8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

1/25

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

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

2/25

Inissue

This photo was takenfrom the stern of a Carni-v al crui se sh ip in M a y .T he M U F O N report be-gins on page 19.

A n i m a l r eac t i on s toU FO ;'encounters, Part 2,p. 8.U FO press, Grass Roots

UFOs b y D r . M i c h a e lSwords, Unnatural Phe-nomena^ Jerome Clark,p.: 13 .

"MUFO N F orum, p. 14.Calendar, p. 22.U F O Marketp lace , p.23 .

ColumnsDirector ' s Message 2Filer's Files 15Ted Phi l l i ps 18Stan Friedman 20McLeod 's Ni gh t Sky 24

N o v e m b e r 2005No. 451$4.00

Mutual UFO NetworkJ O U R

Charles B. Moore, professor emeritus of physics at New Mexico Institute ofMining and Technology at Socorro, displays a radar reflector similar to those onballoon trains in the Project Mog ul experiments. Mo ore was involved with th eproject, which the Air Force says w as responsible fo r debris at the Roswell crashsite. Author Nick Redfern has other ideas. The article begins on page 3.

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

3/25

N o v e m b e r 2005 Number 451M U F O N

UFO Journal( \JSPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)

Mutual UFO NetworkPost Office Box 369 ,'Morrison, CO 80465-0369Tel: 303-932-7709Fax: 303-932-9279

International DirectorJohn F. Schuessler, M.S.Tel: 303-932-7709schuessler mho.net

Editor:Dwight Connelly,M.S.14026 Ridgelawn RoadMartinsville, IL 62442Tel: (217) 382-4502mufonufojournal@ hotmail.com

AdvertisingDirector:John F. Schuessler, M.S.

Columnists:George Filer, M.B.A.Stanton Friedman, M.S.Gavin A. J. McLeodTed Phillips

MUFON on the Internet:http://www.m ufon.comMUFON e-mail address:m ufonhq@ aol.com

MUFON Amateur Radio Net:; 40 meters - 7.237 MH z .Saturdays, 8 AM CST or COST

Director's MessageBy John F. SchuesslerSpecial Incentive for New

Memberships n o w A v a i l a b l eElaine Douglass, co-state direc torfo r Utah , sponsored a project during the2005 M U F O N I n t e r n a t i o n a l U F OS y m p o s i u m in Denv er , CO , to r ewar dn e w peoplej o i n i n gM U F O N w i t ha spec ia l gift-a n a u d i o cas-sette t ape of ac-

John Scliticssler

t u a l d e-c las s i -f i e d U n i t e dS t a t e s A i rForce record-i ngs of a s ta r-t l i n g r e a l l i f eevent .Th is took place on the n i g h t of Oct.7. 1965, at E d w a r d s A ir Force Base inC a l i f o r n i a . I n t h i s Samuel M .Sherman presenta t ion , an F-106 jet in-tercep tor was scrambled to in te rcep tl u m i n o u s objects in the sky,an d m i l i -tary p er s onne l on the ground co n f i rmseeing th e strange f lashing objects ove rth e E d w a r d s r u n way . R u n t ime of th erecord ing is 54 minu te s .

M U F O N is again of fer ing th i s ex -ce l l en t recording o f ac tua l U FO evi-d e n c e a s a g i f t t o a n y o n e j o i n i n gM U F O N o r g i v i n g a gift subscr ip t ionto the MUF ON UF O Journal. Thisof fer w i l l run th rough the end of 2005,or u n t i l th e s u p p l y i s e x h a u s t e d .C u r r e n t M U F O N m e m b e r s m a yalso par t ic ipa te in t h i s incen t ivepro-gram by g i v i n g a gif t subscr ip t ion toi n t r o du ce M U F O N to a f r iend or rela-t i ve and receive a copy of the t ape as areward for their gift . O n l y one tape willbe awarded per each new membersh ip .S up p l i e s are l imi ted .Case Management System

Clari f icat ionT h e r e h a s b e e n some c o n f u s i o nabo u t h o w t o view th e con ten t s of t he -M U F O N Case M a n a g e m e n t System(C M S) . I t i s no t necessary to use ap as s w ord j u s t to v i ew the conten ts o ft h e CMS. S i m p l y g o t ow w w . m u f o n . c o m an d click on "UFOCase Files" and then "Latest MUFONRepor t s" and view th e reports .State Directors ( SD) , Assis tant State( C o n t i n u e d o n page 2 2 )Change of address and subscript ion/extra copies inquiries should besent to M U F O N , P.O.B ox 369,Morrison,C O 80465-0369.

Copyright 2005 by the Mutual UFO Network. All Rights ReservedNo part of this document may be reproduced in an y form without the written permission of the CopyrightOwners . Permission is hereby granted to quote up to 200 words of any one article, provided the author is credited,and the statement, "Copyright 2005 by the Mutual UF O Network. P O B o x 369.Morrison, CO 80465-0369" isincluded.The contents of the MUFON UF O Journal are determined by the editor, and do not necessarily ref lect th eofficial position of the Mutual UF O Network. Opinions expressed are solely those of the individual authors an d

columnists, and do not necessarily ref lect the opinion of the editor or staff of MUFON.The Mutual UF O Network, Inc is exempt from Federal Income Ta x under Section 501 (c) (3) of the InternalRevenue Code MUFON is a publicly supported organization of the type described m Section 509 (a) (2) Donorsm ay deduct contributions from their Federal Income Ta x Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are alsodeductible for estate an d gift purposes, provided they meet the applicable provisions of Sections 2055. 2106. an d2522 of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a Texas nonprofi t corporation.The MUFON UFO Journal is published monthly by the Mutual UFONetwork. nc Morrison. CO. SecondClass postage paid at Versailles. M O.Individual Membership $45/year U S.. $55 outside the U SFamily members $10 per person additionalStudent (18 years and under) $35 U S. and $45 outside th e U S.Donor: $100/year. Professional-$250/year Patron. $500/yearBenefactor (Lifetime Member): $1,000First class Journal delivery (m envelopes) U.S and Canada only Si2/year additionalAir Mail Journal delivery to all other countries outside th e United States $35/year additionalPostmaste r Send form 3579 to advise change of address to MUFON UFO Journal. P.O.Box369. Morrison.

CO 80465-0369MUFON's mission is the scientific study of UFOs for the benefit

of humanity through investigation, research, & education.

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

4/25

Redfern ' s Roswell Body Snatchersa perplexing tale with little substance

jvuuu iS N A T C H E R S||;:!:1:.li.;iNTHE::$MiflMff LM j j j f r -: T^ r ^ v ,IH E H O H B I I L E lllTKflI H E D E I S ] O F H E R O S W E L L S I G H T

N I C K B ' E D F E R N

B y Gildas BourdaisA new theory on the R osw ell crashhas been p resented by British ufologistNick Redfem in his book Body Snatch-ers in the Desert. The Horrible Truthat the Heart of the Roswell Story.'In a word , some "wh is tle -b lowers"revealed to him that behind the "leg-e n d" o f t h eR o s w e l l U F Ocrash was hidden areal story of ex-periments on Japa-nese h andicapped

prisoners-so hor -rible th at they hadto remain hiddenat al l costs.The curious titleof this book will beexp lained later.This ne w story, as strange as it looks,demands careful examination, given th enotoriety of the author, who has writ-ten several good books on UFOs , in -cluding one on U FO crashes, CosmicCrashes. The incredible story of theUFOs That Fell to Earth (7999).2 Hehas also produced many articles andconferences.Another comparatively recent expla-nation for the R osw ell crash is that th edebris w as tha t of a Mogol balloon.Both theories c ann ot be true.N ot surprisingly, a major promoterof th e Mogul exp lanation, Karl Pflock,has already exp ressed strong disagree-men t-with his usual wit-in an open let-ter entitled "Attack of th e M utant M on-goloids!"

I am going to plead here that thesetheories are both w rong, and that, con-sequently, the hypothesis of a UFOcrash, near Ro sw ell, in 1947, still holds.Roswell: a brief backgroundOn Ju ly 8 , 1947, th e base support-ing atomic bombers at Roswell, NM,issued a press release ann ouncin g therecovery of a "flying disk" in the area.But this spectacular discovery, in themidst of a w ave of observations of these

November 2005

Gildas Bourdais

mysterious craft, w asdenied in the eveningby Ge n . Ramey, com-mander o f the Eigh thA ir Force, in For tW o r t h , T X : t h e A i rForce o f f i c e r s a tRosw el l had s implyfound a w eather bal-loon and its radar tar-get, and had mistakenit for a flying saucer!Th e press acceptedat once this curiousexp l an a t i o n , and t heincident w as forgottenfo r thirty years.H o w e v e r , in 1978, A m e r i c a nufologist Stanton Friedman found al -most by chance a key witness, JesseMarcel, a former major wh o had beenin charge of security on the base, andw ho h ad picked up debris at w h a t iscalled the crash site.Marcel, w ho w as at that time retiredin Louisiana, confirmed to Friedmanthat these materials were very strangeand did not look like anything know n.Since then, several teams of research-ers hav e done considerable w ork an dhave found many w itnesses w ho havemade Roswell one of the best docu-men ted cases in ufology.T he theory of a UFO crash is basedon three main elements: th e press re -lease by the Air Force base, testimo-nies about strange materials found atthe site, and testimonies on the discov-ery of a craft and bodies near R osw ell.A question quickly comes to mindabout the press release: ho w could theseofficers of an eh'te corps not only makesuch a clumsy mistake, if we believeth e A ir Force, but also worsen theircase b y m a k in g t h a t d r a m a t i c a n -nouncement , contrary to the rules ofmilitary secrecy to which they wereespecially w ell trained?If it had been such an incredible con-fusion with a balloon (or a balloon clus-ter in the Mogul story), they should

M U F O N U FO Journal

About the authorGildas Bourdais is aleading French ufologist,.He is the auth or of UFOs:Th e Gradual Release ofSecrecy, oth er books, an dnumerous articles. He isalso a frequent presenterat U FO symposiums.

