Number 108 THE MUFOH NOVEMBER 1976

UFO JOURNALFounded 1967 $1.00

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF MUFON/ MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.l

Police Ch ie f J e f f r e y G r e e n h a u j t o o k f ou r po la ro id p i c t u r e s o f an unusualc r e a t u r e while i nves t iga t ing r e p o r t s o f UFO landings near Falkuille, A l -a b a m a , i n O p t o b e r 1973. The G5UJ c o m p u t e r ana l ys i s o f t h o s e p h o t o g r a p h sa p p e a r s in this issue.

MWON UFOJOURNAL

103OldtowneRd.Seguin, Texas 78155

Dennis William HauckEditor

Walter H.AndrusDirector of MUFON

Joseph M. BrillEditorial Assistant

Mark ChesneyAssociate Editor

Rev. Dr. Barry DowningReligion and UFOs

Ann DruffelCalifornia Report

Lucius ParishBooks/Periodicals/History

Marjorie FishExtraterrestrial Life

Stan GordonCreatures S UFOs

Richard HallAssociate Editor

Mark HerbstrittAstronomy

Rosetta HolmesPromotion/Publicity

David A. SchrothSt. Louis/Mass Media

John F. SchuesslerUFO Propulsion

Dwight ConnellyNorma E. ShortEditor/Publishers Emeritus

Len StringfieldCommentary

The MUFON UFO IOURIUL it publahed imnthl) b, the

Mutml UFO Network, Stfuin, Tan. Subxripthm rites

$1.00 per jen in U.S.; $9.00 per jut fweipi. CoppijM

1976 b) Mutual UFO Netmit. hand eta pntip paid

it S<|<>in, Tern Return undeliimble copies to: HUFONUFO JOURNM. 103 Oldtowne Rd, Sepin, Tew 7815S.

FROM THE EDITORThe International

UFOlogy Conference,described on page 12of this issue, maybe one of the mostimportant UFO meet-ings ever. Judgingfrom, the speaker'slineup, nearly allthe major research-ers in the fieldwill be in attend-ance, not to ment-ion scores of pro-fessional ufolog-ists in the audi-ence.

But even moreimportant will bethe many behind-the-scenes meetings offoreign ufologistsand government lead-ers. Hopefully realprogress can be made

in the areas of in-formation exchangeand a new, world-wide effort to solvethe UFO problem.

The Mexican gov-ernment's interestin the UFO phenom-enon has reached apeak with the inaug-uration of PresidentPortillo. Many ofthe government's off-icial agencies arehelping to insure thesuccess of the Con^-ference. All thisleads me to hope thatMexico, which is amember of the UN Out-er Space Committee,will take the lead inbringing the UFO pro-blem to the floor ofthe United Nations.

In this issueF A L K U I L L E C R E A T U R E P H O T O S A N A L Y Z E D b y

by lllilliam Spau ld ing ..3N E W A U S T R A L I A N C A S E U N D E R I N V E S T I G A T I O N

by R i c h a r d Hall 5

T H E S K Y N E T L O G : C I R C L I N G S H I P S

by Ann Dru f fe l 5? f H o r r e y Allen 6

( H U F O N A f i l A T E U R R A D I O N E T W O R K S 9

UFO SIGHTED AT HA UTE -IDA R N E , I R E L A N Dby Jim Smith ......"30

L A K E OBJECTS R E P O R T E D I N S C A N D I N A V I Aby Richard Hall 11

I N T E R N A T I O N A L U F O L O G Y C O N F E R E N C E 1 2I N OTHERS' WORDS

by Lucius Parish 13THREE UFOs S I G H T E D FROfll F R E I G H T E R

by J.I. Takanashi .......14P E N T A G O N P A N T R Y : IS THE C U P B O A R D B A R E ?

by Richard Hall 150 I R E C T O R ' S M E S S A G E

by Walt A n d r u s 19R E C A P P I N G AND C0 fll TOENTI NG

by R i c h a r d Hall.... 20A S T R O N O f i l Y N O T E S

by (Hark R. Herbs t r i t t 20

n.cortBholtoWJFMUroWM^miltttrnhedbTtt.editw.iiiiido Pemhwhtntliif^tMtoojattlinttililmpmktaiMMntliif^og

of cntriaatoa m tlittr own, at do til namtftr ratted then ol too tdfex,U» «ifl, or Duron. MKKs timid bo ubnHrt to Denote HiPira Hud, 1146ofllliiSt,Hiainond,tod.4U27.

limn mj mi lillrli |hi mltinr nl Itii mirti li |ti» iniHl, nil lln i(*mm\-CoppUM 1976 b, HUKX UFO JOUHM, 101 OMtono Id, Stfita, TT b

Falkville CreaturePhotographs Analyzedby William Spaulding, Director GSW

Photographs of images pur-.portedly representing the uniden-tified object phenomenon havebenn available for evaluation sin-ce the conception of moderndaysightings (1974). It is ex-tremely rare to have the op-p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t ephotographic data on purportedoccupants. During the Flap of 1973there were dozens of reports of"creatures" connected directly tothe observation of the UFOphenomenon.

One such picture from the 1973sightings was forwarded to GSWfor analysis, by Walt Andrus -Director of MUFON. Com-puterized evaluation techniqueshave been utilized by ourorganization on 600 + UFOphotographs. If an "object" canbe analyzed, then obviously, animage of a human-like creaturecan be tested for its authenticity.

The Falkville, Alabama oc-cupant photographs were subrjected to .the following computer-aid . evaluations: edge enhan-cement, color cbntouring, pixeldistortion analysis, and digitizing.

Edge Enhancement - The totalseries of pictures, were subjectedto edge enhancement to gaindetails.of the "creature 's" edges;and surface condition. By enhan-ceihg or detailing the edges ithelped to alleviate some of thereflections of light that was boun-cing wildly off the aluminumcolored suit arid ; obscuring thedetails. " ; • > / • ;/•.: ;:

The edging also detailed thesurface of the suit (skin) by can-celing the reflections and facets oflight. This enabled the technicians

Police Chief G r e. e n h a uj y s h o a s his,posit ion rel-ative to that o'f'' . t h e ' c rve a t u r e (X).

to observe surface details andidentify random pieces ofaluminum foil or wrap ; laced onthe suit.

Reference should be made tothe Analysis Explanation Sheetwhich 'details all the ^variousmodes of; evaluation/testingutilized on these photographs.

, Color Contouring - All the pic-tures were submitted to thecoloring technique to test the

. irnagef or its true grey v alue (den-sity),; which blends contdnouslyboth in intensity (level) and;spatiality (area). This techniquegives the photographic analyzerhard data on the light source andits direction to the ̂ subject beingphotographed and the actual den-sity of the image, this method oftesting is also utilized to evaluatebackground data by revealinganamalous densities, barelyvisible to the human eye.

The entire set of photographs

were scanned utilizing the digitaldensitometer and the areas of in-terest were recorded for com-parison between pictures.

Pixel Distortion Analysis - Pixel(picture cell) analysis was per-formed to evaluate , the ap-

. proximate distance of the imagefrom, the camera/witness. Theedges of the image are outlinedwith a special computer program,then these same edges (areas)are magnified and the individual

\squares of pixels are measuredfor their relative straightness orlack of the same. Referenceshould be made to Figure 4 depic-ting pixel distance information.

The general rule for distance,measured from the pixels data issimple; :'if-.the' pixels are! straightthe image is;close, conversely ifthe pixels are wavy this denotes adistance factor.

Digitizing - Digitizing or com-puterization of the pictures was

First shot oft he c r e a t u r euia 5 t a k e n from

I '.5 D " f e e t a uii a.y .•

Second' shot ofthe creatureua s taken from20 feet aiuay.

