MUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 176 OCTOBER 1982

Founded 1967.OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF

$1.50MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC..

SS-9 SCARP ICBM IN MOSCOW PARADE, NOV. 7, 1967

(See "The Great Soviet UFO Coverup," Page 6)

MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)

103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin/ Texas 78155

RICHARD HALLEditor

ANN DRUFFELAssociate Editor

LEN STRINGFIELDAssociate Editor

MILDRED BIESELEContributing Editor

WALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFON

TED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,

Humanoid Study Group

PAULCERNYPromotion/Publicity

REV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOs

LUCIUS FARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publicity

GREG LONGStaff Writer

TED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERMedical Cases

DENNIS W. STACYStaff Writer

NORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLY

DENNIS HAUCKEditor/Publishers Emeritus

The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFO Net-work, Inc., Seguin, Texas. Member-ship/Subscription rates: $15.00 peryear in the U.S.A.; $16.00 foreign.Copyright 1982 by the MutualUFO Network. Second class postagepaid at Seguin, Texas. POST-MASTER: Send form 3579 to advisechange of address to The MUFONUFO JOURNAL, 103 OldtowneRd., Seguin, Texas 78155.

FROM THE EDITORJim Oberg's article on false UFOs in the Soviet Union is an

important contribution to IFO lore, and contains a number oflessons for UFOlogists. I would go even further and suggest that anyphenomena displaying the following features should be viewed withsuspicion: slow or "majestic" traversing of the sky oberved from awide geographical area, smoke trails or streamers, fiery appearanceand abrupt disappearance after 10-15 seconds, and "cloud" massesor rings spreading out in angular size. In all probability, these arecaused by rocket/missile launchings, satellite re-entries, fireballmeteors (larger and longer lasting than briefly visible "shootingstars"), or atmospheric tests involving release of chemical vapors. Itis vitally important to screen out such IFOs and not clutter up the"data base" with them.

In this issue

PENTAGON INVESTIGATES CASH-LANDRUM CASE . . . 3By John.F. Schuessler

THE GREAT SOVIET UFO COVERUP: PART 1 6" By James E. Oberg

UFOs AND THE RAAF-THE INSIDE STORY: PART II .." 11By Bill Chalker .

CALIFORNIA REPORT 14By Ann Druffel

CRITIC'S CORNER 17By Robert Wanderer

IN OTHERS' WORDS 19. By Lucius Parish '

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE : 20By Walt Andrus

The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, and donot necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contributors aretheir own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON. Arti-cles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to published articles may be in aLetter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or in a short article (up to about 2,000words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: the article author may reply but will beallowed half the wordage used in the response; the responder may answer the authorbut will be allowed half the wordage used in the author's reply, etc. All submissions aresubject to editing for style, clarity, and conciseness.Permission is hereby granted to quote from this issue provided not more than 200words are quoted from any one article, the author of the article is given credit, and thestatement "Copyright 1982 by the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.

PENTAGON INVESTIGATES CASH-LANDRUM CASEBy John F. Schuessler

(Ed. Note: Excerpts from investigator'snotes in MUFON files submitted byVISIT — Vehicle Internal SystemsInvestigative Team.)

During the months that followedthe 29 December 1980 incident nearHuffman, Tex., where Betty Cash,Vickie Landrum, and Colby Landrumwere injured while in close proximity toa large water tank-like object and alarge contingent of military typehelicopters, our requests for assistancefrom governmental officials fell on deafears. Bureaucratic apathy began tocrack after "That's Incredible" aired atelevision segment on the case. ThenScience Digest and Omni magazinespublished small articles that aided ing e t t i n g some a t t e n t i o n f r o mWashington, D.C.

On 24 February 1982 I received acall from the U.S. Air Force LiaisonOffice in Washington, D.C. The callerwas Capt. Jenny Lampley. Sheexplained that a Congressional inquiryhad resulted in her assignment todetermine if USAF helicopters hadbeen involved in the 29 December 1980case. Approximately two weeks later Ilearned from Richard Niemtzow atTravis Air Force Base, Calif., that Capt.L a m p l e y had c o n c l u d e d he rinvestigation and the results werenegative. Supposedly, the Air Forcedoesn't utilize twin rotor helicopters.(That answer is questionable. TheHouston Chronicle newspaper showeda photograph of a twin rotor helicopterin the 17 August 1982 issue. Thecaption read "Honduran soldierssurround a U.S. Air Force helicopterduring joint military exercise....")

' On 19 March 1982 I was called byLt. Col. George Sarran from theDepartment of the Army InspectorGeneral office in the Pentagon. Col.Sarran explained that his office hadreceived the inquiry from the Air ForceLiaison Office because the Air Forcehad concluded their units were not

involved. He explained that his interestwas in the possibility that Armyhelicopters were involved. He would beinvestigating that allegation. Hestressed that the U.S. Army had noopinion about the unidentified object orUFOs in general.

Col. Sarran said he called becausehis office had been pulsed to give someanswers about the he l i cop te rinvolvement. At his request I provided a 'verbal account of the incident frombeginning to end. He stated that he hadbeen stationed at Fort Hood beforegoing to Washington and was familiarwith their operations. For that reasonhe felt that Fort Hood was probably notinvolved, although they have a numberof twin rotor helicopters. He said theirtesting and operations were generallyconducted on the Fort Hoodreservation. He stated that as far as heknew Fort .Hood had the onlyhelicopters of that type (CH-47Chinook) in the area. I told him I hadfound CH-47s to be stationed atEllington AFB in Houston and at theDallas Naval Air Station and providedtelephone numbers so he could checkon them. He said then that it would be

. his initial conclusion that if helicopterswere present they surely would havebeen from Ellington and that would bethe place for him to begin hisinvestigation.

. He had interpreted the incident tobe a helicopter in trouble, landing forrepairs; but concluded that didn't fit thesituation because none had beenreported. He had trouble accepting theCash/Landrum concept that there wasan object, probably a governmentexperiment other than a helicopter inthe air that night. He based his opinionon the fact this was the 1980 Christmasweek and most military installations goon holiday routine, allowing most of thetroops to go home for ..the holidayperiod. He then questioned the repliesgiven VISIT investigators by the variousmilitary installations we had called. He

concluded they were more or lesstruthful. He was very courteous andsaid he would try to contact Ellington.He said he'd be glad to act on any hint ofa cover-up that we might find, as theArmy feels it very important to have agood rapport with the community.

Later the same day Col. Sarrancalled me a second time to let me knowhe had made contact with Ellington.The Commanding Officer of the 136thTransport Unit, a reserve groupstationed at Ellington, and flying CH-47s. The commanding officer was Maj.Dennis Haire. Major Haire was to calland discuss the incident with me. Col.Sarran said he had trouble convincingMajor Haire he was serious. Haireobviously had never heard of the case.He said now he was even more surethat no helicopter had gone down on 29December 1980. Also, he assured methat the CH-47s are pot flown onMonday nights. I rejected that assertionby quoting the fact that three flew fromEllington on Monday 15 March 1982,just four days before his call. He agreedthere were exceptions.

Maj. Haire called me on 22 March1982. He has been a member of the AirForce detachment since 1966 and incharge since 1978. His detachment haseight CH-47A Chinooks, assignedthere in 1980. Prior to that time theywere a Medivac Unit. He explained the"A" model Chinook has 2 hours fuelplus 15 minutes contingency. Cruisingspeed is 110 knots, with a 135 knotmaximum. They can fly non-stop to SanAntonio or Austin, but must refuel atCollege Station if they fly to Dallas. Ifthey go on a field exercise theyschedule a 5,000 gallon USAF fuel truckto meet them along the way. Each CH-47A takes 450 gallons of fuel for a fill-up.

Maj. Haire said there are no CH-47s in Louisiana. A contingent isstationed at Fort Sill, Okla., and manyCH-47s are stationed at Fort Hood,Tex. The Fort Hood CH-47s are the

(continued on next page)3

Pentagon, Continued

"C" model. They can do a round trip toHouston and back without refueling.They have a 3 hour plus 30 minutecontingency capacity. Maximum speedis 175 knots and cruising speed is 140knots. He pointed out that there wereno Chinooks flying in 1980 except formilitary units, so civilian Chinookscould not have been involved in theCash/Landrum incident.

The Ellington unit flies around theHouston control area all the time. Theyaverage 2000 hours/year/man. FortHood averages 900 hours/year/man.Maj. Haire is proud of his unit's record.His unit does a lot of airborne troopimplacement drilling. They use theAddicks Reservoir north of Houston asa jump zone. In addition to the eightCH-47s they have four Hueys and four58s. Maj. Haire said he was 99% surethat Ellington CH-47s were not involvedin the 29 December 1980 incident. Hesaid he could find out by looking upflight plans, aviators records, and theform 759s that document flight times.Each flight of the CH-47 requires twopilots plus an enlisted (E-6) crew chief.Sometimes a fourth person joins thecrew. The Chinook can pick up andcarry small equipment, but nothing reallarge. That would require a "FlyingCrane."

Chinooks are not capable of jointoperations — more than one helicopterworking together to carry a largeobject. Helicopter pilots are very lightsensitive at night and try to avoid brightobjects because they ruin the pilot'snight vision. For that reason he doubtsthat helicopters would have flown nearthe diamond-shaped object sighted byCash/Landrum. They don't even turnon the inside helicopter lights until afterthey have landed. Major Haire also runsa commercial helicopter service atLakeside Airport in Houston.

Maj. Haire called me again on 26March 1982. He said he had called Col.Sarran to report the results of ourearlier telephone conversation. Col.Sarran is evidently digging into the caselike a tiger — representing theInspector General's office. MarkCharbenaugh who works with Maj.Haire, is associated with the Austinreserves and Maj. Haire with the

Boeing CH-47 Chinook Helicopter

Ellington National Guard CH-47 unit.Mark noted that the air maps show twomicrowave towers to the northeast ofHouston. He questioned whether ornot there could have been a microwaveaccident. No answer to this one.

Maj. Haire said he had no ideawhat went on on 29 December 1980. Hewas definitely not involved. He felt thatthe government well might have somespecial devices, some advancedtechnology, or some test vehicles thatcould cause the reported symptoms.However, as a civilian or as a NationalGuard member he doesn't know ofanything like that. I asked him if he hadever heard of a NEST unit operatinghere. He said no and he didn't evenknow what that acronym meant. Irelated that it meant NuclearEmergency Survival Team. He drew ablank on it.

Col. Sarran called again on 8 April1982. He had talked with Capt. RichardNiemtzow at Travis AFB and with Dr.Peter Rank in Wisconsin. Heunderstood their viewpoints, butdecided to come to Houston in May toinvestigate for himself. He said therewas nothing secret about hisinvolvement. He said "the Armydoesn't say UFOs exist or do not exist.That is up to someone else." If Armyhelicopters were involved and it was

t h e i r f a u l t t hey w o u l d t a k eresponsibility. He went on to say that allreserve uni ts are under ForceCommand in Atlanta. This doesn'tapply to National Guard units. Col.Sarran said he was checking to see ifany helicopters sprayed fuel or wereinvolved in an agent orange type drill.He received negative replies from TheTraining Indoctrination Command,Testing agency at Ft. Hood, CorpusChristi NAS, Aberdeen ProvingGrounds, and the Pentagon. Thecomputer lists no activity at Huffman,Tex. on 29 Dec 1980.