have been severely reprimanded, yetthis was not the case.Col. Blanchard , who released th ereport to the press, had a remarkablecareer with s ign i f ican t p romot ions .M a j . Jesse Marcel, given high marksby h is hierarchy before an d after th eincident, was promoted to a post of re-sponsibility at the Pentagon.Furthermore, if Maj. Marcel hadmade such a blunder , would he havetalked abou t it 30 years later? It is in-teresting to note here that when Maj.Marcel was interviewed in 1982 by astudent, Linda C orley, he told h er thathe had no t revealed al l that h e knew," f o r the sake of h is country," Corley re-vealed twenty years later at the 2000MUFON sympos ium.3USAF "explanations"In 1994, the US Air Force, pressedby an inquiry wh ich had been openedby the Ge n e r a l Ac c o u n t i n g Off i ce(GA O ) of the C ongress at the requestof Steven Schiff , congressman of NewMex ico, replaced the initial exp lanationof the weather bal loon with a morecomplex one.Now the Air Forceclaimed that thedebris w as from th e crash of a "train"of 20 to 30 w eather balloons attachedto a l i n e , c o d e - n a m e d "Mogul,"launched at the base at W hite Sands.It w as, they explained, a very secret

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

5/25

project to develop a means of detec-tion of future soviet atomic ex plos ions,and it is the reason why its discoverywas hidden at the time.But there is not the faintest bit of pa-p e r , telex, or archived note which wouldprove that this w as what had been foundin Roswell .O n th e contrary, their doc umen tationshows clearly that th e balloon trainMogul number 4, the only one whichmight have caused th at blund er becauseit wa s equipped with radar targets, hadmost prob ably never been launched!It is absent in the reports of NewYork U niversity (NYU ), in charge ofth e tests, an d geoph ysicist Albert Crary,who was the f ield manager, noted in hispersonal diary that it was cancelledbecause of cloudy w eather.In fact, he launched in the morning asmall balloon cluster like the NYUteam launched every day in June .It is likely th at Brazel found one ofthem, on Ju ne 14, as he told the pressunder pressure from th e military, buth e attached no importance to it, and ithad nothing to do with the f inding ofthe big debris field at the be ginn ing ofJuly.4In any case, if the officers of Roswellhad found a Mo gul balloon train, they,would hav e easily identified it as such.It would have been sufficient forthem to identify only one element of thismundane gear to close the case, suchas one of the instrumen ts attached toth e nylon l ine, which were: not moremysterious: ballast reservoir, electricb a t t e r y , r ad io t r a n s m i t t e r , or"sonobuoy" w hich looked like a meremetallic can.None o f t hese ins t rument s werefound on the Foster R anch , ei ther byth e rancher Brazel or by the militaryw ho came to retrieve th e debris.In 1997, the U S Air Force p ublisheda second book to explain, this time, th etestimonies on alien bodies. I t sug-gested tha t th e witnesses h ad confusedmemories of parachu te tests wh ichwere made w i th wooden dum mies.B u t , as W alter Hau t quipp ed, "Youhave to be a dum my not to recognize adummy!"Besides, these tests took place sev-eral years later, during the 50's. Thistime, the Am erican press, w hich h ad

U.S. A R M Y T O E X A M I N E ! A" I L Y I N G D I S K " !fH H mums

WASHINGTON, Jinwell, New Mexico. iJui :m oh oe_lml he-en found ihere. UK-M O J C

ilic^e:i if!i Lcnlrc .< i ( Wrs.^hL Ftld, Ohio.! f ^ s rinmini *:: r of Llir Li.isiKli Ailo-iiilu I'lzi die ubjca w r ^ s hcir& sc

K

The Times of London.accepted rather easily th e Mogul ex -planation, remained visibly skepticalabou t this new story.The only positive aspect of the AirForce report was to hav e them discardother hypotheses, such as the crash ofa secret plane, or a rocket, or an atomicbomber.However, as noted above, such is notth e opinion of new Roswell researcherNick Redfern in his new book, BodySnatchers in the Desert.Fol lowing is a - s u m m a r y of t he'Red fern s tory of R osw el l , s li gh t lyabridged, given by Redfern himself inth e conclusion of his book (pages 20 7and 208): The first crash"In May 1947, an experimental air-craft that w as borne out of the revolu-tionary aviation research of the Hortenbrothers of Germany w as test-flownfrom White Sands, N ew Mexico."O n board th e vehicle were a n u m -ber of ph ysically hand icapped peoplewho had been found in the remnants ofth e Japanese military's Unit 731 labo-ratories and who were used in this darkan d disturbing experiment-the purposeof which w as to try to better understandth e effects of nuclear-powered flight onan air-crew."The experiment ended in disasterwhen th e aircraft crash-landed at WhiteSand s, killing som e of the crew.

M U F O N U FO Journal

The second crash"Two months later, in early1947," says Redfern, "a second aridsimilar vehicle was once again flownfrom W hite Sands. In this particular in -stance, the aircraft w as affixed to a hugeballoon array that w as based upon ad -vanced Fugo balloon designs developedin th e closing stages of W W n by Japa-nese forces."The aircraft w as piloted by a crewof Japanese personnel who had beenspecifically trained for the task andcrashed near the Foster Ranch afterbeing catastrophically struck by light-ning."The lifting-b ody-style aircraft, theballoon m aterials, and the bodiesof thecrew were retrieved under cover ofoverw helming secrecy and-ei ther de-liberately or unintentionnally-hidd enbehind a smoke screen of crashed f ly-in g saucer stories."It is these two incidents (and, as thewh istle-blower testimon y provided inthese pages sugge sts, possibly severalothers in the vicinity of W hite Sands inthe early to late sum me r of 1947) thatled to the legend of the Rosw ell inci-dent," says R edfern.A bizarre storyA first reaction to Redfern's scenariomay be one of perplexity when con-fronted w ith such a bizarre story, wh ichh e claims had been revealed to himNovember 2005

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

6/25

from 1996 to 2003 by several insiders-wh o remain anonym ous in the book.In any case, i t seems to provide aglobal explanation of the Rosw ell case,encompassing as it does m any aspects,even some of the most controversialones.T he story of the alleged first crash,fo r instance, seems to explain the con-troversial story of the mysteriou s cam-eraman w ho , allegedly, sold the famous"Alien Autopsy Footage" to the Brit-ish producer Ray Santilli, released in1995.T h e "atomic" aspect is very impor-tant in R edf ern's theory. A ccording tohis insiders, i t included loading radio-active material on board for an a w f u lexper iment of irradiation in flight.In addi t ion, it was supposed to bemade at a very high altitude in order toevaluate mysterious "mutation" effects.Th e victims selected for this dread-fu l test were supposedly mentally re -tarded, severely handicapped people,formerly prisoners of the Japanese forhorr ib le b io-warfare exper iments inM anchur ia dur ing W W n.According to Redfe rn and h is in-formers, it is this "Japanese connection"w h i c h had to be kept secret "at allcosts."There was no balloon for this firstexper iment (i n effect, th e cameramandid not mention one). T h e weird craftwas supp osedly towed o n take-off by aDC-3 p lane (or rather a C-47, th e cor-rect military designation), but w as self-propel led af -t e rwards (w ed o n ' t l e a r nexactly ho w ).C a n w eb e l i e v e t h a ts tory? Well ,there ar e many big holes in it , as weare going to see. Th e first, and biggestone, probab ly, is that it w as impossiblefo r the American military to bring tothe U nited States p risoners from M a n-churia . Here is , briefly, th e history ofJapanese b iologica l warfare exper i-ments in Manchuria :5 1 9 3 2 J a p a n e s e t r o o p s i n v a d eManchuria . Shiro Ishii, a physician an darmy officer who was intrigued by germwar fa r e , begins pre l iminary exper i-ments .

1936Unit 731, a biological-war-fare unit disguised as a water-pur i f ica-tion unit , is formed. Ishii b uilds a hugecompound more than 150 bui ld ingsover six square kilometersoutside th ecity of Harbin. Some 9,000 test sub-jects , which Ishii and his peers called"logs," eventua l ly die a t the com-pound .1942Ishii begins field tests ofgerm w arfare on Chinese soldiers andcivil ians. Tens of thousands d ie of bu-bonic p lague , cholera , anthrax , andother diseases. U.S. soldiers capturedin the Phi l ipp ines a re sent to Manch u-ria. 1945Japanese troops blow up theheadquarters of U n i t 731 in the finaldays of the Pacific w ar. Ishii orders 150remaining "logs" killed to cover uptheir experimentation. Gen. Douglas

M ac Arthur is named commander of theAll ied pow ers in Japan. 1946U.S. coverup of secret dealwith Ishii and U ni t 731 leaders-germwarfare data based on human experi-mentation in exchange for immuni tyfrom war-crimes prosecution-begins inearnest. Deal is concluded tw o yearslater.No prisoners from Unit 731Let's turn now to the Redfern story.A c c o r d i n g to his i n s i d e s o u r c e ,"Levine" (p 85):

"Wh en the Japanese surrendered inthe wake of the atomic destruction ofHiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, anum ber of these and a quan tity of still-living people w ere found in the remainsof Uni t 731 facilities (and also Germ anlaboratories) by allied soldiers. Theseremains were su bsequen tly transferredto the Los Alamos Laboratories, N ewMexico, where this dark and disturb-in g research was continued."O ther informers told Redfern a simi-lar story, but this is radically contra-dicted by all historical studies andsources.In his references, Red fern m entionsthe book of Peter W illiams and D avidWallace, Unit 731: Japan's Secret Bio-logical Warfare in World War II.6It is a very complete h istory of thesehorrible exp eriments, an d it clearly de-scribes w hat happened at the end of thewar.When the Soviet army began to in-

vade Manch ur ia, on A u g . 9,1945, th enex t day the Japanese destroyed allbui ld ings of Uni ts 731 and 100, andkilled all the prisoners. They had or-ders to destroy every trace of the ex-periments, and never talk ab ou t them.This vers ion is conf i rmed in thetimeline mentioned above, and in otherbooks, for instance The Pacific W ar bythe Japanese historian Saburo lenaga.7No handicapped prisonersAnother important difference residesin the alleged use of deformed andhandicapped people for all these exp eri-ments, according to R edfern's insiders.This is an important element of thetheory since it is supposed to explainthe strange aspect of the vic t ims of thecrash (at least the first one), and it isrepeated through th e whole book (atleast 16 times, from page 6 to page

207).But i t is wro ng! Actually, the Jap a-nese experimenters at U ni t 731 pre-ferred to have subjects in good health:"Unless you w ork with a healthy body,yo u cannot get results."8So the real story of the end of U nit731seems quite different from the onein Body Snatchers.Sunshine and body snatchersIn 1994, President Clinton appointedan "Advisory Comm ittee on Hu manR a d i a t i o n E x p e r i m e n t s " ( A C H R E )w h i c h uncovered a long h istory of se-cret irradiation experiments conducteddur ing th e period 1944 th rough 1974.Redfern mentions this in his book,and it is all true, bu t he insists then o n avery special pro ject called "Sunsh ine"w h i c h was proposed secretly in 1955(pp . 164 to 166).It w as a plan to collect skeletons forsuch experimen ts by all possible mean sthrough certain "channels," and thisw as called "body snatching."Hence th e bizarre title of the book.Redfern admits that this "body snatch-ing" projec t had noth ing to do withR oswell, but he claims that it was "verysimilar to the top-secret Roswell-re-lated events" described in his book.However , th is a rgument of secretradiation experiments can be turnedagainst h is book. T h e records of theAC HR E commission, wh ich coun t th er a t h e r s t a g g e r i ng nu m b e r of some3,000 tests of hum an i rradiat ion, don ' t

