MUFON UFO Journal - 1976 4. April - Skylook

Number 101

"We tell it as it is"

SKYLOOKThe UFO Monthly

$1.00

April, 1976

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF MUFONJ MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.

The above painting was done by Michael Rogers, one of the Walton and Rogers ore included in this issue,witnesses in the Travis Walton case. First-hand reports by

Founded 1967

SKYLOOKThe UFO Monthly

26 Edgewood DriveQuincy, Illinois 62301

Dwight ConnellyEditor

Carolyn ConnellyBusiness Manager

Walter H. AndrusDirector of MUFON

Ted BloecherHumanoid/Occupant Cases

Joseph M. BrillEditorial Assistant

The Rev. Dr. Barry DowningReligion and UFOs

Ann DruffelCalifornia Report

Lucius ParishBooks, Periodicals, History

Majorie FishExtraterrestrial Life

Stan GordonCreatures & UFO's

Richard HallInternational Coordinator

Mark HerbstrittAstronomy

Rosetta HolmesPromotion/Publicity

David A. SchrothSt. Louis/Mass Media

John F. SchuesslerUFO Propulsion

Norma E. ShortEditor-Publisher Emeritus

Len StringfieldCommentary

Editor's ColumnIt has come to our attention

that Dr. J. Allen Hynek of theCenter for UFO Studies hasstated to the press that theeditor of Skylook has a "per-sonal vendetta" going againsthim. Not true.

It is a fact, of course, thatSkylook has pointed out what wefeel are some of the unfortun-ate activities and attitudes onthe part of Dr. Hynek and theCenter.

Dr. Hynek apparently feelshe should be beyond such criti-cism, although he has not beenreluctant to criticize others--often unfairly and without ap-parent purpose.

Actually, Dr. Hynek has beengetting a great deal of criti-cism in recent months, bothprivately and publicly, most ofit far more severe than any-thing Skylook has printed. TheMay issue of OFFICIAL UFO isone example.

For two years this editorhas tried to be a moderate asmore and more MUFON members be-came increasingly 'critical ofDr. Hynek and his definition ofcooperation. Some of theseMUFON people, including two

members of the Board of Direc-tors, have resigned, at leastpartly because of their objec-tion to MUFON's continued closeassociation with Dr. Hynek.Other members have been just ascritical, but have remained inthe organization thus far.

Dr. Hynek's claim to fame isthat he is currently the best-known name in ufology. In ouropinion he does not deservethis fame--which has come tohim primarily as a result ofAir Force publicity—since hehas actually done far less withfar less expertise than a greatmany others.

We have yet to see, for ex-ample, a detailed report of anycase he has investigated "sci-entifically," and he has obvi-ously mishandled some he hasbeen involved with (such asPascagoula). As an administra-tor of the Center, he is awalking organizational and pub-lic relations disaster.

No, there is no vendetta.Dr. Hynek, not we, is his ownworst enemy. He is, somehow,managing to snatch defeat fromthe jaws of victory.

In this issueKentucky women report effects from UFO encounter 3Minnesota woman reports possible UFO effects 5Travis Walton explains controversies surrounding case 7Rogers paints picture of Walton encounter 9Student and teacher report sighting in Massachusetts 9UFO observed at busy intersection in Newark, Delaware 10Man claims UFO made his auto difficult to control 11Ann Druffel defends "amateur" ufologists in California Report 12MUFON Symposium arrangements, speakers announced 13In Others' Words by Lou Farish 14Reviews of EDGE OF REALITY by Farish, Hall, and Connelly 15Bastide says study shows UFOs prefer nights without moon 17MUFON Director's Message by Walt Andrus 19Recapping and Commenting by Richard Hall 20Astronomy Notes for May by Mark Herbstritt 20

The contents of SKYLOOK are determined by the editor, and do not necessarily represent theofficial position or judgment of MUFON. Opinions of contributors are their own, and do not necessarilyreflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON.

SKYLOOK THE UFO MONTHLY is published monthly by Dwight Connelly, 26 Edgewood Drive,Quincy, IL 62301 USA. Subscription Rates: $8.00 per year in U.S.; $9.00 per year foreign; single copy, $1.00.Advertising rates: $5.00 per column inch. All ads subject to approval of the publisher.

Copyright 1976 by SKYLOOK THE UFO MONTHLY, 26 Edgewood Drive, Quincy, IL 62301. Permissionis hereby granted to quote from this issue of this magazine, provided not more than 200 words are quotedfrom any one article, provided that the author of the article is given credit, and provided that the statement"Copyright 1976 by SKYLOOK THE UFO MONTHLY, 26 Edgewood Drive, Quincy, IL" is included.

Second Class Postage paid at Quincy, IL. 62301.

Physiological effects, teleportation, time loss?

Kentucky women report close encounterLocation: near Stanford, KY.Date: Jan. 6,1976.Type of case: close encounter, loss of

vehicle control (possible teleportation),possible, physiological effects, possiblebody burns, possible time loss. ;

Witnesses: Mrs. Mona Stafford, Louise.Smith, and Elaine Thomas.

Source: CASEY COUNTY NEWS,Liberty, KY., Feb. 12,1976. .

By Don White"It has a force we don't

have. We have .nothing to fightIT. God is the only one whocould save . us from IT. WithITS intense heat and light, ITcan do whatever. IT wants to."

When Mona Stafford tells youshe and two other local womensaw and perhaps came under thepower of an unidentified flyingobject (UFO) early last month,it's difficult not to' believeher.Her voice still trembles when

she talks' about the incident,and the swollen dark area a-round her eyes gives evidenceshe hasn't been sleeping toowell recently.

The day that was to end in anight of horror for Mona andher two friends was January 6.

It was Mrs. Stafford's birth-day and Louise Smith and ElaineThomas wanted to treat her to anight out at the Redwood Res-taurant near Stanford.

"I don't get out much," re-marked Mrs. Stafford. "Thesetwo girls just wanted to dosomething nice for me.!'

The trio of Casey Countiansdined at the Redwood and leftthe restaurant at 11:15 .thatevening, Mona recalls.

They drove through Stanfordpast the city cemetery and thenthe drive-in theatre and intothe open countryside.

The three ladies were nottoo far out of Stanford whenthey saw something that ap-peared to be fire coming downfrom the sky.

Mona, who was sitting upfront between her two friends,

Th>> sketch was drawn by Mrs. Stafford.

told the driver, Louise, todrive faster toward the fallingobject.

"It was several hundred .feetahead" and I thought it might bean airplane crashing," saidMona. • • • - ' • •As they neared the area where

they had seen the fire, Monasays an object as big as ahouse and shaped like a blimpor football started coming downthe road toward them.

She said the object had redlights all the-, way around it,and the lights were rotating.."It had a light on top that wasbluish-white and more brilliantthan anything I've ever; seen,"noted Mona; •

.The object came across theroad to the right of the. autothe ladies were .riding in, madea half circle .and :came "in be-hind the car, Mrs; Stafford re-marked . ' • • ' - - . ' ' '• ;•

She said they turned to lookat the object but the intensityof the lights gave all of themheadaches. ' ••"• '•'.. All .of a sudden, the triorealized that , they were nolonger in control of the auto-

mobile. They felt like some-thing was pulling back on thecar. ' . .

The speedometer on LouiseSmith's car showed they weretraveling at 85 mph/. .but howcould that be...she didn't evenhave her foot on the accelera-tor, Mrs. Stafford said.

"It felt like We were cross-ing those grooves they have inthe road to slow you down whenyou're approaching a stopsign," Mona recalled.

Then, all of a sudden, thewomen found themselves- in Hus-tonville. However, they wereshocked because none of themcould remember traveling thearea between the two towns.

"It was like something hadpicked us up in Stanford andset us down in Hustonville,"Mona remarked.

Mrs. Stafford"says that whenthey arrived back in Liberty atLouise Smith's house, they sawit was 1:25 a.m. It had takenthe women more than two 'hours,to travel to Liberty from Stan-ford, normally a 45-minutetrip.

Another strange thing the;women noticed was that two of

them, Louise and Elaine, hadburns on the backs of theirnecks. "It resembled a realbad sunburn," Mona recalled.

The women' got their neigh-bors out of bed to see theburns and to tell them aboutwhat they had seen. The neigh-bors advised them to separateand draw what they had seen.

Mrs. Stafford's drawingshowed a blimp-shaped objectwith the row of lights aroundit. In addition to many redlights, she said there was alsoone yellow light that wasflashing. : "I think that was awindow because it was dimmerthan all the other lights," sheexplained.

The women . reported theirsighting to. ..Kentucky statetroopers and to the armed ser-"vices, but for Mrs. Staffordthe ordeal did not end withthat.