Th.Tl'p d a nd" f our th • shots ofthe creature . w e re t a k e nfrom only 10 feet aiuay.

Compu.ter^color- enhanceme n t (1 e f.t) and edge enhancement. ..(right) mere p e r f o r m e d .on ,the G r e e n h a w p-ho to g r a ph s . .

performed to enhance the hiddendetails. Various modes ofdigitizing add picture clarity andresolution to the original,therefore, lighten dark areas,highlight shadows and finite por-tions on the film, and increase theoverall contrast of the film.

Digitizing added details to eachimage to enable -accuratemeasurements of image size,height, width, position, etc. Thiswas accomplished on a videomicrometer that measuresdimensions in .001" units.

Conclusions - It is the concensusof the photographic analyzers thatthe photographs in questionshould not be considered strongevidence of an extra-terrestrialentity. The following data is sup-plied to quantify the same:

A) The outer garment of thealledged creature is a hot suit,manufactured from fire retardentmaterials, including asbestus andother non-combustible/non con-ducting fibres, then coated withan aluminum covering.

B) A flash attachment Wasutilized during the exposure,which highlighted upon thewrinkled surface and reflectedbrilliantly, thus masking some ob-vious details of manufacture.

C) Digital densitometryrevealed certain areas of lover

reflectivity, not • attributed toshadows or reflection. Furtheranalysis revealed that these in-consistancies are attributed to'patches' of aluminum foil, spar-sely positioned on the overall suit.Possibly placed on the 'suit' tomask known manufacturingsigns, ie, buttons, zippers, in-signias,etc.

D) The anatomical featuresdepicted within the pictures areconsidered normal (human-like)including; the length of the arms,the position of the features, andtheir relative sizes. Theballooning effect of the legs andfeet is due to the manufacture ofthe suit and not that of the body in-side the garment.

E) Picture factoring, calculatedwithout the benefit of the knownreference points, revealed thatthe entity was between 5 feet 6 in-ches and 6 feet tall1.

F) Void of the actual cameradata, the photograph was takne ata relatively close distance. Com-puted at less than twelve feet(camera to object distance)

At best, these picturesrepresent a humorous attempt athoaxing a space creature, whichGSW believes was initiated by thetremendous media coverage inthe southern states, during theFlap of 1973.

Greenhaw shows w h e r e the c ieature d i sappea red f r o m theroad dur ing the ha l f -mi l e chase.

NEW AUSTRALIAN CASEUNDER INVESTIGATION

By Richard HallMUFON International Coordinator

A strange case currently underinvestigation in New South Waleswas reported to me by BillChalker in a letter dated June 1,1976. On March 22, 1976, at 5:45AM in Nemingha, N.S.W., aMurrundi couple and a utilitytruck driver were parked oppositethe Nemingha Hotel' when theynoticed a small white car with theheadlights on approaching. Abright light "from above" descen-ded over the car; greenish-yellowlight from the object covered thecar. At this moment; the carbecame enveloped in a thick ballof white haze and the headlightswent out.

"The car was now well on itswrong side of the road," Chalkersaid. "After about 2 minutes thehaze seemed to dissipate andfinally a woman got out of the carand proceeded to wipe the win-dscreen with a yellow cloth. Thewindscreen seemed to be coveredwith a white substance." A fewminutes later the woman wasabout to get back in the car whenthe lights came back on suddenly."She appeared to be somewhatsurprised, and then threw awaythe cloth, which then 'burst intoflames.' " The witnesses saw thecar proceed very slowly towardNundle, totally covered by a thickwhite substance "not unlike whitepaint," except for the cleared win-dscreen.

"This rather bizarre case hasno obvious explanation at themoment," Chalker reported,"and I intend to investigate it indetail. The time of the year (here)is late summer."

TheSkynetLog: Circling ShipsBy Ann Druffel and Morrey Allen

On the evening of September 5,1976 a puzzling incident involvingfour witnesses occurred in the LosAngeles Basin area. In CanogaPark and Reseda, two com-munities lying twenty and twenty-,four miles respectively northwestto the Civic Center, separate pairsof citizens excitedly reported twowhirling discs in the sky. The ob-jects, seen in a stormy sky, wereexchanging or "interlocking"rays of light as they rapidly cir-cled each other. . . . .

On September 6th, Mary AnnRyman called SKYNET #3 (Druf-fel); having been referred by thelocal police. She stated that sheand her mother-in-law, TessRyman, had been watching TV at6:50 p.m. the previous evening intheir home in a residential area ofCanoga Park. Seeing the firstflashes of an approaching elec-trical storm, Tess Ryman steppedout onto the patio. The lightningwas some miles away, in the nor-th. She then noticed two softlyglowing balls of light above herand at first "thought they wereclouds". She changed her opinionrapidly, however, as they movedsilently in rapid circles over the ;

backyard.Tess Ryman called her

daughter-in-law and for twentyminutes the two startled womenwatched the lights repeatedlysweep in precise maneuversabove their heads. Both witnesseshad the impression the lights wereat very low altitude and were-amanating from solid objects.

The lights were the color of GElight bulbs, with a touch of blue,and glowed softly "like a moon

behind clouds". They were equalin size and were viewed against aheavy, gray layer of rain clouds.

An on-the-spot investigationwas conducted on behalf ofMUFON and CUFOS (by Druffel)on September 7th. Both witnessesseemed stable and reliable anddid not seem to tend toward em-bellishment. Some discrepanciesin the two accounts were easilyaccounted for if one considers thatTess Ryman's eyesight is not assharp as her daughter-in-law's.But the general appearance of thelights, their maneuvers, and theduration of sighting coincided inboth accounts.

Mary Ann Ryman stated thatclearly defined rays, of unequallength, shot out from theperimeter of each object. Ap-parent size of the objects plusrays was about one and one-halfinches at arm's length. Theserays extended, on the average,about one and one-half times thediameter of the objects. Theyreminded her somewhat of "raysof the sun", though much less in-tense. Tess Ryman did not see therays, but viewed the edges of theobjects as indefinite, "like thejaggedy edges of a cloud".

Tess Ryman was frightened bythe persistent circling of the ob-

•, jects, fearing that "one of themmight drop". Mary Ann Ryman,who had read some literature onUFOs, theorized that the lightswere "UFOs" or "ships" whichwere surveying the neighborhood.She was frankly fascinated bythem.

Mary Ann Ryman describedthree precise "maneuvers" per-

formed by the objects. ManeuverA (See Sketch 1) was the tight cir-cles, exact and almost acrobatic,which the objects executed overand over in the same area of skyabove their yard. Each circle wasof nine to ten seconds duration.The center of the circle wasmeasured at fifty-five degreesabove the southern horizon. Thediameter of the circles was aboutseventy degrees. During these cir-cular motions, the objects stayedan exact distance from eachother, moving clockwise. The truediameter of their circles, asmeasured by Mary Ann Ryman,was about two-hundred and fiftyfeet, assuming that the witnesses'estimate of the objects' altitudewas correct. They were fairly cer-tain that the objects were slightlyabove a telephone pole at one cor-ner of the yard (estimated heightforty feet). The objects did notrotate on their own axes, thoughMary Ann Ryman spoke of each"ship" having a front and a back.

The witnesses stated that theobjects would complete abouteight perfect circles, then go intothe second "maneuver". (SeeSketch 2) During this, they madea crisscross motion into the circle,moving toward each other andpassing less than a diameter'slength away. While passing eachother, the rays "interlocked"briefly. (See Sketch 4) Then theobjects would exchange placeswith each other on the perimeterof the circle, continuing on foreight more circles before comingtogether again. Maneuver B tookapproximately five seconds.

In Maneuver C, the objects left

SKETCH 1

MANEUVER "A"Round aspect, when

overhead and insouthern sky

Oval, or "banking"effect, in :easternand western positions.

