O N e t w o r k ,Inc. /MUFONFrom: W alter H. And rus, Jr . ,Internat ional Direc to rSubject: Public B roadcasting SystemNO VA Program titled "TheCase of the UFOs" to beaired October 12, 1982

After requesting a private showingof the program on September 20, 1982via W T T W in Chicago, Dr. J . AllenHynek called Walt An d r u s to expresshis displeasure with the prog ram and toshare a proposed editor ial that w i l lappear in the CUFOS mo n th lypublication. I have attached a copy ofth e publicity release to M U F O N fromth e W G B H Public Information office inNew Y ork C ity, wh ich sounds excit ing,but does not men tion the names of anyof the part icipants. To do so woulddisclose that th e program is a" d e b u n k i n g e f f o r t " a n d w o u l dautomatically reduce th e n u m b e r ofviewers, since the general public isseeking solid information on the UFOp hen o men o n .Th e featured part icipants areJames E . Oberg, Philip J. Klass,M i c h a e l A . P e r s i n g e r , P h . D .( L a u r e n t i a n U n i v e r s i t y , S u d b u r y ,Ontar io, C anada) , D r. B rian Brady(U.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver , CO),W . "Bill" I reland (N ew Zealand De pt. ofScientific an d Industrial Research) withbrief edited appearances by Dr. BruceS. Maccabee and Alan Hendry . D r.Hynek advised that four reels of f i l mwere made about himself and the workof th e Center for UFO Studies , by thef i l m crew, however none of this wasused and his name w as nevermentioned in the program. Both Dr.

Maccabee's a n d A l a n H e n d r y ' scont r ibut ions . were edited in such amanner tha t it was made to appear thatthey agreed with th e aforementioneddebunkers .W h e n John Groom was inHouston , Texas making the p rogram,he filmed over tw o reels of video tape ofJ o h n S c h u e s s l e r , d i s c u s s i n g t h eCash /Landrum case at the si te tha t w asalso not used. Dur ing his visit, M r.Groom spent considerable t ime at thehome of James Oberg in nearbyFriendswood, Texas filming sequenceswhich ar e fea tu red in the program. Thiscreated suspicion in Mr. Schuessler 'smind concern ing th e integrity of JohnGroom's production as a legitimateUFO program. His suspicions havenow been conf i rmed .D r. Hynek is submitt ing a guesteditorial fo r publication in the M U F O NUFO Journ al expressing h is disgustand contempt with this obvious UF Od eb u n k in g program since only th ev o c a l m i n o r i t i e s w e r e f e a t u r e d .M U F O N i n S e g u i n w a s n e v e rcontacted to provide mater ial orsuggestions for the filming. A telephonecall, after th e f i l m was completed, fromMiss Elise Katz , W GBH in Boston,seeking publicity . photographs onAugus t 10, 1982 to publicize theprogram and for their news release ki twas the first t ime your Director hadheard about th e program. When Iquizzed her concerning who was in thef i l m , sh e noted that it included TravisWalton, the 1978 New Zealand motionpicture films and the D ep u ty V alJohnson i n c i d e n t i n W a r r e n ,Minneso ta . S he avoided naming th eparticipants, only th e cases to bediscussed.Needless to say, D r. Hy n ek andyour International Director , WaltAndrus, were more than mildlyconcerned w i t h t h e u n f a v o r a b l eimpression that th e general public willreceive after viewing an d hearing th edebun ker's view points, regardless of

how farfetched their theories an dexplanations may be when th e programhas been billed as a scientific expose.t e l e p h o n e d t h e W G B H P u b l i cInformation Office, 609 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10017, telephonenumber (212) 759-8851 and asked fo rth e Press Contact , Wilma Hill. In heabsence, I talked to Cindi JessenPromotion Assistant , wh o was also aparty to the News Release datedAugust 26 , 1982. W he n I asked her ifshe had screened th e program beforewriting th e publicity release, she repliedin th e affirmative. W h e n I pointed out toher that only th e major debunkers werefeatured in the program, she ad mittedthat the f i l m would be objectionable toserious UF O researchers and possiblyth e general public. I asked her toarrange for an advanced privateshowing, in San Antonio throughKLRN-TV, t h e PB S outlet , as she haddone for Dr. Hynek, but she refused(After having eliminated D r. Hynekfrom th e finished program, they mayhave felt a. little guilty.)Upon further quizzing CindJessen on how the participants wereselected for the filming, sh e said th at th elist w as provided by Ken drick Frazier toth e producers. As most of you knowKendrick Frazier is the Edi to r of "The' S k e p t i c a l I n q u i r e r , T h e Zeteticpublished by the Committee for theScientific Investigation of Claims of theParanormal. Whether John Mansfieldor John Groom (BBC) were f u l l y awareof th e biased backgrounds on thesemen I do not know, however theiediting of the f i l m , leaving out thepeople w ho could contribute positiveinformation was very obvious andappeared intentional.W h e n pressed fur the r , CindJessen said that al l complaints mu st bf i l e d in writing with the ExecutivProducer fo r N O V A , John Mansfieldsince "The Cas e .o f the UFOs" is a

(continued on next page)


5/19

Open Letter, ContinuedWGBH/BBC co-produc t ion , producedby John Groom ( B B C / B r i t i s hB roadcast ing Com pany). 'S ince any s t a t ement t ha t yourIn te rna t iona l Direc to r cou ld make inth e J o u r n a l or Dr . Hyne k ' s guestedi torial cou ld no t be pub l ished andreceived by our members beforeOctober 12,1 am resort ing to this openl e t te r t o key M U FO N D i r ec t o r sthroughout t he U S .A. and Canada.

I personal ly cal led M r. HowardG u t i n , G en er a l M an age r of KLRN-TVin S an A n t o n io , Texas and askedpermission to do a r eb u t t a l immediate lyaf t e r t h e PB S a i r ing on October 12th.He t h o u g h i t was a f i n e idea , butdec l ined s ince the ir ' October p rograms ched u l e h as a l ready gone to press an dcou ld no t be changed a t this late date.He has invited me to do a UFO segmentfor a ir ing in N o v e m b e r t h a t w i l l presen tth e pos i t ive aspects of the UFOp h e n o m e n o n a n d i n v e s t i g a t i v eact ivi t ies of M U F O N . He was veryrecep t ive to my ob jec t ions an d f e l t t h a tPB S should "flag" the ir s t a t ions if t heyant ic ipa ted a program that wouldcreate compla in t s .How can the rec ip ien t s of th isl e t te r he l p in neu t ra l i z ing th e negat iveop i n i ons of the vocal debunkers in themind s of the genera l publ ic an d W G B Hin p a r t i cu l a r ?1. Please contact th e genera lm an age r of y o u r P B S ou t l e t that carr iesth e NOV A series an d v o l u n t ee r to w o r kwi th t hem as I have done in SanAntonio, express ing your dissat is-fact ion with th e October 12th p rogram.2. C o m m u n i c a t e th e informat ion inth i s l e t t e r and W GB H news re lease tono t only th e M U F O N m e m b e rs in y o u rs ta t e , t hrough th e State Sect ionDirec to rs o r direct ly t h r o u gh y o u r o w nmail ing l i s t , bu t also to the news media .

3. W r i t e an d f i l e a le t ter ofc o m p l a i n t i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h eprogram is aired on October 12thexpress ing you r displeasure with th efact t ha t t he NOVA ser ies on PBSwould p resen t such a biased programu t i l i z i n g o n l y t h e o p i n i o n s a n dhypotheses of the m em b er s of the UFOSub-Committee of "The Com mittee forth e Scientific Invest igat ion 'of Claims ofth e Paranormal , " w h o have ded ica ted

NOVA: GUEST EDITORIALB y J. Allen H y n e k , P h D .

O ne shou ld perhaps sympathizewith th e producers of the N O V A series.They really bought a pig-in-the-pokewhen they purchased th e program"The Case of the UF O" with w hich t heyopened the ir ne w TV season on Oct.12 . One can hope tha t they have bet t erluck with ensu ing p rograms , and also,one can hope t ha t t hey do no t con t inuet o p r o d u c e m i s l e a d i n g ' a d v a n c eadvert is ing.Th e program w as advertisedwidely as "a r igorous , scientificinvest igat ion of the fact , f i c t i o n an dhoax of unident if ied f l y i n g objects," an dth e press release s tated, "NOV A takesa pen et ra t ing look a t s evera l famousU F O reports . . . .and proves thatthemselves to explain ing away the UF Op h e n o m e n o n w i t h t h e i r o w npreconceived opinions. Please addressyour le t ter to :

M r. John Mansfie ldExecu t ive P r o d u ce r fo r N O V AW G B H Ed u ca t io n a l Fo u n d a t io n125 W es tern Aven ueBoston, MA 02134B e sure to identify th e programdate , and the PBS s t a t ion where youviewed th e program. Th e W G B HPubl ic Informat ion Office in New Y o r k ,NY h as r eco m m en d ed this as thep r o p e r p r o ced u r e in which to voicecompla in ts .Th e program shou ld be moreappropr ia te ly titled "The Case Againstthe UFO," ins tead of being billed as"The Case of the UFOs."This is an o p p o r t u n i t y fo r everyoneinteres ted in secur ing answers and

resolving the UFO p hen o m en o n tot ake positive act ion by get t ing activelyinvolved as suggested in y o u r ow ncommuni t i e s . This open let ter w i l l bepublished in a fu tu re issue of theM U F O N U F O JO U R N A L .Sincerely yours ,Wal t er H . A n d r u s , Jr.In te rna t ional Direc to r

serious study of these mysteriousphen ome na is very much al ive, and mayj u s t now be on the verge of significantdiscoveries." A come-on if t here everw as one! Th e ac tua l p rogram, however ,gave th e impress ion that anyones p e n d i n g t i m e o n b r o a d - b a s e dinvestigations of the UF O p hen o m en o nwas not playing with a f u l l deck of cards.I had the oppor tun i ty of previewing"The Case of the UFO" through th ecourtesy of WTTW, the PBS station inChicago, several weeks before itsairing, and was shocked at the unfairt rea tment t he sub jec t was given.Having been involved, with AllanH en d r y , in several days of taping for

this program at the Center for UFOStudies , I was amazed to see how muchmater ia l w as ed i t ed ou t , making for avery biased pre sentat ion. For example:we had been asked for a "really goodcase" to re-enact for taping. Hen dry,using our criteria for good cases, (aclose e n c o u n t e r , c o m p l e t e l yindependent witnesses , and preferablya dayt ime occurrence) suggested acase he had carefully investigated someyears ago, the Joliet case of M ay 8,1977(see UFO Handbook, p. 114) in which aresearch chemist and her husband , inone car, and a physician and his wife inanother car , 15 miles apart but on thesame road, saw at about 2 p.m., a silver"straw ha t" as large as the m oon, flysilently over the top of their cars(moving rapidly and crgamsf th e localwind direc t ion) .The four witnesses were kindenough to give up a day of their lives tore-enact th e even t fo r N O V A in theinteres ts ( they thought) of science an dt ru th . Bu t NOVA never used this , Iimagine, not because they couldexplain i t , but because they couldn ' t !Instead, they used their t ime on the fakep ic tu res from Warminster , England,UFOs which ar e easily shown to beSoviet space shots, and on onea s t r o n a u t ( C o n r a d ) d o w n p l a y i n gastronaut s ight ings in general . (Noment ion , o f course, was made of