Col. Sarran called on 23 April 1982to set a tentative date for his trip toHouston. He is to fact-find the claim ofhelicopter involvement in the Cash-Landrum case. He planned to meetwith me, Vickie Landrum, WillieCulberson, and a Dayton policeman wehad found who had witnessedhelicopters on 29 Dec 1980. He hadcontacted all bases and found that noneflew near Huffman on the subject date.Fort Hood only flew one helicopter. Itflew to Houston, to Galveston, andback to Fort Hood by 8 p.m.

On 25 May 1982 I met with Col.Sarran at the International AirportHoliday Inn in Houston. He asked me todo a taped interview relating what I

(continued on next page)

Pentagon, Continued •

knew about the case. I did the interviewwith the agreement I could also tape thewhole thing. He cordially agreed. Theinterview lasted about 45 minutes andcovered a full narrative of the incidentas I knew it.

.At noon on 25 May 1982 Col.Sarran and I visited Vickie Landrum inher home in Dayton. Col. Sarran washappy to have me along during theinterview. Bertha Landrum, Vickie'ssister, was also present. Col. Sarrantold Vickie this was an officialinvestigation and she was free to talkabout it to anyone she wished. He gaveher form letter type information on thePrivacy Act which is to protect her; buttold her he couldn't guarantee privacy. Irecorded the full interview and retainedthe tape. A copy of the tape was sent toPeter Gersten in New York. Col.Sarran called Bet ty Cash inBirmingham from Vickie's house andhad an unofficial fact-finding discussionwith her.

At approximately 1:30 p.m. Col.Sarran, Vickie Landrum, BerthaLandrum and myself went to seeDayton Police Officer L.L. Walker (histelephone is unlisted, but on file), Itaped the full interview with thepoliceman . and his wife Marie. Theyobserved CH-47s in the exact samearea near Huffman, but 4 to 5 hoursafter the original incident. This time thehelicopters seemed to be searching forsomething on the ground. They flew ingroups of three with searchlightsshining down on the ground. A portionof the transcript of the Walker interviewdescribes the situation as follows:

Lamar Walker says: On December the 19thmy wife and I was coming back home fromher Mother and Dad's who live in PlumGrove. It's about 3 miles behind Splendorainto the wood area. We was travelling NewCaney Road, we just came through therethe cut off and hit Cedar Bayou and uhcame across the river and cut down theschool road at the Huffman new high schoolthere and just got back on FM 1960. Wewere approximately, we was inside theLiberty county city limits and just made aturn out there by the railroad tracks on acurve, headed east.

And I made a remark I said, "Marie," I said.She said, "What's that noise?" I said "well Idon't know." But I said "it sounds like

helicopters and it's getting louder." Shesays "well I don't see any airplane" and I said"it's not an airplane it's a helicopter, Marie,"and she said, "whatever it is it sure is low"and I said "yeah it is." So I rolled my carwindow down and there was very very littletraffic and so I 'slowed way down and Istarted looking and and I could see someflashing lights in the air approximatelyanywhere from 400 to 500 feet in the air andI got to picking out more of them and as Iwas picking them out I picked out 3 in avictor formation and about maybe athousand and a little bit off to the left of itwas another sector of V with 3 choppers init. And as I looked a little bit better I seenthree more. The twin tops, front and aft, theshape and everything.

I said well they must be on maneuversagain, National Guard or something, out atFort Polk or the Coast Guard doingsomething and I looked a little bit closer andyou could see some lower lights back off inthe distance quite a ways back. I'd sayabout % of a mile — real good visibility thatnight, and uh, 1 just registered off and wewent on home. And it wasn't about oh,maybe three-four weeks uh three-four daysmaybe a little bit longer when I heard overthe news of what happened and I told MarieI said, gee whiz I even told the men aroundthe office there. We setting around talkingone day I said, "What in the devil's all thehelicopters around for?" I said "They havean airplane crash?" They said, "no, not thatI heard."

Col. Sarran said he was convincedthat Off icer- Walker had seenHelicopters, but it still had to be proven.

Next Col. Sarran and I visited theM o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y S h e r i f fDepartment in Conroe, Tex. We werechecking on an allegation that the Sheriffhad instigated the flight of helicopterson 29 December 1980. We found thatall the people in the Sheriff's Dept. hadbeen replaced on 2 January 1981. Noneof the original people were around 'atthe time of our visit. We spoke withChief Deputy B.J. Grounds, Lt. Lowre,and Pete Perkins. All the peopleinterviewed said they would not call theNational Guard — it was not part oftheir procedure. They would probablycall Houston police for assistance.Chief Grounds suggested we contactCarl Mangogna who was in charge ofthe Harris County Patrol Divison,responsible for helicopters at the time.The duty officer on 29 Dec 1980 wasGloria Eshenbeck. Later I contactedMangogna but was unable to findEshenbeck. Chief Grounds also

suggested we visit the Army Medivacunit at Hooks Airport to the northwestof Houston. We tried but it was closed— all members were at a specialmeeting out of town. ,

On 26 May 1982 I called CarlMangogna as a fpllowup to theMontgomery County Sheriff Dept. Itracked him down through his father,also a Carl Mangogna. He is now Chiefof Security for a Houston corporation.He had no memory of the events on 29December 1980. He suggested that Icall Capt. Defore of the HPD.

On. 26 May 1982, Chief WarrantOfficer Gustafson of the Army Medivacunit called. He had done some checkingat our request with other members ofthe unit at Hooks arid suggested thefollowing possibilities:

(a) There was a Quick React Forceoperating in Louisiana and Texasduring the last year and a half. The lastthey heard of it was about 6 monthsearlier, operating near Morgan City,Louisiana. He said they practiced "Irantype" raids, operating from a smallcarrier in the Gulf of Mexico. Othertimes they haul in 5,000-gallon fuelbladders for refueling. Their operationis secret and not announced.

(b) The USMC in New Orleansoperates CH-46 helicopters. He doesn'tknow of any operation in the HoustonArea but it is always a possibility; (VISITcheck on the USMC unit in March1981. No activity.)

(c) Ken Defore of the HoustonPolice Department lives in Dayton,Tex. He will visit L.L. Walker anddouble check him on his claim of seeingCH-47s on 29 Dec 1980.

On 27 May Chief Gustafson calledwith an update report. His followupwith Ken Defore of the Houston PoliceDepartment was positive. Capt. Deforesaid he has no doubt that Dayton policeofficer L.L. Walker saw CH-47s. He toofelt they were probably part of a QuickReact Force. He said Walker saw 12helicopters. Four Groups of three eachin "V" formation. The lead aircraft ofeach "V" was shining a spotlight on theground as if searching for something.Another element flew ll/2 miles behindin a three-abreast formation. Altitudewas around 500 feet. They alteredcourse and headed for the Gulf of

(continued on next page)

THE GREAT SOVIET UFO COVERUP: PART I.By James E. Oberg

(Copyright @1982, James E. Oberg,all rights reserved)

Russia has its UFOs, too — butwith a difference. It has governmentcoverups, too, and that is a central partof the difference.

Cossacks in the Ukrainiancountryside and sophisticatedMuscovites on big city -streets havestared in awe at UFO formationspassing overhead. Russian astro-nomers at mountaintop observatorieshave gazed in wonder at half-mile-widecrescent UFOs which silently glideacross the sky.

Flying along the Volga River, acommercial airliner was buzzed andcircled by a UFO; the plane's enginesstalled and it glided downwards, untilthe UFO departed and the enginesrestarted. Thousands of people inwestern port cities have run in panic as

a "jellyfish UFO" swept over the docks,sending down shafts of light whichbroke windows and paving stones..Over the Arctic Ocean, the crew of anIlyushin airliner watched a blindinglybright UFO emit beams of light anddrop cone-shaped projectiles.

Similar UFO reports have come infrom around the globe. The differencebetween these UFOs and ones seen inother countries is that in these casesthe Soviet government secretly knowsexactly what happened. Moscowknows where the UFOs came from,,who launched them, how they werepropelled, and why they were travelingthrough Soviet skies. It knows all this —and refuses to publicly admit it. It isprobably the greatest UFO coverup inhistory.

Pentagon, Continued

Mexico. They could have refueled from5,000-gallon fuel bladders in the area orfrom a flattop in the Gulf. Gustafsonsaid "We may have uncovered a bucket.of worms."

Col. Sarran called on 1 June 1982.He had no luck in locating a unitresponsible for the helicopters on 29Dec 1980. Only Fort Bragg, N.C., FortDevens, Mass., Panama, and Europehave Quick React units. They weren'tinvolved. Five CH-47s flew over Daytonon 22 May at 11 a.m. I-asked him if itwould help to check and see where theywere from, thus providing a clue to atleast the range for operations on 29Dec. He said it wouldn't help. Lots ofunits could overfly the area. Fort Hoodparticipates in the yearly Reforgerexercise and flies from Fort Hood toPort Arthur as part of the exercise.That would take them near Dayton.Col. Sarran is due to answer the originalinquiry and talk to John Nyter, DeputyHead of Congressional Liaison. He saidhe would get back to me on the QuickReact thing. He expects to report

6

"negative findings."Col. Sarran called on 25 June 1982

as a last follow-up. We talked about theAPRO Bulletin claim of knowing it was agovernment device and havingevidence that would help in the case. Isuggested he call Coral Lorenzen, theauthor of the article, since I had no ideawhat she was talking about. As awrapup he told me he had contactedthe lawyers at Bergstrom Air ForceBase; Vickie and Betty had gone thereto give testimony at the suggestion ofSenators Bentsen and Towers: Vickietold Col. Sarran he should get a copy ofthe tape made at Bergstrom. He hadgotten that tape. It revealed nothingnew. He said, "obviously somethinghappened to trie ladies." However, hecould find no group responsible for thehelicopters. An operation of thatmagnitude would have been "big time."Fueling would have been a problem. Hejust cannot believe it wouldn't havebeen exposed. The Special OperationsBranch, Delta Project (Iran raid) andskyjack and terrorist righting groupswere checked and all responded with a"negative.''^

UFOlogy in the Soviet Union.hashad its ups and downs, and it has beenan enigmatic source of puzzlement toWestern observers. Fifteen years ago,in 1967, a major "UFO flap" coincidedwith semi-official interest in a publicinvestigation of the phenomenon. Thiscame to an abrupt end early in 1968.Since then, a handful of unofficial SovietUFO researchers has continuedprivate investigations, without anyapparent government sanction ordiscouragement . A series ofspectacular new UFO sightings in thenorthern regions of European Russia inthe 1977-1981 period seems to have setoff a renewed low-level official interest,but the government-controlled newsmedia continues to denounce the UFOphenomenon as nonsense.

Against this background, thepublication in 1979 of an official reportfrom the USSR Academy of Sciencestakes on remarkable significance, sinceit plainly states that the officially-denounced UFOs are "real" in amathematically provable sense. This isexactly counter to the officialgovernment line. Observers wonderedwhy .its publication was allowed at all.

Translated, the title of the reportwas "Observations of AnomalousAtmospheric Phenomena in the USSR:A Statistical Analysis." The mainauthor was Dr. Lev Gindilis of theShternberg State AstronomicalInstitute in Moscow. Data processingand bookkeeping was performed byI.G. Petrovskaya and most of the actualtext was written by D.A. Menkov.Significantly, the report was approvedfor official publication by AcademicianNikolay Kardashev, one of the USSR'stop experts in SETI, the Search forExtra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Forconvenience the Soviet document canbe referred to as the "Gindilis Report."