"I don't feel -like the sameperson," noted Mona. "This hasjust taken my mind over. I was.worried about all kinds- ofother problems before, but thisis something I just have to geta better understanding of."

Mrs. Stafford, who says shecan see the object now as plainas she did on that terror-filled night in Lincoln County,has been living with her par-ents since the incident occur-red. . •

Although she has a householdof her own and a young son, shesays she can't bear the thoughtof staying alone on nights herson might be away.

Her mother, . Mrs. Ed Witt,has shared in some of the agonyher daughter, who appears to bein her mid-thirties, has beenexperiencing. "The first twcweeks after it happened werejust terrible; it's just impos-sible to explain the fear thatshe showed," Mrs. Witt noted.

Mrs. Stafford thinks she mayhave seen two UFOs since theincident in Lincoln County. "Myson said they were airplanes,but he couldn't explain why thelights on them went off afterwe started looking at them,"she remarked.

"My ears seemed to open up

Minnesota

more after the night...and itseems like I can hear things...a whirling sound I didn't hearbefore. It seems like I canalmost hear it when it's a-round."

The. Casey housewife, whoclaims she .can tell the differ-ence between the objects and astar, feels they have a way ofhiding from a person who hasnever seen one.

"I'believe what they do isget up high enough to blend inwith the .stars and come downwhen they want to," she; said.

"I look for it now, but Idon't want to see it unlessit's at a distance. I mighthave a heart attack ifit cameupon me again."

Additional.Detail

Although details are sketchy at thispoint, it is reported that at least one ofthe women experienced an unusual men-strual flow. Such an effect has been re-ported in the recent Fargo, ND, abduc-tion case on Aug. 26, 1975, (March SKY-LOOK) and in the Bethal, NM, case onJan. 6, 1976 (same night as this case),reported in this issue of SKYLOOK.

CIA photo expert dies .

Harry Woo, a photoanalysisexpert who testified to theRobertson Panel concerning theNavy analysis of the 1950 Mon-tana and 1952 Utah movie filmsof UFOs, died March 19 at theage of 65.

Two years after his testi-mony to the Robertson Panel hejoined the CIA (according tothe Washington Post), where heserved for 16 years until hisretirement in 1971. (Submittedby Richard Hall).

WomanLocation: near Bethal, MM.Date: Jan. 6,1976.Type: close*encounter, possible physio-

logical effects.Witness: Mrs. Janet Stewart, primary

witness; partial corroboration by Mary"Root.

EDITOR'S NOTE-Following is theedited transcript of a tape recordingmade by Mrs. Janet Stewart of Bethal,MN, at the request of Mr. Harry Kirch-man, a field investigator for IUFOR(International UFO Registry) in Bethel.It was provided by IUFOR DirectorWilliam Hauak through Joe Brill.

My name is Janet Stewart. Iam 29 years old, married toKenneth Stewart, and the motherof three children, ages 11, 3and 2. On Jan. 6, 1976, a Tues-day night, I was headed for myastrology class in Moundview.I was stopping in Cedar, a fewmiles away from my home to pickup a.girlfriend, a classmate ofmine whose name is Mary Root.

I left the house a littleafter 7:20 p.m., which is alittle late for me, and headeddown east Bethel Blvd. towardsMary's house. ~ Well, as -I camearound the last curve on eastBethel Blvd. and was headingsouth I saw ahead of me, on thehorizon, above the trees, threelights which made up one airvehicle, which at the time' Iassumed to be an airplane.

There' was a central redlight, and on each side of thiswas a smaller green light. Idid think the lighting arrange-ment was a little strange, butI assumed it was just my viewof it that made it appear thatway.

Getting closer

At the time I first saw it,I thought it was -going totravel across in front of me onthe horizon. I thought it wasmoving from west to east at thetime, but within just a fewminutes, well, seconds really,I realized that it was getting

reports possible U FO effectslarger and therefore deductedit was coming closer towardsme.

As I reached the stop signat the end of east Bethel Blvd.and paused there, it was becom-ing quite a lot larger and nowI really could see that it wasnot an airplane-. I assumed nowthat very possibly it was ahelicopter. 'I paused at thestop sign and watched it for aminute and then I went aheadonto County Road' 15, stillheaded south.

: Now'it" began to grow much,much larger; rapidly it wascoming closer to.me and I couldsee that the green lights oneither side of the red lightwere blinking very, very fast--much, much faster than any air-plane lights I'd ever seen. Istill thought it could be ahelicopter, possibly, and I'wasnow near the first curve onCounty Road 15, which is a verysharp 25 mile-an-hour- curve tothe right;

As I neared this curve, Icould see that the object wasbeginning to drop down, sprt ofslung down'into a lower posi-tion, ' and as .1 came into thecurve, I was at the center ofthe curve when the thing ac-tually zeroed in over my hoodand windshield at a bit of anangle. It instantaneously wasgoing in the same direction asmy car., even though it.had beenmoving in the opposite direc-tion. ,.

Now, I realized that it wasnot a helicopter. That NO WAYwas it a helicopter. I did nothave the radio on. I was wait-ing for my tapes to warm up. Iusually play eight-track tapes,and they were cold because itwas such a terribly cold night.It was minus fifteen degreeswith a windchill factor ofminus fifty degrees. In fact,I almost, stayed home because itwas so cold, but I did have'iriy

heater fan going: full blast andof course all my. windows wererolled up. : '*'-.-

But I did-not have the radioon nor .any tapes .playing atthat time.and I did not hear asound,' even- though it was soclose that I'm .sure it wasn'tmore than 25 feet above me, -andit may have-been as low as fif-teen feet above me. Somewherebetween fifteen'to twenty feet.In that range I'm sure.

The large red central lightdidn't blink at all; It wasjust a solid red light. Thegreen lights on either side ofit were blinking.There was oneon each side of it that wereblinking very, very fast that Ididn't look at them as much as,of course, I. looked -at thewhole thing. ,But I -kept .myeyes ^mainly on . the centrallight because it was easier onthe eyes than these, blinkinglights. . . . - . . ' ' •--•. • •• I was hunched . down -. *• • -. theseat. I was hanging, o: to thesteering wheel with .my. chinpressed in towards the steeringwheel so I -_..'d look' up, be-cause it was--it appcaccd rightabove the windshield, . and so Icould get a better view of it Isort of sat in this hunched orhunched down-position".

It stayed' with me in thatposition all the .way.; aroundthis curve and into the nextcurve, which is a left handcurve; and.then the .road curvedagain, to the 'left. It stayedwith me around that curve"also.Then, the.road straightens butfor a time before -going; intothe next right hand curve-andit stayed with-me , along- thisstraight area of road, and-as Imoved towards or came into theright hand curve it moved overthe top of my car so that theroof of my car obscured: myview. • , ••' .- -

All in all, it was with mevery, .very close to a mile. Islowed to a stop as I,was.going

very .slowly anyway. I'm sure Icouldn't -have been .going morethan twenty or .twenty-fivemiles-an hour, because .1 wasintent upon watching the thingand-therefore I.didn't have awhole-lot of time to watch theroad. I kind of varied, backand forth between - the twoconstantly,, the whole time itwas above me. But- I .slowed toa stop and I tried to peer outthe back window, .which was sothickly frosted that I couldn'tsee out of it at all.

I really couldn't see any ofthe craft itself. All I ; couldsee were these lights. Thelights didn't' give off a lot oflight. The light was prettywell contained.. It just didn'tgive off light. I tried veryhard to see if there was any-thing at all of the craft Icould see behind the lights,but I can't really say I wassuccessful. "

"•' "' A chrome ring? ;

I'm quite' sure that I 'sawwhat was probably a chrome ringmaybe at the bottom of one ofthe green lights. The one onthe left hand side. Measurementwise, from green light to greenlight,"' it would have been--itwas larger than the car, thatis, my car-from end to-end. Iwould say -it was probably be-tween sixteen and eighteenfeet. That's'approxiamte, butit was, I am sure'as large andprobably larger than my:cafv-'--

I thought I could see, atone point, a dome^shape behindthe central fed'1 light.- -I'm notsure, though, because sometimeslights will-give off kind of ablack glare" and that could havebeen what--it was .'-'So r reallycan't say :I saw -'anything of thecraft itself, only theselights, but it definitely be-ihaved in a way that no helicop-ter or airplane would behave.

I tried to look out-the'side

windows. They were frosted tooand I didn't have any luckthere. I didn't have the pres-ence of mind to get out of thecar and look to see where ithad gone. Anyhow, I just.sortof gave up and started to driveon again into the right handcurve, and as I did this, a carcoming from the opposite direc-tion came out from around thiscurve and I sort of helplesslywatched it go by, thinking,gee,. I should stop them and askthem if they had seen it too.But, I couldn't figure out howto do that and then, of course,they were gone.