November 2005 M U F O N U FO Journa l

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

7/25

me ntion at all his alleged radiation ex -periments in W hite Sands!So there is a simple question: in thel ight of the A C H R E report, why hidethese alleged White Sands irradiationexperimen ts at all cost, since the wh olestory of similar experiments has beenmade pub lic?W h e n I a s k e d Re d f e r n t h i s , h estressed again that it was the "Japaneseangle," w ith its horrible experiments inManchuria, which,w as th e cause of th eextreme secrecy. B ut, as we h ave jus tseen, it is an impossible argum ent.Regardless of its sheer impossibil-ity, ano the r a rgument can be madeagainst this "Japanese angle."If these White Sands experimentshad been made with Japanese , theywould have been identi f ied as suchw h e n found in the areas near WhiteSands or Roswell-even if they werehandicapped.The second crash (Roswel l )T he second crash is the famous onenear Roswel l .This time th e craft is supposedly af -fixed to a hu ge balloon cluster, derivedf r o m a d v a n c e d J a p a n e s e "Fugo"projects (Fugo is the name of the bal-loon bom bs o f W W n ), which is goingto be used to explain the fam ous d ebrisfield on the Foster Ranch.This time there is no "atomic" ex -periment. If you know th e Roswell casewell , you wil l remember that Maj .Marcel checked th e debris at the Fos-ter Ranch with a Geiger counter andfound no radioactivity.Thus Redfern's story seems to fitwell with the Roswell testimonies re-garding radiation. But a consequenceis that there was no "reason" to carryhandicapped people on that f l ight .So, explains Redfern , there werenormal Japanese for the second f ligh t,trained as pilots to test this peculiarballoon an d fast aircraft coupling.I debated this point with Red fern onthe Internet, and he d id have an answ erto it .9Contrary to a general impressiongiven in the book, in w h ic h h e men-tioned handicapped people all the timeto explain the confusion w ith alien be-ings in Roswell, there were no handi-capped beings in the second crash, nearRoswell . They were not identif ied as

Japanese, says Redfern, because th ebodies were found and retrieved se-cretly by the Wh ite Sands p eople.Th us, in R edfern's version, the leg-end of alien bodies found in Roswellcame later from a merger with the ru-mors coming from the White Sandscrash an d its han dicap ped victims.Th at's an ingenious story, but w hatis its credibility? As we have seen, therewere no handicapped Japanese avail-able in the first place. In addition, th equestion remains w heth er there couldbe such a confusion with handicappedbodies, w rongly identif ied as alien be-ings, wh ether it was in W hite Sands orin Roswell.This is where Red fern throws in thefamous "Alien autopsy footage," as asort of v isua l proof of his story.According to R edfern ' s myster iousinformers, th e "Alien Autopsy Foot-age," released in August, 1995, w asactually showing one o t the handi -capped vic t ims of the White Sandscrash!This idea has been already discussedin depth, and many experts have dis-carded th e idea that this was a h u m a nbeing suffering from a genetic illness.In addition, a very simple objectioncan be mad e: if it were a hu ma n body,there would have been no need for acomp lete protection suit, such as is seenin the f ilm (unless the w hole f ilm is ascam, but this is not at all w ha t R edfernsays).Another look at Roswel l crashLet'squote again the final summaryof th e second crash, near Rosw ell (pp.207, 208):'Two months later, in early July asecond and similar vehicle was, onceagain, f lown from White Sands."In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e ,the aircraft w as affixed to a huge bal-loon array that was based upon ad-vanced Fugo balloon d esigns developedin th e closing stages o f W W n by Japa-nese forces."The aircraft w as piloted by a crewof Japanese personnel who had beenspecifically trained for the task andcrashed near th e Foster Ranch afterbeing catastrophically struck by light-ning."There is an obvious objectio n, fromth e start, to this second scenario.

The r isk that the experiment w ouldbe exposed pub licly w ould have beeneven higher, especially if the huge Fugoballoon cluster (much bigger than th eMogul bal loon tra in with its smallweather balloons) drif ted in the windto an undesirable p lace.W hat about the risk of a crash land-in g in a populated area? But the ex-perimenters w ere lucky: the balloon andcraft, in the Redfern scenario, landedin the rather desertic area of R oswell.However , such a strange assem-blage, with the alleged hu ge balloonsan d a weird plane attached to them,would hav e been almost imp ossible tohide from curious eyes in the Whi teSands area.The scenario of the crash seems alsovery acrobatic. According to Redfernand h is mysterious informers, the craftand balloon were caugh t in a storm andstruck by lightning. A part of the dis-abled p lane and, presumably, most ofthe bal loons, were torn away in the-storm, together with one of the Japa-nese wh o w as ejected from the craft.They fell and landed together on theFoster Ranch , whi le th e main body ofth e craft, carrying th e rest of the crew,crashed some twenty miles far theraway, where it was later retrieved se -cretly by the White Sands people .In this new exp lanation of Rosw ell,w e find again the problem, like in theMogul story, of the people of Roswellnot being able to identi fy a balloon orballoon cluster.This question is now aggravated byadding th e wreckage of a small craft,either wooden or metallic, or even afragment of it.The argument of balloons made ofaluminium-coated polyethylene, putforward by R edfern in his book, couldnot exp lain at all the description of thevery strong foil, impossible to tear, an dyet scattered in a multitude of smalljagged pieces like th e result of a vio-lent explosion.In addition, they were imp ossible toburn . They just don ' t correspond to aballoon envelope.In th e deba te o n U F O U p d a t e s ,Dav id Rudiak pressed Redfe rn wi thembarrassing critiques about th e debris,as he had done previously on Mogul .Then R edfern came up suddenly with

M U F O N U F O Journal November 2005

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

8/25

a new f inding from h is in formers: helearned that, for the Roswell flight, alu-minium foil, or "chaffe," had been usedas a test to conf use radar.So this new, providential elementwould explain th e aluminium-like foilfound on the Foster ranch ! How ever ,there w as no logical reason to hide theflight on radar. On the contrary, therew as every reason to track it.Besides, in the scenario of an acci-dent in a big storm, th e aluminium foilwould hav e been scattered ov er a veryw ide area, not j u s t on the debris fieldof th e Foster ranch .Anyway, this alum inium foil, like th eone used for cigarette wrapping, w asvery mundane , and did not fit the de-scriptions on the w itnesses.The informersOn e of the most questionable aspects

of Redfern 's story is that all his in form-ers were, one w ay or another, linked tosecret services in Great Britain and inthe Unites States. Here they are, inchronological order:*In August 1996, in London, M r."Levine" (pp . 79-81), is an agent of theHo m e Office. His colleagues are Mr."T," intelligence agent at the M O D, andM r. "D,"a CIA "operative."They showhim a long version of the "Autopsyfi lm," first released a year before.*In July 2001, in Los An geles, ano ld wom an wh om h e calls th e "BlackW idow" approches him at the end of aconference (Chapter 1). She says thatshe worked on "special projects" inOak R idge, from th e mid-1940s to theearly 1950s.T h e crucial year seems to be 2003,with:The "Colonel," in N o v e m b e r2003. He is the main informer (Ch ap-ter 10). He said that he had "spent 15years operating deep within the heartof American intelligence. In 1969, hefound a top secret document at theDefense Intel l igence Agency which"laid to rest the tales ab out f lying sau-cers and alien bod ies recovered fromth e desert of New Mexico in the sum-m er of 1947 and told the true storyabout th e Roswell events";* "Bill Salter," on Dec. 6,2003 (p.90). He is a former employee of thePsycho logical Strategy Board. He metin Oak Ridge "a man employed in a

covert intelligence position," wh o had"previously w orked for the Central In -telligence Group" (CIG). Salter hadalso been informed by an "old friendfrom DOE";A 1 Barker, on Dec. 9, 2003. Heworked for the Psychological WarfareCenter (PW C) in Fort Bragg.There is a remarkable coincidencehere . Three sepa ra te in fo rmers ap -proached Redfern, separately, in lessthan two months a t the end of 2003,an d told him the same story! This d oessuggest a concerted plan to disinformhim.The risk of disinformationThe question of possible disinform a-tion has been raised, as could be ex-pected. R edfern admitted that i t was apossibility, but doubted it for severalreasons.

Firstly, according to him, there hasbeen, indeed, a lot of dis information,but in the opp osite d irection: it was allaimed at propagating false tales of UFOcrashes in Roswell and other places,such as A ztec. An d this long lastingprogram of disinformation w as imple-mented jus t to hide th e horrible experi-ments in W hite Sands!In fact, th e history of ufology in theUnited States shows, on the contrary, ahard line of denial of U F O s in general,an d especially of UFO crashes."A second reason for not be ingdisinformed, pleaded Redfern, is theconvergence of indep endent inform ers,telling the same story, and of d ocum entsrevealing certain aspects similar to hisstory.Yes, several informers told him thesame story of p risoners from Uni t 731:Mr. Levine in 1996 (p. 85), the Colo-nel in November 2003 (p. 108), BillSalter on Dec. 6, 2003 (p. 91), and A lBarker three days later! (pp. 91 and141).But this story is false, and this con-vergence raises the question of a kindof concerted disinformation.As for the documents , th e examplealready mentioned of the "Sunshine"an d "Body Snatchers" program show sthe weakness of this argument.It w as not related at all to the al-leged exp eriments in W hite Sands, andthe same can be said of other docu-ments quoted in the book.