Copies of the report filtered out ofthe USSR along various routes (there isno evidence that the report was ever

(continued on next page)

Soviet Cover-Up, Continued

mentioned in the popular Soviet press).One copy, received by the Frenchgovernment's UFO research group,GEPAN, was subsequently forwardedto the private Center for UFO Studies(CUFOS) in Evanston, Illinois, whereDr. J. Allen Hynek passed anothercopy on to NASA scientist Dr. RichardHaines at the Ames Research Center inCalifornia. Haines then had it translatedon a government grant, and thet r ans l a t ed vers ion was. thenreproduced and offered for sale byCUFOS early in 1980.

Due to international copyright law,NASA later printed a warning on thefront of its file copies of the translation:"This copy is for internal use of NASApersonnel and any reference to thispaper must be to the original foreignsource:" Access to file copies wasrestricted to NASA and contractorpersonnel. The first draft which Hainesreceived did not carry this warning, andCUFOS made no attempts to certifycopyright before publishing, thusopening themselves to the possibility ofa lawsuit from the Soviet government.But such legal action is extremelyunlikely, for reasons which will becomeclear shortly.

Whatever the legal status of thedocument, its scientific status wasallegedly very significant. Haines andHynek, together with numerous otherleading Western UFOlogists publiclyclaimed that the Soviet report was thelong-sought key evidence for the proofof the reality of UFOs. It allegedlyproved that the Soviet government, nomatter what public posture it took, wasreally serious about genuine UFOresearch privately. Secondly, thestatistical analysis supposedly was yetanother demonstration that the "UFOresidue" of unexp)ainable cases wasdemonstrably distinct from the majorityof explainable cases (Identifiable FlyingObjects, or "IFOs") within which thekernel of . useful "true UFOs" ishopefully buried.

But the truth is that the GindilisReport is a ruse, possibly anotherSoviet attempt to divert attention fromthe truth about Soviet UFOs. Somedaythe Gindilis Report may be ranked withthe Piltdown Man, the Cyril Burt

forgeries, the Vinland Map, and theCardiff Giant as among the greatestscientific deceptions ever staged.Meanwhile, its publication (and wideacceptance) in the West serves thepurpose for which it was written, so thepublishers who pirated it are hardlylikely to be punished.

The key to unlocking the truthbehind the Gindilis Report was found indescriptions of three spectacularmultiple witness reports from the 1967"wave." These occurred on theevenings of July 17, September 19, andOctober 18. All occurred in theUkraine/Black Sea/ Volga Valley/Caucasus region of the southwesternUSSR. Curiously, the bulk ofeyewitness reports showed similarpatterns: a "crescent-shaped" objectproceeding on a generally west to eastpath.

To skeptical investigators such asmyse l f , one obvious solut ionhypothesis was some sort of repeatedtechnological experiment, perhaps anew-model aircraft test or a unique typeof frequently-repeated space mission. Imade a quick check of space vehiclelaunch records and discovered a highlysuggestive pattern. On each of the daysof a mass sighting, a special type ofSoviet spacecraft test had occurred.The vehicle was called the FOBS, or"Fractional Orbit BombardmentSystem" (that was the name given theprogram by the Pentagon, whileMoscow insisted falsely that all of theflights were merely "scientific satellites"flown under the "Cosmos" satelliteprogram). Moreover, according toWestern space experts, the FOBSflights involved a single loop aroundEarth and a flaming plunge back intothe atmosphere — and the .times andflight paths of the fiery re-entriescoincided nicely with the reportedtimes of the three mass sightings ofUFOs described in the Gindilis Report.

For example, the September 19thevent included sightings from Svatovsk(7:20 p.m.) Zimnik (7:20 p.m.),Volzhskiy (7:30 p.m.), Novooskolsk7:40 p.m.), Severodonetsk (about 7p.m.), Donetsk (8:20 p.m.), Zhdanov(8:20 p.m.), Mariinskiy (about 8 p.m.),and Roy (8 p.m.). Meanwhile, theCosmos-178 spacecraft had blasted offfrom Tyuratam in Kazakhstan shortly

before 6 p.m., circled the planet, andwas flaming its way across the southernSoviet skies at 7:30.

Further correlations appeared.For the May-to-October 1967 period,there were eight FOBS flights, andseven of them appeared in the table of1967 UFOs in the Gindilis Report. In thereport, there are 56 multiple witnesscases in that time period and 44 of themcorrelate to the dates of FOBS flights!

The exact FOBS missions and theapproximate times of their overflightsare: Cosmos-160, May 17 at 8:45 p.m.;Cosmos-169, July 17 at 9:30 p.m.;Cosmos-170, July 31 at 9:30 p.m.;Cosmos-171, August 8 at 8:45 p.m.;Cosmos-178, September 19 at 7:30p.m.; Cosmos-179, September 22 at6:50 p.m. (no reports — it may havebeen overcast); Cosmos-183, October18 at 6:10 p.m.; Cosmos-187, October28 at 5:50 p.m.

This FOBS system, by the way,had in fact been publicly flaunted late in1965 at the annual October Revolutionparade (on November 7). A TASS newsagency announcer had boasted that"the column of rocket troops endedwith orbital [sic!] rockets with atomicwarheads, which are capable of hittingany aggressor unexpectedly, aftermaking one or more orbits around theearth." These missiles were code-named the SS-10 "Scrag" by Westernmilitary analysts — and may have beena ruse, since when FOBS test flightsbegan they were atop SS-9 "Scarp"missiles. The "Scarp" itself wasunveiled late in 1967 with the threat thatthey could "deliver to target nuclearwarheads of tremendous power. Not asingle army in the world has suchwarheads. These rockets can be usedfor intercontinental and 'orbitallaunchings."

A typical FOBS flight involvedlaunch from the Tyuratam test rangeeast of the Aral Sea in Soviet CentralAsia. The two-stage missile placed atwo-ton payload into a low but stableorbit 100 miles above Earth's surface.An hour and a half later, near the end ofits first pass around the globe, thepayload turned tail forward and fired apowerful braking ' engine whichdeflected it out of orbit and toward theground. In the 6 minutes before impact

(continued on next page)

Soviet Cover-Up, Continued

onto a target zone east of the VolgaRiver, the gradually descendingwarhead crossed over Athens,Istanbul, and the northeast coast of theBlack Sea — where thousands ofunsuspecting citizens were suddenlytreated to a spectacular light show inthe evening sky.

One graphic description of such anapparition appeared in an article in"Soviet Life" magajine in February1968. What was really happening wasthat Cosmos-171, allegedly a "scientificsa te l l i t e" but a c t u a l l y a testthermonuclear warhead space-to-ground delivery system, was diving intothe upper atmosphere on its way to atouchdown point east of Kapustin Yar.What the shock wave looked like toastonomers near Kislovodsk in theCaucasus Mountains was this:

It was shaped like an asymmetricalcrescent, with its convex side turned in thedirection of its movement. Narrow, faintlyluminous ribbons resembling thecondensation trail of a jet plane followedbehind the horns of the crescent. Itsdiameter was two-thirds that of the moon,and it was not as bright. It was yellow with areddish tinge. The object was flyinghorizontally in the northern part of the sky,from west to east, at about 20 degreesabove the horizon. A bright star of the firstmagnitude was moving at a constantdistance ahead of the crescent. As it movedaway from the observers, the crescentdwindled, turned into a small disk, and thensuddenly vanished.

According to Zigel's account, "Themysterious object was seen by ten ofthe station's scientific workers; it wasalso observed in Kislovodsk." Zigel'sarticle was about "True UFOs"and thiscase was featured as one of his bestunsolved apparitions on record; it waslater listed in the Gindilis Report, too.

These cases appeared in WesternUFO books of that period, too. TheCaucasus 'apparitions, for example,were described as flying saucershundreds of yards in diameter. TheSoviet "giant spaceships" even rated achapter named after them in DonaldKeyhoe's 1973 book Aliens FromSpace. The usually highly regardedKeyhoe painted a scene at the KazanObservatory (on the lower Volga River)

CAUCASUSMOUNTAINS

CASPIANSEA

Observation points of July 17,1967 FOBS/Cosmos-169 re-entrywith groundtrack superimposed (from Gindilis Report, Fig. 20)

at twilight on July 18, 1967:

Suddenly a huge flying object appeared,moving swiftly across the sky. As it passedthe observatory its orange glow made iteasily visible in the dusk. It was an amazingsight — an enormous crescent-shaped craftat least eight times larger than any knownairplane. The horns of the crescent werepointed backward, emitting jetlikeexhausts....Confirmation of the giantspaceship's existence soon came fromother astronomers. The diamter of theflying crescents were [sic!) between 500 and600 meters (between 1640 and 1840feet...) Several times, Soviet astronomershad reported that the huge spaceships werepreceded or flanked by smaller UFOswhich kept precise formations, matchingthe crescents' terrific speeds.

Keyhoe was, as it turned out,giving a severely garbled account of theCosmos-169 reen t ry , su i tab lyembellished from his own imaginationto force the observations to conform tohis own biases about "giant spaceships"and "intelligent piloting." Theembellishment may well have beensubconscious and sincere on Keyhoe'spart, but the result was a clear

falsification of the .actual eyewitnesstestimony — a demonstrably commonoccurrence in popular UFO books,when published accounts can as in thiscase be compared to documentedprosaic stimuli.

Read Keyhoe's passage again forthe subtle insertion of counterfeit cluesabout how he wants the "raw evidence"to be (mis)interpreted: a "craft" withhorns "emitting exhaust," with smallerUFOs in "precise formation" (ofcourse, actually these were randomly"scattered pieces of burning debris!).Keyhoe (and all other WesternUFOlogists) had had all the clues theyneeded to solve this case, but thosewho used the cases in their publicationschose not merely to overlook the cluesbut also to distort them sufficiently tomake them almost useless to anyoneelse.

The Gindilis Report containedthree tables listing various descriptionsof some other spectacular flamingFOBS re-entries. Although most of thewitnesses listed the motions correctfy

(continued on next page)

Soviet Covcr-Up, Continued

(while incorrectly giving the time, oftenby more than an hour), a fewimaginatively described the false"UFO" as "hovering" or "curving." Oneair crew, on the Voroshilovgrad-to-Volgagrad flight number 104, insistedthat the UFO had hovered and thenmaneuvered around their plane (aircrews are often touted as "trainedobservers" but in fact they can be, as inthis case, often among the leastaccurate observers of UFOs; to myrecollection, Dr. J. Allen Hyriek hasreported this finding and this conformsto my own investigative experience.)

A more sensational aspect of thissighting was omitted by Gindilis but didappear in the original sources: theplane's engines allegedly died and didnot start up again until after the UFOhad disappeared, when the aircraft wasonly half a mile high. But it was onlyCosmos-178 coming home.

The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i sFOBS/UFO correlation became clear.More than 80% of the FOBS flightscaused mass UFO sightings; almost80% of the UFO sightings of the periodof interest in 1967 were evidentlycaused by FOBS space missions; a fullthree quarters of the total number ofUFO reports analyzed by the GindilisReport were from 1967! So the officialSoviet statistical study's results arehopelessly polluted by non-UFO data(i.e, the FOBS sightings) and hence aretotally worthless as information about"true UFOs" and their reputed "stablestatistical properties" — which theauthors and the Western reviewersboasted about. Computer experts have

.a saying: "Garbage In, Garbage Out."The Gindilis Report by this definition isgarbage, and a lot of UFOlogistseagerly swallowed that garbage. Itshould leave a bitter taste in theirmouths!