So then I continued on. toMary Root's home, a girlfriendof mine, who . attends classeswith me and I stop and pick herup on the way. I drove asquickly as I could to her placeand ran up to the door. I wasvery excited. On the way tothe car I told her what hadhappened and what I had seen.She was also excited then andwanted to go back to the curveand see if we could see any-thing. So, as long as I hadcompany, we decided that waswhat we would do and we wentahead and went back to thecurve.

Once there, we even got outof the car -and looked around,but didn't see anything at all.So.we turned around and wentback out again past her placeand up to highway 65, where weturned south, headed for Mound-view, where the classes areheld.

A red light

We had ; just barely gottengoing south on highway 65 whenMary noticed off to our left-hand side, the east side of thehighway, just above the trees,there was a solitary, red lightwhich she said was moving withus. I thought this was a littletoo much and I told her it mustbe a tower light. She said no,that she was very observant andthat she had never seen a towerlight in that place—and shedrove on this highway all the

time.Well, she kept an eye on it

while I was driving, so I only'got a couple-of -glances' at it;<But she kept a very close eyeon it and it stayed in the sameposition. In her view, she waslooking out the window past me;.It stayed with us for twomiles. . Now at- the -end of twomiles it rose up in the air abit and began to move, fartherto the east. We could tell thisbecause it was growing smaller.Mary wanted me to turn • ;off onan eastbound side" road to fol-low it, and we just made aquick decision and did that andwe swung off onto this east-bound road which was flanked onboth sides heavily with trees.

We did keep it in view mostof the time. A few times''thetrees blocked our view, butnever for any length of time.We followed the road down as itwas only a few miles long. Itwas a dirt road. We followedit down to where it dead ended,where a T, a tar road ̂ tees a-cross it. On the other side'ofthe tar road, there's a fieldpartially open and surroundedby trees. We stopped at thetar road and apparently thered light stopped 'there too,over that.field, at the edge ofthe trees.

It stayed, there. It juststood there. Hovered there. Itdidn't blink.. It didn't go-upor down. It didn't go sideways,It didn't do anything:spectac-ular at all. We just stoppedthere and watched it. I lit acigarette and we stayed therewhile I smoked the cigarette.So, it would probably have beenbetween five and ten minutes.We even blinked our lights onand off, -but we couldn't -getany response out of this redlight. So after a short timewe turned and went back out tohighway 65 and continued on toMoundview.

As soon as we got there, ' Icalled my husband and told himwhat I had seen and I wasgrateful that he believed me.Anyway, , we had our class andwe, of course, on the way homethat night kept our eyes

peeled. We didn't see anythingat all., .. The following day (Jan. 7) I

,; began having,, menstrual cramps,,which I 'thought was a little"strange since I had only beenover my last period for • sixdays.. I assumed it must beovulation cramps coming a bitearly and I didn't pay any at-tention, to. it. -

But then, the next day, (Jan.8), which would have been for̂ty-eight hours after the sight-ing, I came down with a fullpledged period.. I just couldnot believe it because I havea pretty .tight. 28 to, 32-daycycle. I adhere to my schedulequite predictably. I didn'trelate it to the sighting atall. That never even, crossed.ny mind. •

But, I was complaining tomy girlfriend, Mary Root, thesame girl who had been withme that night, and low and be-hold she had had the same prob-lem.' She takes birth controlpills,: so she was really amazedto say the least. Neither oneof us related it to the sight-ing at all. We just complainedin the usual manner, and neverconsidered the thought, that thesighting had anything to dowith it.- I was also having some eyeproblems, but I thought it wasthe dry air and the lack ofhumidity and the cold, and soI didn't relate that to thesighting either. The four.thday after the sighting (Jan.10) I woke up in the " morning ,with • the realization that my •eyes were burning, even though ;they were closed and there was -matter running out of them. Igot up and looked in the mirrorand they were quite bloodshot.I used Visine. By about noonit. began to go away. . - .

It wasn't .terribly uncomfor-table that day, but the follow-ing •• day' (Jan. 11) it was VERYuncomfortable. I woke up andthe matter had collected aroundmy eyelashes. It was .• runningout of my eyes. JMy eyes werelike two little tail lights. Iwas. afraid and I cried. Ithought I was going blind. I

Couldn't imagine what had hap-pened to my eyes, and still Idid not relate it to the sight-ing, in any.way. I just couldn'timagine what was happening tomy eyes. I used a lot of Visineand some of the kid's old pink-eye drops. I had to keep myhands over my eyes all morning.I couldn't keep my eyes openfor even a few minutes at atime, even a few seconds at atime.

. I was planning on going tothe doctor that afternoon, butby about noon they did begin toclear up considerably. Byshortly after noon my eyes werein much, much better condition,although still bloodshot. Butas far as the discomfort, thatwas mostly gone. I had doctoredthem a lot. I used a lot ofeye drops and kept them closed.So I didn't . go to the doctor.

The sixth day after thesighting my eyes were returningto .normal. .. .

EDITOR'S NOTE: Another closeencounter case was reported thesame'.day at Anoka, MN, 10-12miles southwest of this case,involving one witness. .It wasreported to the Center for UFOStudies; no additional informa-tion is available. . Anothercase, similar in some respects,was reported on the same nightnear Stanford, KY (see storyelsewhere in this issue).

Boyd to specializein unexplained physics

Veteran UFO investigatorRobert D. Boyd of 121 Huron Rd.Mobile, AL., has informed. Sky-look that he has begun an ef-fort, "to,specialize on the an-omalous . characteristics ofUF.Os.". Boyd, who points out thatUFOs frequently demonstrateabilities contrary to our know-^ledge .of physical laws, feelsthat a concentrated effortshould be made to study theseapparent contradictions.

He invites.specific informa-tion concerning this topic, andurges other researchers inter-ested in this area of UFO re-search to contact him.

Travis Walton case

Walton explains controversiesEDITOR'S NOTE: The following account

by Travis Walton of his experiences sur-rounding the investigation of his UFOencounter is being printed in order togive, in his own words, his version of thefacts. While this account was writtenprior to Walton's receipt of SKYLOOK'slater and more complete articles on thecase, we feel Mr. Walton should have theopportunity to "tell it like it is" from hisviewpoint.

By Travis Walton

I'm sure you realize thaterroneous heresay and incom-plete newspaper articles arenot a good source of informa-tion to judge anything by, butyou did do a very unbiased ar-ticle with what information youhad to go on.

In your article on the Waltoncase in Skylook you said inconclusion, '.'If additional in-formation on this case becomesavailable it will be printed inSkylook." I would like forthis"^ letter to be used in Sky-look, and if it is, I would askthat it be printed in its en-tirety as I don't :want to bequoted out of context..

When I was returned on Nov.10th, I was in a serious emo-tional state. At that time andfor weeks -afterwards I didn'twant. to. tell anyone about myexperience except those closeto me. I avoided the publicand the media for several days.During my silence a lot of mis-information was printed. I feelmuch better about it all nowand I would like to set therecord straight. I have notread a newspaper yet, not evenone, that printed exactly whatI have said. The stories al-ways garble the facts and mis-quote everypne. None of thenewspapers referred, to in yourarticle actually, ever iater-viewed me. However, I don'tdoubt that you quoted.the news-papers correctly.

I have never met or talkedwith Bill Spaulding .in my en-tire life, and to' my knowledge,Spaulding has never interviewedany of the crewmembers who wit-

Travis Walton (photo by Michael Rogers)

nessed the incident. Althoughmuch quoted in your article,Spaulding only visited the ab-duction site and talked, to mybrother, <Duane, in way of in-vestigation. The real investi-gation .was carried on by theAerial Phenomena Research Or-ganization (APRO) who conductednumerous medical, psychiatric,and hypnotic tests, as well aspolygraph examinations.

When I was' returned, mybrother contacted1 Spauldingwhom he had met at the site.Duane asked him to arrange acomplete medical, examinationfor. me as he was naturally con-cerned about my physical condi-tion . Spaulding directed . himto a Dr. Lester Steward . inPhoenix. As it turned out Ste-ward, was not, an M.D.,.-,as indi-cated by Spaulding,.and was un-successful in trying to get adoctor on the telephone. Duanetook me back home after beingthere less than thirty minutes."Dr." Steward claims: a numberof degrees from a universitythat when checked into..-by APRO,.turned out to .be.:la, small unac-credited cprrespondence,school.Mr. Steward, .who.also claimed

to be an ̂ ,'expert .on hallucino-genic drugs, later .made allega-tions that my experience, wasthe result,.of L.S.D. .He didn'Ltexplain how. my supposed "hallu-cination" . .was. . snared.. by sixother men." My blood tests thatday were run., through the Mari-

Poge 7

copa County medical examinersdrug screen and revealed notrace of any drug.