SKETCH 2

MANEUVER "B"

Interlockedrays, only^momentarily

SKETCH 3

MANEUVER "C"

Inter-lockeay's*.

SKETCH

Two objects as drawn byMary Ann R y m an. Interlockedrays applicable to Maneuvers B & C,

SKETCH 5

Object as drawn by Mrs.Ryman. Rays not discernible,both objects prayish-white with"jaggedy" edges.

their clockwise circles and cametogether on a curved path, in-terlocking rays as they traveledclose together, then separatingfrom each other and returning ona curved path back to its originalplace. (See Sketch 3) Thismaneuver took about thirty secon-ds and was performed only aboutone-fourth the number of timesManeuver B was performed.

The interlocking of the raysseemed to impress Mary AnnRyman deeply. She stated therays definitely overlapped eachtime the objects passed closely.During these periods, the areabetween the objects brightenedconsiderably. She suggested thatduring interlocking, the objectsmight have been communicatingin an "exchange" or "talkingtime".

After watching the objects per-form for a full twenty minutes, the

special interest in "doubleUFOs", which are generallydescribed as two spherical objectsjoined by a link or bar. But it waspuzzling why no one else in theneighborhood had reported the ob-jects. Mary Ann Ryman inquiredof her neighbors, but none of themhad been outside at the beginningof the lightning storm.

The storm was a most violentone, resulting from freakmeteorological conditions. In in-tensity, it rivaled none in this areaduring the past thirty years.

On the same evening, Sep-tember 5th, at about 6:45 p.m., ayoung, frightened man, Mr. R.J.,had called SKYNET #3 (Druffel)to report that two glowing ballswere over his Reseda residence,whirling around each other and"exchanging flashes betweenthem". Since the sighting was stillin progress at the time of the

overhead". The investigator hadbeen outside watching the ap-proaching storm and had notedtwo searchlights in the area fromwhich R.J. was calling.Everything about the lights R.J.was reporting comparedfavorably to searchlights, exceptthat occasionally the beams of thesearchlights were visible to the in-vestigator but were evidently notvisible to R.J.

When the rain came a fewminutes later, the lights disap-peared, both by R.J.'s ob-servation and the investigator'sas well. When the rain passedsome time later, a number oflights reappeared, again noted byR.J. and again plainly identifiablefrom the investigator's position.

Exchanging notes on the twocases, the writers came to theconclusion that Tess and MaryAnn Ryman must have been

Sketch of the. glowing, objects

women saw bolts of lightningflashing near their home. At this,the two objects "sped off togethertoward the south". A few secondslater, rain started to fall. Itseemed as though the objects"were keeping ahead of thestorm".

This seemed to be a sighting ofunusual interest, especially sincethe investigator (Druffel) has a8

police-referred call, R.J. wasreferred immediately to SKYNET#68 (Allen) whose home lay threemiles east from where R.J. wascalling. R.J's grandmother wasalso witnessing the objects.

Allen, also a MUFON in-vestigator, talked to R.J. byphone, and gained a detaileddescription of the "two whitediscs of light maneuvering

seeing the same searchlightswhich had frightened R.J. Whenthis was discussed with Mary AnnRyman, however, she firmlystated they could not have beensearchlights on clouds. Shereiterated the facts of the clearcutrays, the precise and long-lastingmaneuvers, and the unwaveringappearance of the lights whichseemed to be emanating from

solid objects.Unusual meteorological con-

ditions continued in the LosAngeles area for several moredays. Three more reports of"UFOs", attributable to sear-chlights on clouds were receivedby SKYNET. During this periodMary Ann Ryman called Allen.She was watching searchlightsplaying on the underside ofclouds, with the beams not visible.She had never noticed this beforeand could now understand whyMUFON had labeled her firstreport as searchlights, becausethe effect was very similar.

"But," she continued, this is notwhat I saw on September 5th."During subsequent interviews,the witness stuck to her originalstatements. She pointed out thatthe most notable difference bet-ween her September 5th sightingand the searchlights viewed a fewdays later was that the sear-chlights flitted about in erraticmanner on the uneven bottom sur-face of the cloud layer, whereasthe September 5th objectsmaneuvered smoothly. Also therewas the matter of the visual ap-pearance of the objects.

At his home, with sketches andword-pictures at hand, in-vestigator Allen made up a colordrawing. When it was shown toMary Ann Ryman she exclaimed,"That's it! That's what I saw!"(See Allen's drawing, ac-companying this report) At thisinterview, the elder Mrs. Rymanwas not available, haying suf-fered a painful injury, so we donot have her confirmation.

The drawing shows the objectas a disc, and in a second aspectas an ellipse in its "banking"position. Mary Ann Ryman hadalso noted that the elliptical formwas adopted as the two objectssped off to the south just beforethe rains came. The most strikingpart of the drawing are thenumerous, definite flowing rays

which streak out against a dullgray sky.

So we are left with a puzzle, twocases, with a confirmed ex-planation which fits most of thefacts. But not all of them.

What were the interlocking"rays" seen by Mary AnnRyman? What were the "ex-change of flashes" reported byR.J? Sven assuming that theheavy, low cloud layer wasunusually homogeneous inmakeup, could searchlights givethe appearance of precisely-moving solid objects which neverstrayed from definite paths?Would two searchlight operators"play" at meaneuvers with theirsearchlight beams over a smallarea of sky for twenty fullminutes?

It was not feasible to try totrack down the searchlight ud-vertising companies involved, dueto the fact that a number of sear-chlights were in operation overthe area that night.

Can these cases be explainedsimply as misidentifications? Weknow that the human eye has atendency to add detail to unknownobjects, especially if the observeris experiencing strong emotion.Thus R.J.'s frightened eyes could.have seen "flashes" when the twosearchlight's edges cametogether. Mary Ann Ryman, inher elation, might likewise haveadded detail. Why she sawdefinite rays which "interlocked"remains the question here.

This case probably reinforcesour knowledge that witnesses,even those which seem moststable and reliable, cannot alwaysbe relied upon. We present this,not as a documented UFO report,but as an exple of how cases canseem to be what they are not, andof the vulnerability of humannature.

YOUR ARTICLES, N E W S C L I P P I N G S ,

A N D S U G G E S T I O N S A R E GREATLY

APPRECIATED. SEND MATER I ALTO:D. WILLIAM HAUCK, EDITOR^^^ GOSTLIN STREETHAMMOND, IND. 46327

MUFON Amateur Radio

Networks

Due to the many questions wereceive from MUFON members whoare also Amateur Radio Operators,the following recap is being publishedas a reminder of the present netsoperating each week. (All times areCentral Standard or Daylight)

Day of WeekSundaySaturdaySaturday

Amateur Band20 meter phone40 meter phone75 meter SSB

Time130007000800

Frequency14,260—5 KHZ7,210 —5 KHZ3,975 KHZ

Net Control StationWNCorWINXYWINXY Waltham, MAWA9ARG Quincy, ILL.

Elmer Romigh, WA5CTJ in Bandera,Texas has been keeping your In-ternational Director informed of theactivities on the 20 and 40 meterS.S.B. nets, since Walt Andrus stillhas .not placed his Ham rig inoperation on these frequencies. WaltisnowWSVRN. 9

UFO Sighted at Haute-Marne, Ireland(from OURANOS No. 15; investigated by Eric Meylan)

Translated by Jim Smyth (MUFON Representativefor N. Ireland)

This sighting, widely report-ed in the press, required muchdetailed investigation. The phe-nomena appeared on HighwayC.D. 44, between Andelot andBlancheville, the chief witnessesof which were Andre andDominique Sarnie and PatrickPingwak.