Now, what might have been thereal motivations of the authors of thereport, and of Gindilis in particular? Didthey naively think that they wereworking with genuine UFO raw data, ordid they know that their data base washopelessly compromised but that it wasbetter for military secrecy that peoplestill thought of the FOBS entries (whichthe Soviet government denies ever

tia

a

j

,

2

x—c:LL

OC3cc

oocL4

1 H

137 ua

ipr ma

| \

H C? Sr, Ii3

3 T*S <"3 .0^ C/3

0o HQ ^

C3LL-

1

1 1 I

1 «""> 1CJI

Y Jun Ji

> 5

S ""? ^r~, to £pi — 1 O *">i s: rrl

CO CO '

§3 pCO J;

cS oo tq

IT ' I

1 . 1i itou HUPi »zr MM

il aug se

CfCOf—^1

COo3-:If.C

gu

n \

p oc

c— -.

S1

CO0?;COo

(— }

00QQOU-

T

» lNil 11n

t nc

S1

COo

00

u-

M9

)V

1IIaz

dec

BAR GRAPH FROM GINDILIS ("FIGURE 9") SHOWS DATES OF 1967 UFO CASES.ALL THE BIGGEST CASES CORRESPOND TO SECRET MILITARY SPACE ACTIVITY,AS LABELED EITHER. FOBS (FRACTIONAL ORBIT BOMBARDMENT SYSTEM) OR PLESETSK,

took place) as "flying saucers"?It is easy to see that official Soviet

censors would have initially welcomedthe public misidentification of theFOBS entries. After all, officially, spacesystems such as the FOBS were illegaland hence the USSR would never testthem. In fact, since the FOBS systemwas readily recognized in the West asan orbital H-bomb carrier best suitedfor nuclear sneak attack, the less theworld knew about it, the better forMoscow's public peace posturing —especially following the writing of a 1967treaty outlawing the placement of H-bombs in orbit (which is exactly whatthe FOBS was designed to do). Despitethe fact that Moscow sanctimoniouslysigned the treaty later that year, it o

continued to test FOBS vehicles (nowoutlawed by international law) longafterwards.

But these flaming UFO sightings in1967 had ignited tremendous publicinterest in the Soviet Union. Up untilthat point, the Soviet population hadbeen relatively insulated from the flyingsaucer phenomenon, which for 20years had been exciting enthusiasts inthe United States, France, SouthAmerica, Japan, and to a lesser extentelsewhere in the world. Officially,Soviet commentators had denouncedthe topic as a product of capitalistic war

hysteria and money-grubbing yellowjournalism. By late 1967, however, the 'hundreds of thousands of newwitnesses eager to make up for losttime, official Soviet policy had changed— briefly.

In Moscow, a group of UFOenthusiasts organized a private studycommittee. The chief mover evidentlywas Feliks Zigel, an .astronomyprofessor at the Moscow AviationInstitute. A retired general, PorfiriyStolyarov, was chosen chairman, and itis by that name ("the StolyarovCommittee") that the group is known.After a series of very successful publicmeetings, the group was invited toappear on Moscow National Televisionon November 10. There, they invitedwatchers nationwide to send in reportsof UFO sightings for scientific analysis.It is primarily from that body of reportsthat 10 years later the Gindilis teamselected 256 most typical for analysis.

So by late 1967 the Sovietgovernment was faced with theuncomfortable prospect of its citizensscanning the skies and reporting allstrange lights they saw — and all withofficial approval. Yet many of theselights were being caused.by activitiesMoscow did not want to acknowledge.What started out as an ill-considered

("continued on next page)

Soviet Cover-Up, Continued

but apparently harmless pandering topublic curiosity now must have seemedto be getting out of control.

It wasn't just the FOBS spaceshotsthat needed coverups. The top secretnew military satellite center at Plesetsknorth of Moscow had opened the yearbefore for polar-orbit spy satellites.Sooner or later, one was bound to belaunched in twilight when, its unlitrocket exhaust plumes would stand outlike a torch in the sky. With thesanctioned UFO mania sweeping theUSSR, such reports were bound to bepublished widely, betraying strong hintsabout the hitherto concealed existenceof the military space center.

And that is exactly what happenedon December 3, three weeks after thetelevised UFO appeal. The Cosmos-194 Vostok-class spy satellite blastedoff from Plesetsk at 3 p.m. local time,shortly before sunset. As it rocketednortheastwards along the Arcticcoastline, its contrails were visible toeyewitnesses in the wintry night below.It became (and to this day remains)another great Russian UFO; it is knownas the "Kamennyy UFO" since it wasspotted from an aircraft on route from"Mys Kamennyy" (Cape Stoney) in theNew Siberian Islands to Moscow.

A graphic account of the "UFO"was given by American UFOlogistWilliam L. Moore (author of TheRoswell Incident) in his study, "RedSkies: A History of UFOs in Russia"(UFO Report, June 1980), based oncasebooks compiled by Zigel. WroteMoore:

Among the most interesting [1967 cases] isa curious multiple sighting on December 3,of an unknown object near CapeKamennyy in the Soviet Arctic. At 3:04 p.m.several crewmen and passengers of an IL-18 aircraft on a test flight for the StateScientific Institute of Civil Aviation sightedan intensely bright object approachingthem in the night sky at an altitude of 2,800feet (in this far northern latitude, nightcomes in midafternoon in December).

• At first those aboard the IL-18 thought thisobject was an aircraft with landing lights on,but as the flight commander maneuveredand the object followed, it soon becameapparent that it was not an aircraft. As theobject approached above and to the left ofthe IL-18, the powerful beams of light

10

emanating from the object illuminated theentire horizon. In addition, several cones oflight seemed to descend from the object tothe ground. "When it practically came up tous, it was quickly extinguished in 3 secondsand these bright cones continued to shineindependently for several more secondsand then were extinguished slowly".

All during this observation and for another10 minutes until the object disappeared intothe distance, radio contact was maintainedwith the dispatcher services for both CapeKamennyy and Vorkuta, both of whichcould also see the mysterious object butwere unable to identify it.

Many typical symptoms ofairborne UFO testimony can beidentified in this account. The air crewincorrectly thought the "UFO" wasfol lowing their maneuvers andapproaching very close (Cosmos-194was doing neither). The "beams oflight" were characteristic of suchPlesetsk launchings and would be seenagain and again by witnesses of similiarlaunchings in the f u t u r e . Thedescending cones of light were almostcertainly the four jettisoned first stagestrap-on boosters trailing smoke; thesudden fade-out of the main light mayhave been the cutoff of its engines,, ormore likely when it flew into Earth'sshadow a hundred miles up.

.[The location of the aircraft duringthe UFO encounter can be estimatedby the fact that it was about 4 hours outof Moscow on its flight back from MysKamennyy. The IL-18 has a cruisingspeed of about 380 m.p.h. andassuming it was on a great circle routethat would put it not far from Vorkutaand a bit north of the Cosmos-194launch trajectory.]

Ironically, Moore boasted that"ZigePs reports tend to be limited tothose UFO cases that have managed towithstand the most rigorous scientificinvestigation" — but a simplecomparison of the time and flight pathof the "Kamennyy UFO" with thelaunch time and trajectory of Cosmos-194 (data was published a few monthslater in numerous international spacemagazines) was never done, neither byZigel nor by Moore, nor even by theGindilis team, which listed the"Kamennyy UFO" as one of the mostspectacular multiple witness "trueUFOs" of the year.

For Soviet security organs, the

Kamennyy UFO reports (which werewidely published soon afterwards) werehighly undesirable. First their secretFOBS tests and now their secretPlesetsk spaceport were beingcompromised by the naive UFOenthusiasm sweeping the country.

The last straw must have been inFebruary 1968 when Zigel published hisUFO article containing a preciset e c h n i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n ( a l b e i tunrecognized as such) of the officiallynonexistent FOBS warhead re-entrymasquerading as a flying saucer.Censors may have realized that suchdetails could easily serve to drawunwanted attention to the FOBSflights.

So a few weeks later a new SovietUFO policy was abruptly unveiled: nomore published reports of UFOs(FOBS or Plesetsk or otherwise) sinceit was all "nonsense." But in fact, justthe opposite, must have been theanxiety gnawing at Soviet newscensors: too much sensible UFOdiscussions might really expose theFOBS explanations or the Plesetskactivity. The Stolyarov Committee wasdisbanded and Zigel was told to dropthe topic of UFOs. So the lid wasclamped down and the FOBS/UFOconnection went unrecognized in thepublic literature for 15 years.

(End of Part I.)

IMPORTANT

This is a reminder thatDecember 31, 1982, is thelast date that tax exemptgifts or donations may bemade to the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc. for the year,under Section 501(c)(3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code.Grantors and donors maywant to earmark their giftsor donations to be applied tothe purchase of a newcopier machine or to defraypublishing costs on the 3rdedition of the MUFON FieldInvestigator's Manual. Acopy of MUFON's certifi-cation of exemption letterwill be supplied to donorsupon their request forincome tax purposes.

UFOS AND THE RAAF-THE INSIDE STORY: PART IIBy Bill Chalker

(©1982 - Bill Chalker)

Despite assurances from theRAAF that "nothing that has arisenfrom that three or four percent ofunexplained cases gives away any firmsupport for the belief that interlopersfrom other places in this world oroutside it have been visiting us"9,provocative events remain. Because ofthe RAAF's committment to checkingout defence implications in reports,those events outside their brief merelygo unresolved.

Space allows us only mention of asmall selection of cases:

On April 4, 1975, following groundobservations, a pilot of an aircraftapproaching Cairns airport from thewest was asked by the tower to look outfor an unidentified object to the north:

VHP contact CS Tower was severelydistorted prior to receiving the message of aforeign object in the area. A light only wasvisible — not the usual aircraft light(landing) but quite powerful with a yellowcolouring, with a wide beam. For severalseconds it would oscillate through 10° to 15°of horizontal and vertical planes gently, butmainly appeared stationary. The verticaloscillation appeared to move in an arc, as ifoff-centre of the longitudinal axis of anaircraft.

The source of light was not visible unlesspointing directly towards the observer,appearing then with a lens approximatley 3times diameter of a Boeing 727 landing lightlens. During the last observation, smoke,cloud or some opaque substance appearedin the beam. It appeared somewhat darkerand denser than cloud. Cockpit dutiesterminated the observation.

The RAAF investigating officerindicated that the light was no knownaircraft in flight and was "notcompletely satisfied that the objectdescribed by....the pilot, was the planetSaturn." However it is Saturn thatappears in the 1975 Summary as "apossible cause"!

On August 30, 1975, the pilot andco-pilot of an RAAF Neptune aircrafttransiting up the Queensland coast at

3,000 feet, just out to sea off Mackay,North Queensland, witnessed a groupof 3 lights which passed in front of them.The lights were about the sameintensity as average stars and weremoving horizontally at high angularvelocity. They appeared to be at thesame altitude of the aircraft.