6/19

UFOS AND THE RAAF--THE INSIDE STORY:PART IBy Bill Chalker( 1982 - Bill Chalker )

On Monday morning, January 11,1982,1 arrived at the Russell Offices ofth e Department of Defence, inCanberra, to under take a review of theRoyal Australian Air Force (RAAF)/Department of Defence UF O files.This was the first t ime that a civilianresearcher had been afforded this sortof access.For almost 30 years, th e RAAF hasbeen th e official body invested with th eresponsibility of investigating reportsofUFOs or unu sual aerial s ighting (UAS)reports in Australia and its territories1.N o clear and unambiguous p ic ture hasemerged about the role the RAAF playsin the UFO controversy in Australia.On one hand there are supportersof th e "cover-up" scenario. That is, theRAAF is covering up its high levelinvolvement, perhaps in concert withth e alleged United States A ir Forcecensorship conspiracy2. On the otherhand, w e have th e position thatsuggests that the R A A F isb u r e a u c r a t i c a l l y l o c k e d i n t o aresponsibility it has long since decidedis a waste of t ime, but cont inues as aservice to the general public.The only public record of caseinvestigations by the RAAF has beenth e "Summaries of U n u s u a l AerialSightings." These consist of data, t ime,location, very brief details of the event ,an d "possible cause." Nine of thesewere produced, covering th e yearsfrom 1960 up to and in including 1977.However, th e 1977 Summary was thelast to appear and it was not until 1980that th e Depar tment of Defenceadvised interested parties that:

" the p r a c t i c e o f c o m p i l i n g a n n u a ls u m m a r i e s o f U A S r e p o r t s w a sdiscontinued in 1978. This was in line withthe Department of Defence policy of theRAAF no w investigating reports purely asa"service to the general public." All reportsar e s t i l l retained fo r record purposes an dar e available to whoever seeks access tothem.3However "access" did not meandirect access, bu t instead referred to

6

th e often unpredictable and incompletecompliance to requests , with th edispatch of individual reports (in whichthe personal de tails of witnesses arenormally deleted) and/or standardpublic relation replies.After signing in at the police de sk, Iwas escorted from Building A toBuilding C of the Russell OfficesDefence complex in Canberra , by Mr.Noel Tanswell of Defence Publ icRelations Research Press. In theoffice of the Directorate of PublicRelations Press Section, M r.Tanswell showed me the files that hadbeen mad e available. There we re 18 alltogether. Four were given to me toexamine first.

I was shown to a desk in a quietcorner by a window , which looked outinto th e rest of the Russell Officescomplex. D ur ing that day and for thenext 3 (the latter in the office of theDirector of Public Relations, th edirector being on leave), Iconducted anexhaustive examination of the RAAFUFO files. I was given free access to aphotocopier and was allowed to makenotes, both written an d with a taperecorder. In short, I was permitted acompletely open review of the 18 filesmade available.Two types of files have beenmaintained by the RAAF/Departmentof Defence, namely:(1) "Unidentified Flying Objects -Reports of Sightings," an d(2) "UFOs Enquir ies from membersof th e public an d Flying Saucerorganisations."Th e sightings largely consist ofR A A F report f o r m s ( g e n e r a l l ycontaining th e standard 3 part forms,namely Part 1 Report by Observer,Par t 2 Unit Repor t , an d Part 3 Investigating Officer's Evaluation),c o v e r in g m e m o r a n d u m s , l e t t e r s,telexes, and communications fromother G o v e r n m e n t bodies ( e .g .Depar tment of Transport, Meteor-ological Bureau, an d police).The "Enquiries" mainly hold lettersof enquiry from th e general public,

civilian UFO groups, individuals, an dothers, d o c u m e n t a t i o n searches,internal memorandums and minutepapers, draft replies to requests, an dmiscellaneous documents.The files made available to medur ing my January 1982 visit consistedof 7 Enquiry f i l e s covering th e periodfrom April 1966 to date, an d 11 sightingfiles containing reports from 1975 to1981.A l t h o u g h t h e E n q u i r y f i l e s( through documentat ion searches toanswer requests) and my own researchprior to this officially sanctioned reviewp r o v i d e d m e w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l einformation on RAAF investigationsprior to 1975, I was disappointed withth e lack of pre-1975 sighting files.Squadron Leader Ia n Frame, th eAir Force Liaison Officer responsiblefor th e handl ing an d compilation ofUFO sightings in Canberra ,4 gave thisexplanation of the situation, in a letterenclosed with th e files given to me forreview:

These are all the files readily available. W ear e hampered by the fact that th eDepartment changed from Melbourne toCan berra in the early 60s. F iles prior to thisperiod have been very hard to locate.I hope that you appreciate th at th e RAAFexamines UASs primarily fo r their Defenceconten t . If occurrences have no obviousimport we have very few resourcesavailable fo r checks other than initialcursory examinations. I hope that you arenot too disappointed. I'm afraid that UA Sar e only a very minor secondary role for allpeople involved in the chain. Best of luckwith your endeavours bu t these files are allthat I have been able to recover from ou rsystem.Of particular interest w as thatcopies o f p r e v i o u s l y u n a v a i l a b l eDepartment of Defence (Air ForceOffice) Unus ua l A er i a l S ig h t ing sSummaries for reports in 1978, 1979and 1980 (Summary Nos. 10, 11 & 12respectively) were provided for me.Th i s i s despite th e p r e v i o u s l y



7/19

RAAF , ContinuedTable 1. Breakdown of RAAF UFO InvestigationsYear196019611962196319641965196619671968196919701971197219731974197519761977197819791980

Total no.o f reports

2014251717527495

1019437528719367393925118.4547

1258

. No."Unknowns""00001210024611424463015

10102

% "Unknowns"0.00.00.00.05.93.91.40.00.02.1' 10.811.512.62.13.010.2

10.224:025.433.321.3

Source of informationS u m m a r y No. 1S u m m a r y No. 1S u m m a r y No. 1S u m m a r y No. 1S u m m a r y No. 1S u m m a r y No. 1S u m m a r y No. 1Summa ry No. 1S u m m a r y No. 1Summa ry No. 2Summary No. 3S u m m a r y No. 3S u m m a r y No. 4Summa ry No. 5S u m m a r y No. 6Summa ry No . 7S u m m a r y No. 8S u m m a r y No. 9S u m m a r y No. 10S u m m a r y No. 11Summary No. 12

8.1%*Some "unkno wns" are n ot inc luded due to low weight status, i.e., insufficient information or possible explanation provided w as probable.

m e n t i o n e d p o l i c y change w h i c hdiscontinued the summaries in 1978.These documents allow me to providean upda ted summary of the RAAF'sinvestigation of UFOs (See Table 1) .

Classic Case EnquiriesIt is interest ing to see w h a t th eRAAF files say about "classic" cases.T h e "enquiry" f i l e s c o n t a i n e dinformation on a number of these dueto f i l e searches under taken to answerrequests for information from varioussources . For e x a m p l e , t h econtroversia l Drury f i l m affair of 1953,w as covered in the files with somesurprising details, and the presence ofseveral copies of frames of the f i l m .The R AAF files described th efamous Tully incident in the followingmanner :

At about 9.00 a.m. on 19th January 1966,M r. G.A. Pedley, a banana grower of Tully,Qld, observed a light grey non reflecting dullobject, reported to be about 25 feet long: and 8 feet deep, rise vertically t hen climb onan angle of 45 from a height of abou t 30 feet

above marshland w hich w as s i tua ted about25 yards away from his position. Therewas an associated hiss ing noise whichdecreased as the "object" rose. Theapparent shape was described as "twosaucers, face to face," but no s t ruc tu ra ldetail w as observed. The dura t ion of theobservation was approximately 15secondsand i t disappeared in mid air whils t recedinginto the dis tance (not assessed).A clearly defined near circular depressionremained in evidence in swamp grass at thepoint from wh ich the object was seen rising,and measured about 32 feet long by 25 feetwide. Th e grass w as f la t tened in clockwisecurves to water level within the circle andth e reeds had been uprooted from th e m u d .There was no scorching of grass orsurrounding trees and the observer statedthat there was no smell of combustion. . ..A l t h ough a conclusive determination couldnot be m a d e , the mos t probableexplanation was tha t the sighting was of a"willy willy" or circular wind phenomenonwhich f l a t tened the reeds and sucked updebris to a height of about 30 feet, t husfo rming w h a t appeared to be a "flyingsaucer," before moving of f and dissipating.Hissing noises are known to be associatedwith "willy willies" and the theory is alsosubstantia ted by th e clockwise circular

conf igurat ion of the depression.I summarized th e controversyabout th e Tully i nc ident in "Tully(Australia) 'saucer nests'," pgs. 370-371, Th e Encyclopedia of U FO s5.Other documents in the En qui ryfiles were requests fo r i nformat ion oncases, which ostensibly it seems th eRAAF di d not know about . Forexample, a 1967 enquiry related to analleged UFO event , thought to havetaken p lace over But te rworth RAAFairfield, M alaysia, back in the first weekof July 1959, would be ext raordina ry ift rue . The enqui ry re fe rred to two F-86fighters being scrambled to investigate

a UFO, The aircraft fired on the UFOwhich exploded and ash f e l l to theground. The ash was allegedly retrieve dan d sent to Canberra for analysisAno t h e r UF O appeared th e followingd a y , apparently looking for its "losmate ." When tw o F-86 fighters weragain sent up, the planes allegedlydisintegrated within a mile of the UFO