Actually, there is not one piece ofdocumentation sustaining th e story.Notes'Nick Redfe rn , Body Snatchers inth e Desert. The Horrible Truth at theHeart of th e Roswell Story, ParaviewPocket Books, Simon & Sch uster, NewYork, NY, 2005.2Nick R e d f e r n , Cosmic Crashes.Th e incredible story of the UFOs thatfell to Earth, Simon & Schuster U .K. ,London, 1999.3Linda C orley, "For the sake of mycountry," MU FON 2000 InternationalU FO Symposium proceedings .4Descriptions of these p roperties andthe shape and size of the debris fieldfrom various people can be read, forinstance, a t the web s i te of DavidR u d i a k : w w w . r o s w e l l p r o o f . c o m /debris_main.html5From t h e w e b a t http://w w w . c n d . o r g / n j m a s s a c r e / r e c e n t -news2.html)6Peter W illiams and Dav id Wallace,Unit 731: Japan's Secret BiologicalWarfare in World war II . London ,Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.,1989.7Saburo lenaga, The Pacific W a r ,1931-1945. Iwanami Shoten Publish-ers, Tokyo, 1968. (A merican ed ition byPantheon Books, Random House, NewYork, 1978)."Quote from th e text: "Unit 731. Ahalf century of denial," ath t tp : / /www. techno logyar t i s t . com/unit_731 (cited by Jan Aldrich in a mes-sage of June 22 on the l ist UFO Up -dates).9U FO UpDates . See the archives athttp://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/up-dates/A concurring opinion

R edfern's book is overly amb itiousan d f lawed. He dismisses too muchcontrary evid ence to advance a th esissupported by limited testimony. Hisconclusion tha t the UFO crashes atRoswell and e lsewhere are no morethan disinformation has no merit.Redfern is ingenuously promotingdisinformation fed to him by those ac -tively seeking to sow confusion in thestudy of the UFO phenomenon and theETH.-Michael E. Salla, PhDChief Editor, Exopolitics Journal

N ovem ber 2005 M U FO N U FO Journal

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

9/25

Part Tw oAnimal reactions to UFO encounters

B y Joan WoodwardSightings w ith animal reactions tendto be more complex than lights in thesk y tha t s imply zip by.O f 92 sightings with animal reac-tions, 63 of the reports had an estimatedduration for the s ight ing. O f these, 11percent were less than 1 minute, 54 per-c e n t w e r e b e -tween 1 minuteand 10 minutes ,30 percent wereb e t w e e n 10m i n u t e s a n d 1hour , and 5 p er-cent w ere morethan an hour .In 60 of the92 animal reac- JanW oodwardtion sightings (65 percent) , the U FO isdescribed as maneuvering in some way.Most common were hovering part ofth e time (27 times), landing or nearlanding arid departure (17 tim es), slowm o v i n g , m e a n d e r i n g , or r epea tedpasses (11 t imes), an d rocking behav-ior or falling leaf m ovements (5 times).In addi t ion, U F O s not reported tomaneuver but described as flying byslowly and/or at low altitude w ere re-ported 11 t imes . UFOs tha t f lew bywith no fur ther description were re -ported 13 times. The remaind er lackedan y details abou t th e movements of theU F O .This is not m eant as an analysis ofmaneuvers, but only to demonstrate thatcomplexity was a part of the major i tyof the UFO events wh ere animals werereported to react.General Observation 4.-Relation-ship to reported sound: Sounds fromUFO s are often reported w hen animalsreact, an d rarely reported w hen they do

not. Because man y animals hear bothlower and higher frequencies than hu-mans do, and because their hearing isoften more acute than human hear ing,spund is harder to judge than someother f ea tures of U FO s ight ings .None the le s s , when wi tne s se s re-ported animals reacting to the UFO'spresence, th ey also reported sound fromth e U FO 49 percent of the time . W henwitnesses reported an im als did not re-ac t to the U F O , they reported soundonly 8 pe rcent of the t im e .Of the 92 s ight ings wi th an im al re -act ions, w i tnes ses r epor ted sound 45t imes . Of these 45 s igh t ings , th e a n i -mal reaction most com mo nly repor tedw as fear (2 7 times) or alert-alarm be-havior (1 1 times). ' . . * . .Interestingly, in the 12 reactionsw h e n all animals present seemed u n-aware of the U FO, sound w as reportedonly one time. Later, w hen looking athow particular types of animals reactduring U FO events, sound appears po-tentially important in the reactions ofdogs, cats, and ungulates, an d will beexamined in more detail w ith each ofthese groups.General Observation 5.-Relation-ship to secondary U F O features: A sdata concerning the UFO itself w ascollected for this study, certain aspectsof the UFO intuitively seemed to havepotential in terms of having effects onanimals. These are referred to as sec-ondary features of the U F O .In order from most often to least of-te n reported, these are: sound (dis-cussed above); l ight beams and/or ter-restrial lighting; physiological effectsduring th e sighting; EM effects; w indgeneration; vapor/mist production; an dodor. ' - . . '

U FO sound aside, th e other second-ary features of UFOs did not have anapparent relationship to animal reac-t ions, but their collective, near-totalabsence is noted in sightings wh ere ani-mals did not react.Light beams and terrestrial l ightingare fairly comm only reported, bu t theirimpact on animals appears associatedwith nighttime un gulate reactions.A ll of these wi l l be -discussed lateras specif ic an ima l group reac tions areaddressed. Otherwise , a variety of thesesecondary f eatures are scattered am ongs igh t ings in low numbers , but no indi-v id ua l fea ture appeared to correlatewi th part icular an ima l reac t ions .However, in sightings w here animalsdid n ot react or did not react fearfully,all of these secondary features werelacking.Secondary features, including sound,distance of the UFO , and altitude of theU F O m a y have a circuitous relation-ship in terms of animal reactions. Dis-tance may be the determining factor thatresults in secondary features beingnoted and reported by w itnesses, andin th e reaction or non-reaction of theanimals that ar e present.T h e secondary features may not be

Editor's NoteThis article, Part Two in a series, is abridged f rom M s. Woodward ' s ful lpresentation, in clud ing charts, case descriptions, and other material, w hich isincluded in the M U F O N booklet Animal R eactions to UFOs. T h e full reportis also included in the 2005 MU FON Symposium Proceedings. (See UFOMarketplace, page 23.)

About the AuthorM s. W oodward worked w i th the Na-t i o n a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e o nA e r i a l P h e n o m e n a ( N I C A P ) i n t h e1960's, assisting with th e original U FOEvidence (1964). She returned to ufologyin 1996 as a f i e l d i n v e s t i g a t o r f orMUFO N and the Fund fo r UFO Researchafter retiring from th e U.S. GeologicalSurvey as a research technician.Sh e assisted Richard Hall in devel-oping an index of James E . McDona ld ' scorrespondence in the Donald E . KeyhoeArchives, and worked on data compi la-tion for Hall ' s Alien Invasion or HumanFantasy?Ms. Woodward la ter took over thea n i m a l reac t ions sec t ion o f F r a n c i sRidge's special evidence section of theNICA P web si te . She a lso has ex tensiveexperience wi th both domest ic an d wildanimals.8 M U F O N U FO Journal N ovem ber 2005

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

10/25

heard or seen by a witness when theobject is at greater distances. H ow ever,in closer en counters, th e secondary fea-tures may be more obvious to wit-nesses, and at least some of them notedby an imals .For the 92 s ight ings wi th animal re -actions, a very rough calculat ion of al-titudes and dis tances based on whe the ror not secondary features were reportedsuggest th i s may be t rue .W h e r e a range is given for dis tanceor alt i tude in a s ight ing , an average isused for the calcu la t ionsbe low. W h e r e animals reacted, and one ormore secondary features were reported,th e average U FO altitude was 238 feet,based on 57 s ight ings wi th al t i tude es-timates. The average U FO distance w as31 9 feet , based on 55 s igh t ings withdistance est imates . Wh ere animals reacted, but no sec-ondary features w ere reported, the av-erage U FO altitude w as 354 feet, basedon 20 sighting s w ith altitude estimates.T he average U FO distance was 838feet, based on 15 sightings w ith dis-tance estimates.(A quest ionable animal react ionsighting w ith an estimated 12-mile dis-tance to the UFO (AR104) w as notused in this calculation.)Carrying the distance hyp oth esis onto the 1 2 sightings w ith no anim al re-

action, and w hich also h ave no second-ary features reported, th e average alti-tudes and distances become greater.Where there were no animal reac-tions and no secondary features (exceptone sigh ting w ith a sound reported), theaverage U FO altitude was 886 feet ,based on 10 sightings with altitude es-timates.T h e average U F O dis tance w as1,620 feet, based on 5 sightings withdistance estimates.The c lose r encoun te rs are m o r elikely to have witnesses report second-ar y features of the UFO and animalreactions.Slightly greater distances and alti-tudes m ay be associated w ith no sec-ondary features noted by witnesses, butanim als m ay still react, qu ite possiblybecause of their excellent hearing orother sense.U FO events at greater distances an dattitudes have neither secondary fea-

O ne ofufology 's classic cases, that of Betty an dBarney Hill, involved the actions of their dachund,Delsey, during their-encounterwith a U FO in 1961.tures nor animal reactions reported.M u c h more data is needed for furtherevaluation, particularly in sightingswh ere animals do not react.Generalization Observation 6.-Relationship to UFO Shape: Th e re-ported shapes of U F O s are variable,and gen erally do not seem to relate toparticular animal reactions.This rep ort contains 107 descriptionsof U FO shapes. These were comparedto a muc h larger W orldwide U F O D a -tabase ( W U F O D ) compilation table of1,694 reported shapes as of Jan . 30 ,2004 ( o n l i n e a twww.indianamufon.com).Shape categories w ere com bined forsimplicity because shap es are so depen-dent on angle of vision. As one wouldexpect , U FO shapes in the animal re -action reports were a subset o f UF Oshapes reported in general.With th e rather small sample size inthis report, no re la tionship w as foundbetween U FO shapes an d specific ani-mals or animal reactio ns.