Fearing an imminent collision, thepilot banked to the left "andcommenced climbing as the lightspassed down the starboard side ofaircraft. The lights appeared todisappear into cloud abeam thecockpit." Duration approx. 10 - 15seconds. "Nil radar traces noted by10SQN aircraft radar operator." Theinvestigating officer confirmed that"both men are reliable and trainedobservers" and the case is listed as"not known."

Possibly the most interesting of theaircraft sighting reports from the RAAFfiles was a complex of events played outnear Brisbane and Coolangatta,Queensland, on the night of November4, 1976. The events are not mentionedin the 1976 Summary. The Senior AreaApproach Controller, BrisbaneAirport, directed details of the,evening's events to the Orderly Officerat Amberley Air Force Base. Theaccounts were in turn passed onto theIntelligence Liaison Officer atCanberra.

The first report was made by theDuty Controller at Coolangatta Tower.At 1900 hours he observed a stationarylight changing back and forth from redto .green (possibly scintillation - B.C.).The controller dismissed the object as"unknown, possibly a star" and took nofurther interest. But things were soonhotting up considerably.

The crew of an Electra transportaircraft observed an object maintainingstation with them. The object againappeared as a light changing betweengreen-red-green, but after it appearedto move up and down in its position, theUFO departed to the south at

approximately 1% times the speed ofthe Electra. The captain wrote:

The object was first thought to be an RAAFA/C with afterburner on doing aerobaticsbut when seen to move in vertical zig-zagpatterns, (it) could not possibly have been.(It) moved relative to stars — belowhorizon. At first speed was slightly greaterthan ours then increased to approx. 100%.Then in the last few minutes incr(eased)rapidly to many times our speed.

Brisbane radar ostensibly did notconfirm the "unknown." I have sinceinterviewed the Captain of the Electraand it would seem that something quiteextraordinary took place that night!

Shortly after, the pilot of a lightaircraft — a Piper Aztec — sighted ared and green object maintainingstation with him for 4 minutes beforefading from view.

Both Brisbane Radar and theMeteorology Radar at Eagle Farm thenbegan picking up unidentified returnsthat were stationary to the East ofBrisbane. The Met Radar picked up tworeturns in close proximity, paintingabout the same size as an aircraft. Onetracked south and faded, the otherwent north and descended to 10,000feet. It was on radar for some time. TheRAAF report notes: "The Met radaroperator likened the movement to thatof a ship but said they had never paintedships before in his many years ofexperience at BN (Brisbane - B.C.)."

The RAAF report ex Amberleyconcluded:

The red-green object visually sighted hasbeen assessed as most probably the planetVenus; the colours etc being caused byatmospheric conditions. Weather on thenight of the sighting was clear with no cloud.The radar contacts could have been causedby ducting of the radar energy paintingships at sea (a "not altogether satisfactoryexplanation," the officer later wrote —B.C.). DOT has confirmed that they had nocivil traffic in any of the relevant areas.There was no military activity.

(continued on next page)11

RAAF, Continued

Shades of Kaikoura!10. The Electrapilot finds such explanations,understandably, most unsatisfactory.Further investigation suggests that acommercial passenger aircraft boundfor Cairns was paced by a UFO thatnight, and that a ground observer atBoona, west of Brisbane, also reporteda sighting11.

The Intelligence Officer whosubmitted the following report toCanberra was really just "whistling inthe wind" when he suggested anexplanation for a close encounter with aUFO on the ground, on November 11,1977, in the Barossa Valley. He wrote:"My guess is that it was a set of orangereversing lights, probably on the rear ofa large American car." (!! — B.C.). Thereport did not find its way into the 1977Summary.

A West Australian couple werecamped on a roadside between farms,off Seppeltsfield Road and about % of amile in from the Nuriootra (sic? —B.C.)/Tanunda Roads. The malewitness recorded the event in his diaryfrom which I quote:

It was the 2 square orange lights with a bandof glowing gold light straight across the top.Then the 2 orange lights seemed to merge(almost) into (each other), then back tosquares with a dark object crossing one ofthem, just like a person across a window.Later 2 red spots (one in each orangesquare) just like an exhaust. Later it all wentout like a light and then I saw a pale glow as ifit was moving across the field. It appearedto be 200/300 feet away, the gold light 40'wide and 2' deep, the orange squares 3' to 4'square. After about 25 seconds I called (hiswife — B.C.) to watch it. She came out ofthe van

Her story follows:Outside in the near distance between treeseach .side of the track there appeared to bean object which seemed to fill the spacebetween these same trees....After viewingthis strange set of lights for a few seconds,everything went black, as if a switch hadbeen turned off....Then in a westerlydirection across the skyline at the top of thefield, there appeared a pale blue-grey light,wide at first, then gradually and fairlyquickly moving west and diminishing in sizelike a ribbon of light, narrowing as it finallyfaded out.

Her husband described the end ofthe observation as follows:12

Area went black and one or two secondslater a bluish/grey ribbon of light flowedhorizontally across the field in a westdirection and gradually faded out.

Although there were no RAAF fileholdings on the widely reported

• Frederick Valentich disappearanceincident, 1978 was a bumper year, theSummary for that year listing 118reports. Space precludes me fromdescribing too many, but briefly someof the highlights were an extraordinaryphenomenon seen in a cane field east ofMandurana, Queensland, for 3 hourson December 6th; a "UFO sighting" byerew of HMAS Adroit on April llth; anapparent "electromagnetic" case northof Goulburn, NSW, on October 22nd,which left the speedometer indicatorbroken, and a "daylight disc" seen nearLaverton Air Force Base on December27th.

A taxi driver in Wavell Heights,Aspley, Queensland, almost touched aUFO, on the night of October 10,1978.At about 10 p.m., while driving throughSpence Road, he saw "a very bright,white object (lit up from the inside, nolights on the outside)."

It looked like a mini-bus, moving from myright side across the front of me to the left. Ithought it was going into a garage. At thistime it was 60 metres ahead of me. When itcame in front of my headlights, I saw it hadno wheels. I stopped my car about 2 metresfrom it. Then I got out of my car andwatched it as it pas(sed) by slowly. It was litup inside and outside extremely brightly —a white metallic colour. It had a driving seat,instruments and T-shaped steering wheel. Icouldn't see any light fittings inside oroutside. In fact it was moving so slowly that Itried to touch it. It was at this time that Iheard a sort of s.s sss noise and the lightswent out. It speeded up and quicklydisappeared. The sighting lasted about 30seconds.

I recently spoke to the witness andconfirmed the account as given in theRAAF report. He did elaborate for meon the one provocative detail missingfrom the report — a driver for the "mini-bus" UFO. There was none!

Another "unknown" was observedby 2 women driving on the HeathcoateRoad between the weir and the Menaiturn-off, at about 9:30 p.m. on October29,1978. It was first observed some 500feet away at about the same altitude.

Barossa Valley, 1977

Aspley, 1978

Heathcote Road, 1978

The object was shaped like two saucerson edge, but essentially a very largedark disc shape. It had what appearedto be four or five portholes. Light wascoming from these, although one had"something in the way" — a shadow orsilhouette? Two lights like spotlightswere directed downwards from theUFO. When the couple stopped theircar, the object moved about 100 feettowards them. It stopped briefly, thenmoved closer, a further 50 feet. It finallymoved a further 50 feet, stopped verybriefly and then flew off towardsEngadine.

On January 7, 1979, at Redhead,NSW, a 10-year-old girl was woken upby an extraordinary display. At about 4

(continued on next page)

RAAF, Continued

p.m. a very bright white circular object,with a small circular piece attached inthe centre, first appeared then stopped.A second object approached frombehind the first, circling and thenstopping alongside it. The first objectthen took off again, stopped. Thesecond object repeated the abovemovement. This motion continued onback and forth for some 30 minutes, asthe objects moved in a north-southdirection.

Both objects appeared to stop,side by side, over the neighboringgarage. Four beams of misty white lightcame from the objects to the groundand lit up the area "like midday" for aperiod of approximately 10 minutes.The beams finally went out and bothobjects disappeared from view in thenorth-northwest.

The child had watched the wholedisplay from her bed by a window, forsome 100 minutes, too frightened to callher parents. After the objects had gone,the girl told her parents. She was visiblyshaken by the experience and hermother had to sleep with her for theremainder of the night. The girl sleptwith her father for the following twonights.

This small selection more thanadequately confirms the impressionthat although the majority of casesinvestigated by the RAAF arem i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s of prosaicphenomena, their files do hold valid"unknowns" that deserve furtherinvestigation. However the RAAFostensibly lack the facilities and/or theinclination to conduct worthwhileinvestigations of these provocativeevents.

Is there a cover-up?

The question as to whether theRAAF is "covering-up" its UFOinvestigation a difficult one to resolve toeveryone's satisfaction. The 1966internal Defence Minute Papersspecifically address themselves to thispoint. References in them are difficult toreconcile with a "cover-up" scenario:

....We only foster the incorrect (butnevertheless widely held) belief that we

-have much vital information to hide.

Three of these files are classified, two ofwhich are secret although there appears tobe nothing on the files consistent with thisclassification.

These quotations seem to refer to asituation other than a sophisticatedcover-up program.

While there are a large number ofprovocative claims which aresuggestive of cover-up activities, thisreport is addressed to the filesexamined by the author during January1982.

As already stated, I was permitteda completely open review of theRAAF/Department of Defence UFOfiles made available to me. Theexistence of self critical andprovocative data in the RAAFdocuments I was able to examinedirectly, at Canberra, is a powerfulargument that the RAAF is quite openabout their UFO investigations, at leastwithin the normal limits of typicalgovernment bureaucracy. Further still,the fact I was allowed such a direct on-site review of the files and that furthersuch reviews by myself of the remainingfiles are being organised, are significantitems of evidence for an open policyrather than support for a "cover-up"scenario. It is also significant that myofficially sanctioned file review eventtook place prior to the imminentpromulgation of the Freedom ofInformation Act.

The wording of the Australian Actis such that a high-level "cover-up"program would be ensured itspermanency, and at worst would beonly exposed with ambiguous,fragmentary disclosures. Finally theidea of a high level "cover-up" programseems a little inappropriate in asituation where even the authorityinvested with the responsibility ofcarrying out the program seemssomewhat disabled by an inability tosatisfactorily organise and locate itsown files on the matter (a problem,which I might add, is shared by manycivilian UFO research groups).

Conclusion

It would probably seem that awhole new vista of openess on the partof the RAAF has unfolded. Prior to myvisit, an officially sanctioned review ofgovernment UFO files by a private

UFO researcher would have seemedinconceivable. However, the door hasfinally been opened and left ajar.

This preliminary review indicatesthat the RAAF are probably asconfused and uncertain, as manycivilian research groups, on what to doabout provocative UFO sightings. TheRAAF have been locked into ab u r e a u c r a t i c a l l y orches t ra tedresponsibility, which, the reviewed filessuggest, has long since beendetermined to be a waste of time, but iscontinued as a service to the generalpublic.

In the main, the RAAF UFOinvestigations have served theirpublicly stated purposes. That is, theymay have allayed possible fear andalarm by the general public and satisfiedthe government that there is noapparent defence implications.However, based upon my review of theRAAF UFO files during January 1982,past research into RAAF investi-gations, my own investigations of UFOreports and those of other individualsand groups, there is a residue ofprovocative reports that survives thegauntlet of both official and civilianinvestigation. I believe it is time that theRAAF went beyond its current limitedbrief, which leaves its small residue of"unknown" or "unexplained" reportsunresolved.