Mr. Steward made no examin-.ations or tests on me of anykind. I'm sure this man'slittle run-down Westward HoHotel is not Ground SaucerWatch headquarters. This wasmy only contact with any GSWrepresentative. It is under-standable why I did not cooper-ate with them. APRO quicklyproduced two reputable M.D.sthat day and continued a thor-ough investigation from thenon. Bill Spaulding became neg-ative only at this point, whichhe refers to as noncooperation.After it was clear that hecouldn't handle the case, BillSpaulding numerous times re-ferred vaguely to "holes" inthe story and some "questions"and "other factors" that causedhim to .have "doubts." Neveronce did he specifically statewhat these discrepancies were.Possibly Spaulding's ego wasmore at stake to him than thefactuality of the case.

Without consulting us,Spaulding arranged for a meet-ing with Dr. J. Allen Hynek,which was associated with GSW,which we had lost faith in bythat time. Neither my brothernor myself knew enough of theUFO subject at that time torecognize Dr. Hynek as oneof the foremost scientists inthe field. Since then I've haddirect correspondence withHynek and have scheduled ameeting with him-

The media has accused me ofrefusing a lie-detector testthat was ordered by police. Ipersonally requested that poly-graph-test from' Sheriff MarlinGillespie with his promise thatthe media would be kept awayand that it would be held inprivate. The day of the testthe reporters were again campedon my doorstep and I was in noemotional condition to be in-terviewed at that time. As Iwas preparing to leave for theDepartment of Public Safetyheadquarters we discoveredthere were numerous televisionand newspaper reporters inter-

viewing the OPS examiner in the.room arranged for my test.Since .the sheriff . failed' ;tokeep his word in the matter, Idid not take1it. that day. : • ,

I was advised shortly there-after by APRO psychiatrists,that to have taken a polygraphtest that soon would have giveninconclusive results at best.The psychiatrists .said a poly-graph measures stress, notlies; therefore, to get a validresult I should wait until anyreaction registered- would notbe the result of emotion-packedmemories.. This was borne out bythe inconclusive results of thetest on Allen Dalis, the crew-man who was so agitated afterwitnessing the incident. APROwill have Dalis retested soon.

When I was calm enough, APROarranged for- me to take, a poly-graph test from Ezell PolygraphInstitute, .who does all the liedetector work for Pinal-CountySheriff's Office. The resultsof my test were positive.

-Undersheriff.Kenneth CopIansaid that I and the rest of thecrew saw the NBC special, "TheUFO Incident," as to infer thatwe had made everything up be-cause of similarities in thetwo incidents. I did not havea TV and did not see the show.I know that v at least a coupleof the others didn't see iteither.

(There is no such person a=Deputy Sheriff Ken Nolan asquoted by the Arizona Republicin your article.)

I never said I thought I washit over the head, I .simplydescribed being struck by thebeam as feeling like a physi-cal blow.

I do riot consider myself ormy family to be UFO buffs. Wehaven't had an overt interestin the subject or ever boughtany UFO publications. Mybrother Duane saw a UFO about12 years ago and we have talkedabout the subject on a few oc-casions since then. I myselfhave never had a UFO experiencebefore this.

I suppose many people' thatlive an outdoor' life have seen

a few things in the sky theycan't explain. .This doesn'tmake them freaks on the sub-ject. Dr. R. Leo Sprinkle toldme that 15 million Americanshave seen something unidenti-fied" in the sky. Sheriff MarlinGillespie has himself reportedseeing 2 of 3 UFO's over theyears, including one close en-counter. He does not, however,consider himself a UFO buff.

My older brother, Duane, ,hasacted as father to. our familyin recent years. His expressionof confidence of my return andhis saying that "I was having"the experience of a lifetime"was only designed to bolster mymother's confidence. My motherbelieved this .and the accountsof the. crewmen whom she knew.She was terribly upset by mydisappearance and had to be se-dated. .This explains Duane'scriticism of the investigatorwho said he doubted the chan-ces of my return after so muchtime. Due to Duane's involve-ment , - he was suspected of con-spiring with me to -' perpetratea hoax. He took and passed alie detector test concerningthis from the same firm as Idid. ;.

Duane's fierce protection ofme from-reporters who didn'tseem to care about my conditiondrew much hostility from .thelocal media. Duane told thereporters I was . in a. Tucsonhospital to get them off ourbacks. I.never was- -in.Tucson.All the tests were performed inPhoenix and the results areavailable from the 'Aerial Phe-nomena Research Organization inTucson.

My experience aboard the UFOhas been just as garbled bynewspapers as everything else,but I won't take the space atthis time to cover all that.APRO has all the facts of thesighting 'and the " account of myabduction experience. Anyonbcan obtain this information by-reading the APRO Bulletin orcalling their headquarters inTucson. ' - ; '

Thank you' for giving- me theopportunity to correct thesemisconceptions.- ' • '

Travis Walton case

This painting by Michael Rogers is oneof ' a series he is doing' to representvisually the Travis Walton case. Rogerstold SKYLOOK that he had not paintedin ten years, prior to beginning thiscurrent series. .

Teacher, student reportMassachusetts sighting

On Jan. 9, 1976, at Glouces-.ter., MA.., 14-year-old JosephAiello and his teacher RobertSampson (radiological monitorfor MUFON MASS] .reportedly ob-:served a white., globe-shaped .object with a yellow glowingband around its circumference.The object, which was observedfor a total., .of 15 . seconds,moved in an arc from the NE tothe N (S to N direction) as abullet would fall. When.firs.tsighted,. its apparent diameterwas that, .of the. full .moon, thenbecoming %.that of the fullmoon. .The object was not mov-ing., in. the direction of.the WNWwind. There, were, no,- abrupt,maneuvers. Visibility was 15miles. The object left brightwhite, rapidly dissipatingsteaks in its wake which weretotally dissimilar to normalaircraft contrails. MUFON In-vestigator Raymond E.- Fowlerconcludes that natural, phenome-na v (such, as balloon- spiderwebs)' and • man-made'• objects(such as aircraft or balloons)do not fit the descriptions andconditions, •; and classifies thesighting as being in the "un-known" -category.

Michael Rogers, one of the witnesses inthe Travis Walton case, has sent SKY-LOOK a color photo of a painting he didof the UFO encounter (cover photo), aswell as his comments concerning thecase. Contact between Rogers andSKYLOOK was established through thecooperation of Jim Lorenzen, internation-al director of APRO. Following areRogers'comments:

"Working from the compositedescriptions of all of us, Ihave painted a detailed sceneof what we'all saw that Nov. 5when Travis was hit by the beamemitted from the UFO.

"The reason I did the paint--ing is because .so many people,say we don't know what we''saw,or say we were tricked. I knowas sure as I breathe that wasin ho way a ball of gas 'or dustor some kind of illusion. Myeyesight has always been ex-tremely keen and I know exactlywhat .1 saw.."Even'as detailed as I did

Names and addressesof ufologists offered "

A list of addresses of indi-viduals, groups, journals,andnewspapers having 'to do withUFOs is available from JacquesDeschenes, 175 Carori, 'Hull,Quebec; Canada J8Y 1Z8. Priceis $1.60 postpaid (by cash ormoney order). ' • • '

The list is 5k pages long,closely typed and is; coded toindicate what to ask'for -andwhat kind of information Vis'available from each source. Thescope is international.1 /Al-though it is a motley collec- •tion and contains .some obscurenames, the code numbers.; arehelpful and..the list would beof value to serious UFO re-/searchers..The. list is in no particular

order, not categorized at all;.a possible shortcoming.; Still,it includes over 150 addressesmany of whichi are not" 'readilyavailable. It would appear tobe a useful' 'research aid.—Richard Hall. . ' , :

experiencethe painting, it..does, not evencompare to the beauty-- and per-fection of the object we allsaw that night. The'sound, itmade is equally unexp'lainable,a powerful sound of . many tonessimultaneously.

."Even . before.. .Travis wasstruck by the beam, the awe-'somenessv of.what . we were- ex-periencing was almost too muchto bear.- -"Alien, frantic withfear,; 'hid his. .head betwe'en" hislegs. The rest of us somehowheld up until... ..that beam hitTravis and We sped away. Stop-ping a quarter mile down theroad, all our emotions literal-ly fell apart, some of -usscreaming .at:each other, somecrying, some praying. Lookingback, I saw the thing lift upand streak away to the north-east in. a split second.