8/19

R A A F , ContinuedAccord ing to the s tory, the aircraftan d pilots were never found. The filesc o n t a i n i n t e r n a l m e m o r a n d u m sbetween But terwor th RAAF base andC an be r ra in 1967, which appear toindicate that they were unaware of theevents . My o wn enqu iries, ably assistedby John Pry tz of Canberra, have failedto elict any fur the r information or toconfirm wh eth er an y aircraft were lostat the t ime. I would certainly befascinated to hear wh ether anyone hasanything concrete on this divert ing tale.Even th e book Alien Honeycomb6had some references to it in the files. Aninternal memo randum dated 1 Aug 80f r o m D E F A I R C A N B E R R A t oHQOC SOINT r e g a r d i n g"Confirmation of Data in Book 'AlienHoneycomb'," stated:T he t ex t of the book is sufficiently vague tomake trac ing informat ion from servicerecords a very t i r ing an d difficult task. Acheck of files held at Air Force Office hasproven negative.U nf o r t una t e l y , a "no commen t" or "noinformat ion" response from th e RAAF isonly going to encourage th i s type ofj our na l i sm. Accord ing ly , t is requested tha tHQOC initiate a check of records( includ ing those at HQ A M B (Amberly -B.C.) for data wh ich could rela te to thismat te r .In a telex dated 5 Sep 80 andcategorized as "unclassif ied/rout ine,"from HQOC to DEFAIR Canberra , th efollowing information was given:F U R T H E R TO REF A THE F OLLOWINGR E T R A N S OF INF O RE CE I V E D F ROMHQ A M B . QUOTE: 1. S U M M A R I E S OFUNI DE NT I FI E D A E RIA L SIGHTINGSP R E P A R E D B Y DEPT OF AIR B E T W E E NM ID 1968 A ND MID 1969 HAV E BE ENC H E C K E D FOR M E N T I O N OF THECASE. NO M E N T I O N OF THATPARTICULAR SIGHTING APPEARS INTHE S U M M A R I E S . 2. THIS IS U N U S U A LBECAUSE IT IS OUR UNDERSTAND-IN G THAT T H E S U M M A R I E S W E R ECOMPREHENSIVE A N D N O T EDITED

. LISTS OF REPORTED SIGHTINGS. 3.UNLESS REQUESTED B Y C O M M A N DTHIS HQ DOES NOT PROPOSE TOTAKE THIS MATTER F URTHER.As it turned out it appearsno th ingfurther w as done. My o wn opinions onAlien Honeycomb ar e well known 7.Th e "Enquiry" files contain documents

related to wh at appear to be retr ievalsof mundane debr is , but none of themrelate to the "Alien Honeycomb" a f f a i r(e.g. "Suspect Air Vehicle Wreckage Perenjori , W.A . 1974"). More thanlikely the key to "alien honeycomb"( s u b s e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d a spredominately woven fibreglass!) liesnot in a UFO (or UA S) f i l e , but in filesrelated to aircraft accidents andinvestigations.Several surprising finds were madein th e files, most notably documentswhich gave insights into RAAF an dAustralian government policies on theUF O subject.A RESTRICTED Foreign Affairsd o cu men t about " UNGA 33: SPECIALPOLITICAL COMM ITTEE: ITEM 126- E S T A B L I S H M E N T OF ANA G E N C Y O R D E P A R T M E N T O FT H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S F O RU NDE R TAKING, CO-ORDINATINGA N D D I S S E M I N A T I N G T H ERESULTS OF RESEARCH INTOUNIDENTIFIED F LY IN G OBJECTSAN D R E L A T E D P H E N O M E N O N "contained a review by P.A. Jackson, fo rth e Austral ian UN delegation, of theat tempts by Sir Eric Gair y to obtain UN .concurrence for his idea of a UN UFOagency. The document summaries thenegotiat ions that took place, notingthat the result was "a much moremodest draft decision," which w assubsequently adopted by consensus ofth e Special Political Committee on 7December 1978. T h e d o c u m e n tconcludes:

The outcome .was a satisfactory one fromou r point of view an d from th e points ofviewof those other countr ies who did not wantto accede to the demands of the Grenadadraf t resolut ion but a t the same t ime did notw a n t to offend th e Governmen t ofGrenada. The draft decision did no t committhe Oute r Space Committee to do morethan receive and consider documents fromGrenada and 'permit Grenada to present it sviews to the Committee. This is somethingw hich Grenada, or any other country couldhave done a t anytim e without a decision ofthe Genera l Assembly, but Grenada wassatisfied. Most impor tan t ly , th e d raf t ,decision did n ot inscribe the item on theagenda fo r U N G A 34 .In retrospect, it would have beenfar more expedient for Sir Eric Gairy tohave devoted more time to domesticmatters , fo r before long, he was

deposed in a coup.8With regard to RAAF UFO policy,tw o 1966 d ocu me nts w ere especiallyi lluminating. These were REST RICT-E D D e p a r t m e n t of Ai r ( l a t e rDepar tm en t of Defence) Minute Papersentitled an d dated, "UFOs RAAFHANDLING OF PROB LE M, 16 Aug66, and "UNIDENTIFIED FLYINGOBJECTS - RAAF POLICY", 12 Oc66 . The first of these minute papers,arose out of a conflict between th eIntelligence an d Public RelationsDirectorates of the Depar tm en t of Air ,over whether "the dis tr ibution ofinterested members of the public of the' S u m m a r y of Unident i f ied Aer ia lSightings Reported to Depar tm en t ofAir From I960'" was to cease. TheDirectorate of Air Force Intelligencew as "keen to spftpedal the UFObusiness" an d gave "the reason fo r thiscessation (as) th e undesirability ofwhet t ing the interest of the public inUFOs."T h e "Summary..." grew out of arequirement for certain statistical UFOinformation to provide mater ia l for aministerial reply to a parliamentaryquest ion. OP R (Direc tora te of PublicRelat ions - B.C.) willingly under took to draftan answer for the Minis ter (a task whichentailed folio-for-folio research throughsome four or five parts of the relevant file),because it felt tha t th e otherwiseburdensome task had a distinct side-benefit , namely , th e collation of anunclassified and innocuous summary ofUF O "sightings" in AUSTRALIA for thepast five years.D PR envisaged the day w h e n it would beable to reply to all public UFO enqu iries byth e mere dispatch of the "Summary..."covered, if thou ght necessary, by a letter inwhich we expla in tha t we are not preparedto engage in any subsequent d isputa t ion(i.e., take our "Sum mary..." or leave it; wehave told you all we kn ow ). Inorder to keepthis "Summary. . ." current , D/DAFI (Ops)was good enough to agree to provide DPRwith th e basic information which D PRwould expect to have been security clearedfor general release before adding theinformat ion to the "Summary..."In this 16 Aug 66 Minute Paper,D PR directed at DAFI (Directorate ofAir Force Intelligenc e), "a plea toremove th e present restriction on thesharing of our unclassified UFO

(continued on next page)8


9/19

RAAF , Continuedinformation with the public, for thefollowing reasons:

(a ) T he RAAF really has no r ight to act as anarbiter of the subjects in w h i c h th e publ icm ay or may not take an interest . Thosemembers of the public w ho care to concernthemselves with UF O facts an d fancies al lknow that the Depar tment of Air i s theo f f i c i a l , governmental examiner of reportsof sight ings in th is country and any at temptby us to suppress publ ic interest (how evermisguided w e may th ink t ha t i n t e r e s t to be)only helps to suppor t th e generalimpression that we are si t t ing on fat files ofin formation , vital to our secur i ty. This, Isub m i t , i s the last th ing we w ant to happen.(b ) The U SAF is be l ieved not to be adverset o mak ing public it s unclassi f i ed. UFOfindings, which it does in sheer self defenceand , while it is t r ue we do not have to defendourselves against th e same sort of pressurefor informat ion as that appl ied to theAmerican ai r force , it seems self evidentthat we shou ld, in our d efence , devisesome simple piece of adm inist rat ivemachinery to cope with that steady flow ofUFO enquir ies, ant i -auth or i ty (RAAF?)press i nnue ndos an d statements verging onpublic accusat ions of duplicity w h i c h we w i l lnever (be able to dodge, as long as wecont i nue to play ou r unclassified UF Ocards too close to our chests.(c ) D P R , w h i c h bears th e b r u n t of thecur r e n t pressure by replying to most of thepublic UF O e nqui r i e s , feels that unless w ecome out into the open we always will be thesubject of occasional (and unn ecessary)adverse publicity.(d ) The cat is already out of the bag (areference to the si tuat ion that the existenceof the "Summary. . ." was no t widely know n,but that a AFSRS (Aus tral ian Flying SaucerResearch Socie ty a civilian group)representat ive had wr i t ten, asking for a"brief assessment of sightings," implyingtha t th e existence of the "Summary. . ." w asbecoming common knowledge - B.C.).In sum: by cont i nu ing wi th the old pol icy ofplaying our UF O cards close to the chest ,we only foster the incorrect (butnevertheless widely held) belief that wehave much vital in formation to hide . On theo the r hand , by main tain ing a cur r e n t"Summ ary. .." (wh ich OPR is prepared todo , w i th your con t i nue d help) w e dispose inone blow , of the UFO enthu siasts belief that(a ) he is not be ing taken in to the RAAF'sc o n f i d e n c e ; a n d ( b ) t h e R A A F i sdesperately determined to suppress UFOin formation to prevent nat ional panic. . .The Director of Public Relations

concluded .his M i nu te Paper to theDirector of Air Force Intell igence, bystating, "while securi ty is. not DPR ' sa f f a i r , our relations with th e generalpublic (c ranks an d all)certainly is and Ifeel s t rongly ,from the PR point of view,that we are handling this wholebusiness in an unnecessar i ly rigid an dunimaginative way." .