The event happened at about12:15 a.m. on Saturday, August16, 1975. -

The following is the testi-mony of witness Andre Sarnie:My son Dominique, at this timedoing military service in Toiil,was on leave. During the night,he awoke me, telling me to getup and go with him to witnesssomething apparently unbe-ievable. He explained to methat when he was driving be-tween Andelot and Blanche-ville, accompanied by a friend ,who also lived in Andelot, theywere "buzzed" by a UFO whichapproached their car twice.

He described the object asbeing roundish in shape, havinga diameter of about 30 meterswith a hemispheric section un-derneath. The object was brightand red/orange in color. Domi-nique's friend, Patrick Ping-wak, had a camera and he tooka snapshot using flash. Theobject then immediately ap-proached the car very quickly.Panicking, my son made arapid reverse turn back forabout 500 meters to be nearerAndelot. My son's friend got10

out of the car and took a secondphotograph. The object againapproached the car at a terri-fying speed. Dominique madefor Andelot fast!! Then hedecided to find another witnessto this phenomena. That is whyhe came for me. At first I wasincredulous and not very con-vinced,, but, faced ..with thealarm of my son, I finallydecided to go to the spot, byway of route R.N. 65. It wasthen that something happenedat the crossroads at Cirey-Les-Morielles: I saw in front of me ahemispherical object, close tothe ground and glowing red/orange. It was over a smallwood and was oscillating slight-ly. I drove onto route C.D. 137to stop about 400 meters fromroute R.N. 65, so that I mightobserve the phenomena withoutleaving the car; engine kickingover and headlights out. At thistime, two cars passed along theroad in which the drivers mustalso have seen the phenomenabut did not slow down. Sometime later a second objectappeared, identical to the for-mer. It came towards us frombehind the car. However, I canstate that at that moment wewere no longer looking behindus —• all our attention wasdirected tow'ards the objectwhich had come upon us. It ispossible that this was the sameobject which we had seen overthe small wood and that it had

moved at a fantastic speed.Indeed, when on route C.D. 137 *I was facing north, whereas at \the first sighting on route R.N. .j65 I was facing west in thedirection of Chaumont. I alsobecame afraid, realizing that Iwas witnessing an extraordi-nary event. I wheeled the car onthe road and raced towardsChantereines. On arrivinghere, I stopped, in the street.The object had stopped at theend of the road but at anymoment it might come into thevilalge. Feeling my blood freezeand fearing for my safety, Idecided to make for Andelot byroute C.D. 44. It must havebeen between 1 o'clock and1:30 a.m. The object remainedat the altitude of approximate-./30 meters, barely visible ir .hedarkness. Convinced: that itwould no longer follow 1 cross-ed the village away trom theobject. After about 2 kilo- 1meters, between Chantereines ;and Blancheville, the object jrappeared again in the middle ofthe road behind my car. AtBlancheville, the object resum-ed the same position as atChantereines, remaining at theentrance to the village., After amoment it disappeared."

Testimony of DominiqueSarnie:

"It was around 11:30 p.m. asI was near the village of An-delot, going towards Boulognein my father's car and ac-

companied by my friend, Pat-rick Pingwak. At about 100meters from Andelot, on theleft hand side of the road, Inoticed a dim white light whichgrew rapidly in intensity. Forseveral moments this light fol-lowed us for about 50 meters. Ithen stopped the car to get mycamera. It is always in the carand always contains a roll offilni; The djbect was just aboveus and we could only make outthe 'under-carriage'. It re-sembled an orange-coloredsemi-circle and emitted a verystrong and vivid light which,however, 'did not light up thesurrounding countryside. Myfriend wound down the windowof the car and took the firstphotograph. In a flash, the ob-ject shot towards us at a fan-tastic speed. I threw the car intoreverse and revved madly backfrom about 500 meters. Theobject followed us and wecould make it out clearly. Thetop part emitted a dim whitelight. The lower part remainedorange. I took the road to myright. Patrick again took aphotograph of the object whichwas still above us. Again, in aflash, the object approached us.The 'under-carriage' was per-fectly clear but the rest of theobject remained blurred."

Lake Objects ReportedIn Scandinavia ey Richard Han

MUFON103,-OLDTOWNE Ro.

• S E G U I N G TX 78155

Phone:

512-379-9216(MUFON headquarters and

Walt Andrus' home)...

re.

Professor Bertil Soderquist,MUFON Representative inSweden, has reported severalincidents of mysterious objectsin lakes, but with no apparentUFO association. The mostUFO-like occurred in March1974 on Lake Jalka, northernSweden (about 67.0 deg N; 19.9deg E). Mr. R.R: was driving onthe road between Gallivare andPorjus in the early morning.The weather was cloudy andchilly. As he approached thesmall lake (about 2.5 km by 300m), he saw'a strange mist overthe ice-free lake. On closerapproach, he saw that the mistsurrounded a mysterious object(see sketch) resting on thewater. The object was about15-20 m long, 5 m in height,and had a superstructure end-ing in a point. The contour wasdarkish. The witness hurriedaway, driven by a sudden fear.

Oh August 10,1974, at 10:00AM, Mr. & Mrs. K.C. weredriving from their home inHolter; Norway (about 20 kmnorth of Oslo) toward the townof Hamar. When they reachedthe southern end of Lake

Mjosa, their attention wasdrawn to an object in the lake.What appeared to be a peri-scope was protruding abouthalf a meter above the surface,about 50-70 meters from theshore. The "periscope" wasapparently aimed toward theshore, where the road and arailroad pass very close to thelakeshore. Nine hours later, alocal earthquake was registeredin precisely this area.

Lake Object

In Lake Siljan, Dalarna Pro-vince (central Sweden), April30, 1976, three witnesses saw apointed object tearing a chan-nel through the ice between5:15 and 5:30 pm. The object,estimated to be moving 90km/hr, cut a channel 1 km longand 3-4 meters wide throughthe 20 cm thick ice. Ice-floesand water cascaded around itas it forced its way through theice. The object was dark (2witnesses) or gray (1 witness)and about 10 meters long.

International UFOIogy ConferenceTo Be Held in Acapulco

The fflailn A u di to rium , inhere theIn te rna t i ona l U F O I o g y C o n f e r -e n c e u; x 11 be held in Apri l .

From AprU 17 to 24, Mexicowill host the first InternationalUFOIogy Conference. The weeklong event will bring togetherthe world's leading authoritieson UFQ phenomena, plus gov-ernment and military leadersfrom a number of countries.The list of featured speakersincludes MUFON DirectorWalt Andrus and editor DennisHauck. Other scheduled speak-ers are: J. Allen Hynek,CarlSagan, Donald Keyhoe, JimLorenzen, John Keel, WilliamSpaulding, Ray Stanford,Jacques Vallee, and JamesMcDivitt from the USA; Brins-ley le Pour Trench, GordonCreighton, and Charles Bowenfrom England; Andreas FaberKaiser and Antonio Riberafrom Spain; Erich von Danikenfrom Switzerland; Hans Peter-son from Denmark; and nearlya dozen other top ufologistsfrom around the world. PrimeMinister Eric Gairy of Grenadais also a scheduled speaker, and12

other government representa-tives will be in attendance. Infact, the Conference will behandled like a mini-UN sessionwith simultaneous translationsinto English, French, Spanish,Portugese, and German.

The public is invited toattend the Conference andthere will be private meetings ofthe various national groupsthroughout the week. There willalso be special excursions toancient astronaut sights such asPalenque and the Mayan ruins.Promotion for the event is beinghandled by the official MexicanTourist Agency and security isbeing provided by the Mexicangovernment. Special charterflights will be leaving frommajor cities in the UnitedStates, Europe, and SouthAmerica. Complete lodging andmeals at luxury hotels will costonly $350 for the week. Admit-tance to the Conference itselfwill cost $150 for all seven days.Brochures and registrationforms can be obtained by writ-ing: UFOIogy Conference, 175Fifth Ave., New York, NY10010.