"Anymore, when someone makesthose ridiculous accusations a-gainst us, I feel like fight-ing. I wish they could havebeen there. But for now thebest.I can .do is show them mypainting.".:

Annual CarlyleSkywatch,Picnic set for July 10-11 •:.

Additional dates to mark onyour calendar for upcoming UFOactivities are Saturday andSunday, July 10 and 11, whenRosetta and Dick Holmes,, alongwith the UFO Study. Group ofGreater St. Louis, will sponsortheir eighth annual UFO Sky-watch and Picnic at Garlyle,IL.'Joe M._Brill, Clarence Dar-gie, Walt Andrus, "and DwightConnelly are scheduled tospeak. : ...v j.:;

n Care NeededByAP

. . When the Viking unmanned labo-.• ratory lands on Mars in 1976, everyprecaution must be taken that noearth matter lands with it. One

• thumbprint on a piece of Vjkingequipment would leave as many as

• 10 trillion molecules of amino acids,• -building blocks of life. . '

Newark, Delaware

Woman, sonsee UFO atbusy cornerDate and time of sighting: Jan. 17,1974,

2030.Location of sighting: Newark, Dela-

ware.Local Evaluation: SignificantInvestigated by: J. J. Magrans, state

section director of New Castle County,Delaware, from referral by Ted Bloecher.

The sighting

The main witness, with her8-year-old son sitting next toher, was driving east on Dela-ware Av. at approximately 2030-2100 hour. As she approachedthe intersection of ChapelStreet'and slowed down for thetraffic light which was red,she noticed bright illuminationthrough her windshield. Thisillumination (white flourescentlight) appeared to be comingfrom the left hand side, so shelooked through her driver'swindow and saw "a huge circularobject."

At this point she .stoppedthe car. She was the first cararriving at the intersection,but other cars were behind herand they also stopped at thelight.

The object was of huge di-mensions, ' by the witness's ac-count: it entirely covered thenearby lot, which is a usedcar sales lot. The object wasgrey, having a metallic look,and..1 was smooth. A 'dome- wasvisible on top which was notilluminated.• • •

.The bottom of- the object hadlights (white flourescent incolor), not so bright as tohurt the eyes, which seemed tobe -shining down' on the witness.The two extreme lights at theleft and right of the objectwere bigger than the others.The witness did not .count thenumber of lights, but for thesake of illustration a set num-

Poge 10

ber was indicated in the draw-ing.There was also a band revolv-

ing around the base of the ob-ject which had many straightlines !<forming some kind of alighted .design. The witnesssaid her first thought was that"this was some kind of govern-ment project advertizing some-thing, but I couldn't under-stand what the design movingaround the disk was .saying, ifanything." The bottom centeraround which the design was re-volving protruded out, and thebottom of the protrusion wasflat. Part of the design wasblocked out of view because ofthis protrusion.• The witnesssaid she was "really amazed aridcurious" as she viewed "thisbig strange object," but "thenI began to get scared, as I hadnever seen anything like thisbefore." . .

The object was in a slantedposition, and the entire objectspinned clockwise and gave offa high pitched humming sound.There was no wind .created bythe object. It was very closeto the light poles, electricpoles and building, hoveringover them and appearing as ifit wanted to land there.

• Everyone watches

While the witness had beenwatching the object, the traf-

fic light turned green, but shedid not move and neither didanybody else stopped at thetraffic light. It was aboutthis time that she noticed theguy in the car to her rightroll his window down, laugh;and say, "Hey, that up there isa flying saucer!"

'She also noticed the driverof a car behind and to herright get out of the car, leanon his car and stare at the ob-ject. At some point during allthis she also rolled her windowdown and looked at the object.

She did not keep count onhow many times the trafficlight changed and no one at theintersection moved, but it wasseveral times. She stayed there,for approximately 5 minutes.The witness does not remember jwhether there were any parked '_cars on the lot; if there were \\any, it was not many.

Her son started to get scaredand she was afraid that the ob-ject might get tangled up withthe electric lines or hit oneof the light poles, -so she de-cided to leave. She turnedleft at the intersection anddrove two blocks on ChapelStreet. When she drove on, theother cars followed.

Object moves higher

As she was passing Main

Street (the traffic light wasgreen) she said the object wason her left and seemed to befollowing her, but it was nowmuch higher in the sky (3/4 upon the horizon). , .

At this point, .she turnedinto the Newark Shopping Centerand got out of the car. Sheapproached a lady walking outof the Acme Supermarket andtold her, "Look, look up in thesky," and as they both looked,the object was disappearingvery quickly straight up in the

,," sky above them. As the objectascended, no exhaust was visi-

. ble. There was ho visible emi-- sion coming out of the bottomof the object.

• The witness . . -

It is my impression that themain witness is a trustworthy,reliable person and that shesaw what she, described. Shedid not read UFO literature be-fore, the sighting and paid.onlyminor attention to articles innewspapers. She does . not wanther name used in any way what-soever with this matter. I didnot interview the boy ^becauseof his age, but he did mentionthat he saw a.big object withlights, and he got scared be-cause it was going to fall onthem.

'Additional witness check

The sighting area was checkedfor additional witnesses by adoor-to-door canvass, but nonewas found. Nearly all of thepotential witnesses were veryhelpful, easygoing and talkedto me carefree. The occupant ofthe house next to the used carsales lot was the only one thatgave me the impression that hewas hiding something. When Iasked him about the sighting he.quickly answered, "We saw no-thing, goodnight." His son(around 11 years old) startedsaying something about an ob-ject and • lights going off andon but his father just lookedat him and 'repeated that theyhad seen nothing. I explainedto him what MUFON is and that

"anything he said would betreated confidentially. He re-peated again, "We saw nothing."

Natural phenomena check'

Due to the nature of the ob-ject described, , all'naturalphenomena.' were discounted .as apossible cause for the sight-ing. . . " ' . ' ' <

Man-made object check

The only obj ect which couldremotely be the cause of thissighting would be a balloon ora blimp. The balloon can bedisregarded due to the quickascension and disappearance ofthe UFO. The wind speed forthat night was 10 m.p.h. Al-though the direction coincideswith that of the UFO, the speedof the wind can't account,forthe fast disappearance of theobject.

The blimp,can be eliminatedrfhen one asks such .questions,as: -what would a blimp be doingso close to the ground, on topof a busy intersection almostcolliding . with a building,street -lights and power lines?'Why wouldn't the witness havebeen able to identify the ob-ject as a blimp? Any-conven-tional object, that- size, soclose to the ground would crer-ate a lot of wind commotion andnoise. The object in questionmade only a high-pitched humand created - no wind distur-bance . : • .'

Other possibilities

The hallucination possibil-ity can be discounted. Thewitness and her .son saw it and,according to them, other peoplealso saw it and.,^acknowledgetheir seeing it by their ac-tions and remarks. A hoax-doesnot seem possible because ofthe number of people that wouldhave had to have been fooledunder the circumstances ...-.Theobject was just .too huge andthe area just too .busy. Nopsychic phenomena to my know-ledge could have caused thissighting. - .

Man claims UFOcontrolled auto

By Richard HallMUFON International CoordinatorSome UFO witnesses have reported

that they have lost control of their cars,seemingly overpowered by a superiorforce, while being paced or approachedby a UFO.

The following report, excerpted fromthe transcript of a tape-recorded inter-view by the Tasmanian U.F.O. Investiga-tion Centre, describes a similar occur-rance near Bridgewater, north of Hobart,in July, 1974. The witness, whose name ison record, prefers to remain anonymous.

Q. Could you tell us now whatit-looked like?

A. Well, there was no actualdefinite shape; it seemed to beoval, definitely didn't appearto have wings, it had a fronttop light—a red one, and thislarger bottom light...We wentalong the highway and turnedoff. It hovered as we turnedand seemed to keep pace withus.

. Q. There was no noise?A. There seemed to be no

noise, no. It was so queer itwas perfectly silent. (Des-cribes the UFO speeding up whenthey, speeded up and slowingwhen they - slowed. As theypassed onto the main road nearCampania, where there were afew houses, the UFO remainedhigher and at a greater dis-tance, and when they left "civ-ilization" again it once againdescended below hilltop heightand resumed pacing the car).After it came down again I feltas if I was in its power, as ifit was definitely going to takeover the controls of the car;it was hard to steer/ We didwander right over to the rightside of the road where .the ob-ject was; to pull -it back ontothe right side of the road wasquite an effort. I can rememberthat after it disappeared thatmy arms ached around the shoul-ders, so I was making quite aheffort to keep the car where itshould be..... Q. Did the car slow at all?A. No, seemed as if the. car

wasn't in my power.