The second Minute Paper, dated12 Oct 66, continued the same t heme ,but confirms tha t uncer t a in ty and/orconfusion were keynotes in R A A FUF O policy during 1966 hal lmarksthat would continue, albeit waxing an dwaning, r ight up to today. It stated, inpart, that:There appears . to be some confusionc o n c e r n i n g D e p a r t m e n t p o l i c y overUFOs...On file...there is a minister ialstatement to the effect: "Anyone who isinterested in sightings of UFOs can apply tothe Depar tment of Air ' fo r i n for mat i on onth e subject and is welcome to a synopsisofUFO sight ings which includes a very briefassessment of the probable causes." Thiss t a t e me nt w as made in answer toministerial representat ion. It w ould appearhowever that the policy represented by thisstatement may hot have ref lected th e viewof ; D A F I , despite e a r l i e r , a l t h o u g hinconclusive evidence of hi s 'xpncu r rence ....DAFI has proposed to DGPP who in t u r nrefer red to DCAS t ha t ou r approach toUF O repor ts be liberalised. It does no tappear t ha t e i ther DGPP o r DCAS wereaware of the Mini s t e r ' s ' s t a t e me nt . In myopinion w e must e i ther comply wi th th eterms of that statement or inform th eminister of our "new" approach, if it is notintended to provide the synopsis ofsight ings an d on th is I am n ot a t all togetherclear from reading th e files.... As it tu rned ou t , in addition to thep e r e n n i a l press release, the"Summary..." did become th e publicfront of the RAAF invo lvement in theAustralian UFO controversy. By theend of the sixties, th e S u mmar ycrystallised as a .largely annual a f f a i r .No. 1 covered reports from 1960 to1968. No. 2 covered th e 1969 accounts,while 1970 an d 1971 reports appearedi n S u mmar y No. 3. From 1972 up to1977 i n c l u s i v e , t h e S u m m a r i e sappeared somewhat erratically, butcovering each year separately (namelySummaries Nos. 4. to 9).

RAAF BureaucracyThe RAA F had ostensibly becomel o c k e d i n t o a b u r e a u c r a t i c a l l yorchestrated formula for handl ing the"UFO problem." Part of a 1980 "Brieffo r th e Minis ter fo r Defence on R A A Fpolicy for reporting of UAS...",describes the formula:- E a c h R A A F base in Aust r a l i a has an officerresponsible for the invest igat ion of UAS.Unde r p r e se n t a r r ang e me nt s , anyone w h osees, (o r t h i nk s t he y have se e n) an aer ialobject which cannot be identified shouldcontact th e ne ar e s t RAAF base, or if th is isnot possible, th e nearest Pol ice Stat ion.Repor ts rece ived at R A A F bases ar ethoroughly invest igated and the r e su l t sonfor w ar de d t o De par tme nt o f De fe nce(Air Force Office) where they are checkedan d filed. T he person mak ing t he originalrepor t is 'advised by the appropr iate RAAF

: base of the f indings of the i nve s t i g a t i onif sorequested.Al i houg h t he UAS files are u nclassi f ied theyare not made avai lable to the general publicin the i r comple te form as many of thepeople submit t ing reports wish to remainanonymous. However , a s u m m a r y of the

- f indings of any par t i cu l a rcase can be made'available.I n ' s u m m a r y , th e R A A F does no t conceafacts about UAS and a re qui te prepared torelease detai ls of par t icular reportedsight ings to the general public on requestThis assumes t ha t the case has beenreported and invest igated by the R AA F inthe fi rs t instance .V a r i a t i o n s u p o n t h i s recentexpression of the R A A F UFO formulahas led to an amplification of theproblems noted in the 1966 MinutePapers already discussed. The RAAFinterest in UFOs vacillated around apublicly stated lo w priority base.While th e RAAF investigationsremain th e only k n o w n official s tudy ofUFOs, ' w i t h a l l i t s perhapsu n d e r s t a n d a b l e b u r e a u c r a t i c a n dm i l i t a r y t r a p p i n g s , th e s c i e n t i f i c

investigation of UFOs takes secondplace to the resolution of any defenceand/or political implications. Sincenearly three decades of involvemenhave probably con firmed for the RAAFtha t there is a limited defence contenand that the majority of reports ar em i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s o f prosaicphenomena, such investigations have(continued on next page)


10/19

RA A F, Continuedtaken on a low prior i ty .The aspect to suffer first is theeffort to establish whether somethingreally interesting is at the heart of thesmall residue of cases referred to as"unk nown" o r "unidentified." Instead,fo r th e RAAF they remain jus t tha t "unknown." In fact one gets theimpression from th e files tha t th e RAAFsimply does not know what to do withth e really provocative reports itr e c e i v e s . T h e f a c t t h a t these"unknowns" are few in n u mb er isprobably convincing enough evidencefor the RA AF that perhaps such casesare ultimately resolvable, but theproblem of possible ni l re tu rn fo r effortexpended argues against th eir detailedinvestigation.H o w e v e r , t h e q u a l i t y o finvestigations in both prosaic andsignificant reports has drawn criticismfrom man y sources, perhaps nonemore pointed than that of Dr. ClaudePoher, as expressed in a letter locatedin th e RAAF UFO Enqui r iesfiles.Poherle d France's first major o f f i c i a l UF Oresearch group Group d 'Etude desPhenomenes A e r o s p a t i a u x N o nIdentifies ( G E P A N ) u n d e r th eauspices of the French equivalent toNASA. In 1976 he addressed thisreponse to the R A A F ' s UFOinvestigation, after th e Depar tment ofDefence had sent him some of the i rAnnual Summaries:

May I suggest, fo r t ransmission topersonnel responsible for this w o r k , t h a tsome of the "possible causes" me nt i one d inthese summaries are not acceptable....Dr. Poher gave an example of aninnocuous observation at Wickham,NSW, on 4th April, 1975, of a "silverobject about the size of a cricket ball,"

which the "S umm ary" lists as Ven us forth e "possible cause."Poher concluded:....for the 4th Apri l , 75 , th e planet wasunderthe hor izon so the cause V e nus isr i d i c u l o u s . There are m a n y otherimpossibilities like this in the papers yo usent me. I t h i nk on e should avoidpubl icat ion of these documents w i thout acareful check by specialists of the differentscientific disciplines involved, so as not tohave, one day a journalist or a scientistholding th e Services of the Australian

UFO GENESISB y John Pry tz

The modern UFO phenomenaflowered, indeed exploded, into publicawareness, wo rld-wide, in the late1940's. What 's new you ask? Nothing ,B ut wha t I want to know is why ? Was itan almost inevitable fad (a "fad" whichjus t w i l l not go away , which in itself tellsus something about the nature of thephenomena) given th e climate of thet imes, w hich needed only the smallestof triggering mech anisms to set thetrain of events in motion, or, was thisultra-flap (o f world-wide,decades -longd u r a t i o n ) s o m e t h i n g w h i c h n ohistorian, sociologist, or psychologistwould or could have predicted inadvance, even in their wildest dreams,nor can retrospectively find a solid an ddefinable cause for?To answer this question would go along way toward defining whether thebulk of the hard-core, bona fide, UFOcase histories, at least at that t ime ( thelate 1940's), were the products ofinternal or external intelligence. I say"at that time" because in order to findsocially, historically, culturally, an dpsychologically unpol lu ted UF O cases,an environm ent where UFOs were not

p a r t an d p a r ce l o f t he p u b l i cconsciousness, one has to go back tothat beginning. (I n addition, th e earliercases are valuable in weeding outvarious ph ysical explanation s such assatellites, etc.1) It's to o easy today tosa y that people have UFOs/spaceflight/ETI, etc. on the brain, hence statetha t X % of today's UFOs are internallygenerated by the mind. B ut was that ,could that have been, true in the late1940's?Of course, there was the airshipmystery near th e t u r n of the cen turybut:Disappoint ing as it may seem, there is littledoubt that the ai rship waves of 1896-97were a product of hoaxes, wishful t h i nk ing ,and dow nr ig h t fake journal ism.2

And of course th e foo-fightermystery of WWII and the "ghost-rocket" phenomena of 1946 predatedth e "modern" UFO era, not to mentionan every now and again isolated UFOsighting scattered throughout th e firsthalf of the 20th Century. None of these(continued on next page)

Depar tment of Defence up to r idicule .. Such "impossibilities" are all toofamiliar to observers of RAAF UFOinvestigations, e.g. Cressy (1961) "Astronomical" ; near M oe (1963) "Tornado l i k e m e t e o r o l o g i c a lmanifestations"; and Vaucluse Beach,Sydn ey (1965) "tornado." (UFOsightings from RAAF files w i l l beincluded in Part II.)

R E F E R E N C E S & NOTES1. Chalker, W.C., "The Royal Austral ian AirForce (RAAF) Invest igat ion of UFOs,"A.C.O.S.Bulletin (now th e Journal of the AustralianCentre for UFO Studies) No. 20., Au gus t, 1979,pgs. 3-8, an d MU FO N UFO Journal, No. 143,January, 1980, pgs. 3-6.2. See for example th e books of Donald Keyhoean d The UFO Controversy in America by DavidM . Jacobs, Signet, 1976.3. Letter to B.C. from L.A. Lavers, Director ofPublic Relations, Depar tment of Defence (Air

Force Office), dated 6 August 1980.4. Sqd. Ldr. Frame explained to me t ha t his "UFOduties" were only a part of his duties. He had 3basic dut ies, one of them being co-ordinat ingUF O sight ing (handl ing & compi lat ion) , an d thiswas the most minor of these. His UFO dut ies infact were f i l l - i n act ivi t ies dur ing other dut ies. Theposition, normally in the domain of Air ForceIntelligence, is assigned generally on a more orless 3 year duty.5. S tory, Ronald D. The Encyclopedia of UFOs,Doubleday, 1980 & New English Library, 1980.6 . P ink ne y , John & Ryzman, L e onar d , AlienHoneycomb - the First Sold Evidence of UFOs,Pan Books, 1980.7. See "The Great UFO Debate (on "AlienHoneycomb") "The Case Against" by BillChalk e r and "The Case For" by John P ink ne y &Leonard R y z m a n , People Magazine, Januar y 21& 28, 1981. See also "Not so 'AlienHoneycomb'?" by Bill Chalker (including StopPress), UFO Research Austral ia Newsle t te r(UF ORAN) , Vol. 2, No. l,Jan.-Feb. 1981, pgs. 12 -15.8. See for example : Bowen, Charles, "UFOsDebated at United Nat ions", Hying SaucerReuieu;, pgs. 5-11, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1979.