The Acapulco Convention Center,scene of the I n te rna tio na 1 UFO-l o g y C o n f e r e n c e .

Lucius Parish

In Others' WordsThe November 30 issue of

NATIONAL ENQUIRER con-tained two articles pertaining toUFO's. A September 19 sight-ing by the crew of a jetliner on aPortugal-to-Africa flight is de-tailed and Rev. Billy Graham'sviews on UFO's and life inouter space are explored. Anarticle about the forthcomingmovie, "Close Encounters ofthe Third Kind," may be foundin the December 7 ENQUIR-ER.

THE STAR for November 16tells of an Air National Guardpilot's claim that UFO occu-pants tried to establish tele-pathic contact with him whilethey chased his jet fighter.

Although ARGOSY UFOstill depends on reprinted ma-terial for much of each bi-monthly issue, the Januarynumber has interesting articlesby Wendelle F. Stevens andKevin D. Randle, plus a contri-bution by Dale Titler and yourstruly.

The February issue of OF-FICIAL UFO features an inter-view with Dr. J. Allen Hynek(conducted by Gene Steinberg)as well as articles by BillQuinalty, James Oberg, KevinRandle, Robert Barrow, Wen-delle Stevens and others. Bar-row's article updating the film,"UFO," is particularly interest-ing. . - • . - .

A couple of corrections: Inthe August column, I startedthat publisher Ray Palmer wascombining his two magazines,

SEARCH and FLYING SAU-CERS, into one bi-monthlypublication, SEARCH. Thename is correct, but the publi-cation schedule will be quarter-ly, rather than bi-monthly. Thesubscription rates are $5.00 peryear. And, in the Octobercolumn, I said a panel discus-sion on UFO's would be pub-lished in the December issue ofPLAYBOY. Actually, this isnow slated for the Februaryissue, so perhaps this will reachyou in time for you to obtain acopy, if you wish.

If you have not yet obtained acopy of ASTRONOMY maga-zine's reprint, THE ZETA IN-CIDENT by Terence Dickin-son, here's a chance to do so ata savings. Stanton Friedman isselling copies at $2.50 each,postpaid. If your order is forfive or more copies, they're only$2.00 each. Stan also offersadditional discounts for pur-chases of more than 25 copies.This is an excellent publicationand I regard it as "must"reading. Order from: UFORI— P.O. Box 502 — Union City,CA 94587.

It may or may not do anygood to write to your Congress-man about the UFO subject ingeneral, but it will definitelybenefit you if you'll write himand ask for copies of two Con-gressional Research Servicebooklets, EXTRATERRES-TRIAL INTELLIGENCE ANDUNIDENTIFIED FLYINGOBJECTS: A SELECTED,

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRA-PHY (#76-35 SP - 45 pages) andTHE UFO ENIGMA (#76-52SP - 124 pages). Both publi-cations are well-written andcertainly worth a 13c stamp anda few minutes of your time toacquest them.

A reminder that James M.McCampbell V book, UFO-LOGY, is now available in apaperback edition, selling for$4.95. The book has been re-viewed in a previous column, soI will only say that it is anexcellent summary of the UFOtopic and should be requiredreading for all Ufologists. Thepublisher of this new edition is:Celestial Arts — 231 AdrianRoad — Millbrae, CA 94030.

Robert Earle's PROOF OFANCIENT ASTRONAUTS,Nazca Sketchbooks #1 and #2,present his views concerningthe now-famous Nazca Lines ofPeru and their claimed linkswith space visitors in ancienttimes. Mr. Earle has visited theNazca area and some of hisconclusions are quite thought-provoking, to say the least.Each of the Sketchbooks ispriced at $1.98. For $5.00 peryear, you can join Earle's NazcaScience Boosters Club, entitlingyou to both Sketchbooks and aquarterly Nazca Newsletter. Al-so available are 38 blueprint-size charts of the Nazca region,with each chart covering anarea of 3 x 4Vi miles. These areprices at $6.50 each. The ad-dress is: P.O. Box 9635, Bay

Village, OH 44140.Socorro, New Mexico, April

24, 1964. Most of us know —roughly at least — what isalleged to have occurred in thatSouthwestern desert town onthat particular day. PatrolmanLonnie Zamora said he saw aflame-spewing object whichlanded in a gulley, disgorgedtwo humanoid occupants inwhite clothing, and then (withoccupants again aboard) tookoff into the sky. It left behindburned brush, "footprints" (ofboth occupants and machine)and, Ray Stanford says, sam-ples of an exotic metal alloywhich -presumably was notmanufactured on this planet.As Stanford recounts the eventsfollowing the incident, they un-fold like clues in a cosmicdetective story. The metallicsamples, allegedly confirmed asnon-terrestrial by a NASA sci-entist, are lost or destroyed intesting. It all makes for fas-cinating reading and I foundthe book thoroughly intriguing,but other researchers whomStanford names in the book areunhappy with his "highly per-sonalized version of 'objectivetruth'," to quote Richard Hall.This leaves Ye Olde Reviewerup the proverbial stump, won-dering just what the heck is thetruth about the Socorro case? Ifyou want Ray Stanford's ac-count, I recommend that youpurchase SOCORRO 'SAU-CER' IN A PENTAGONPANTRY and make your owndecisions. It is a well-writtenand interesting book, whetheror not it is the "final word" on.the case. The publisher is Blue-apple Books, P.O. Box 5694,Austin, TX 78763. The price is$8.95.14

Three UFOs SightedFrom Japanese FrieghterTranslated by J.I Takanashi(from Japan Flying Saucer Investigation, No. 76)

On the night of April 6,1975,at around 11:20 p.m., the Jap-anese freight "Shinto Maru"was navigating homewardabout 180 miles southwest ofSingapore, after unloadinglauan wood at Diambi inSumatra, when the Third Matesighted a strange, lighted craftapproaching the freighter fromthe port side. The object, whichappeared to be traveling on topof the water, suddenly ascend-ed. When the mate signaled itwith the steamer's light, itappeared to respond with itsown light. Then the objectchanged course, rose higher,and flew off on a course of 160degrees. The surprised ThirdMate sent for the Captain, whoalso sighted the object throughbinoculars. The Captain also

sighted a second object, whichapproached the ship and flewaway in the same fashion. Theylater sighted a third object inthe distance. Some part of thisthird sighting was shared bythree other members of thecrew.

The object was about 10meters in diameter and about 2meters thick, in the Captain'sestimate. It had one blue lightand three red lights on theunderside and there were manyport holes encircling the dome-shaped upper part. Inside theport holes there was a yel-lowish-white light, and themiddle of the underside ap-peared whitish. SteersmanYoshio Kotani, 30 years old, adeckhand, and a salon boy werethe other witnesses.

Pentagon Pantry:Is The Cupboard Bare ?

By Richard Hall

At the request of somefriends, I have decided toprepare these comments aboutRay Stanford's 1976 book onthe 1964 Socorro, N.M. landingcase. So far I have had mixedemotions about doing so, notwanting to dignify some of theallegations made by making aformal response, but not want-ing the lack of a response tosuggest acceptance of Stan-ford's account. However, copiesof the book were sent to manyMUFON people and otheractive UFQ researchers, someof whom have insufficient back-ground to evaluate it.

The Journal now seems to bean appropriate forum for plac-ing my objections on record. Ina nutshell, I consider Stanford'saccount of NICAP's part in theSocorro investigation — andparticularly his unfoundedclaims of a secret, positiveanalysis report on the alleged"metal scrapings on the rock"— to be both a highly distortedand a highly subjective versionof what transpired.