California reportThe'amateur ufologist

By Ann DruffelIn recent months there have

been .published a few books .by-scientists prominent in -thefield of'ufology;- We hail - thearrival • of' .these" books, for-they' indicate that-' ufology hasat last reached- respectabilityin the public eye. • • .

Why that should be isstrange.- It should always berespectable to seek truth. Butin our technologically-orientedsociety, the.stamp of scientif-ic approval -on any field of en-deavour is tantamount to publicapproval.- .. • .These books are well'written,-

and often fascinating.. Butwithout exception, each refersto scientists as having, the'a-bility to seek-truth,, in con-'trast to the ..so-called "ama-;

teurs" who. have handled the ma-jority ..of 'public UFO researchduring the past three-decades.,- •

•;.. Being myself- one of these"amateurs" to whom scientistsrefer>. I must confess the-term.rankles me., I have alwaysthought-.of an : "amateur" as abungling: idiot,- akin to an. am-ateur carpenter who mashes histhumb -with t a hammer or'-an ama-teur plUmb'er who ends up knee-,deep.; in water. • • • ; . - - - '

Since that is about- as farfrom the•-real meaning; of .theword as'Pluto is; from Mercury,a brief examination of.terms.is-in order. . - .

"Amateur," going back to itsLatin root,--'--means "one wholoves." Apply this to the well-known genre of amateur,astron-omers, who for centuries have,studied planets, ^discoveredcomets, and. were the-, first: tobecome aware of radio sourcef '•in space. These amateur astron-omers , a -maj ority of whom arequalified observers with preci-sion instruments, typically

make no money from their con-tributions, but engage in as-tronomical study for sheer loveof the work.

This is not to take anythingaway from professional astron-omers. ' But there -is no greatdifference' between the QUALITYof -work put out by a paid pro-fessional-astronomer- and a goodamateur. Most'professional as-tronomers are only too glad.toadmit to this: fact. .••-.••

- So to our "amateur" ufolo-gists." The very word "ufolo-gist" brings up .'another seman-tical snag. What is a ufolo-gist?' • It is one who studiesufology--the classification ofUFOs. One "could say that thefirst ufologists HAD to.be ama-teurs. Since ufology has beenin existence Mess than twenty-five years,•it has not yet be-come a science. Too little isknown about. UFOs to even prop-erly classify them and class-ification is the heart of anyscience. ' . •

;Likewise;• almost nothing isknown of the facts behind theirexistence--what they are, theirpurpose and motives, how theyare propelled. A prolonged-study into the literatureleaves any researcher, scien-tist and non-scientist alike,agape with their seemingly in-finite complexity;

It must be admitted by ANYONE'who studies • UFOs that ufologyis not -yet a" science, andtherefore'a ufologist is not ascientist; per se.

The only answer to 'thisproblem lies iii determining whois'competent to study UFOs. Atpresent this research requirestwo things: 1. detailed doc-umentation, without.prejudice,of;whatever facts are availablefrom1individual sightings, and2. generous individual • dona-

tion of timei energy and re-_sources without hope of compen-sation.

-'Let us hope that this secondrequirement will change beforevery longi -But until'money ,grants become 'available to fundresearch projects, a ufologistmust willingly pay his own way.

Referring back to the tworequirements for a ufologist,1. an ability" to perform com-petent research and 2. a will-ingness to give of his/her ownresources---where does anyoneget the idea that only scien-tists can fill these demands?Are only scientist per se CA-PABLE of being ufolgoists? Whyare non-scientists referred toas "amateurs"?

" When I was taking- graduatetraining in the field' of socialcasework/ an established andrespected profession, one ' ofthe first things taught us wasthe definition of 'a "profes-sion." A profession possessestwo elements: 1. it providesa- needful 1 and trained serviceto society arid 2. the membersshould give that service withfinancial reward being second-ary in their minds. - ;-~ ';' '.'-,-

If you review the require-ments for a "profession" andfor a "ufologist," you -willnote that they are almost iden-jtical. Therefore, a competentufologist scientist and non-scientist alike—is' to -all in-tents and purposes a profes-sional. •

It all comes down to whethereach individual researcher iscompetent to study UFOs. I haveknown scientists who were sadlylacking the ability' 'to inter-view witnesses properly; like-wise I 'have known ; competentpersons - '•• in non-scientificfields- who easily 'gathered"."thefacts" with open, objective'

minds. And vice versa.Let's face it. In ufology

there are no real "profession-als" because of the tenuousnature of the subject. Thereare no "amateurs" either, be-cause ."amateur" is in semanti-cal, opposition to "profession-al." There are only those per-sons who can competently give,of themselves..

Provided each researcher iscompetent, we are all profes-sionals OR we are all amateurstogether. • . . . . ; • _ . ,:

, .. When the time comes, thatsufficient knowledge is availa-ble as to the. nature .of UFOs,and they can be properly class-ified and studied, only thenwill ufology be. a science. Thedistinction of "amateur" as op-posed to "scientist" as used atpresent simply does not apply.

In Southern. California, themainstream of UFO researchsince 1955 has been handled bya comparatively small group ofdedicated persons. The nucleusgroup composed.the Los AngelesNICAP Subcommittee from 1959through 1971. It included abio-physicist, three engineers,a public relations person, abookkeeper, a social worker anda secretary. .We worked together fruitfully

and in harmony for twelveyears. . Since 1972, when ittransferred k its resources toMUFON, - the group has . grownman/fold, pulling -in scientistsin varied- disciplines and otherresearchers of widely disparateskills. Required of each indi-vidual is that he/she loves thesubject.and is competent in re-search and field investigationof UFOs. . . .

This is the only reasonableway in which UFO research canbe done. It makes no differencewhatsoever what, skills -andtraining a UFO. researcher, pos-sesses.. The field is -so complexthat every skillful, intelli-gent, and; properly motivatedperson can"contribute' to it ina unique way. -.-... .

NO :ONE---scientists included•—holds, within his .grasp theabilities required to handlethe whole field. , . .

June 12-13MUFON Symposium set

Plans are now moving intohigh gear for MUFON"s 7th an-nual symposium, according toBob Stinson, state director forMichigan. The Conference willbe held at Weber's Inn, AnnArbor, MI, on June 12, 1976.Weber's Inn was selected overseveral other hotels due totheir excellent reputation in.hosting conferences, their ex-ceptionally fine food, .and su-perb guest facilities. .

The keynote address'will bedelivered by' Dr. J. AllenHynek. Other speakers will in-clude Dr. Jacques Vallee, BillSpaulding, Ray Stanford, DavidWebb, and Henry McKay. An in-formal "rap" session is sched-uled the evening before in oneof Weber's conference rooms., Registration will be held

from 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. on Satur-day, June .12, and .the programwill begin promptly at 9 a.m.The afternoon session will in-clude several specializationworkshops associated with land-ing case traces, humanoids, andUFO detection via instrumenta-tion.

A deluxe buffet dinner willbe served that evening at 5:45p.m. with the evening programscheduled to start at 8 p.m.Dr. Hynek's presentation .willbe followed by a. critique ses-sion .with questions, fieldedfrom the floor. . . .

On Sunday, .MUFON will holdits annual corporate meeting(members only) from 9 a.m. un-til noon. A workshop.. entitled"Techniques Employed in UFOField Investigations" will befeatured that afternoon.

Early advance registrationis strongly recommended, ac-cording .to Stinson. The costfor advance-registering for allsessions and dinner is $16.00(a savings . ,of $2.00 vs. indi-vidual ticket prices), .. andchecks should be made payableMichigan MUFON, and mailed toBob Stinson, .2903 Sheffield

Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan,48105.

Bob has also agreed to makereservations for lodging atWeber's Inn for those attendingthe symposium if given the ap-propriate information regardingarrival and departure dates andtimes as. well as type of accom-modation preferred.

Further information can beobtained by. writing to Stinsonat the above address, orcalling 313-994-0927. Advancedregistration and room reserva-tions will . be confirmed inwriting.

UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICE

The UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICE will keep you in-formed of all the latest UnitedStates and World-Wide UFO ac-tivity, as it happens! Our ser-vice was started in 1969, atwhich time we contracted witha reputable international news-paper-clipping bureau to obtainfor us, those hard to find UFOreports (i.e., little known photo-,graphic cases, close encounterand landing reports, occupantcases) and all other UFO re-ports, many of which are car-ried only in small town orforeign newspapers.Our UFO Newsclipping ServiceReport, is a 20 page photo-offset,monthly publication .containingthe latest United States andCanadian UFO newsclippings,with our foreign section carry-

. ing the latest English, Austra-lian, New Zealand, South Afri-can, and other foreign UFOnewsclippings! We publish moreUFO reports from around theglobe than ANY other publica-tion in the World! Stay informed—subscribe to the UFO NEWS-CLIPPING SERVICE!For subscription informationand sample pages from our ser-vice, write today to:

UFO NEWSCLIPPING\SERVICE,•4540 8th Ave.. NE.Suite 404.Seattle, WA 98105

In Others' WordsBy Lucius Parish

The March 30 issue of NA-TIONAL ENQUIRER featured twoarticles of interest. The firstdealt with sightings along theNew Jersey coast in January;the second article (by Erichvon Daniken) details some amaz-ing stone carvings from Peruwhich appear to provide moreevidence for the "ancient as-tronaut" theories'. A smallitem in the April 6 ENQUIRERtells of the UFO . credit coursebeing taught at NorthwesternUniversity by Dr. . J. AllenHynek. The April 20 ENQUIRERprovides testimonies from for-mer-Air Force-members -.-concern-ing their-experiences, in track-ing and chasing UFOs.

The'.recent contact claim ofsinger Johnny Sands is exploredin some detail in the 'March 30issue of THE; STAR. -The-April 6issue contains ah article onthe Center.for UFO Studies andthe April 13 issue rehashes therecent Clovis,. N.M.,. "sightings.

The January New Jersey re-ports- are examined in somewhatgreater detail in the Apirl 11NATIONAL TATTLER. , The May 2TATTLER issue has a rehash ar-ticle dealing with'the theoriespropounded by Hynek and Valleein THE EDGE OF REALITY..

The April issue of MAN'S hasa UFO article.which is .largelycomposed of- familiar .material,although -it .does contain de-tails -of an abduction case in-vestigated by Dr. R. LeoSprinkle which are very inter-esting:

Three articles of interestappear 'in the'. May issue ofSAGA. Brad Steiger. contributesa summary of recent',reports in-volving UFOs. and Bigfopt-likecreatures; John Keel's columnanalyzes the state of UFO re-search after 29 years; theNazca Lines - .controversy is re-newed by suggesting ' that theindian tribes of the area wereflying in hot-air balloons,'thereby accounting for the

"aerial perspective" needed toconstruct the designs.

The May issue of OFFICIALUFO contains the usual amountof. good material, includingGeorge Earley's book reviews, anew column by Bill Pitts, and.articles by Dick Ruhl £ KevinRandie, Ray Fowler, Robert Bar-row, Dave Webb,. Don Worley,Richard Hall and others.

The third .issue of ANCIENTASTRONAUTS is now available.The first two issues werelargely comprized of rehashedmaterial, but the current num-ber has some items of interest,including Richard Shaver's lastarticle. AA is to be publishedon a bi-monthly basis in thefuture.

Curt Sutherly^s article inthe July issue of PSYCHIC WORLDexamines the Fbrt Smith UFOconference of October,. 1975.An interesting summary of theevents and the atmosphere ofthat meeting.

'Brad. Steiger's MYSTERIES OFTIME,AND SPACE (previously re-viewed .in this column) is nowavailable in a Dell paperbackedition.

LASER BEAMS FROM STAR CITIES?is Robin Collyns1 second bookon the "ancient astronauts"theme. Unfortunately, it israther a hodgepodge of'miscel-laneous material which appearsto have been culled from hisprevious work, DID SPACEMENCOLONISE THE EARTH? It is longon speculation and all tooshort on previously-unpublisheddata. Some rather interestingphotos are included and Collynsis not reluctant to link the"aa" subject with modern UFOevidence (unlike many of hiscounterparts), but overall, thebook just doesn't make it.' Itis also grossly overpriced bythe British publisher at 4pounds, 25 pence (approximately$9.00). Anyone wishing to order'a copy may -write to: PelhamBooks Ltd. - 52 Bedford Square- London WC1B 3EF, England.

If you have not yet read DanClements' book, HOW TO BE KID-NAPPED BY UFOLK, you might liketo know that copies are stillavailable and : at a reducedprice. Only $3.00 for thiswell-written, humorous look atthe UFO subject. Order from:Clemco - Box 1362 - ManhattanBeach, CA 90266.

Andrew Tomas is one of the <better and more interesting iwriters on the theme of ancient -.astronauts and prehistoric civ- ?ilizations. His books, WE ARENOT THE FIRST and THE HOME OFTHE GODS, presented some of theresults of his research conduc-ted during his travels aroundthe world. In his most recenthardcover work, ON THE'SHORESOF ENDLESS WORLDS, Tomas de-votes the first half of thebook to an examination of lifeitself; its myriad forms andthe possibility of life else-where in the universe. In thesecond half, he re-examinessome of the more convincingevidences that - beings fromelsewhere have visited thisplanet and - influenced thecourse of history. Any book byTomas is always a pleasure toread and I look forward to hisnext one. The present volumeis published by G. P. Putnam'sSons - 200 Madison Avenue - N.Y., N.Y. 10016; the price is$7.95.

Long-time- UFO researcher Rob-ert Gribble of Seattle, Wash-ington is profiled in an arti-cle for the April issue of PO-LICE GAZETTE.

Conference scheduledThe UFO Sightings Newsletter

has announced that, the FirstMountain States UFO BelieversGet-Together is scheduled forthe Guanella Pass campgrounds,eight miles south of George-town, CO, on Aug. 7̂ 8, 1976.The .registration fee' of . $2(cash or money order) should besent to Miss Janice Croy, 512S. Logan, Denver, CO 80209.

Three reviews

The Edge of RealityTHE EDGE OF REALITY by J. Allen

Hynek and Jacques Vallee, (HenryRegnery Co., Chicago, 1975) $14.95 (hard-back) and $5.95 (paperback).

By Lucius ParishPublications Reviewer . .

As various people associatedwith Ufology will readily tellyou, I am often somewhat hardto' please. To some, I mustseem a chronic grouch. PerhapsI am, but while others line upto sing the praises of various"authorities" in. the UFO field,I am finding, more to complainabout. . No better example of mydissatisfaction could be found.than the recent book by J. Al-len Hynek and Jacques Vallee,THE EDGE OF REALITY. I respectthe credentials of .the authors,and I find • their DATA of con-'siderable interest, but theirtheories and conclusions (suchas they are) are a differentmatter. .

Both Vallee and - Hynek feelthat the extraterrestrial hy-pothesis is inadequate to ex-plain UFO activity. Valleesummarizes his view by saying:"We know that there is an un-known phenomenon being mani-fested. It appears to centeron a technological device, amachine that is capable oftransporting occupants. Thebehavior is not consistenteither with what you would ex-pect from space -visitors, orwith what we know about phy-sics." •'•To my way of thinking, Vallee

is ACTUALLY saying, in effect,"They don't play by our rules,-therefore they can't be spacevisitors." Vallee also findsno purpose, in the celestialperegrinations of the UFOs. Iwould suggest that if one findsno logic or purpose in the ac-tivities' of the UFOs, the faultmight well lie within the ob-server, rather than that whichis being observed. To presumethat we know' what extraterres-trials SHOULD do and how theySHOULD act is nothing more thana combination of profound ego-tism and naivete.

I do not suggest that all(continued on page 16)

By Richard H. HallInternational Coordinator

Despite its unusual format--fragmentary transcripts oftaped discussions--this is anabsorbing and highly readablebook. It is at once looselyorganized, yet coherent; casualand informal, yet. penetrating.

Although it is a potporri ofpersonal anecdotes and experi-ences, illustrative UFO sight-ings, analytical discussion,and free-wheeling brainstorm-ing, its focus is clear: by allfamiliar measures UFOs are"real," but that reality seemsto skirt the edges of acceptedscience and to 'Suggest the needfor revision of scientific con-cepts.

Reasonable men may disagreeon exactly what reforms areneeded, but the notion servesas a springboard for interest-ing speculation and the exer-cise is mind-expanding.

The book probes the questionof where we now stand: what isthe evidence and what will ittake to explain it? No doubtthere is a good consensus onthe first part of the question;however, the second part islikely to be more controversialand it is clear that there isno simple answer. The answer,if there is one, is involvedwith complex interactions ofscience, politics, sociology,psychology, and possible para-psychology.

My gripes with the book areminor factual ones only. It isa good and thought-provokingsurvey well worth the attentionof all serious students of UFOsfor its discussions of the cen-tral questions.

An incidental benefit is theinsight gained into the atti-tudes and thought patterns .ofthe authors, who have playedimportant roles in the effortto have UFOs studied scientifi-cally. • " ' • • .