10


11/19

UFO Genesis, Continuedtriggered th e exponential upswing inUFO sightings around the worldstarting mid-year or psychologicalconditons to internally generate UFOs,or for ETI to invade an d under takereconnaissance of Earth on a largescale, depending upon your point ofview.Something very special happenedin the m id-year of 1947 in general and toKenne th Arnold on 24 Ju n e inparticular, a part icular case whichneutral researchers still list as a bonafide unidentified. The Arnold UFO

... was an exci t ing story in 1947 and the onethat triggered public interest an d officialU.S. Air Force involvement in the UFOcontroversy. It is also a sighting that mustremain perhaps forever in the category ofUFO reports that have never beensatisfactorily expla ined.3

It is satisfying tha t the UFOsighting which triggered of f th e modernera is still an u n k n o w n , bu t wha ttriggered off that sighting (and untilsuch t ime as UFOs became a part ofour image of the world, those UFOcases immediately following th e Arnoldone)?W as that happening due to somephysical env i ronmenta l quirk whichresulted in the rapid production ofsome unknown an d unknowable inadvance natural phenom enon? There isno evidence fo r this. The only newenvironmental factor at that t ime w asth e introduction of nuclear weaponstesting in the atmosphere, but hardly ona large enough scale to alter th ephysical and chemical properties of theatmosphere to a degree large enough toproduce the then "flying saucers." No,atmospheric tes t ing of N - b o m b sdoesn't seem a likely physical, henceenvironmental , candidate fo r massiveUF O production. But perhaps an' a tmospher ic physicist would like tocomment on w h a t , if any, changes ouratmosphere underwent in the latter1940's.W as that happening due to a rapidstep up in Extraterrestr ial Intelligence(ETI) surveillance of Earth an dEarthlings, perhaps due to that veryquantum leap in terrestrial technology th e atomic bomb as so man y before

me have suggested but possibly fo ranother unk now n reason(s) which onlythe ETI are privileged to know ? This Ipersonally hold as the most likely. It atleast fits th e facts as we know andunderstand them, and no credibleobjection which is ironclad an dunassailable has yet been lodgedagainst it .The final alternative, th e social,cultural , psychological climate of thet imes being ripe to produce ani m a g i n a r y ( i n t e r n a l i n t e l l i g e n c e )phenom ena does not hold muchcredibility as we shall soon see.Unfortunately , there ar e very fe w

( if an y) UFOlogists w ho have extensivequalifications and/or experience insociology, psychology, etc. and who arestudents of history (including th eindepth knowledge of the scientific,science fictional, and astronomicalaspects) , know ledgeable about massmedia influences, and who themselveslived through th e late .1940's as matureadults .W a s t h e o v e r a l l p u b l i cconsciousness saturated with thoughtsof an d exposure to the concepts ofspace travel and ETI in the latter1940's? Based on what data I 'veuncovered , I'd conclude it mostunlikely.B ut first of all, it would be mostinstructive an d enlightening to go backto the press of that t ime, just to get a feelfor the times. Time an d space don' tpermit an exhaustive reading of everynewspaper fo r every day in the 2 or 3years prior to June 1947, but, as arandom example 24 June 1947? Ichecked th e microfilm. I didn't expectto find any stories about mysteriousatmospheric objects, space flights, tripsto the moon, NAS A, satell ites, bug-eyed monsters sending radio waves inour direction, and SETI programsawaiting th e arrival of same. And guesswhat? I didn't! Those sorts of storieswere not to be for another entiredecade! The major stories were:4

BILL C U R B I N G L A B OR BECOMESLA WAS SE NAT E OV E RRI DE S VETO, 68-25;UNI ONS TO FIGHT FOR QUI CKRE PE ALMARSHAL L AND PATERSON APPE ALFO R S P EE D Y A R M S AI D TO AME RI CASASCAP SUE D B Y U.S. AS A W O R L DTRUST

U.S. IS E N C O U R A G E D O V E R P A R I SME E T I NGT E NE ME NT CRASHE S AS BOYSW A R N I N G SAVES OCCUPANTS20,000 HAL T WORK IN SHI PYARDSHER EHI GH COURT C U R B S PETRILLOPOWERSSOVIET W E L C O M E D TO PARL E Y ONAI D BY FRANCE , BRI T AI NANAL YSI S OF THE LABOR ACTSHOWS C H A N G E D ERA AT H A N D FORI NDUST RY .NA M ASKS I N D U S T R Y TO HELPL ABOR LAW W O R K SMOOTHLYIn a word, "boring" as this was tobe th e da y which saw the ult imatereason for you readers reading thisnow! W e shall return to this issue of theNew York Times shortly fo r moreinsights, bu t thus fa r things don't lookto o hopeful to those looking towardsinternal intelligence.What abou t space/ETI orientedscience fiction films? Alas, not a singlemotion picture with an y sciencefictional theme w as playing in the NewYork City cinemas on 24 June 1947according to the amusements sectionof th e Times. Now of course by thatperiod motion pictures, including thoswith space/ETI content, were alestablished. A n analysis does show thathere was an exponential increaseexperienced in space/ETI sciencefiction films over time.In fact, according to the essay fromwhich I took this data 5 th e space/ETs c i - f i f i l m closest in time to, yeprecedin g the genesis of the mod ernUFO era, was the 1945 f i l m The PurplMonster Strikes! I somehow doubt thathis was the internal intelligence triggerThat essay also states:After (m y emphasis) th e Kenneth Arnolsighting in the State of Wash ing ton ansubsequent flying saucer wave of 1947saucers shared the stage w i th rocketship(in motion pictures)6

Thus, prior to June 1947, with on1930's Flash Gordon except ion , spacf l i g h t / E T I w a s associated w i ttraditional rocketships and not ovalcigar-shaped (with no fins), saucer-likeetc. objects. Therefore, UFOs, iinternally generated yet associated witspace travel/ETI, should have reflecte(continued on next page)

1


12/19

UFO Genesis, Continued Table1. Space/ETI Motion Pictures as a Function of Timethe popular and t radit ional concept. Itdidn ' t ! '. ' ' ' -

Perhaps based on the data in Table1, one could make a stronger case fo rUFOs being the t r igg er for the increasein space/ETI sci-fi films; vi s :a-vis wh atpro-Imagery advocates would desire!W ha t ab o u t science fiction onte levision? Television d id exis t (bare ly)in 1947, and a brief his to ry of t h is majorinf luence u p o n our lives is in order.M a ny sc ien t is t s con t r ibu ted to thed ev e l o p m en t of t e l ev is ion ,and no oneperson can be cal led i ts i nven to r .H o w e v e r , V l a d i m i r K . Z w o r y k i nprobab ly made the mos t impor tan tcont r ibut ion to televis ion as we k n o w it

1 t oday and he first demons t ra t ed th efirst complete ly electronic , , prac t ica ltelevision system in". 1929 . ; M a n ye xpe r i m e n ta l telecasts took place in thelate 1920s and early 1930 s', of whicht he B B C in L o n d o n and CB S and N B Cin N ew Y o r k w ere th e leaders . The firstA m er ican telecasts on an y t h i n g like" aregula r basis began in July 1936following the ins tal la t ion - of. 150 TVreceivers in homes in . . - N , , Y . City.However , W W I I qu ick ly killed off TVexper iment s and b roadcas t ing in -bothBrita in and New Y o r k in America .Following th e War ' s end in 1945,th e A m er ican n a t i o n a l n e t w o r ks , allbased i n N . Y . C i t y , r e s u m e dbroadcas t ing . A t first, the i r telecastsreached only th e area between Bostonan d W as h in g t o n , D.C. ; but .by 1951,th is w as ex t en d ed coast-to-co'ast. A tth e t ime of the A r n o l d UF O sight ing,t he n , t h ere w as no t e l ev ision in t ha tarea o r anywh ere in t he Amer ican wes tw h e r e th e first UF O flap w asex p e r i en ced . In 1945, th ere.w ere fewerthan 10,000 TV sets in t he Uni t edStates, w hich soared to ab o u t 6 millionby about 1950, and to almost 60 millionby 1960. Th us, at th e time of the UF Ogenesis , there were only ab o u t 2 to 3million T V sets in the cou n t ry , wh ichm ay seem like a lot , but not relative toAmerica 's popula t ion , and the TV se tdens i ty of today. Thus, if TV did hav ean inf luence in t r igger ing off the UFO. ph e nome na , it would have been qu i t em i nor too m i n o r in fact to be able toexplain it al l .B ut what could have been on the12

5-Year Time P e r i o d s1900-1905-1910 -1 9 1 5 -1920 1925-1920-

. . 1935-1940 1945 -1950 1 9 5 5 -1960-

1904 .190919141919192419291934193919441949195419591964

N o . o f Space/ETI S c i - F i F i l m s2822211625345331

box at that t ime (June 1947) to evencon t r ibu te in a m inor way? Accord ingto the New York Times fo r th e 24th ofJune 1947, N.Y. City h ad on ly 3 TVs tat ions (a s compared to today's 9 orm o r e ) and (as an aside) over 20 AMradio s tat ions and 9 FM stations. O nth e day two TV stations h ad "n oprograms schedu led" and the th i rds tarted to broadcast at 6:15 p.m. with"News from W ashington , " "Movies fo rSmall Fry," "Cash and Carry," "Film:Serv ing Through Sc ience , " "SportsNames t o Remember , " and f i n a l l y at8:40 p.m. "Baseball: Yankees vsCleveland at Y an kee S t an d iu m ." End ofbroadcast .7Needless to say, Arnold did notw at ch any TV in the period prior to t ha tf l i g h t as there was no TV to view in hisgeographical locat ion. B ut even if t hereh ad been , would or could there havebeen any th ing of a na tu re tha t wouldhave t r iggered of f vis ions of "flyingsaucers" zipping t h r o u gh th e air? Inshort , was there any s c i - f i on the box in1947?