After reviewing the NICAPfiles and personal records, andchecking with others present atNICAP in 1964, I wrote toStanford July 21, 1976 chal-lenging him to produce (1) acopy of the tape, or even atranscript of it, which he claimsto have made surreptitiouslywhile riding in the car withWalt Webb and me to NASAGoddard Space Flight Center

to have the same analyzed;(2) copies of the notes or phonememos made of the allegedphone conversations with thetwo NASA scientists, uponwhich he claims to have basedhis "verbatim" quotes. Havingreceived no response, I sent hima reminder on December 13,1976 of what had been re-quested.

From Stanford's failure toproduce these documents, I canonly conclude either that hedoesn't have them or that theywould fail to support the mostf u n d a m e n t a l l y impor tan tclaims in his book. The surrep-titious taping of supposed col-leagues speaks for itself, and isindicative of the near paranoicsuspicion upon which most ofthe argumentation in the bookrests.

Before going into more de-tail, these other points need tobe made:• In a telephone conversationwith Stanford July 12, 1975, Iasked him whether he hadtape-recorded his telephoneconversations with the NASAscientists, which would end allcontroversy. He replied: "No...If I had told them I was tapingthem they may not have talkedso freely." If he, implicitly, somistrusted Walt Webb and methat he saw overriding reasonsto deceive us, why would he nottape the absolutely vital phoneconversations that, he claims,prove a cover-up? Instead, he

told me, his quotes of themwere based on notes madeimmediately afterwards.• Why did Stanford wait 12years (six years after I had leftNICAP) to make a public issueof the Socorro case and myhandling of it? If he believedthen what he now professes tobelieve, why didn't he vigorous-ly protest at the time and forcethe issue with NICAP? And ifhe had evidence that he didn'ttrust NICAP to publish, whydidn't he resign and publish itelsewhere? For all I knew until1975, Stanford reluctantly ac-cepted the NASA analysis re-port despite his obvious desireat the time to believe that hehad the conclusive physicalproof of UFOs.• When Stanford first phonedme on June 20, 1975, he talkedabout a book he was writing onthe Socorro case discussing thephysical evidence. He did notsay that the book would behighly critical of me and reachconclusions contradicting thoseof NICAP, nor did he offer meany opportunity to comment onthe allegations that would bemade. I volunteered that I hadreceived a letter from Dr. JamesE. McDonald concerning areport of "fused sand" havingbeen gathered at the landin.csite and analyzed by a chen^t.Stanford asked for a copy ot theletter, and I sent it on June24th. In the book (p. 73) herefers to this letter as having

15

been obtained "from the lateDr. James McDonald."

Why he didn't credit me asthe source — and owner — ofthe letter I don't know, but Isuspect it was because to do sowould show me as openly co-operating and concerned aboutthe truth of the Socorrd case.This would tend to contradicthis thesis that Richard Hall wasmore concerned with butteringup scientists than in seeking thetruth.• Stanford apparently is off bya week in dating the trip toGoddard as July 31 (p. 120).Walter Webb wrote me July 12,1976 that his diary shows forJuly 23, 1964: "Met Ray Stan-ford at NICAP"; and for July24: "To Goddard Space FlightCenter..."

NASA ANALYSISStanford's claim that I was

told the preliminary analysispointed toward an .extrater-restrial source is the single mostimportant — indeed, critical —claim bearing on my culpability(or stupidity). If I am called totestify before a Congressionalcommittee investigating an al-leged cover-up of the Socorrocase (Stanford's apparent goal),I will testify to what I am quiteconfident is the truth: NeitherDr. Frankel nor anyone else atNASA ever suggested to methat they were leaning towardan extraterrestrial interpreta-tion. In fact, when Dr. Frankeltalked to me about tentativefindings of a zinc-iron alloy, hesaid to me that the resultssuggested a zinc pail! No quan-titative analysis had been con-ducted at this point, so thatStanford's claims of significantfindings at this time make nosense at all — except in terms16

of what he wanted to believe.A major myth purveyed by

Stanford is the impression heleaves that I more or lesstwisted his arm to have theanalysis done by Dr. Frankel atthe NASA facility and that hewas just going along with mydecision. ("Hall, apparently,was sure that the metallurgist...was the man to do the job." p.116 "I felt the decision to takeit to Goddard was a judiciousone, trusting Richard Hall'sjudgment." p. 117). As therecord of our correspondenceclearly shows, the judgment wasStanford's.

Several options were open tohim and I repeatedly asked himwhich he preferred. We hadinitially suggested the Smith-sonian Laboratories in Cam-bridge, Mass., where WaltWebb had indicated the analy-sis could be done under hisdirect supervision. On May 5,1964, Stanford wrote me thathe might be able to have theanalysis done locally at Phoe-nix, Arizona. I replied May 8th:"If you can persuade compe-tent local scientists to analyzethe remaining metal samples,and have assurance that apublic report would be avail-able, that would probably bethe best arrangement."

For reasons of his own,Stanford chose to have theanalysis done at Goddard andhe did so with the foreknow*ledge that (as I had told him inmy letter of June 25, 1964) "He(Frankel) stated he had doneanalysis of alleged UFO arti-facts for the government..."When Stanford quotes fromthis letter (p. 117) to establishhow he "had just been per-suaded" to have the analysis

done at Goddard, he omits thissentence about Frankel's priorconnection with governmentalUFO analyses.

By selective quoting, Stan-ford leaves the false impressionthat I led him down theprimrose path. When he states(p. 151) that I told him in 1975of "later" discovering thatFrankel had worked closelywith the FBI, this is a grosslymisleading distortion of what Isaid; I was simply remindinghim of what we both knew atthe time. He uses this distortionin conjunction with the claimthat I said I "could believe"there had been a cover-up in-volving Frankel to suggest thatI now recognized the error ofmy ways. All I said was that Idid not rule out that possibilityentirely, but that is a far cryfrom "believing" that it hap-pened, which I do not.

Stanford (p. 151-152) charac-terizes my published report onthe analysis as "highly dis-torted" and accuses me of"intellectual dishonesty" in theway it was reported. I publishedthe results of the one and onlyanalysis report ever given to meby the NASA scientists, andthat analysis concluded exactlywhat I said it did. The readermay wish to compare the intel-lectual honesty of that withStanford's treatment of salientfacts in the instances citedabove.

His entire case rests on twoapparently undocumented andunverifiable alleged phone callsthat only he can witness. Inaddition, no one else involved inthe Socorro investigation re-members the startling (andpresumably unforgettable) pos-itive NASA analysis report that

only Stanford remembers.In 1964, NICAP's position

that UFOs appeared to beextraterrestrial was well-known, and I was the officerresponsible for all NICAP pub-licity at the time as ActingDirector. To have been instru-mental in proving the case withphysical evidence would havebeen a feather in my cap;undoubtedly I would have gonedown in history as leader ofthrorganization and personal par-ticipant in the historical eventthat gave the world this proof.If I had been toK by Frankelwhat Stanford claims I wastold, I would have had everyreason to spread the spectacu-lar news to mv NICAP col-leagues. No one. at NICAP (in-cluding Major Donald E. Key-hoe, Don Berliner, and WaltWebb) recalls any such news.

The Socorro SymbolNot much space will be taken

commenting on Stanford's cur-ious reasoning about the "in-signia" or symbol, about whichhe again accuses me of mis-leading everyone. As I toldStanford on the phone, hispresentation on this subject is"a total red herring." There isno doubt whatsoever about theauthenticity of the symbol thathas been published, and in hiszeal to find conspiracy andcover-up Stanford ignores ab-solute proof that exists both inAir Force and private files.

Stanford never offered at thetime, and still does not offer,any compelling evidence to thecontrary. Instead, he seizes ondistorted information fromsecond- and third-hand sourcesand values that equally withfirst-hand and documented in-formation. His entire treatment

of the symbol is, to me, re-vealing evidence of the way hismind works in fanning theflames of conspiracy, no matterhow faint the burning ember orhow overwhelming the prepon-derance of evidence to thecontrary.