O ne possible excep-tion involves sightingswith ungu la tes . Of the2 1 s i g h t i n g s w h e r eh o o f e d m a m m a l s a r epresent and reported tobe uneasy to fearful, 24p e r c e n t i n v o l v e s u g -ges ted or c l e a r l y d e -s c r i b e d h e m i s p h e r eshapes . The remaind erof the s ight ings involve9 or 10 other shapes rep-resented by only 1 or 2sightings each .A n o t h e r poss ib le ex -ception involves angularUFOs an d their associa-tion with relatively m ild,less fearful animal reac-t ions . Al though s izesan d exact shapes vary,six sightings describeboxy , rec tangu la r , orsquare objects.In 4 of 5 sightingswith dogs present, th edogs w ere described asnot reactive, calm, o r in-terested (AR19 , 61, 85,95). T he most intensivereaction was a dog tha t barked (AR20).In th e final sighting a cow was reported

frightened by the box y object (AR10)Data sets for differenttypes of animalsBecause th e senses and behaviorbetween animals differ, an d because in -formation about the UFO event is re-layed through human senses, a com-parison of the perceptual worlds of vari-ous animals an d h u m a n s is w orth not-ing.Visual acuity is a measure of the abil-ity to see details. O nly birds h ave bet-ter v is ion than h uman s. The acuity ofth e others animals is not as good as hu-man s, but they are all extremely sensi-tive to motion.All of the animals have a m uch bet-ter sense of smell and of h earing tha nhum ans do, w ith the exception of birds,who have l i t t le sense of smell , andwh ose hearing is more restricted thanthat of hum ans.T h e t e m p e r a m e n t of dogs varieswidely. One behavior problem with

Novem ber 2005 M U F O N U FO Journal

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

11/25

m a n y dogs is sound sensitivity. Thismeans the dog has a very fearful reac-tion to a non-threatening, commonly en-countered sound .Example s w ould be fear of t h und er ,fear of a flag snapp ing in the w i n d , fearof electr ical t ransform ers on poles, orfear of the noise of a garage door. Thisbehavior may become w orse with age.Six sightings report react ions ofchickens (4 times), ducks (2 times),geese (2 times), and pheasants (1 t ime).Five of the six describe birds tha t aredisturbed, and the remain ing incident(AR 95) describes calm birds .All s ight ings wi th dis turbed bi rdstook place at n igh t , and witnesses re -ported bird react ions by hearing t h e m ,rather than by seeing them .W h e n b i r d s w e r e d i s t u r b e d , th eU FO altitudes ranged from 80 to 2,000feet. In the sighting w ith calm animals,th e altitude was 100 feet. Among thebirds that were disturbed, the consis-tent overhead position of the UFO atsome p oint during the sighting is inter-esting.Only one sighting (AR47) clearlystates that th e animals reacted as theU FO passed overhead. In the remain-der the overhead position is relative tothe w itness, and only a rough approxi-mation for the animals.Unfortunately, none of the sightingreports give details as to the exact lo-cations of the birds (in a chicken coop,bam, or outdoors) or w hether or not thesk y w as visible to them.If they cou ld see the sky, their reac-tion may h ave been a typ ical visual re-sponse to an aerial predator.Another interesting possibility is tha tbirds may have felt th e U F O ' s presencethrough a series of "touch" receptorsscattered through their bodies."Herbst" corpuscles are highly de-veloped in birds, and are sen sitive notonly to touch , b ut also to pressurechanges and low frequen cy vibrations.Finches , exp erimentally deafened,w ere trained to detect vibrations from100 to 3200 Hz through Herbst cor-puscles along th e backs of their upp erlegs (W elty, 1962).If the birds were responding to vi-brations or pressures tha t they felt, thismight explain the importance of theoverhead p osition of the U F O . If they10

w e r e r e s p o n d i n g t os o u n d o r v i s i o n , t h eoverhead posit ion m aybe of mu ch less imp or-tance.A c k e r m a n ( 1 9 8 9 )suggests a side effect ofU F O p r o p u l s io n m ayb e a m a g n e t i c f i e l daround the UFO, whichi s i n t e r e s t i n g i n t h a tthere is spe culation thatb i rds use g e o m a g n e t i cclues in migra t ion .E x a c t l y h o w t h em a g n e t i c f ie ld is de-tected and used by birdsand o the r an ima l s is asubject of mu ch specu-lation.The two leading pos-s ib i l i t i e s are (1) t i n y In tne 1976 case in Kentucky involving the ab-crystals of m agnetic par- duction of three women from an auto, one of thetides (magneti te) have wo m e n , Mrs. Smith , discovered that her four-year-been found in the olfac- old parakeet would have nothing to do with herfol-tory tract in the brains of lowing the abduct ion.some birds that act as acompass and/or (2) a chemical reactionthat involves certain eye pigmen ts thatbecome weakly magnetic when theyabsorb light (Levy, 1999).This is a complicated explanation forbirds reacting to nearby U F O s , but athought to be tucked away for fu turereference.Questions to be answered

about barnyard birdsMore information is needed to verifyor refute the overhead position of theU FO relative to bird reactions.If verified as a consistent factor, thenan interesting next step would be toevaluate sound versus feeling versusvision as a factor in the birds' reactions.Quite possibly the birds w ill respondto m o r e t h a n o n e t h i n g , s u c h asant i -hawk reactions w hen outdoors inthe daytime, and to sound or vibrationswhen conf ined at night.If the U FO is reported to be silent orhigh-pi tched by the w itness, birds willnot hear it, as their hea ring is more re-stricted than th at of humans . All of thesightings in this report occurred at night.Does th e excellent vision of birds be-come a factor in daytime and/or out-door sightings?A re geese p resent? Barnyard geese

M U F O N U F O Journal

are great "w atchdogs," and their alarmscould cause other birds to react.Sightings w ith non-reactive barnyardbirds p resent w ould be of great inter-est.Reactions by catsThe presence of cats was reported

in nine sightings. Eight sightings oc-curred at night, and one in predawnlight. T h e cats ' reactions fall into th efol lowing categories: fearful behavior(5 sightings), interested/approach (1sighting) and no reaction (3 sightings).Altitudes in the nine sightings rangedfrom 150 feet to 1,600 feet, with no reald i f f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n t h e b e h a v io rgroups. T he distances, sound, an d sec-ondary effects did differ.In th e sightings where cats w ere fear-ful, the UFOs tended to be closer, tomake noise, and to demonstrate others e c o n da r y e f f e c t s . T h i s c o n t r a s t sstrongly w ith non -fearful cats , wh erethe objects are generally farth er aw ayand no secondary effects were reported.The w eakest fearful cat reaction isdescribed in AR60. The cat was de-scribed as "fearful," but further de-scribed only as "fussin g to get into thehouse" as the witness watched a UF Oat least 500 feet away. Possibly the c at's

November 2005

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

12/25

behavior w as coincidental to the UF Oevent.The overhead p osi tion of the U FO(3 of 5 sigh tings) is interesting in thatcats' whiskers ar e embedded in highlypacked, sensitive nerve endings.Through their whiskers , cats arethought to detect small changes in pres-sure, air movem ent, and temperature.Possibly cats not only heard the UFO ,but also, like ba rnyard birds, m ay havefelt it s presence.Cats can hear high frequencies bet-ter than either h um ans or dogs, so it isa lways possible that cats hear sound sto which humans are obliv ious . Hu-mans can hear low-pitched sounds thatcats do not hear, but po ssibly cats canfeel them.T h e sightings with fearful cats tendto have sound associated with them,an d unf am i l ia r , ha rsh , and /o r loudsounds are the leading inanim ate causeof startle or fear responses in cats. Atleast two of the sound s reported abovefit into harsh or loud category, an d noneare described as high pi tched.A theoretical th ough t about cats ands o u n ds : w e k n o w h a r s h a n d l o u dsounds frighten cats. Low or m oderatehum ming sounds may also be threat-ening if one thinks ab out the similarityof that sound to the growl of a dog, forinstance.

O n th e other hand, cats can, as al-ready noted, hear very high-pi tchedsounds, and can pounce on a mouse byhearing its ultrasonic squeak. Thus,w i t h i n some loudness pa ramete rs ,high-pitched sounds (i.e., prey sounds)may n ot be disturbin g to cats, or maybe interesting to them, and deep, lowpitched sounds may be perceived asthreatening.Questions to be answeredby investigators about cats

Does the overhead position of theU F O o c c u r f r equen t ly in s igh t ingswhere cats react fearful ly? Does th ew itness detect any v ibration, pressurechange, or air movem ent during thesesightings?Is the s o u n d l o w , m o de r a t e , orhigh-pitched? Is it harsh and loud orsoft? Is it steady or cyclic? To whatmight the soun d be comp ared? Do catsreact fearfully w h e n U F O s are silentor high-pitched?November 2005

UngulatesThe most comm on reaction noted forungula tes in UFO events was fear.O f the 22 sightings in which cattle(14 times), horses (10 times), goats (2t i m e s ) , a n d s h e e p (1 t im e ) w e r epresent, sometimes in combinationsthereof, fearful reactions w ere reportedin 20 sightings, nervo us reactions once,and calm reactions once (AR 95).No sightings were found that men-tioned ungu lates that did not react, so acomparison cannot be made betweensightings w ith and with out reactions.Because cow s, horses, and sheep arefrequently out in fields or in bams atsome distance from witnesses, theirreactions are probably not noticed un-less they are eye or ear catching.Seven sightings took place in day-light or tw ilight, 14 took place at night,and one took place after sundown w i thlighting conditions unkno w n.

Distances and altitudesW here estimated, the UFO altitudesranged from landed or near landed (6times) to a maximum est imate of 450feet (1 time). The most common alti-tudes reported were between 25 and200 feet (8 times).Th e distances ranged from overhead(4 times) to 3-5 miles away (1 time),although I am suspicious that th e horsein A R 0 2 was reacting to the distantl ight . Next farthest was about 1 mile,and ap propriately, the cattle were notreported fearful, only nervous.T h e most common distances wereevenly distributed from overhead (4times) and from roughly overhead to20 0 feet away (4 times), with fartheres t imates be ing 300 f e e t a w a y (2times), 600 feet (1 time) and a quartermile(l time).Referring again to the study of wildanimal anti-predator reactions to humanvehicles (Frid and Dill, 2002), cattlewill react fearful ly to an unfamiliarpiece of equipment or unfamiliar ve-hicle, so possibly the existence of theU FO vehicle itself would be disturb-ing to them.Wild cattle have a f light zone, th epoint where they break and run, ofa b o u t 3 0 0 f e e t ( o n l i n e a tww w.BueLingo.com), comparing fa-vorably with U FO distances of 200 feetor less to 300-500 feet.