' Th e f i r s t sf series to appear on AmericanTV , Captain Video....began in 1948 (m yemphas i s )8S o , t here were no Little GreenMen, rocket ships , Space Shut t l elaunches being broadcast live at .any t ime prior to the genesis of the UFOmys tery , v ia wh at t oday m us t be th e

means fo r s h a p i n g t h e p u b l i cconsciousness. Scratch television tooas a possible trigger!From th e 1920's t h r o u gh th e early1950's, radio w as th e major mass media

influence fo r shaping th e public's imageof th e world; And from th e 1930's on, inboth the U.S. and Bri tain , sci-fi, andt h r i l l e r s i n c o r p o r a t i n g s c i - f i an dsuperna tu ra l e l ement s were f a i r l yco m m o n on the radio ( the best knownexample probably being th e OrsonWelles broadcast of the H.G. Wellsclassic W ar of the Worlds on 30 October1938). Thus , it could be said that radiowas w ha t f i n a l l y t r iggered off the UFOfad. Although this would be a theoryw o r t hy of intense (but d i f f i c u l tresearch, a f i n a l proof of cause an deffect (radio: UFOs) an interes t ingresul t , m y immediate react ion andobject ion would be the t ime lag ofnearly tw o decadesbetween the s tart ofth e cause ( rad io ) and the start of theeffect (UFO s). An yw ay, I ' l l leave thisball fo r someone else to kick a r o u n d .Having (to my satisfaction at least)eliminated 2 of 3 mass media inf luence s(motion pictures and televis ion) astriggers for the genesis of the UFOp hen o m en a , let me t u r n briefly to thepr in t media . Firstly, non-fiction.As with sci-fi motion pictures ,articles, an d books about ETI an dspace flight exis ted well before th emodern UFO. era , and as with s c i - f if i l m s , thesa a r t i c l e s a n d booksunderwent an ' exp los ion by thenumbers . However , and also p aral lel tos c i - f i motion pictures, this explosion orexponent ial increase, happened afterand no t before UFOs appeared on thescene (and screen).

Perhaps th e UFO phenomenahelped to s t imulate interes t in space(continued on next page)


13/19

U FO Genesis, Continued Table 2. Space/ETI Non-Fiction References as a Function of Time 9f l i g h t an d ETI. That would be a morelogical conclusion from th e data abovethan to suggest th e reverse!Moving along to s c i - f i and the printmedia doesn't give th e Imageryadvocates mu ch room to man euve reither. All t h roug h ou t th e "golden ag eof science fiction" (which parallelled th egolden age of s c i - f i on radio), the meansof delivery to what readers there werewere via the pulp magazines. Thecirculation of these weren' t high;display on the newstands was notprominent ; writers weren' t paid verywell (in those days no t even IsaacAsimov could make a living by writings c i - f i ) ; th e slick journals wou ldn ' t touchth e subject with a 10-meter pole; whatbooks were published were usuallypublished by small speciality publishinghouses an d never made the top 10 bestseller lists. To the masses, sciencefiction was not the "in thing " to read andno bookstore ever had a separatesection devoted to the subject.Bui all of this is well-known andwell-worn history to today's sci-fi buffs.It is hard to contrast this era jus t beforean d during th e 1940's with today'sintense interest in, and the market ingan d packaging of , science fiction now an "in thing." B ut again, thattransition took place after UFOs werean established facet of our society, no tbefore.

The sf maga zine world reached a publishingpeak in 1953 when 34 different magazineswere being issued in the United Statesalone.. ..By th e mid-1950's however, th edeath-knell wa s sounding fo r manymagazines , especially the pulps. Acombination of causes such as television,th e slick magazines and a blossomingpaperback field, made th e pulp magazineseem outdated, and, almost as one, theydied.. .Alas, all good things come to an end,and by the early 1960's paperbacks weremaking their presence f e l t on the magazinemarket .10Another point of view:By the early 1920's, however, a n u m b e r ofestablished publishers had become awareof th e comrnercia/ (m y emphasis) potentialof sf.... Where paperback sf remained, withcertain exceptions, largely worthlessephemera in Britain until-the late 1950's, inthe USA it more quickly became ane s t a b l i s h e d p a r t o f p u b l i s h e r s '

Time Periods1900 - 19191920-19291930 - 19391940 - 19451945 - 19491950 - 19541955 - 19591960 - 1964

No. of References3.511-lS111563174539

(5-year average)

lists....Through the 1960's and 1970's sfcont inued to grow in strength as apublished category. Th e last of theimpor tan t specialist sf publishers , GnomePress, died in the early 1960s....11Th e point is this. It wasn' t untilafter the era which saw the genesis ofth e UFO had come an d gone, thatscience fiction in any sort of large-scalec o m m e r c i a l a n d pro f i t a b l e fo rmemerged. The hardcore, bu t small innumber , readers of s c i - f i prior to 1947could not have been of high enoughquant ity with massive eno ugh influenceto tr igger off the UFO phenomena,even if that s c i - f i had reflected wh at weno w view UFOs to be. As a form ofprophesy, pre-1947, s c i - f i did not overallview many, indeed most, of themodern-day UFO facets, with an ydegree of accuracy and why shouldt h e y h a v e r e f l e c t e d w h a t U F Ocharacteris tics have been documented

today, way back then , given that UFOsare a product of external intelligence?B ut a problem exists if UFOs areinternally generated and yet their traitsdo not (with rare exceptions12) parallelth e internal ly - generated fictionalconcepts wh ich existed prior to theUFO era.In short, with respect to itemsrelating to space flight, ETI, etc. asexpressed th rough fiction or nonfiction,there is no evidence on which to base aconclusion that these sorts of conceptswere common enough in pre-1947 daysto be day-in, day-out part and parcelimages for the public.B ut that's not quite the end of thestory. Some further observations onthis issue are in order.Th e UFOs as ETI manifestations, ifinternally generated, should have beenapparent immediately that is ,including occup ant sightings andabduction cases by the end of 1947,

accompanied by massive publicityThat wasn' t to be. The initial theory, gutreaction, was the UFOs were no doub ta log ica l ex te ns ion o f w eaponsdevelopment following WWII the"secret weapons" the ory and manypopular articles followed that line in theearly years13 14. It wasn't unti l January1950 that th e idea that "UFOs=ETI"was given prominent public exposure,starting with Donald Keyhoe's Truearticle, quickly followed by his book ofthe same title, The Flying Saucers AreReal, and a host of other articles an dbooks by other authors which followedth e initial Keyhoe theory .From about that t ime, th e "what"of UFOs w as polluted as far as anysubsequent reports and investigationswere concerned. From that pointmaybe all UFO reports , as equated withETI, were internally generated. Butbefore? From mid-1947 through 1949,UFOs did not equal ET I for all practicalpurposes, but secret weapons. A s therewere no secret weapons, and no likelyinternally generated ETI UFOs dur ingthat period, what were th e mysteriousobjects sighted? Internally generatedsecret weapons? Or, perhapsexternally generated E TI UFOs!Wh at was so special, in a cultural ,social, and/or psychological sense inthe years an d months leading up toJune 1947? Nothing! What was sospecial about th e latter 1940's that all ofa sudden th e citizens of the UnitedStates (and Canada, Europe, Australia,etc.) would by the hundreds emulateth e experience of one man (Arnold)who nobody had ever heard of before?I t wasn' t as if the President of theUnited States had reported th e veryfirst "flying saucer"! The entire genesisof the UFO "fad," given th e climate of



14/19

UFO Genesis, Continuedthose t imes, I suggest w as t hereforeexternal ly generated. And, as acomplement to . that, I further suggestt ha t if there ever was an ideal t ime toimagine al ien spaceships, one wouldmake a more convincing case for one oftw o non-1940's his torical periods.I f there was an ideal t ime for. th epublic to have mass, hal lucinat ionsabout extraterres t r ial spaceships, itwould have been in the late 1950's an dearly 1960's. That 5-year period of 1957throu gh 1961 saw the bir th of NAS A,th e start of the space race, Sputn ik ,R a n g e r , P r o j e c t M e r c u r y , t h ea n n o u n c e m e n t of Project Apol lo,M a r i ne r 2 l aunched to Venus , andPro jec t Ozma ( t he first a t t empt a tSETI) . The press, journ a l s , e l ec t ron icmedia, an d books were f u l l of spacenews , a n n o u n c e m e n t s , . an dachievements . The "canals" of Marswere stillviable as Mariner 4 had yet tobe l aunched . Science an d scienceeducat ion exploded upon th e Americanscene mainly out of fear of the Russianspace achievement s . The int roduct ionof th e mass market paperback book,not only in science fiction but inpresenting science for the masses, w aso f f an d r u n n in g . N o n e of the above(with th e excep t ion of the Mar t ian"canals") w as t rue on and short lybefore "flying saucers" entered ourc u l t u r e : But of course th e flowering ofspace, ETI, even science ir i 1957-1961could not have p roduced E TI UFOs asthey were al ready ingrained in ourminds . S o, that 's al l j us t academic!

. B ut that wasn ' t so if we go back toth e first decade or two of th is cen tu ry ,in m y opinion another ideal period fo rUFOs to have been produced by thecollective h u m a n m i n d .Some have suggested that it wasth e em o t io n a l ' condit ions short lyfollowing WWII wh ich co n t r ib u t ed ,. indeed was responsible for , th e bloomof internally generated UFOs. But whydidn ' t it happen following W W I , w hich Iwould have thought to have been moreof an emotional shock to the world thanround two, two decades away? W W I I atleast had a precedent! Above an d beyond that , th e earlyyears of this centu ry witnessed the bir thof manned powered flight. It was w hen14

th e concept of intelligent l i f e on M ar speaked; w h e n P e r c i v a l L o w e l lpopularized the . "canals" of Marsthrough numerous books and popularart icles ; when Marconi w as searchingfo r Mart ian radio broadcasts; w hen areward w as offered for the first proof ofthe exis tence of intelligent alien l i f e excepting M ar s as t ha t was too obviousan d easy! Fu r t he r , i t was the era w h e nth e H.G. Wells novels such as War o fth e Worlds an d First M en in the Moonwere al l the ' r age , w he t he r in hardbackfo r the elite, or the pulp magazinereprints for the others. B u t w he r e weret he inna te , ins t inc t ive , in t ern a l lygenerated UFOs? These are factswhich advocates of internal intel l igencej u s t cannot ignore or gloss over.In summary then , we see th a t t herew as nothing overly special about th eera which saw the genesis ofUFOs andin fact other t ime periods would havebeen better placed to p r o d u c eimaginary alien spaceships; there weref e w , if a ny , influencing factors of thesort that would mirror the UFOcharacteristics before th e fact, and infact a strong case could be made for th eUFO genesis hav ing someth ing . to dowith th e growth an d interes t in sci-fi,E T I , an d space travel instead of thereverse.The timing of the genesis of themodern UF O phenomena , whichcannot be logically accounted for , is yetano ther forceful a r gu m en t for thee x t e r n a l n a t u r e of , an ex terna linte l l igence b eh in d , th e UFO, and yetano ther nail in the coffin of the prointernal intel l igence advocates.