I think it is time for the RAAF toabandon its "unnecessarily rigid andunimaginative" approach (to quote andabridge DPR's submision to DAFI in1966) and openly co-operate andsupport the efforts of those civiliangroups that research and investigateUFO sighting reports in a responsibleand scientific way. The AustralianCentre for UFO Studies12 promotesthis sort of approach. It recognises thatthe RAAF has expertise appropriate toevaluating part of the phenomenagenerally regarded as "UFOs," -however, the Centre and many of itssister organisations overseas have thecapacity to enlist and direct meaningfulinvestigations of the residue of reportsthat the RAAF seemingly prefers toignore.

The satisfactory resolution of theUFO controversy could.be assisted ifofficial and responsible civilian groupsalike, co-operated more closely. In that

(continued on next page) 13

I"

By Ann Druffcl

Media Mishmash

Do other branches of science haveas much trouble with media publicity asUFOlogy does? In reading throughnewspaper articles on such subjects asadvances in medicine, space research,astronomy, etc., one gains theimpression that the reporter at leasttried to get the facts straight. Thearticles may be written in oversimplisticlay language at times, but in general theinformation is understandable andaccurate. Major mistakes are few. Asfar as TV documentaries and the likeare concerned, in regard to the samesubjects, one is left with the impressionthat they were done with the help andpermission. of the authorities quotedwithin.

Not so UFOlogy. Since thebeginning of the modern period ofUFOs (1947), the presentations of thesubject have been a mixture ofmisrepresentations and mistakes — amishmash too often sprinkled withgenerous doses of fantasy andnonsense.

The reason for this might lie in thefact that the subject itself is a mystery.No one, not even the mostknowledgeable researchers, knowwhat UFOs are. Only theories and factsabout particular reports are availablefor the researchers to study. Theinformation which trickles down toreporters in various media is generally awatered-down version. But evenconsidering this difficult communi-cation problem, why is present mediareporting so unsatisfactory?

Having been active in the fieldsince 1957 (and intensely interestedsince 1945), it is my impression that thepersons most knowledgeable in thefield are seldom permitted to have anydegree of control over the copy orscripts which eventually make up thefinished products. The one exceptionto this is books, where a satisfactorynumber of knowledgeable researchershave been able to get books withaccurate information printed.

Why this disturbing situation with

RAAF, Continued

way, that residue of provocativereports we label "unexplained" mayeventually be resolved as somethingprosaic or even something much moreinteresting.

Acknowledgements:„! would like to record my appreciationof the kind assistance and co-operationgiven to me by the following:Mr. L.A. Lavers, D/DPRSqd. Ldr. Ian Frame, AFI-ILOMr. Bill Smither; DPR (Air Force)Mr. Noel Transwell, DPR (Research)

Note: ' " .The author's address is P.O. Box 6,Lane Cove, NSW, 2066, Australia.

14

NOTES & REFERENCES

9. From Statement to Australian FederalParliament in Canberra, on 20 Oct. I960, by theHonorable P.M. Osborne, then Minister for Air,quoted in brief for Minister of Defence on RAAFPolicy for Reporting of UAS, Annex A to AF529/1/4 (144),. dated 18 December 1980.10. 'See for example: Startup, Captain Bill &Illingworth, Neil, TheKaikoura UFOs, Hodder&Stoughton, 1980;Maccabee, Dr. Bruce, "What Really Happened inNew Zealand," 1979, published variously in theMUFON UFO Journal, APRO Bulletin, & theInternational UFO Reporter during 1979.Chalker, W.C., "A Re-viewing of the GreatNocturnal Light — UFO Fallout over NewZealand, Dec. 1978," Flying Saucer Review, pgs.12-18, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1980.11. Personal communication from Colin Phillips,President of UFO Research (Qld). See alsoACUFOS files.12. ACUFOS, P.O. Box 546, Gosford, NSW,2250, Australia.

media mismash exists is as puzzling tome as is the mystery of the UFOsthemselves. For among the numerousexpert researchers today are personsskilled in writing, research, script-writing, and film production.

The reason for bringing up thissituation at this particular time is thatrecently the problem presented itself in

. the Los Angeles area in anunprecedented way. The latestproblems began with the opening of themoving, "ET, the Extraterrestrial."Michael London, a writer on theCalendar section of the Los AngelesTimes newspaper asked me to help himcollect a group of close-encounterwitnesses in the area, especially thosewho had interacted with UFO"occupants." His idea was to take thegroup to a showing of "ET" to gain theirimpressions as to how their ownexperiences contrasted or correlatedwith those of the characters of the film.

At the time he called, I wasfrantically trying to finish preparationsfor a research trip to Ireland on apsychic archeology project that hasengaged huge chunks of my time since1977, and I did not actually have time togive London on this article idea. But indiscussing the situation with him on thephone, I learned that he had no otherway of contacting documented closeencounter witnesses. On his own, hehad succeeded only in contactingmembers of what is referred to as thelunatic fringe, who abound in SouthernCalifornia. I decided that, for the goodof the cause, I had to help him. I referredsix rational, productive persons to himwho live in the Los Angeles area andwho seem to have had valid CE III andCE IV experiences.

The resul tant viewing anddiscussion of the film "ET" wasexcellent, and in general, London

(continued on next page)

California Report, Continued

managed to write a fairly accurateaccount of the various experiences ofthe witnesses. The article proved usefulto UFOlogy and seemed helpful to thereading public in understanding andaccepting the UFO phenomenon called"close encounters."

The few factual errors in the articlewere mostly in the discussion of theBailey case. As readers of this columnare aware, Rev. Harrison E. Bailey is aBaptist associate minister in Pasadena,Calif. Not only was he a reported CE IIIwitness in 1951, but on November 1,1978 he produced sixteen Polaroidprints which he states were takenduring a visit by two unknown (UFO?)entities into his apartment in the dead ofnight.

Three and one-half years havebeen put into constant study on thesephotos, by myself and by anyone else Ican get to study them. The input ofseveral photographic experts have ledme to think that the photos are nothoaxed and are probably genuine.However, they do not seem to depict avisit by physical UFO beings, butinstead are images of an unexplainedmanifestation, heavily tinged withparapsychological implications. Themanifestation (entities?) do seem,however, to be posing as UFO beings,at least in their interaction with Rev.Bailey.

Rev. Bailey was one of the personsI chose to introduce to MichaelLondon, since he is a productive,intelligent, and articulate member ofsociety, and I personally feel hisintegrity is unquestioned. When theBailey experience broke into print inMichael London's Los Angeles Timesarticle, Pandora's box lost its latch.Immediately, media persons of alldescriptions began to ring the phonerequesting more information andinterviews. However, the combinationof stress from the preparations for thetrip to Ireland, heavy and unexpectedfamily responsibilities, and the addedUFO work caused by the Times articlehad flattened me out, and as a result Icould not even answer the phone fortwo weeks. I arrived in Ireland finally,where the research went well, though itwas accomplished at half steam.

Upon returning home, I continuedto receive calls from media personnelabout the Bailey case. One of them wasa man (I will not call him a gentleman)with an. English-accent who stated thathe worked for the "North AmericanNews Service" and wished to interviewBailey and myself for a story to besyndicated in English and Germanpublications only. He spoke a goodpiece and seemed to understand myposition that we were not out afterpublicity but that the reasons wewished to put out the story werethreefold: 1. that it might shake loosesimilar pictures from other witnesseswho had not had the courage to bringforth such inexplicable material; 2. thatsuch coverage would hopefully bringabout funding from some media sourcefor image enhancement of the Baileyphotos1; and 3. that such media sourcesmight help in funding planned photosessions in Rev. Bailey's apartment withthe hope of obtaining more images onfilm (infrared, videotape, or otherwise)under controlled conditions and withother reputable witnesses present.

The man with the accent agreedthat he would ask his editor about theabove conditions. He spoke as if hiseditor were in England and that hehimself was a mere visitor to theSouthland. He stated he thought hiseditor could make it possible to havethe photos enhanced. Subsequently,Bailey and I gave him a completeinterview, covering the entire range ofBailey's experiences. In addition, Iprojected in slide form all sixteen ofB a i l e y ' s p h o t o s , e x p l a i n i n gpainstakingly the paranormal features,emphasizing the. slides where imageenhancement would be most useful.2

The man left very pleased, but withno photos, for Rev. Bailey had notbrought his originals with him. In thespace of time between our first meetingand his planned subsequent meetingwith Bailey in order to borrow a pictureor two to illustrate his article, I learnedquite by accident (or synchronicity?)that the reporter was a freelance writerwho wrote for the National Enquirer.Fully three weeks before his first call tome, he had "put in a lead" to theEnquirer suggesting the Bailey photosas an article after obtaining the ideafrom the Times article, and had had his

lead approved.There is no doubt that during his

interview with us he was deliberatelydeceiving us, pretending he wasinterested in the scientific aspects of thesituation and repeatedly stating hisarticle, would be for the Europeanmarkets only3. After learning his truecolors, we immediately shut off allcommunication with him and thenumber of photos he obtained from usfor use with his article was zip.

Later we learned, form our secretsources, that he had gone ahead andwritten a simple article of about 300words concerning Bailey's experience,with no mention of the years ofscientific study which had been pouredinto the case. In fact, his story saidBailey's attempts to photograph thestrange manifestat ions (ent i t ies)proved unsuccessful! He was evidentlytrying to cover his tracks with theEnquirer's editor, because he had beenrefused use of the photos.

Instead he concentrated on adescription of a session in Bailey'sapartment where we had enlisted theaid of a talented psychic as anexperiment. Our purpose was to try tosee if this psychic, Anita Furdek, couldhelp produce any manifestations whichour cameras,.as well as Rev. Bailey's,could photograph. No .manifestations(visible) occurred and no photographswere obtained, but Ms. Furdekapparently reached psychically towardwhatever had caused Bailey's Nov. 1,1978 photo session and succeeded inpersuading it to stop frightening theminister. For since the session, Rev.B a i l e y ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h ephenomenon has changed from terrorto objective curiosity, and he has sinceproduced three series of'inexplicable,apparently paranormal photos. These,however, have even more paranormalimplications than the original set, anddo not relate in any logical way to UFOphenomena.

Hearing of the Enquirer story, andafter fighting off repeated attempts byone of their photo editors to persuadeRev. Bailey to permit use of one or twoof his photos .to illustrate theEnglishman's inaccurate story, Rev.Bailey and I have tried every way we canto see that the story, as written, is at

(continued on next page)15

LETTERProject Identification

Editor,If the attacks on Mark Rodeghier

and Allan Hendry (August 1982Journal) are representative of whatpasses for UFOlogical thinking in 1982,t h e n m a y b e U F O l o g y is apseudoscience after all.

In criticizing Project Identification,Rodeghier (in IDF) and Hendry (inFATE) raised very serious and specificquestions about Harley Rutledge'smethodology and conclusions. WilliamLeet and Lucius Parish to the contrary,neither critic mounted anythingremotely like a personal attack onRutledge, recognizing that it is hisapproach, not his personaltiy, that is atissue.

If we can judge from the MUFONwriter's responses, the criticisms musthave been right on target, since neitherLeet nor Parish bothers to address asingle major issue raised in the reviewsto which they object so vehemently.Instead they content themselves, in themanner of men unable to articulate aserious refutation, with sarcasticremarks and irrelevant speculationsabout the critic's motives. (Parish'ssuggestion that Hendry, author of abook universally recognized as a classicin the literature, has "contributed littleof value to the subject" is especiallyoutrageous.)