M U F O N U F O Journal

Secondary UFO effectsPutt ing aside AR02 and 28, withtheir 1-mile or greater distances to theUFO, 19 sighting s describe fearful un-gulates, and all of these had some sec-ondary feature described.AR 87 is an atypical sighting w ith anatypical secondary effect: a 30-foot,brilliant blue ring was observed over afield containing cattle that w ere racinga w a y f rom i t as power l ines wereswinging in a 6 foot arc.The remaining 18 sightings all haveone to 4 secondary features. Many ofthese secondary features could th eoreti-cally affect animals, but occur so er-ratically that they do not seem to be ofoverall importance.Possibly w ind or air generation fromth e UFO, mist or vapor escaping th eU F O , an d odor could all be connectedin terms of transporting a scent fromthe U FO that animals can detect.W itnesses rarely report an odor, butth e animals' sense of smell is far supe-rior to ours.Possibly m icrowave or electromag-netic wav es cause th e feelings of heat ,electricity, and imm obilization rep ortedby witnesses as well as EM eff ects onmachinery-all of wh ich could poten-tially affect animals.These secondary features may befactors in a given sighting, but they d onot appear regularly in sightings w hereungula tes react fearfully, while othersecondary features do regularly occur.Sound and terrestrial lightingT he more consistent secondary fac-tors in these sightings are sound fromt he UFO and terrestrial lighting. Bothof these are considered fear triggers.In the 18 sightings above, all haveeither sound or terrestrial lighting re -ported, and four sightings report both .Sound is reported by the witnesses 14times, and its presence is u n k n o w n inA R 4 5 , wh ere a mow er with the enginerunning during the sighting preventedth e witness from knowing if the objectsmade sound.Terrestrial lighting is reported in 6of 12 nighttime sightings and is sug-gested in AR37, w here the U FO is de-scribed as the size of two rooms and"bluish-w hite. . . like the glow around awelder's arc."Unfamiliar sounds, p articularly loud

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

13/25

and/or high pitched, stress and scarecattle and horses, supporting the impor-tance of sound in ung ulate reactions.Even w hen sound is not reported bywitnesses, ungulates may be hearingultrasonic sounds, although they can-not hear as high f requency sounds ascats and dogs.In AR44 , the w itness reported that aflat-bottomed oval object about 200 feetin altitude remained directly overh eadas he ran to his house . Only w hen theobject was directly overhead co uld hehear an eerie high-pi tched sound, buthis dog and cattle w ere reacting w h e nth e object was a t distance from them.Lights an d shadows are dis turbingto ungulates. One way to stop cattledead in their tracks an d possibly sendthem stampeding in the opposite direc-tion is to throw an unexp ected light (o rshad ow ) across their path.Safety suggestions for handling ormoving these animals at night or in diml igh t involve solid board fences (sol i g h t s w i l l n o t s h in e b e tw e e n t h eboards), frosted/dim bulbs that cast noshadows, an d avoidance of any bright,glaring light (Grandin, 1989, updated2002; online BueLingo.com.).Put into a U FO scenario, imagine afield swep t by l ights an d s h a do w s asl igh ts on a low f ly ing UFO sweepthrough the area.

AR 11 is an excellent exam ple be-cause this object was moving slowly,did not land, and had no sound reported,but the cattle stamp eded as its brilliantre d l ight lit up their field. A bonus inthis report is the observation that the50 cows calmed do wn once the UFOdeparted.When prey animals such as ungu-lates ar e confined in barns, they are ina v ulnerab le position because they aretrapped. If something frightens them,their instinct is to run , but if they ar etied or penned in a bam, they cannot.So unfamiliar sounds and/or lightsan d shadows that sweep through th ecracks and w indo w s of a barn could beextremely disturbing. Witnesses willhear vocalizations and hoofs hittingwood as the an ima ls startle and try toescape.O f four sightings with animals inbarns, three had UFO sounds reported,and one, p ossibly tw o, had terrestrial

lighting. A nimals in bams cou ld be rea-sonably exp ected to react to either un-famil iar sound or un fami l ia r l igh tsflashing through the barn, or to both.UFO ShapesAs men tioned in the generalized sec-tion on UFO shapes and animal reac-t ions , dome-shaped or hemispheric

U F O s are presented in greater numb ersthan other shapes among the sightingswi th ungu lates , being reported in 5sightings (A R 0 3 , 4 0 , 44,45, and 52).For comp arison, the next most oftenreported shapes are domed discs (3t i m e s ) . F o o t b a l l - s h a p e d , S a t u r n -shaped, round, angular, and light only(no shap e) are all reported 2 times each.Com paring the domes reported in thefive sightings, four have a solid, clearlyseen s t r u c t u r e , a n d o n e ( A R 4 0 ,Delphos) w as reported to be so brightlyglowing that the surface could not beseen.O nl y AR 45 w as a daylight s ightingthat involved five hem ispheric objectsnear the ground, and it is also th e onlysighting w here sound was not reported.The witness had a mow ing engine run-ning, so did not know if the f ive hover-in g domes m ade any noise.O f th e other four sightings, hum mingw as reported on e t ime (AR03) an drumbling, high-pitched so unds were re-ported for the remaining three.Size estimates fell into two catego-r ies : 25 feet in diameter or length(AR03 and 52) and 8-12 feet. In allcases the objects were reported to lin-ger, h over, or land.Years of the sightings were 1953,1971, 1974 (February an d then Sep-tember), and 1980. Wh ether the domeshape h as any significance to sightingswith ung ulate reactions remains to beseen, and is pointed out with hopes ofgathering m ore information.

Questions for investigators toanswer about ungulate reactionsThe reactions of these animals maybe in response to all aspects of the U FOs ight ing, to some of them, or to onlyone p art. W ithout s ightings involvinganimals that do not react, it is muchharder to theorize about wh ich part ofthe UFO experience is disturbing.T o help w ith this process of elicitinginformation on non-reactive animals,

the witnesses migh t be asked:1. W ere any animals present duringthe sighting? Were they indoors or out-doors?2. Could the w itness see the animals?3. Did the animals remain unaw areof th e object or did they react to it?4. How did they react? W hat exactlydid they do?5. Where was the UFO rela t ive toyour location and the location of theanimals?6. Are the animals accustomed tolow-flying aircraft?7. I f the animals reacted, wh en d idthey ca lm down?A n d , another helpfu l piece of infor-mation would be abou t th e quality an dharshness of the sound of the U F O , ifany. W as the sound soft, medium, loud,or harsh; was i t low-pitched, mediumpitched, h igh-pi tched? Can the wit-nesses think of anything they have heardto wh ich they could compare th e sound?If terrestrial ligh ting or ligh t beamsare reported, helpful information w ouldbe w h a t terrestrial areas were lit? W asit the field w ith horses/cattle present,th e adjoining field, outside of the barn,or some more d istant area?

(Continued next month)Space ships m aybe made of plasticN A S A scientists have invented agroundbreaking, polyethylene-basedmaterial called R X F 1 that's even stron-ger and l ighter than a luminum. Thisnew material is a first in the sense th atit combines superior structural proper-ties w ith superior radiation shielding.The safest way to go to Mars maybe aboard a plastic spaceship. Protect-in g astronauts from deep-space radia-tion is a major unsolved problem be-cause a round -trip could last as long as30 months and be outside Earth's mag-netic field. Some scientists believe go-in g to Mars now with an a luminumspaceship is undoable .Plastic is an app ealing alternative,since polyethylene is 50% better atshielding solar f lares and 15% betterfor cosmic rays. Plastic-like materialsproduce far less secondary radiationthan heavier materials like a luminumor lead.

12 M U F O N U F O J o u rn a l November 2005

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

14/25

Alien videotapedin Mexico?Second video reported

A n igh t wa tchmen at a power sta-tion in Altamira, a town in Mexico'sstate of Tamaulipas, claims th at the im-age of an alien w as captured by hisplant's security cameras.According to the Mexican newspa-p er Hoy Extramex, "widespread panich as been unleashed in Altamira after astrange creature w as videotaped in thesection containing the energy-prod uc-in g turbines of that city's thermoelec-tric plant , spreading once more th etheory that there is an extraterrestrialbase in the area."Elsewhere in Mexico, a UFO report-edly f lew over th e e a s t e r n p a r t ofRamos A r izpe in Coahui la state, andw as reportedly recorded between 3:07an d 3:34 A M o n Oct . 3 by the urbancameras o f t h e M u n i c i p a l P u b l i cSecurity 's O-60 security system.T h e 27-minute- long v ide o s h o w s aU FO described as "a round ob ject w itha grey-colored ring and a black circlein th e middle, rotating.It w as recorded at dif ferent times asi t a p p r o a c h e d a n d w i t h d r e w .Mayra Gallegos Muniz , a radio op era-tor of the O-60 system, who was onduty at the time, said th e object "ap-peared very large, four or f ive times thesize of a star."The video is being made availableto researchers.-Muchas gracias a Scott Corrales yDr. Ana Luisa C id Fernandez y JesusJimenez p os esos articulos d e diario.-Thanks to UFO R OU NDUP, Vol.10, No. 40, Editor: Joseph Trainor.

NoticeT he December issue of the Jour-na l will be prepared an d printed ear-lier than usu al. Hop efully this willresult in faster delivery during th eusual heav y holiday mailing period.T he January issue will be printedat the usual time, w ith delivery formost U.S . subscribers occurr ingaround th e middle of the m o n th .

R aw material of ufologyGrass Roots UFOsCase Reportsfrom the Timmerman Files by Dr .Michael D. Swords, 2005, Fund forUFO Research, Inc. , Center for UFOStudies, P.O. Box 1621, Lima, OH45802,5 '/z x 8 2 soft cover, 25 1 pages,$22 (inc luding postage).Re v i e w e d by Dwight Connelly

Journal editorThis is an important book, not be-cause it tho r -o u g h l y docu-ments specific,f u l l y - i n v e s t i -g a t e d c a s e s ,but because iti n d i c a t e s t h eg r e a t n u m b e ro f o r d i n a r yp e o p l e w h oh a v e had UFOexperiences.L ike DickHall's UFO Sightings in the New M il-lennium ( reviewed las t month) , thecases reported in this book have notbeen investigated.