REFERENCES1. P r y t z , John. "Signif icance of early sightings,". ACUFOS Journal, Feb. 1980, p. 9-10.2. S tor y , R .D . UFOs and the Limits of Science(William Morrow, N.Y., 1981, p. 42).3. Ibid. p. 52-53.4. Ne w York Times, 24 June 1947, p. 1.5. Simon , A. "Zei tgeist of the UFO Pheno meno n"in Haines, R.F. (edi tor ) , UFO Phenomena an dthe Behauorial Scientist (Scarecrow Press,Metuchen, N.J. , 1979, p. 52-56.)6. Ibid, p. 47.7. New York Times, 24 June 1947, p. 46 .8. Nicholls, P. ( e d i t o r ) Encyclopedia oj ScienceFiction (Granada, London, 1979, P. 595).9. NASA Scientific an d Technical Informat ionFacility - Extraterrestrial L i f e : A Bibliography:Part II: Published Literature: 1900-1964, N A S A(SP-7015), Washington, D.C. , Dec. 1965, 335 p.10. Holdstock, R. ( e d i t o r ) - Encyclopedia ofScience Fiction (Octopus, London, 1978, p. 61,65 ) .

NEBRASKA FORTEANCONFERENCERay W . Boeche, a M U F O N StateSection Director in Nebraska, hasprovided th e following informationabout a conference on unexplainedphenomena (including UFOs an d other

For t ean phenomena as reported byCharles Fort , chronicler of borderlinescience events) in Lincoln, Nebraska,on November 13-14, 1982.Spreakers include Dr. J. AllenHyne k, director of the Ce nter for UFOStudies ; Dr. Roy P. Mackal on"cryptozoology". ( u n i d e n t i f i e dbiological creatures) ; Linda Howe oncat tle mu t ilat ions , including her award-w i n n i n g d o c u m e n t a r y "StrangeHarvest" ; and Ray Boeche.Sessions w i l l b e S a t u r d a y ,November 13, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,an d Sunday , November 14,1:00 to 5:00p . m . Registration (including Saturdayluncheon an d ref reshment s ) is $30 perperson, $50 per couple, $2 5 each fo rgroups of three or more, and $20 forstudents and senior citizens.Registration: Terry Mahlman ,U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a - L i n c o l n ,D iv i s io n o f C o n t i n u i n g Studies,Depar tment of Conferences an dInstitutes, 33rd and Holdredge Sts,Lincoln, N E 68583;. phone: 402-472-2844 between 8-5 M o n d ay throughFriday, Central t ime.

FUND FO R U.FO RESEARCH . K . The Fu n d for-UFO Research (Box

2 7 7 , M t. Rainier, MD 20712) is m o u n t in ga Fall fund-raising campaign featuringsales of more than 200 governmentagency documents on UFOs for aminimum contr ibut ion of $30 ($15 ofwhich is tax deductible). Straightcontr ibut ions withou t docum ent salesare 100% tax deductible by Americancit izens . T he Fu n d h as supportedresearch on "abduction" reports,crash/retrieval cases, th e 1896-97"airship mystery," an d educat ionalprojects.

11 . Nichol ls, P. op. cif., p. 484.12. Simon, A. op. cif., p. 47.13 . M o r e h o u s e , F.G. '"Case of the FlyingSaucers," - Argosy, July 1949, p. 22-24, 92 .14. Taylor, H.J. '"Flying saucer' is good news,"Reader's Digest (U.S. ed), July 1950, p. 14-16.


15/19

I"By Ann Druffe l

Resolving the Issue of Hypnosis

(Note: Th e experiments with hypnosisinvolving imaginary abductees arewidely referred to as theLawson/McCall study. Those who arefamiliar with the study know that JohnDe Herrera, a researcher-writer, wasalso involved with these experimentsi n fact, he made the initial proposal.Somehowhe has not been given propercredit. Hopefully, this article willcorrect this situation and reveal whathe feels about the use of hypnosis. -A.D.)

The California Supreme Court hashanded down a monumenta l decision inMarch of this year. This cou rt decisioninvolves the use of hypnosis by policeinvestigators. No longer w i l l anyonew h o has been questioned underhypnosis be allowed to testify in aCalifornia court-of-law." H y p n o s i s - i n d u c e d t e s t i m o n yfailed to meet a long-established legalstandard requir ing tha t scientificevidence be based on techniquesgenerally accepted in the scientificcommuni ty in which they weredeveloped," said the justices. (Ariz onaand M innesota Supreme courts alsoh a v e b a r r e d h y p n o s i s - i n d u c e dt e s t i m o n y a n d i n M a r y l a n d areevaluation of the practice has beenordered.)Statewide, th e ruling is expected tow e a k e n o r d e s t r o y 5 9 c r i m i n a lp r o s e c u t i o n s ! T h i s s i t u a t i o n i sconsidered by man y to be a disaster. Inthe act of exonerating some w ho mayhave been falsely accused, many bru ta lmurderers could be freed. Prosecutorshad relied heavily on the use ofhypnosis an d f e l t tha t it was reliable,especially in rape cases where thevictim is the only witness to the crime.They felt that th e experience could beso traumatic that details or entire

By John DcHerrera( 1982, John DeHerrera)

events are "repressed" from consciousmemory.Defense lawyers an d researchers,rejecting th e claim that hypnosis isreliable, either testified before th eSupreme Cour t or filed Friend of theCourt deposit ions docum enting theirviews. They succeeded in proving, toth e satisfaction of the court , thathypnosis is inherently unreliable an dthat police investigators are unaw are ofthis. Proponents of the use of hypnosiscan point to specific cases where thistool helped solve some very d i f f i c u l tcriminal cases. W i tho u t it , these wouldnever have been solved, they say.Opponen ts also cite cases where anindividual lied or "recalled" events thatlater were proven false. Too oftenhypnosis results in memory distor t ionsor hallucinations, they say.For over 20 years, policehypnotists had waged a batt le to havehypnosis accepted in courts-of-law.They claimed a very high success ratewith hypnosis. "The mind is like avideotape, recording everything yo usee," said D r. Reiser of the Lo s AngelesPolice Depar tment , who has t ra inedpolice from almost every state on thetechniques of hypnosis. "We arerealizing that hypnosis is just a clinicalway of interviewing, a deeper way ofgetting at the truth," Dr. PatrickMullany, psychologist at the FBIAcademy, w as quoted as saying.Researchers now know that ourmind does not record everything, as avideorecorder would do . Memory ishighly selective and we only recordthings that are important to us.Hypnosis is held up by many as a magiccure fo r gett ing at deeply buriedmemories. This isn't necessarily thecase. Hypnosis simply encourages a

person to relax and focus intensly onth e event.At this point it is appropriate to askthe question; is there anything thatUFOlo g i s t s c an l ea r n f r om th eevaluation of hypnosis by varioussuprem e co urts? Is our use of hypnosisbased on sound knowledge and skillsofthis controve rsial tool? These an d otherquestions must be addressed soonOtherwise, th e credibility of UFOresearch w i l l sink even fur ther than it istoday.In 1977, I was invited to observesome hypnosis regressions conductedby D r. W.A. McCall an d ProfessorAlvin H. Lawson. As a researcher ofUFO phenomenon an d hypnosis, I wasi n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r h y p n o s i sregressions. After observing someregressions that revealed a great deal ofi n f o r m a t i o n o n possible U F Oabductions, there were still manyquestions rema ining . "How reliable ishypnosis," I asked. "What wouldhappen if we hypnotized someone whohad never seen a UFO? Could they beencouraged to describe a UFOabduction also?"Dr. M cCall decided that this was agood idea an d passed th e suggestion onth e Professor Lawson. Together, th ethree of us planned an d conducted ou"imaginary encounters study." W ewere enthusiastic but we did not expecmuch would come of this effort. Ouvolun teers would need a great deal ofh e l p in describing a UF Oencounter /abduction w e thought.Our first volunteer, after beinghypnotized, w as told that he was takenaboard a UFO. Then we asked him todescribe howhe was taken aboard andwhat he could se e inside? To ouamazement, th e volunteer gave a



16/19

PROPOSED FEDERATION O F UFO^ROCJPSB y Rick Hilberg ' o/ ' imJ-J

First o f f , I sincerely believe that thevarious organizations that participatedin the MU FON-sponsored "UFOSummit Meeting" in Toronto havecome to realize th e need fo r betterrelations and com municat ion within th eUFO movement . Al though similarproposals made throughout th e yearsunfortunate ly died aborning, theintellectual and, however distasteful wemay f i n d it, the political cl imate withinth e f i e l d have shifted considerably inrecent years to the point where th eproposed federat ion may indeedbecome reality.Perhaps D r. Hynek's talk abouthow we should al l plan for the nextmajor media-reported f l a p hi t home fo rmany , because in past instances ofmassive media attention to the subjectwe lost much in the way ofworthwhi l ereports and public support becausethere is no one coordinated voice thatspeaks for the UFO movement. While itis only hum an natu re to desire our ownlittle place in the sun w hen it comes toradio, television, an d newspaperi n t e r v i e w s , t h e c o n f l i c t i n g a n dconfusing statements made in past flapshave only served to tu rn of f potent ial

sources of financial (a s well as personal)support, but given the skeptics amplereason to loudly proclaim that the UFOmovement is not w o r t hy of a t t en t ion byestablished scientific disciplines.Not to m en t io n our losses t hroughpoor public relations methods, wesuffer from a lack of establisheds t a n d a r d s r e g a r d i n g ' o u r b as i cinvestigation an d data gathering. Asmany brought up during the Mondayafternoon "rap session" in Toronto , weneed such basic things as a uniformterminology for the f i e l d , a standardmethod of t ra in ing f i e l d investigators,coordination regarding data processingprocedures and software ; the list couldgo on from here to probably f i l l severalpages! In other words we aresquander ing our collective time andr e s o u r c e s b e c a u s e o f poorcommunicat ion within th e f i e l d (justimagine all the m oney wasted w henseveral UFO groups each send aninvestigator to a well publ icized UF Osighting!).These are but a few examples ofwhy I f e e l we should have some sort ofcoordinating body for the f i e l d . I wouldthink that some sort of organizat ion