It is ironic that Stanfordhints at more cover-up (p. 42)by reporting that Capt. Holdersuggested to Zamora that henot discuss the symbol publicly.Holder's reason for this shouldappeal to Stanford: "Holdersaid he reasoned that if thesymbol were kept from publicknowledge and subsequent rec-ords of the same symbol on anobject should reach the auth-orities, then the governmentinvestigators would know thatthey were dealing with authen-tic reports."

Stanford probably has for-gotten a letter dated May 3,1964 that he sent to me atNICAP, since it was hand-written on notebook paper:andhe may not have retained acopy. In it he suggested:

"I advise not letting out thereal (as told in tape by MikeMartinez) description of symbolon UFO, so if person(s) claimUFO 'contact' with oron side we can suspect a hoax,while anyone giving the real (&unpublished) description wouldtend to authenticate himself.Do you see my reasoning?"

If what's sauce for the gooseis sauce for the gander, then wehave documented .evidence ofRay Stanford suggesting a UFOcover-up. (We ignored this ad-vice since our interest was inpublishing the facts about whatZamora had seen). Unless it isanother error by Stanford, thisletter clearly implies that he

considered the alternative sym-bol to be a hoax in 1964. OnMay 5, 1964, I wrote to Stan-ford and concluded the letterwith this sentence: "By the way,I offer you the real red marking(symbol) on the UFO obtainedfrom Zamora on the telephone

" Stanford never disputedin 1964 what came to be theaccepted symbol, so his effort todo so 12 years later is highlysuspect.

Ray Stanford:Psychic/Scientists

In order to understand howStanford's persuasively writtenaccount of the Socorro casemight be bent and twisted byhis biases, one must knowsomething about Stanford. Heis best known today, as hepresents himself in the book asthe scientific "brains" behindProject Starlight International(PSI), near Austin, Texas, withsophisticated equipment de-signed to track and recordUFOs. This facet of his seemingdual personality explains why Itrusted Stanford to investigateSocorro on behalf of NICAP in1964.

I was aware at the time of hisflirtations with well-known"contactees" and his subse-quent disowning of them, andeven of his alleged psychiccontact and visual sighting,with other witnesses, of a UFOin November 1954. That did notinvolve any claimed face-to-faceor verbal contact. What I didnot know at the time, and notuntil reported to me by WaltWebb in 1976, was that Stan-ford himself was a full-fledged"contactee." In Robert J. Crib-ble's Flying Saucer Review forSeptember 1956, Stanford hadan article entitled "Is It Not

17

Time?" In it he asserted thatGeorge Adamski was among"those sincere and steadfastones who have met our visitorsface to face," and that storieslike Adamski's "have stood thetest of time."

He went on to say, "Thereaders of the Review know thatI personally was privileged tohave a contact with thesepeople on November 6, 1954...Most of you, however, do notknow that since that time I havebeen granted other contactswith these more evolved visitorsfrom other planets. These con-tacts have given me (and otherswho have been contacted) agreater insight than I had everdreamed possible. We havelearned many things whichhave surprised even us. Weknow that these visitors can andwill contact those who are ready— those with receptive minds.Never underestimate their abil-ity to contact!"

Stanford has never sharedwith us what allegedly trans-pired during these contacts, norwhat "surprising" things helearned. A veiled reference tothese mid-1950's experiencesappears in the Socorro book (p.152-153), totally glossing overhis claim at the time of havingbeen singled out for contactbecause of his "receptivemind." Instead, he refers tothese alleged experiences as "acouple of close-range sight-ings." Does he now renouncehis former claims of privilegedcontact with spacemen? If hedoes, to what does he attributethem? Self-delusion?

In 1975 Stanford took out anad in the National Enquireroffering to sell tape cassettes of"voices" obtained by him18

through "a meditation-inducedunconscious state" from peoplecalling themselves "Brothers."(Adamski and other "con-tactees" claimed to be con-tacted by "Space Brothers.")

Stanford apparently passion-ately desires to obtain objectiveproof of these subjective ex-periences, hence his commit-ment to the Socorro samplebeing "metallic" even beforeany analysis was done and hisultra-scientific UFO trackingstation.

ConclusionsIn the Socorro book Stanford

presents conspiracy theoriesbased on his presuppositionthat he, in fact, had metallictraces of a UFO. NASA'sfailure to confirm this couldonly be explained by a cover-up. It is apparent to me that,far from "verbatim" quotes,Stanford has paraphrased re-marks out of context, and takenserious liberties in doing so. Hispsychic and "contactee" back-ground and his conspiratorialturn of mind give me littleconfidence that he, alone, hassucceeded in uncovering truthwhere others have failed. In-stead, I see in his writingsexample after example of"reading into" events thatwhich he is already prone tobelieve. He shows every evi-dence of what I prefer to call"systematic self-delusion" ra-ther than malicious intent.

The Socorro case is a strongone, and not all the facts havecome out yet about analysesdone on other samples obtainedat the site or full testimonyfrom other witnesses. Despiteits good summary of the basicfacts of the case, however, thisbook introduces false issues

and serves more to confuse thanto enlighten.

My views and beliefs areamply documented in the UFOliterature. I would have pre-ferred that the NASA analysisshow an unknown metal indi-cating an extraterrestrialsource. But to the best of myknowledge, that is not what sci-entific analysis of Ray Stan-ford's Socorro sample showed.

(Con tinued from page 20)

slinging (IN CAPITAL LET-TERS) emanates from a highlybiased source, convinced inadvance that any report of"spacemen" has to be a hoax,and must be filtered accord-ingly. APRO's response hasalready cast the allegedly sup-pressed polygraph test in adifferent light. The case is toocomplex to review here, but acareful reappraisal excludingpolemics and concentrating oncritical points of evidence seemsto be needed.

* * *I would like to thank Glenn

Welker, Fred Merritt, and Bar-bara Mathey for contributionsof cancelled foreign stamps toexchange for U.S. postage. Thisprogram, described on page 18,helps underwrite the high post-age costs involved in inter-national exchange of UFOinformation. Active MUFONmembers also are encouragedto send case reports, publica-tions, and newspaper clippingsdirectly to the MUFON Infor-mation Exchange Centers over-seas, in exchange for all theinformation they so kindlyprovide to MUFON.

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE byWalt Andrus

Thousands of hours of research intoentity or humanoid cases hasculminated irt a 200 page typewrittencatalog of 1300 Close Encounters of thethird kind compiled by Ted Bloecherand David Webb, Co-Chairmen ofMUFON's Humanoid Study Group.Starting in late August of 1896, thecatalog, dubbed "HumCat" by Ted andDave, has all reports identified by year,case number, date, time, location, analpha type classification, a briefdescription, the investigators name ifknown, and the source of the report.This is without a doubt one of the mostcomprehensive humanoid catalogs com-piled to date. Ted and Dave are to becongratulated for a superb researchachievement in this specialized field.Credit must be also given to LexMebane who assited Ted in the finishedproduct. MUFON and the JOURNALextend our appreciation for "a job welldone". We also want to express ourthanks to the large number of UFOresearchers worldwide who providedcase information for this magnificentendeavor.

November 5, 6, and 7th marked thedates for the "National Research andInvestigation Conference" sponsored bythe British UFO Research and In-vestigation Conference" sponsored bythe British UFO Research Association(BUFORA), held at the BirminghamCentre Hotel in Birmingham, England.They were assisted by members of theUFO Studies Information Service(UFOSIS) and the Northern UFO Net-work (NUFON). The internationalscope of this UFO COnference wasreflected in the choice of the featuredevening speaker, Mr. Ted Bloecher,representing the United States, but inparticular as MUFON's State Directorfor New York and Co-Chairman ofMUFON's Humanoid Study Group. Tedtitled his presentation "The Humanoids- An Analysis of UFO Occupant Cases".A tape recorded presentation by Dr. J.