A s John T immerman, w ho compiledthe cases, notes, "Our main p urpose increating this book has been to capturesome firsthand testimon y for the ages,if not the hard evidence that Carl Saganonce told me was needed for usefulscientific analysis."H e adds, "I call it ' the ra w materialof ufology. ' They have for me the l in-gering taste of truth."Sw ords notes tha t each case repre-sents "a dynamic and natural conver-sation, not an Invest igator ' s Man ualchecklist, and so some stuff gets lefto u t . . . T h e reports-in vast majori ty-seem particularly honest."The way in w hich Timmerman col-lected this material is a story in itself.It goes back to 1980 w hen the Centerfo r U FO Studies (CUFOS) assembleda U FO exhibit for a mall in Dallas, TX.A n estimated 50,000 people viewedth e Dallas exhibit, an d this encouragedCUFOS to expand i t-eventually creat-

in g two identical exhibits.These werthen displayed hi 92 malls, schools, universities, banks, and other facilities oveth e next tw elve years in locations rangin g f rom Nova Sco t ia to Guam tPuerto Rico.A t th e first exhibit, in Dallas, viewer s freely talked about their sightingsNotes w ere taken, and these began tpile up .From Dallas the exhibi t went tGrand Island, ME, and a tape recordew as set up to document th e interviewsBy the time th e exhibit had its final engagement in Sterling, IL, in 1992, thtaped interview s totaled 1,179.One of the traveling exhibits w asold to the International U FO M useumin Roswell , and the other exhibit w ento the town of St. Paul, Alberta, in wesCanada as a p e r m a n e n t disp lay to attract visitors.T h o s e invo lved wi th the p ro j ecknew the reports shou ld be transcribedan d Timmerman w as able to find an individual to do this-a difficult job, sincnot all the speakers h ad clear voices.I t was also difficult to make sure thnames of witnesses were spelled corectly-which was not a problem for thibook, since nam es are not used. However, some place names may be misspelled.Th e 22 three-ring notebooks containin g th e transcripts w ere taken to LimaO H, and S words, a retired natural sciences an d environmental studies faculty member at W estern Michigan U niversity, began the task of coding thcases an d extracting w h a t h e felt w ath e most important information. Thiprocess took m ore than a year.Swords grouped cases into 40 sections devoted to different categories oU F O exper iences . H e c o m m e n t s"Sometimes tha t may be puzz l ingWell, don ' t w orry about it . Jus t enjoth e stories."A nd finally, h e added drawings oth e cases. "Almost no one gave John drawing of their experience's UFOsays Swords. "Almost all of the simpl

November 2005 M U F O N U F O Journal

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

15/25

l ine drawings in this document aremade up out of my reading of thecase . . . .As w ith the honesty and toneof th e story condensations, I tried togive as unembellished a line drawingas the words in the case allowed."Within th e 1,179 cases there were781 shaped objects, 29 1 with lights or"unseeable structures," 35 "classic"U F O s , and 72 cases with no UFO re-ported.O f th e 78 1 shaped objects, 651werediscs and "objects with radical symme-try," 85 had "odd" shapes, and 45 weretriangles or boomerangs.CE II reports includ e 14 inv olvin gvehicle in terference, 14 with physi-ological effects, 16 leaving traces withUFO present , and 18 leaving traceswi thout a reported UFO .CE III cases featu re 36 invo lvingentities w ith a UFO, and 35 with enti-t ies but w ithout a UFO reported.Interestingly, these cases reported toTimmerman over a span of 12 yearspretty well match what are generallyconsidered heav y (f lap) an d light yearsof UFO reports, as both Timmermanand Swords p oint out.The fam ous Edwin Fuhr s ighting a tLangenberg, Saskatchewan, on Sept. 1,1974, is treated at length in a reprint-ing of a 1991 interview involvin g Fuhr,Timmerman, an d Canad ian researcherChris Rutkowski .Section 44 of the book includes ahelpful alph abetic listing of sightings bycities, tow ns, and locations, and Sec-tion 45 lists by date and location w herean d wh en the exhibi ts were displayed.GrassRoots UFOs is unique, welldone, and timeless. I t is great reading,and w ould make an excellent additionto anyone's U FO library.

The weird and interestingUnnatural Phenomena, A G uide tothe Bizarre Wonders of North Americaby Jerome C lark, 2005, AB C C lio , 7 x10 hardcover , 36 9 pages , availablefrom Sheridan Books, Inc., 100 N.Staebler Rd, Ann Arbor , MI 48103,$85.00.Reviewed By Dwight Connelly

Journal editorThis book by respected ufologistJerry Clark is the result of the author ' s14

longtim e interest in anom alies, and hisdecision to go back to 19 th and early20 th century sources to locate materialsimilar to what Charles Fort was fa-mous for documenting .M uch of this research w as done onthe internet, a process which took "asolid year of long days, usu ally sevenof them a week," according to Clark.Th e result is an interesting collectionof "Fort-like" anomalies that are "notin Fort'sbooks, and 90p e r c e n t o rm o r e h a v enever been be-t w e e n b o o kc o v e r s b e -f o r e , " s a y sClark, who isp e r h a p s b e s t

known for hisexcellent UFOEncyclopedia.Those f a -miliar with Fort wil l know w hat to ex-pect-ghost lights, serpents, airships,objects falling from th e sky, spiritualmanifestations, and much , much more .For the most p art, the repo rts are "ex-actly as written" by a newspaper re -porter or editor.Clark is well aware that some ofthese reports are probably the result ofa reporter or editor needing to make upsomething to fill space or sell a new s-paper.He also points out that "anomalousoccurrences may be experientially real,but it does not follow th at all of themar e 'real' on an event level." In otherw o r ds , h u m a n s may not a lways se ew h a t they think they see.Th e book is well organized, as onewould expect from Clark. The reportsare divided b y states, and the table ofcontents lists all of the reports that willappear und er each state.In addition, there is an excellent in-dex for those w h o w a n t to look up vari-ous types of reports, be it by su bject orgeographical locale.The 14-page Introduction is excel-lent , setting th e stage for the reports,an d providing insight an d backgroundthat only someone like Clark could pro-vide.Those w h o e n j o y Fort's books

MUFON UFO Journal

should like this surprisingly ex pensive(yes, $85.00 is not a misprint) bookvery m u c h , as should all those individu -als w h o enjoy actual reports of strangeanimals, strange lights, and strange oc-currences.

MUFON ForumDear M r. Connelly,I would like to comment on the ar-t ic le by Dan Wright in the August ,2005, issue of the M U F O N U FO Jour-nal. I think it wo uld interest an yone in-volved w ith meteors and meteorites.T h r o u g h o u t my l i f e I hea rd mymother speak of a meteorite that sheonce w itnessed. H er description of thee v e n t w as a lw a y s p r e t ty m u c h th esame, so I h a v e no reason to doubt h eraccount.W h e n she was around age ten shelived w ith her parents on a farm in ru-ra l Iredel County, N C .A s she played around in the yard,not far from th e house, she was startledby something impacting th e groundnearby. She ran over to it to see what itwas.She described it as a red-hot rockpartially imbedded in the soil. I t wastoo hot to touch, so she ran into th e

house an d called her mother out to seethe rock. After it had cooled, they re-trieved the rock and put it to use as adoor prop.She described the appearance of therock as having imp rints abou t the sizeof th e fingers, w hich I took to be abla-tion marks caused by interaction w ithth e atmosphere.W hat this suggests to me is that th eatmosphere ca n slow dow n w h a t is leftof a falling meteorite from somethinglike seven miles per second at the timeit is captured by the Earth's gravity untilit impacts the ground at only a fractionof such a speed.I commented to my mother on m orethan one occasion that she was ex-tremely lucky to have witnessed thefalling of a meteorite at close range. Sh elived to be 93 years old.

Kind Regards,Robert D. NullNovember 2005

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

16/25

FILER 'S FILESDirector, M U F O N Eastern Region

Note: These reports are presented in or-der to keep readers informed of some of thev a s t number of sightings being reported.However , these cases have not been off ic ia l lyinvest igated.California triangleSA N DIEGO On July 4 , 2005,at 9 PM a bright triangle w ith orangelights w as spotted ab ove M ission Bay,so the w itnesses parked on a hill to ob-serve it ."Very high over Mission Bay," saysone of the wi tnesses , "I saw a verybr ight orange ball , and as it got closeri t looked like a V. It had five br ight or -ange lights on each arm of the V."I t moved very fast to the lef t ,stopped, then moved forw ard and to theright. There also appeared to be sometype of dripping orange fire from it, likea flare, but this only happ ened twice."Then th e lights went out one at atime on the arms, an d it ju st looked likea star that faded out. I was sober as hellan d still pretty freaked ou t about it."I am an ed uca t ed m i d d l e agewoman, and never sa w anyth ing like it.I just can' t believe w e were the onlyones to see it. I 'm watching th e new sfo r i t. Most people w ere watching thefireworks." Th anks to Peter D avenp ort.Japanese crew fi lms at Area 51Eugene Cuthb ertson writes, "I go along way back in UFOlogy to NI CA Pand A P R O . I 've had a few sight ings,accompanied a Japanese NHK videoteam to Area 51 , and h ad a very briefclose encounter."The Japanese NHK film crew gotsome good stuff, and I have a copy of iton video, which I am going to convertto CD and into this Dell computer, asan MPEG."The Japanese were careless, an dworried me a great deal. This has beena few years ago, before Freedom Ridgew as closed. T he Japanese monitored

George Filer

th e secu rity patrols, and you can hearth e patrol radio back that h is area isclear."When the pat rol went back, theJapanese waited a short t ime, contin-ued to monitor security, illegally I think,then followed h im back in, but I don ' tknow how close w e actually were."On the video you can see a fairlylarge lighted craftemerge straightup. I t e i t h e r is-s u e d a n o t h e rcraf t or ano the rcraf t which wasre d wen t up w i thit , screened of ffrom us, and ap-peared."Both maneu-vered for severals e c o n d s or aminute, then went back down to thebase. W e were on the backside ofGroom Mountain."On the VCR, if you pause the videoan d press th e tracking buttons, th e staticconfetti will be deleted and it is pos-sible to make out both discs for w h a tthey are."This was p art of a six-hour m ini-series in Japan, and I have th e final tw ohours of it. For years I didn't think muchabout the tape, assuming that mostpeople in U fology already knew ab outit."