DATA MART

Wanted

Anyone knowing the name andaddress of the person who operated theUFO Detector Network in Hammond,Indiana please contact me. Alsointerested in compass needle orcompass-type detector reports forstatistical analysis. Eric Herr, 6250Stanley Ave., San Diego, CA 92115.

In s c i e n c e , as opposed( a p p a r e n t l y ) to MUFON-s ty l eUFOlogy, it is standard practice toreview and critique others' work.Scientists expect to have their writingssubjected to critical scrutiny. That, in.fact, is how knowledge progresses. IfLeet and Parish want UFOlogy toprogress, they would do well toremember that rational discourse isinfinitely preferable to emotional name-calling.

Jerome ClarkLake Bluff, 111.

(Editor's response: In "MUFON-styleUFOlogy" as recorded in this Journal,no one's work — including that ofRodeghier and Hendry — is exemptfrom the critical review process. Oneman's "attack" may be another man's"critical review.")

UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICE

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

UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICERoute 1 — Box 220

Plumerville, Arkansas 72127

California Report, Continued

least factual. We have been warned byindirect Enquirer sources that if wedemand too much accuracy, writtenguarantees, etc. that the story will beprinted as written, simple-minded andinaccurate as it is. We stoutly refuse useof the photos — it is a matter ofprinciple.

Now, when I go to the market, Iglance through each issue of thetabloid, hoping against hope thatBailey's story will not be peeking out. Ifit is, I hope my name will be removedand also the name of a certain UFOresearch organization with which I amassociated. I have requested this byletter, and Rev. Bailey has requested16

that the whole article be scrapped if itcannot be accurate.

This is only one of the recentincidents of media-mishmash whichhave resulted from the "release" of theBailey photo experience. As moredevelops, this may turn out to be morethan a one-part column. It is necessaryto explain fully what happened in casean article on the Bailey photos appears,unwanted, in the National Enquirer.Our colleagues should know that wehad nothing to do with its inception andtried desperately afterward to patch upthe situation so that the least harm wasdone to the UFO field and to thecredibility of those caught up in theentrapment. Perhaps this experiencewill help to warn other researchers who

might inadvertently find themselvestrapped in similar situations.

NOTES1. I have tried repeatedly, from all major UFOresearch organizations in the U.S., to have thesephotos enhanced, but have been informed thatthey are not UFO material, but rather belong inthe field of psychic research.2. The pictures would not benefit from normalcomputer enchancement techniques, but wouldrequire reduction and "deblurring" techniques tobring out the information we seek.3. Being a writer, researcher, and script-writermyself, any U.S. markets for the Bailey storywould be in the realm of my own interest, if andwhen opportunity for more scientific study on thephotos presents itself.4. Anita Furdek is known in the psychic researchfield (at least in Los Angeles) as a proven talent inapplied parapsychology experimentation.

CRITIC'S CORNERBy Robert Wanderer

Nessie and UFOs

For hundreds of years peoplearound Loch Ness and other lakes ofScotland have "seen" an undulatingunknown marine animal whichoccasionally breaks through thesurface with much churning and foam,but quickly dives back into the depths.Particularly during the last 50 years,there have been extensive attempts todefinitively photograph the Loch NessMonster, which has come to be knownaffect ionately as Nessie. Manyelectronic devices have been employedin and above the water, to no avail.

Now a retired Scottish electronicsengineer named Robert P. Craig1 hasdeveloped an excellent explanation forthis long-mystifying phenomenon. Heapproached the problem from twodiverse directions.

Firs t , he quest ioned theassumption that this involved ananimal. A few observers had said thatNessie "looks like a telephone pole." Alog looks like a telephone pole; couldNessie be a log that somehow comes upfrom the bottom of the lake? A goodcandidate, he thought, might be themajestic Scots pine, Pinus syluestris,which once covered the whole CentralHighlands of Scotland. The tree isloaded with its own chemicals — resins,'turpentine, tar oils, phenols, sugars,and many types of gases. And thesechemicals are affected by pressure —such as you find at the bottom of anextremely deep lake.

Second, he wondered: There aremore than 500 fresh water lakes inScotland; why are Monsters found inonly three of them? Nessie is sightedabout 100 times a year in Loch Ness,about 30 in Loch Morar, and 3 in LochTay. Aha, he found: These are allunusually deep lakes. But LochLomond is also very deep, and noMonsters are sighted there.

So Craig checked the populationof pine trees nearby. Thick stands ofpine surround Loch Ness. Substantialbut lesser numbers of pine trees grow

near Loch Morar and Loch Tay. Butthere are no pine trees on the bonnybonny banks of Loch Lomond.

Craig explains that when a pine logfalls into the lake and gradually sinks tothe bottom, it does not succumb to the"enormous pressure" down there asbeech or birch would. Instead, thepressure squeezes the trunk layers ofbark, cork, and cambium, and thetree's resin forms a "strong waterproofouter skin not unlike marine plywood."As the long-submerged encapsulatedtree trunk decays, gases form inside.The pressure of the gases, he pointsout, "can reach quite high proportionsbecause of the back pressure of/ thewater outside." i

Futher expansion of the gases then"drives resin and tar oils out toward theonly possible exits" at the stumps of thebranches and ends of the trunk. Theyform extrusions or blisters filled withminute gas bubbles. Eventually theseblisters in effect become buoyancytanks, and finally.the log begins to rise.As it nears the surface, its internalpressure is far above that around it andit "is almost bursting at the seams." Itpokes its snout above the surface,foams and thrashes about as the gasescapes, and then sinks quietly belowthe surface.

The starting point of Craig'sscenario is to question the assumptionmade for lo these many years that thephenomenon was caused by an animal.Or, to put it another way, that therewere only two choices: either it was amysterious animal, or those people who"saw" it were mistaken.

Neither of these theories is verygood. How could an animal be "seen"so often for so many years, and still notbe found when tracking equipment isused in the loch, and when no body ofan expired or injured animal is everfound? And how could an animalproduce so much froth or foam in suchfresh water?

On the alternative, there are

always a few strange people who "see"strange things, but surely hundreds ofpeople can't be making up stories.In the UFO field, there's the continuingstrong assumption that anything thatcan't be easily explained must be anextraterrestrial spacecraft. As withNessie, there are usually only twochoices: a UFO is from outer space, orthe people who "see" it-are staging ahoax or making a gross error inperception.

In the Travis Walton case, peoplesee only two" alternatives: Walton was"abducted" onto a flying saucer, orWalton and his six cohorts got togetherand made up the whole wild story, andhave continued to maintain it in all theyears since. I find both those theoriesquite unlikely.

In "abduction" stories developedduring hypnosis, people see only twoalternatives: the hypnotized person isdescribing the actual "objective" truth,or they're making up a story as a hoax.Let's permit at least one otheralternative: they are developing a storyin their subconscious mind, similar tothe way we dream every night, a storythat didn't "really" happen but which isof such strong symbolic meaning to thecreator that the hypnotized personreacts as if it were true.

Nessie,. of course, is a singlephenomenon, whereas UFOs come inmany sizes and shapes and speeds andl u m i n o s i t i e s and colors andelectromagnetic properties, so theblanket term "UFO" lumps together adozen, or perhaps many more,separate phenomena. We're not goingto find a single explanation that "solves"the "UFO problem."

The first step is to become awareof our assumption, and to expand ouroptions and possible explanations.Hang loose, ladies and gentlemen. TheUFO solutions may turn out to be asunexpected as a pine log for Nessie.Robert P. Craig, "Loch Ness: The MonsterUnveiled," in New Scientist 8-5-82, pp. 354-357.

17

Director's Message, from p. 20

the Sunday Independent, of Ashland,Kentucky; the Herald-Dispatch ofHuntington, W. Va.; and the GrecnupNews of Greenup, Kentucky. He alsoappeared on a break-away segment ofPM Magazine on WSAZ channel 3 onSeptember 17th and a radio talk showon WGNT, both in Huntington, W. Va.on September 27th. This is soundevidence that the public is still veryinterested in learning more about theUFO phenomenon. .

It is a pleasure to announce;thatthree new Consultants have beenadded to MUFON's Advisory Board ofConsultants. Gary Johnson^ Ph.D.,Electrical Engineering Dept., KansasState University, Manhattan, KS 66506will specialize in "Effects on ElectricalSystems" and also serve as a FieldInvestigator. W. Robert Sanders, M.D.,Route 1, Box 250, Jefferson, TX 75657,a former air force surgeon, will be aconsultant in psychiatry and availablefor. regressive hypnosis cases. Allen

T.V.REVIEW

"The UFO Experience" is anexcellent hour-long documentarycreated by San Francisco TV stationKPIX and shown on that station inSeptember.

It presents an overview of the UFOsituation, and includes on cameraHynek, Klass, Lawson, Haines, andSchuessler. It selected four "typical"cases — the Shannon Davis case (alocal «pilot sighting), the Del Duca"abduction," Cash/Landrum, and theNew Zealand lights. Peter Coyote, whoplayed the part of a UFO investigator inthe movie "E.T.," served as host.

Ron Lakis, the producer, avoidedthe sensationalism sometimes seen inUFO programs, and insisted onkeeping the show serious and credible,for the average viewer as well as forthose more knowledgeable about thesubject. For example, he includedLawson's work on a psychological basisfor "abduction" stories -withoutm e n t i o n i n g h i s b i r t h t r a u m ahypothesis, feeling that BT might notseem credible to the average viewer inthe brief time devoted to Lawson on theprogram.—Robert Wanderer18

Tough, Ph.D., was introduced toMUFON in Toronto at the ThirteenthAnnual MUFON UFO Symposium. Heis a teaching professor and resides at 70Pleasant Blvd., Apt. TH3, Toronto,Ontario M4T 1J8 Canada.

A new research specialist, JamesDeMep, M.A. of Illinois State Universityin Normal, 111., is an Assistant Professorin the Geography-Geology Dept.working toward his Ph.D. in 1983. JimMaples, 4235 Empire St., Columbus,GA 31907 has been appointed StateSection Director for MuscogeeCounty. He is also the Director of WestCentral Georgia UFO Study Group.Ronald Berryman, 3500 W. CountryClub, Sacramento, CA 95821 has beenappointed as the State Section Directorfor Sacramento County. Ron, acommercial pilot, was recommended

by Marvin Taylor, Jr., Assistant StateDirector for Northern California. B.D."Bernie" Shaffer III, 1116 Shiloh, SanAngelo, TX 76901 has been appointe'dState Section Director for the westTexas counties of Tom Green, Irion,and Coke. Bernie is currentlyinvestigating a possible CEII case.