California Report, Continuedsaying that "the imagery and even ts inabduction reports ar e nearly identicalto those in revivified birth t raumanarratives." I have found, an d otherresearchers agree, tha t "fetal-statem e m o r i e s " a n d " b i r t h - t r a u m amemories" are no more reliable thanother information revealed throughhypnosis.How ca n we fesf an abductionaccount revealed under hypnosis? Thisis a good question an d there may be ar e a s o n a b l e a n s w e r . In the f i r s tregression of a possible witness, get asmuch detailed information as possible.Then later on, days or weeks later, goback an d question th e witness againunder hypnosis. This is a standard

police interrogation technique an dworks very well. I have observed t ha tthe subject cannot repeat th e accountin the same order of events. Somereveal an ent irely new and d i f f e r e n tabduct ion event for the t ime period!F i n a l l y w e m u s t s a y t h a treseachers confirm that hypnosis, as atool for interrogation, is unreliable. Wehave not found a safe way to use it .There are othe r ways of impro vingmemory recal l , though. Skillful use ofm n e m o n i c s , f r e e - a s s o c i a t i o ntechniques , or memory enhancementdrugs (coline, vasopressin, etc.) can beuseful. And let us remember that someabduction accounts (e.g., Hickson andParker) were revealed without the useof hypnosis. Is it possible that therereally are UFO abductions?

pat terned after a trade or professionalgroup would suit our needs . Th eAmerican Medical Association isprobably the foremost example of anorganizat ion that promotes s tandardsfor it s members , as well as speaks asone voice for the huge an d diversemedical profession. In this way noorganizat ion would have to give up itsbasic autonomy, but would subscribeto the basic goals an d s tandards of thecoordinat ing organizat ion, and al lowtha t organizat ion to handle publ ica f f a i r s on a nat ional scale.I real ize that ou r task of ac tua l lyorganizing th e proposed federation,whatever its basic s t ructure and funct ion , w i l l be a d i f f i c u l t task. That iswhy I feel that it is essential tha t we allphysically meet at a central locationsomet ime in the not too dis tant fu tureto begin th e "give an d take" processtha t w i l l be required to complete ourgoals an d desires. I am confident that byreasoning together , asL . B . J . w as foundo f saying, we w i l l no t f a i l in our task .Many have quest ioned how such a

federation could be f inan ced , and let usface facts, t ha t w i l l be a d i f f i c u l t detail towork out. However, since those of us onthe s teering commit tee ar e donat ingour time an d expenses to this project, Idon't see wh y the proposed federat ioncouldn ' t operate on a similar basis.E x p e n s e s to cover t e l e p h o n es tat ionery, postage, and print in g couldbe met by a nominal yearly fee to bepaid by parti cipa ting organization s. In sense, with all of the waste an dduplication going on in the field todayw e ca n hard ly afford not to have suchan organizat ion.

MUFON1030LDTOWNERD .SEGUIN,TX 78155r

17


17/19

MUFON ST AM P PR O GR AM UFO T EACH IN G M AT ER IAL S EDITORIAL NOTESCont r ibu t ions of cancelled foreignstamps, in any quanti ty , are "sold" to acollector and the proceeds used tof inance internat iona l exchange of UFOinformation. W e t han k th e followinginternational colleagues fo r recentcontr ibut ions:Keith Basterfield, W ynn Vale, S .Australia .Larry Fenwick, Willowdale, Ont.,Canada.Michael Sinclair (our Internat ion alD irector) , present ly res iding in London ,England.

g .Close encounters.1 of|theflipperedkind* '.J 5 A Bavarian man who claims to*> have had a dose encounter with alien*N space beings may have just been suffer-M*ing from an overdose of television,p *~ After being hypnotized to aid his recall*- * _* of the exact details of the extraterrestri-als' appearance, the man described a

v creature identical in every way to ...' Kermit the Frog, the flippered host ofTV's "Muppet Show." Investigatorshave concluded the incident was"hallucinatory," but what do theyknow?

Marge Chris tensen (a M U F O NMassachuset ts State Sect ion Director)an d Linda Seal (field investigator) havesuccessfully t au gh t courses on theUF O p hen o m en o n to adu l t s and giftedand talented youngsters . They nowoffer copies of the syl labus fo r eachcourse fo r $7.50 each to other teachersor lecture rs who may wish to mak e useof them.A d u l t Course: " T he UFOPhenomenon ." In t roduct ion , lessonsfor 8 meet ings (2 hou rs each ), act ivitiesan d projects, an d reading list.C h i l d r e n ' s Course: "SpaceInvaders." Lessons for 15 sessions (1 hrand 45 min each), activities andprojects , worksheets , answer sheets,an d suggested reading list.The autho rs are, respect ively, afo rmer and a present English teacher.The material includes informat ion oninvestigation t e chn iq u es , field work ,analyzing data, hoaxes , and researchmethods .M a k e checks or money orderspayable t o e i t her au thor and address

Due to the inclusion of informationon the NOVA program, space did notpermit publishing the Critic's Cornerco lumn in this issue. It will resume nex tm onth .In order to exped i t e editing an dtypeset t ing of art icles for the J o u r n a l ,authors are requested to submi t t yped ,d o u b l e - s p a c e d m a n u s c r i p t s .Newsnotes and photographs on theacitivties of M UFO N Sta te chap ters ,inc luding personal biographies of activemembers , would be welcome. Pleaseshare your projects and ins ights withother M U FO N m em b er s across th ecoun t ry and around th e world .Short articles in the form of"Comments" or "Notes" (up to about2,000 words) and letters to the editor(u p to about 400 words) are invitedfrom th e readers. The Journal is yourforum fo r exchange of information,ideas, and critical discussion.

them to 2 Cherry Road , Bever ly , M A01915.Director's Message, from p. 20M o t h e r Lode C o u n t r y ( S o n o r a )seeking historical lore, th e NationalGeographic crew in t erv iewed MarvinTaylor and photographed his UFOexhibit for an upcoming issue of theirprest igious magazine. M r. Taylor'sexhibit has already been featured inarticles an d photographs . in theSacramento Union newspaper and theSonora Union Democrat . If any of ourreaders think that the UFO issue isdead, they should tr y following th efootpr ints of Tom Gates, MarvinTaylor, and Paul Cerny. These threeg e n t l e m e n are to be h e a r t i l ycommended fo r their fantastic work inhelping to educate the public to theUFO phenomenon , which simply w i l lnot go away in spite of government -backed at tem pts to eradicate this so-called "fad."M r. Walter Mensching, StateSect ion Director for Fond du LacCounty in Wisconsin and a veteran inUFOlogy, has been the first member torespond t o your Director's invitation to

perpetu ate th eir personal UF O files bybequeath ing it to M U F O N in the i r w i l l .M r. Mensching h as ins t ructed hisa t torney to revise his will to donate hisenti re collection of booksan d art icles toMUFON upon his death. His file nowincludes 39 hardcover books, 47paperback books, and 145 f i l e foldersclassified by subject. Please adviseM U F O N if you have made thisprovision in y o u r will, so t ha t we may beprepared to pack th e f i l e an d assumeth e shipping charges . We are grateful toM r. Mensching for his generous gift.The Steering Commit tee for theproposed N orth Am erican U F OFederation promised to communicatetheir progress to all interested people.The M U F O N UFO J o u r n a l is one of themedia devices selected fo r thispurpose. In this issue of the Journa l , Ihave t aken th e liberty of publishing th eproposals and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n ssubmitted by R i c k H i l b e r g ,represent ing th e Northern Ohio U F OGroups on the Steering Commit tee inan article titled "The ProposedFederat ion of UFO Groups." Rick said

"he hoped tha t some of the othergroups and individuals w h o were notpresent in Toronto (for th e S u m m i tMeeting) w i l l take not ice and offer theirsuppor t . " Your. Diecto r definitely feelsthat M r. Hilberg's message should beshared with all interes ted part ies .W h e n w e a re s p e a k i n g o fcooperat ion in UFOlogy in the UnitedStates, the n am e of Rober t J. Gribbleautomatical ly comes to your D irector 'smind . Bob's dedicated service to theoperat ion and com munica t ing h is UFOHotline t e lep ho n e n u m b er l-(206)-722-3000 of the Nat ional UFO Repor t ingCenter , P.O. Box 1807, Seattle, W A98111 to airports and police agencies isgrowing in giant strides. This is now ourmost vital source of UFO reports fromthe pu bl ic, s ince the C enter for UFOStudies h as discont inued their 24-hourhotline service.A r e c e n t e x a m p l e o f t h eex p ed ien cy of this service wasd e m o n s t r a t e d w h e n a p o t e n t i a la b d u c t i o n case, w i t n e s s f r o mWoodridge, I I I . , called th e National(continuea on next page)

18


18/19

Lucius FarishIn Others' WordsA black, saucer-shaped UFO w asseen over Brindisi, Italy, by an airlinercrew and two passengers, according to

the Augus t 17 issue of NATIONALENQUIRER. The object was visible fo rabout one minute before shooting off ata very high rate of speed. The A ugust 31ENQUIRER reports th e case of anArizona couple who claim to be aliensfrom another world, reincarnated onEarth.THE STAR fo r A ug us t 31 featuresa report on a 4-year period of UFOactivity in the Hudson Highlands area ofupstate New York. The incidentsinclude sightings of various types ofobjects, as well as car chases and oneapparent landing, with large footprintsfound in the area.The "Anti-Matter/UFO Update"section in Septem ber O M N I has a goodsummary of December 1981 sightingsin th e vicinity of Reserve, New Mexico.This issue also has an interesting articleon what the late Ivan T. Sandersoncalled "OOPARTS" (Out Of PlaceARTfacts.) There is little here whichhas not already been covered in them a n y w r i t i n g s o n t h e "ancientastronauts" subject, but it is refreshingto see OMNI devote space to suchtopics.An article by Hilary Evans an dMichel Piccin in the October issue ofFATE examines the UFO abductionclaim of Frank Fontaine, whichallegedly took place in France onNo vem ber 26, 1979. E vans and Piccinconclude that th e episode began as apractical joke on the part of Jean-PierrePrevost, a friend of Fontaine's, but gotout of h and following ext ins iveout of hand following extensivepublicity.A series of booklets compiled bymembers of the Australian Centre fo rUFO Studies has now been reprintedby Robert

mufon ufojournal

Documents