N ew Mexico flashing objectA L B U Q U E R Q U E A bright lyf lashing object w as seen in broad day-light at 12:50 PM on Jun e 19,2005. Itrose sudden ly, hovered, then d ived an dsped aw ay after five minutes.T he w itness reports, "I stopped an dwatched it; the flashing continued in anirregular, fluttery fashion, and it con-tinued its southerly motion against th ewind."After perhaps tw o minutes of ob-

servation, th e object was due south ome. It sudd enly rose very rapidly to position p robably 70 degrees abov e thhorizon an d stood motionless. It cont inued to f lash, and I could see a blackphase alternating between th e brighones."There was no discernable shapean d th e size w as j u s t sufficient to givm e th e impress ion of angular i ty .Thanks to Peter Davenport, Directorwww.ufocenter .com.O klahoma discL A K E H A L L Blake reports toSk ywatch International, "Last night onJuly 1,2005,1was f i sh ing w hen a l inof thunderstorms began to move intothe area. My back w as to the lake wh ensuddenly there w as this brigh t flash olightning, but no thunder."There w as still a bit of a glow lefin th e sky. I turned around, an d therw as this saucer-shaped thing hoveringover the lake! It didn ' t make a soundIt seemed to be greenish yellow in coloan d had a small protrusion attached toth e bottom."I was overcome wi th fear , andjumped into m y truck and got the heckou t of there! I ' ve been in combat , buI 've never felt fear like that beforeToday, after I calmed down a bit , called a friend wh o suggested I call JimHickman, w ho studies UFOs."Thanks to Blake, Jim Hickman, andSky watch International.Six spheres spotted in IllinoisCAROL STREAM Last weekI 'm not exactly sure of the date, tw ofriends saw an orange glow abov e th ebaseball park ad jacen t to the lake. O neof the w itnesses reports, "I though t af irst there were f ireworks, but therwere six spheres flying in format ionthree in front an d three in rear."The front formation was a diagona

November 2005 M UF ON UF O J ou rna l

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

17/25

line of three. T he rear was a trianglepointing to the front formation. It wouldhav e seemed a large single craft if theyw eren' t oscillating freely. They m ovedslightly in and out in perfect formation."This form ation continued across thesky, wh ich was a clear dusk sky. Theindividual objects were an amber, blue,gray all put together. T he l ight was aniridescent glow. They appeared veryhigh in the atmosphere, and w ere mov-in g over th e horizon v ery quickly, butsoundless."They resembled a magnified hum anegg, round with an inner circumferen ceand an outer. O nly my friend and I sawit , that w e know of . As the crafts con-tinued across th e du sk sky, w e both ob-served them vanish one by one, f rontof the formation to the back. Pleasec o n t a c t m e a tGuitardude823@ aol.com." Thanks toPeter Davenport.Idaho close encounter with discMERIDIAN T h e male witnessstates, "I was approached by a strangef lying light w hile driving home on July8,2005.1was driv ing home to M erid-ia n with m y aun t and her grandkidsfrom Fruitland, OR , and we left closeto midnight."I took the Franklin exit of f of Inter-state 84 by mistake. So I just headednorth till I hit Ch erry Lane R oad, wh ichis a back road to Meridian . There w asno other traffic, and all we could seew as a lot of open un used f ie lds."From out of now here a strange lightapproached th e side of the car at groundlevel an d then flew right over us. Ithardly made any sound. All I could seewere four bright wh ite lights that wereround in shape ."I t felt like I was being watched fora split second. After it flew over th ecar it dove dow n in to th e field nex t tous and its lights went out. I saw that itd i d n ' t look anything like a plane. I tlooked more like a long win g or saucershape."I saw one light come on after thebr ight ones went out. I t was a smallb l i n k i n g b l u e l i g h t . A f t e r i t h a dswooped down in the f ield, I saw itwh ip around and jump back up in to thesky."I felt lucky this thing didn' t crash

into us, and I just kep t driving. I lookedback in my rear view mirror, and it wasjus t hov ering above the trees."The female w itness states, "W e weregoing back to Meridian, ID, and weredriving along w est on C herry Road. Allof a sudden a strong light from out ofnow here beamed on us ."It was a bright wh ite light. The ob-ject flew right in front of us and passedus in to a f ield. A beaming strong lightshined on us as the object flew by. Thelights wen t out, and a blue f lashing lightcame on. The object stopped and turnedaround and w ent back up in the sky."N ew Hampshire cigar shapeEXETER An Instructor FlightEngineer on the P3 Orion an d EP-3Reconnaissance aircraft with 10,000hours of f l ight time called P eter Dav -enport to report "an enorm ous silver ci-gar-shaped object in the sky at about a40 degree angle above th e hor izonabout 3:15 PM on Ju ly 20 , 2005."He reports he w as shocked to see theobject hov erin g a lmost motionless ,back-dropped by clear, blue sky inpartly cloudy conditions w ith a westwind a t 9 mph .T he w itness states, "I am a retiredNavy chief with 22 years of service. Ialso worked for Boeing in Everett, W A ,as a quality assurance manager lead-ing a team of 65 people in the SystemsInstallation Division on the Boeing 777Production Line."Fve flown over the entire globe, andnever seen anything like this cylinder.This object w as about twice th e size ofa modern day US Nav y Nimitz Classaircraft carrier f lying without sound."I though t it was between 2,500 an d3,500 feet in a l t i tude, because theclouds were at 5,000 feet. There wasalso a row of large w indow s evenlyspaced aroun d the entire perimeter ofthe object a little bit high er than center."The object was moving from th ewest directly toward m e, heading in aneaster ly direct ion and moving veryslowly at less than 100 knots."There w as th is s trange lookingcloud of orange/red flames that startedgrowing and bi l lowing underneath theentire bottom of the object."The b i l lowing f iery clouds re -minded me of the way napalm rolls

along on the vintage w ar film footageof Viet Nam I 've seen on television,excep t that there was no smoke associ-ated w ith it. It looked as if the air itselfh ad been suddenly ignited in a largebillowing cloud of flames."Just as I was ab out to turn and runinto th e house due to fear, th e fierycloud grew larger, and it seemed to bepushing back toward the western endof the object."Once it reached it s peak (probablyabout half the diam eter of the object),the object seemed to stretch out abouttwice its original size toward the east-er n end, thus filling the entire sky infront of me, and then in the w in k of aneye the western end of the object caugh tup with th e eastern end and i t simplydisappeared right in front of me."This was ab solutely one of the mostamazing things I hav e ever seen in mylife, and in my opinion this was notsomething man made-and it was far toobig to be a blimp or an airplane. I be-lieve it was not of this Earth."Peter Davenport w as impressed bythe demeanor, eloquence, an d appar-en t sincerity of the witness . Thanks toPeter Davenport.Indiana object photographedR O A N N T h e witness reports, "Isaw a silver diamond shape craft onJuly 1,2005, at 7:05 PM and thought itwas an airplane. It was still, then itfl ipped to its side and van ished."I had m y digital camera, and juststarted taking pictures of w here it hadbeen as I kept driving. I saw nothingexcept traces in the sky, like smoke orrocket trails."When I downloaded th e pictures Ifound f ive or six photos of the UFO,w i t h tw o p i c tu r e s s h o w in g s m o k ecircles and a zigzag p attern in the sky.I t must have been traveling real fast,because the camera caug ht wh at I couldnot see."It was a ball of fire with a black ob -ject in the center. I am very pleased withthese photos." Thanks to Peter Daven-portUFOs sighted in the UKB R A C K N E L L N E W S U F O swere sighted in the sky over CrownW ood on July 19,2005, wh en Maurice

16 M U F O N U F O Journal November 2005

8/14/2019 November 2005 No. 451

18/25

Jones looked throug h h is binoculars thath e uses to spot birds. B ut w h e n he andsome of his family saw not one, but twoUFO s hov er ing above the ir hou se a t 4PM , they knew som ething strange washappening .Th ey got some neighbo rs to look aswel l . Maurice , 50, a Parcel N et cou-r ie r , sa id h is 12-year-old daughterAlaina spotted th e strange object first.Maurice reports, "The first objectw as huge , and the shape of a plane fu-selage or a cigar tube. It was brown androtating in the sky . W hen it caugh t th esu n i t had a metallic appearance. Itcame right over the top of us."Another witness, M r. Jones, said th eobject w as in the sky for around 20 min-utes before disappearing. But the groupcould not believe their eyes wh en theysaw the second object a few minuteslater-a flying saucer spinning fast. Bothobjects were in the Heathrow Airportf light path.Missouri sphereST . L O U I S A l i t up sphere-shaped object was seen moving veryslowly southeast over th e city on J u ne17 , 2005, at 7:08 P M .T h e f a m i l y w as outs ide cookingw h e n th e husb and pointed out a roundsilver metallic o bject that turned brigh tyellow, either li t up or reflecting thesunlight.It traveled very slow ly f rom north-west to southeas t . I t went behind acloud, but witnesses could still see theyellow shining through . It then came ou tof th e clouds an d continued in the samedirection that i t had been m oving, stil lvery slowly.T en min utes later th e object w as stillslowly moving to the southeast. T hanksto Peter D avenpor t .New York rectangleA S T O R I A A t 5:35 P M o n J u ne1, 2005, the witness saw a rectangu-lar-shaped grayish black object mak-in g a lazy circle over Queens at about1,000 feet.The objec t was th in when viewedhead -on. It appeared to be at least 500feet, but less than 1,000 feet, long, and100-200 feet w i d e . T h e objec t f lewover Astoria Boulevard, then made awide circle and flew over the East River

November 2005

to the island of M anhat tan, turning tofly south dow n its spine on Manhattan'swest side.Th e duration of the sighting was fiveminutes . I t was similar to a banner be-in g towed . "However," says th e wit-ness, "at no time did I see an airplanetowing i t , and there was no writ ing oradvertisement on the g rayish black ob-ject." Th anks to Pe ter Davenp or t .Wisconsin objectsGALESV ILLE T h e observer re -ports seeing dark circular objects at 9P M o n J u ne 20,2005. They w ould d is -appear and then reappear in a dif ferentlocation."One object," says th e w i t ne s s ,"seemed to have the shape of a domeon top. I saw one, then tw o and three,but there were usu al ly two.

"The odd thing is that as I was tak-in g pictures of these dark ob jects, I be-gan to notice the clouds changing awaytoward the right of them. I took threepictures of the changing formation."Iwas using a digital camera, andwhen I took the picture of the large con-f igura t ion , m y camera went tota l lyblack except for the normal informa-tion readout. I have never h ad this hap -p en before."I tried repeatedly to take a picture,and i t jus t wouldn ' t work . Even th eviewf inder w as black. I had to turn itof f and on again. B y that t ime th e largeconfiguration w as gone."Thanks to Pe-te r Davenpor t .Florida bright orange lightW E E K I - W A C H E E S e v e n w i t -nesses w ere on a fishing trip in the Gulfof Mexico on Ju ly 3, 2005, wh en theysa w a bright orange light just above thew ater at 2:48 A M .Th e w itness says the object "tilted,stayed there fo r about a minute , an dthen s lowly w ent hor izonta l . It lookedlike it was spinning, and was almostalive with color."It was on the starboard side whenseven of us saw the object as it ap-peared in an instant in the dark nightsky. Th e light w as a very bright beauti-ful orange that was n ot an oil rig, spaceshut t le , aircraft , or vessel, s ince weknow what they look like out there atnight.

M U F O N U F O J o u rna l

"I reached for my camera, but thebattery w as dead, even though i t wasbrand new . They h ad been in the camera for a coup le of ho urs, and the cam-era worked f ine unti l we saw the l igh t"Even th e lights on the boat dimmedbefore the object blinked out. I'm stilbeside myself abo ut this sighting, an dhave felt dif ferent. I j u s t w a n t to knoww h a t th is was ." Thanks to MUFONCase Man agement System.New York orange discB R O O K L Y N O n July 11, 2005the witness was w