For those of you who areinterested in the bigfoot phenomenon, Ican recommend a new booklet (39pages) titled "Night Siege: TheNorthern Ohio UFO CreatureInvasion" by Dennis Pilichis. TheForeword was written by BertholdSchwarz, M.D. This is a current studyof unbelievable experiences occurringnear Rome, Ohio during the summer of1981. This booklet may be purchasedby writing to the author, Dennis Pilichis,

(continued on p. 19)

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION

1. Title of publication: The MUFON UFOJOURNAL (USPS 002970)

2. Date of f i l ing October 8, 19823. Frequency of issue: monthly4. Location of known office of publication:

103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Guadalupe, Texas78155

5. Address of the headquarters: 103Oldtowne Road, Sesuin, Guadalupe, TX 78155 '

6. Names and complete addresses ofpublisher, editor, and managing editor:

Publisher: Walter H. Andrus, Jr., 103Oldtowne Road, Seguin, TX 78155

Editor: Richard H. Hall, 4418 39th St.,Brentwood, MD 20722

7. Owner: MUTUAL UFO NETWORK,INC. (MUFON), 103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin,TX 78155

Average No. copieseach issue during

preceding 12 monthsA Total No copies printed 1100B. Paid circulation

1. Sales through dealers and carriers, street

2' Mail subscriptions 942C Total paid circulation 942D. Free distributions by mail, carrier or other

means: samples, complimentary, and otherfree copies . . . 74

E Total distribution 1016F. Copies not distributed

1. Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiledafter printing 84

G Total 1100

A not-for-profit corporation incorporatedunder the State Laws of Texas.

Trustees: Walter H. Andrus , Jr.(International Director), 103 Oldtowne Road,Seguin, TX 78155; Sam Gross (CorporateSecretary) R.F.D. 2, Seguin, TX 78155; JohnDonegan (Treasurer), 1901 Mount Vernon,Seguin, TX 78155

8. Known bondholders, mortgagees, andother security holders owning or holding 1percent or more of total amount of bonds,mortgages or other securities: NONE

9. For comple t ion of n o n p r o f i torganizations authorized to mail at specialrates: NO CHANGE

10. Extent and nature of circulation:

Actual No. copiesof single issue published

nearest to filing date1100

0996996

421038

620

. 1100(signed) Walter H. Andrus, Jr.

Publisher

Lucius Farish

In Others' Words

UFO events in Russia arespotlighted in the October 5 issue ofNATIONAL ENQUIRER. Claims of acollision between a UFO and a train, aswell as E-M effects, are detailed in thearticle. In the ENQUIRER'S October 12issue, a former Air Force officer tells ofa 1965 incident in which UFOsapparently interfered with the flight ofan Atlas missile, launched fromVandenberg Air Force Base inCalifornia. A military tracking stationfilmed the UFOs as they circled themissile at 60 miles altitude andapparently attacked it with a type oflight beam weapon.

The September 28 issue of THESTAR reports on sightings of a largeoval object seen by several persons inthe vicinity of Reserve, New Mexico.

D r . A l v i n H . L a w s o n ' s

controversial theory that UFOabduction cases are fantasies of the"birth trauma" process is the subject ofthe "Anti-Matter/UFO Update"column in the October issue of OMNI.

Although the fate of UFOREPORT magazine is apparently stilluncertain, the publishers plan to issuean ANNUAL, which will be available onnewsstands in January 1983.

How many UFO magazines,bulletins, and newsletters have beenpublished during the past 35 years? Abunch! The job of cataloguing all thesevarious publications is one which Iwould not wish on my worst enemy, butit is one which Tom Lind hasundertaken. The results, admittedlyincomplete, are now available in THECATALOGUE OF UFO PERIOD-ICALS. This is a 281-page, spiralbound

(8l/2" x 11"), softcover publication whichis available from Lind for $14.95, plus$1.25 for postage & handling.

Each entry contains the name ofthe periodical, country of publication,publisher, editor, address, number ofissues published, f requency ofpublication, and appropriate additionalcomments. A coding system indicatesthe subjects covered by a particularperiodical. Periodic supplements to theCATALOGUE will be issued on aquarterly basis, providing new listingsand corrections to old listings. Yes,there are a number of errors andomissions in the CATALOGUE, but itis still a valuable reseach tool. Lind'saddress is: P.O. Box 711, Hobe Sound,FL 33455.

Director's Message, from p. 18

P.O. Box 5012, Rome, OH 44085.Congratulations to Massachusetts

MUFON on their montly newsletter,edited by Mrs. Marge Christensen.Richard Hall, editor of the MUFONUFO Journal plans to announce thename of the new Staff Art Editor,however anyone interested involunteering as a staff artist, pleasecontact Walt Andrus. Both the July andAugust issues of the Journal had coverillustrations by James Leming. Howmany readers recognized thecaricature of R. Leo Sprinkle on theAugust cover?

The Rosario, Argentina Delegationof F.A.E.C.E. will be be hosting the"Third International Congress ofExtraterrestrial Science" and the"Sixth National Congress of Ufology"in Rosario on December 8-12,1982. Fordetails and reservations please contactF.A.E.C.E., C.C. No. 508, 2000Rosario, Santa Fe, Republic Argentina.

After several meetings withGeorge F. Gorman, Lt. Col. (Ret.) over

the past few years, George had finallyconsented to grant your Directorpermission to publish a human interestupdate on his famous UFO "dogfight"on October 1, 1948 over the Fargo,North Dakota airport, witnessed by L.D. Jensen, air traffic controller. After 27minutes of futile attempts to get close toidentify the round white light, he landedhis North Dakota Air National Guard P-51 Mustang fighter. Even though thisclassic UFO case from 1948 hasappeared in publications all over theworld, George, when first contacted,stated that he would have to obtainpermission from the U.S. Air Forcebefore agreeing to publish the story inthe Journal. His reluctance was basedupon several factors.

In addition to the national publicitythat he received, such as a SaturdayEvening Post article in which the authorridiculed his experience, an appearanceon the program "We The People," aninterview by Major Donald E. Keyhoe;he was asked to transfer to Wright AFBto receive training as a UFOinvestigator and promptly assigned to

West Germany. As a career officer, hefelt that he had the confidence ofProject Blue Book personnel toconsider, but at the same time theapparent public ridicule hurt himpersonally.

George and his family lived in NewBraunfels, Texas, only 14 miles fromSeguin. They spent their summers attheir cabin in Canada and theirwinters at home in south Texas. For thepast few years Mr. Gorman had beenconstructing homes using solar energyfor hot water, pools, etc. It is withextreme regret and the loss of a friendthat I must announce that George F.Gorman died on July 31, 1982 afterbeing stricken with cancer of thepancreas while vacationing in Canada.Obviously, we will be unable to publishhis personal story in the Journal, sincethe in-depth interview was notconducted. I learned of his death when Icalled to make an appointment for theinterview. My wife and I have had somedelightful dinner engagements with Mr.and Mrs. Gorman as fond memories ofthis professional military officer.^

19

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

On September 14, 1982, JohnSchuessler, Chairman of the UFOFederation Steering Committee,published Newsletter No. 1 as acommunication media for thecommittee members and a request forproposals, suggestions, and answers toproblems that must be resolved byspecified dates. The summer vacationperiod has been detrimental toconcentrated attention to thesematters, however the fall season is nowwith us and we are looking forward topositive responses. He also included anarticle by John Prytz entitled "AProposal For A Network Linking theInformation Resources of AustralianUFO Groups and Individuals" for theconsideration of members.

Bertil Kuhlemann, Project URD inStockholm Sweden, has started anewsletter for the working party ofPICUR, appropriately named "ProjectRainbow" to perform some of the sameobjectives as John Schuessler'snewsletter. I would like to express ourappreciation to Bjorne Hakansson,Vice President of Project URD, whoattended and contributed immensely tothe success of the 1982 UFO SummitMeeting in Toronto. Mr. Hakanssonwas so impressed that he plans toattend the 1983 MUFON UFOSymposium in Pasadena, Calif., topromote international cooperation.

Dipl.-Ing. Adolph Schneider,MUFON Representative for WestGermany, has composed andcirculated a four page listing titled"Information Exchange on UFOs byTape." It is a list of the types of UFOreports and where they should befunneled to the specialists throughoutthe world, listing names, addresses, andtheir specialized area of interest. Inorder to keep the addresses current,please contact Herr Schneider at thefollowing address: Konrad-Celtis-Str.38, D8000 Munchen 70, WestGermany.

Illobrand von Ludwiger has

advised us that MUFON-CES (MutualUFO Network-Central EuropeanSection) conducted their eighth annualUFO conference on the weekend ofOctober 15-17, 1982 at the Hotel Gloriain S t u t t g a r t - M o h r i n g e n , WestG e r m a n y . Speakers m a k i n gpresentations or participating in theprogram agenda on Friday were I.Brand, B. Heim, M. Kage, Dr. Muller,Prof. Senkowski, Adolph Schneider,Dr. Franke, Dr. Bauer, and Dr. W. vonLucadau. Saturday 's speakersconsisted of I. Brand, E. Gerland, A.Schneider, Dr. E. Bauer, Dr. W. vonLucadou, and Beat Biffiger. Sundaymorning was devoted to a question andanswer period. Dr. W. Maurer madethe concluding presentation beforeadjournment early Sunday afternoon.A d o l p h S c h n e i d e r , M U F O NRepresentative for West Germany, andIllobrand von Ludwiger, MUFONDirector for MUFON-CES hosted theconference.

MUFON members across thenation are counteracting the negativebias of the PBS NOVA series "TheCase of the UFO," aired on October 12,1982, by providing outstanding positivepublic relations through educationalprograms. On October 31st, a featureof the Second Idea Exchange Fair atBeverly High School (Massachusetts)will be the "Make Your Own E.T.contest" for students in grades fourthrough twelve. Model E.T.'s will beconstructed with written descriptionsof how they breathe, achieve mobility,communicate, etc., as well as writtendescriptions of the environmentalconditions on their home planets (e.g.,gravity, climate, temperature, terrain),which must be suitable to support eachparticular type of life form, will be ondisplay during the fair.

Even though this contest wasinspired by the motion picture "E.T.,"the model extraterrestrials and writtendescriptions must be original andshould not be copies of Steven

Spielberg's "E.T." Mrs. MargeChristensen, MUFON State SectionDirector is the Ideas Exhange FairCoordinator, being ably assisted by herhusband David, and Linda Seal,MUFON Field Investigator. Judgingof the contest entries will be performedby Massachusetts MUFON membersDavid Webb, Barry Greenwood, JulesVaillancourt, and Joe Santangelo.Since this was basically a MUFONcontest, headquarters awarded prizesto the first and second place winners ineach of the three grade levels consistingof Leonard Stringfield's booklet titled"The UFO Crash/Retrieval Syndrome"Status Report II. A copy of the 1981MUFON UFO Symposium Proceed-ings was also awarded to the bestoverall entry per the judges decision.Photographs of the model E.T.'s mayappear in a future issue of the Journal.

Ray Boeche, State SectionDirector in Lincoln, Nebraska wasinstrumental in organizing the program"Exploring Unexplained Phenomena,"sponsored by the University ofNebraska-Lincoln Division ofContinuing Studies, in cooperationwith Nebraska Association for theStudy of the Unexplained, that wasconducted on November 13th and14th. Featured speakers were Dr. J.Allen Hynek on "UFOs," Dr. RayMackal on "Unknown Creatures," RayBoeche, "Phenomena in Nebraska:Cattle Mutilations," and Linda MoultonHowe with her film "Strange Harvest,"dealing with cattle mutilations.

When George Parsons, Jr.announced to the press through apersonal new release that additionalcounties in Ohio and West Virginia hadbeen assigned to him as State SectionDirector, the newspaper coverage inthe three-state area of Kentucky, Ohio,and West Virginia was phenomenal.Four and five column articles werepublished in the following newspapers:the Ironton Tribune, of Ironton, Ohio;

(continued on page 18)