Allen Hynek on "Current UFO Resear-ch" followed Ted's lecture. Many of ourJOURNAL readers will remember theoutstanding illustrated lecture that Mr.Bloecher gave at the "1975 MUFONUFO Symposium" in Des Moines, Iowa.Other fine speakers giving papers ondiverse UFO subjects were Peter Roger-son - "INTCAT - An InternationalCatalogue of Type I UFO Reports";Jack Webber - "The Alphabet of UFOReports"; Bernard Delair (MUFON'sRepresentative for England) - "UFOWaves and Their Prediction"; AnthonyPace - "The Vehicle Interference Ef-fect"; Robert Digby - "They ShootUFO's - Don't They0"; Tim O'Brien - "AUnified Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis inExplanation of the UFO Phenomenon";Roy Dutton - "An Objective Analysis ofthe UFO Phenomenon"; Mark Stenhoff- "A Projected Study of Fluid VortexRings and Plasma Phenomena as Ex-planatory Hypothesis for the UFO";and Ian Grant - "The UFO Problem -Solved".

hi addition to the formal papers thatwere presented, Group Sessions wereheld on the following researchtechniques with leaders as indicated:"Investigation Procedure andTechniques", Robert Digby, SteveGamble and John Shaw; "DataProcessing, Cataloging and CaseDocumentation", Jenny Randies; and"Instrumental Detection of the UFOPhenomenon", Charles Lockwood andAnthony Pace. The success of this con-ference must be attributed to the con-ference organizers—Miss Jenny Ran-dies (NUFON), Mr. Philip Rogers(UFOSIS) and Mr. Roger Stanway(BUFORA) for their fine planning andmotivation.

Ted Bloecher's written report on hisvisit to England includes not only thepeople he met at the BUFORA Con-ference, but personal visits with manyfolks that are well known on the UFOscene such as Julian Hennessey in

Belgravia; Charles Bowen, Editor of theFlying Saucer Review; Eileen Buckle,Gordon Creighton, John Lade andBrian Winder, FSR Staff Members;Bernard Delair, Director of ContactUK; and John Rimmer and PeterRogerson, Editors of MUFOB (TheMerseyside UFO Bulletin).

Ted's evaluation of BUFORA Con-ference may be summed up in thefollowing manner: "I found the con-ference similar in nearly all respects tothe best of the MUFON Symposia ofrecent years; the degree of interest andinvolvement was high, and the par-ticipants serious about efforts to im-prove investigate and researchtechniques". According to Ted, amongthe most interesting and valuabledocuments made available at the Con-ference for the benefit of BUFORA in-vestigators was the just released "UFOINVESTIGATION - A HANDBOOKFOR UFO INVESTIGATORS"- aproduction on a scale that rivalsMUFON's "FIELD INVESTIGATOR'SMANUAL". A copy of MUFON'smanual was mailed to Bernard Delairas an aid in producing their handbook.

November 1976 ushered in a newmonthly publication to the UFOfield-the INTERNATIONAL UFOREPORTER with Dr. J. Allen Hynek asEditor-in-chief and Allan Hendry,Managing Editor. Even though IUR isoperated as a separate corporation, itwill be the communications media forthe Center for UFO Studies. In the firstedition (8 pages), Dr. Hynek sets forththe purposes and philosophy of this newpublication in an article tided "Estimateof the Situation". When the Center forUFO Studies was organized in 1974,MUFON was the only major UFOorganization to pledge it's support andhas demonstrated that cooperation forthe past two years. We are verycognizant that the IUR will be in directcompetition to THE MUFON UFOJOURNAL. However, we welcome that

19

competition, because the ultimatebenefits will be accrued by UFO resear-chers in having available not onlyhigher caliber publications for thereaders, but an opportunity to sharetheir investigative and research ac-complishments via published papers.The professional caliber staff membersof THE MUFON UFO JOURNALwelcome the INTERNATIONAL UFOREPORTER to the UFO scene, becausewe recognize that both publications canfill a specific and distinct need. TheJOURNAL (formerly SKYLOOK) hasestablished itself as one of the leadingUFO publications in the world today,therefore we are going to be trying evenharder to maintain and justify thatprestigious reputation.

Recently, George Eberhart, agraduate student at the University ofChicago conducted a survey to assessthe level of activity of workers in theUFO field and document the kind andtypes of sources utilized. Four hundredeighty-four questionnaires were sent outto active researchers in May and 33 percent of them responded. The surveydisclosed two items of major interest toMUFON members; (1) The mostpopular UFO Journals turned out to beAPRO Bulletin, Flying Saucer Review,and SKYLOOK and (2) James Mc-Campbell's book "UFOLOGY" rankedin the top five for UFO books con-sidered absolutely basic for any library.Dr. Hynek's "UFO Experience" held asignificant lead.

We have just complied with a requestby "The Institute of Scientific In-formation of the U.S.S.R. Academy ofSciences" for a specimen copy ofSKYLOOK to be studied with the viewof reviewing it in their published AB-STRACTS JOURNAL. Issues No. 103and 105 of THE MUFON UFO JOUR-NAL were submitted. Widespreadpublicity would occur if the review waspublished. Their goal is to supply theirreaders with maximum informationabout the latest achievements in scienceand technology. It is gratifying to knowthat SKYLOOK came to the attentionof this scientific body.

RECAPPING AND COMMENTINGBy Richard Hall (MUFON International Coordinator)

(Comments in this month'scolumn are based, in part, onarticles appearing in the July1976 MUFON UFO Journal)

As everybody realizes by now,MUFON has had serious tran-sition problems followingDwight Connelly's resignationas editor and Dennis Hauckassuming double duty editingOfficial UFO and MUFONUFO Journal. Some printingproblems contributed to delays,and I can envision DirectorWalt Andrus chewing on ulcerpills. Happily, the worst seemsto be past and Dennis is rapidlycatching up. However, onething is obvious: MUFON spec-ialists, State Directors, andothers, are failing to producearticles and summary reportsfor publication.

MUFON and the Journalcannot succeed without bettercooperation from active mem-bers who use the informationthey obtain for private researchpurposes. MUFON encouragessuch use, but the users have astrong .responsibility to sharethat information. This meanstaking time to write up sig-nificant cases, summary re-ports, and newsnotes in manu-script form (typed, double-spaced) and submit it to theEditor. One manuscript of fouror five pages from each of youonce a month would make allthe difference in the world tothe Journal. If you can't write(and I've never heard of anyonewho thought he or she couldn'twrite), at least send newspaper

clippings and news of any UFOrelated programs or activities inyour area.

* * *Reading the latest polemic

about the Travis Walton case,by Phil Klass, I can only repeatthat it is an outstanding ex-ample of how not to go aboutUFO investigations. The "com-mitted" positions and ax-grind-ing continue to shed more heatthan light on the situation. Atthis point, no one has provedbeyond a reasonable doubt thatthe case is either (a) genuine or(b) a hoax. In fact, as I've saidbefore, there is no reason whywe should rush to an "either-or" judgment. Klass' mud-

(Continued on page 18)

IMark R. Herbstritt

stronomyNotes

December 1976MERCURY - greatest eastern

elongation is on the 20th, but this isan unfavorable one, Mercury beingonly about 10 degrees above thesouthwestern horizon at sunset.

VENUS - It is prominent in thesouthqestern sky for about 3 hours af-ter sunset.

MARS - It is too close to the sun forobservation.

JUPITER - Moving from Taurus west-ward into Aries, it is now well up inthe east at sunset and is visible untilnearly dawn.

SATURN - Near the boundary bet-ween Cancer and Leo, it rises in thelate evening.

The GEMINID meteor shower oc-curs from December 10 to 13.