(end of review)

By Dwight ConnellyEditor-Publisher

THE EDGE OF REALITY is a bookwhich is honest, if egotisti-cal. It is a valuable book inthe sense'that it enables bothfans and- detractors of Dr.Hynek and Dr. Vallee to knowwhere these gentlemen stand—and where they fall.

It is an interesting book forthe same reason. It is a re-freshing book because of itsoff-the-cuff format. It is adisturbing book because itshows the rather primitivestate of UFO research.

The total impression one isleft with after reading theconversations between Hynek andVallee, which make up the bulkof this book, is that the two"experts" do not seem to knowas much as they should. Inother words, their conversa-tions are no more brilliant andtheir "facts" are no more ac-curate than other novices whohave studied UFO literature andguessed at its meaning.

Perhaps ,., it is difficult tolive up to reputations in afield where there are really noexperts--where amateurs know asmuch as scientists withPh.D.'s. At any rate, the twoauthors certainly come off asbeing quite human in their ex-pertise, though one_gets theimpression from reading thebook that they see themselvesas more God-like.

One problem the two authorsface is that they bill, .them-selves as .scientists, yet donot possess UFO credentialswhich are any more scientificthan those of anyone else.Moreover; the very topic ofconverea'tion—the edge of real-ity—tends .to pull them fromknown science into unknownareas. They are challengedmore than enough in the former;they are on treacherously thinice in the latter.

Still, if one does not at-(continued on page 16)

EDGE OF REALITY reviewby Parish

(continued from page, 15)

UFOs are spaceships; if, I kfiewwhat UFOs are, •!• would not bewriting these"words. But, I dothink it is a grave error toreject a POSSIBILITY merely be-cause elements of that possi-bility .do not fit one's pre-conceived notions. Much morecould be said about, the errorsand numerous.: examples.of fuzzythinking to' be found in THEEDGE-'OF. REALITY, but space doesnot permit a full accounting.Suffice it to say, the UFO or-ganizations come in for-.theirlumps, while the Center for UFOStudies is touted as a "scien-tific" body which, is willing to."cooperate" with all groups andpublications. We., have alreadyseen? the.extent, of .the Center's"cooperation", and it leaves agreat deal.to be desired.

". Overall, Vallee comes offmuch' better than' Hyriek in thisseries of transcribed conver-.;sations with Dr. Arthur C. Has-tings. Vallee seems to recog-.hize the danger of "scientificRecognition" for the UFO sub-ject and he also points up theinadequacies of computer tech-niques. When Hynek comments onCharles Fort's writings, forinstance, it is obvious that hedoes not have' the faintest clueas to what Fort was "all a-bout." '

. . Both^men.. seem , to favor a_"paralle,L world" concept to ex-plain UFOs. While this certain-ly cannot.be ruled .put, theywould do well to 'remember aquotation from ,another recentbook on the ,subject: "...ifone wishes to .postulate worldsother than physical (astral oretheric), one can,easily satis-fy and explain virtually allthe reported antics of the UFO.But how do you establish thatthe .hypothesis is true? Unlessyou ; have ••an operational methodof: .doing so, "it is not SCI-ENCE." That, quote? It's fromHynek's previous book, THE UFOEXPERIENCE.

.(end of .review)

EDGE OF REALITY reviewby Connelly

(continued from page 15)

tempt to"draw anything solid'and scientific -from the book,it makes . interesting reading.For example, .the following ex-change . (p. 258-59), which ismoderated, by Arthur C. Hastrings, a researcher in parapsy-chology: . .

Psychic Projection . .

Hynek: Now, as part of ourhypotheses when we're examiningthe panoply of hypotheses, ."weshould take into account :theparanormal phenomena that arebeing written about and appar-ently being experienced. Shouldthose psychic claims be true,it opens up another can ofworms. Then the problem essen-tially is solved; that explainswhy UFOs can make right angleturns, that explains why theycan be dematerialized,., .whysometimes they are .not .detectedby our infrared equipment. ,A11that. But that's dangerous ter-ritory to tread. . -

Vallee: Why does it explainall that?. . . . - . : .

.Hynek: Well, because psychicprojections aren't picked up onradarsi that I know of. .

Vallee: . That's right, asfar as-we know they aren't, butUFOs are.

Hynek: Some are, some not—there are many times when UFOsaren't picked up.

Vallee: .There are ways ofmaking an airplane invisible toradar. •

Hynek: Yes, well, I'm notsure that there are, that's oneof the things that they're -cer-tainly trying very hard to do.But if they, had that, then allplanes, or. all military planes,would be fixed up so they,couldn't be picked up on1 radar.

.Hastings: Invisibility isone of the occult, abilities.

Vallee: I understand whatyou're saying, Allen, but it'snot clear to- me that it ex-plains it. I mean when you sayit explains everything, I don't

agree with it. . .Hynek: It certainly would

.explain the apparent violationof the laws of physics, becausepsychic projection doesn't haveto obey Newton's law of gravi-tation, it doesh''t have to obeyF=ma. To that extent it wouldget around it.

Vallee: ' It has to obey F-maif it has mass. ': Hynek: Psychic projectionprobably doesn't have mass.

Vallee: Then it doesn't ex-plain the 800 cases of tracesleft on the ground by UFOs thatTed Phillips has collected. Yousaid in the beginning thatthose are the things that anytheory must explain, right? Ifit doesn't explain it, whywould it be a good theory?

Hynek: All right/ why dopoltergeists move something andyet don't appear on radar? Dothey, the poltergeists, havethat physical reality? And yetthey have physical effects! Inother words,, we have a phenome-non here that undoubtedly hasphysical effects but also hasthe attributes of the psychicworld.

In addition to such "brain-storming" sessions, the bookalso features a few actualcases. One of the more inter-esting is entitled, "The Nightan Occupant Was Shot." Thisparticular case apparently tookplace in North Dakota (the booksays only "in the northernplains") a number of years ago.This case is, by the way, still.very much "open" and an addi-tional attempt has been madewithin the past year to.obtainmore details (this is not men-tioned in the book).

The other cases are prettywell known, such as the sight-ing ; by the Rev. Gill in NewGuinea in 1959. .

One of the more controver-sial, ill-considered> and inac-curate sections of the book ismade up of attacks on the "pri-vate" UFO groups, such as APRO,MUFON,. and NICAP (excluding,naturally, the Center for UFOStudies). Why Hynek would want

(continued on page 18)

Study by Bastide suggests that

UFOs prefer nights without a moonBy Jean Bastide

Some French UFO events havebeen published recently in FSRof London (FSR Vol. 20, no.l:roundup of< the French wave),but most of them have only beenpublished in French .reviews onUFOs, such as "Phenomenes Spa-riaiix," "Lumieres dans la Nuit,"arid so on. •

The UFO cases which havegained notice in France duringthe end of the year 1973 andthe beginning of the year 1974are mainly a result of 'thegreat number of news reportsgiven on this subject by thelocal mass-media. We know thatthe publicized 73-74 "French

wave" was very probably not awave at all, and only a resultof such mass-media on Frenchpeople during this period, when39 broadcasts on UFOs weretransmitted by the French ra-dio. Therefore, the UFO waveof 73-74 in France and Europe(Germany, Spain, Italy, Ruman-ia, England, etc) is not com-parable in quality and volumewith the famous French wave of1954: low-level events are num-erous, but humanoid cases arevery rare.

I have seriously studied thisperiod of four months (fromDecember, 1973, to March, 1974)and found a total of 183 UFOsevents in France only. This

work is the -result of an in-depth study," hour by hour, dayafter day, and month aftermonth of the French cases, andI can say that very strangethings have hovered at low al-titude in the French skies, be-ing seen by several witnessesin numerous events, and defin-itively cannot be identified by'Mr. Menzel or the late Dr. Con-don.

I have in fact identified agreat number of "UFOs" (mainlymisinterpretations of the mooncrescent, the planet Venus, andsounding balloons), but these183 cases are remaining afterall these studies...

TIME DISTRIBUTION:

.A) SOLAR INFLUENCE:

B) LUNAR INFLUENCE:

We have for the studied period:% of UFOs% of time

DAY12 %40 %•••'

NIGHT88 %60 '%•

a)' If we consider the percentages of UFOs seen seven days before and after the syzygies '• (syzgies=new moon or full moon), thus having taken into account all the period considered, we will have:

% of UFOs duringthe syzygies

. % of time

b) Number of cases the night being with or without moon:

NIGHT.WITH MOON

FULL MOON

43,4 % '

49,6 %

% of UFOs% of time

35,2 %.31,4 %

NEW MOON •

56,6 %

50,4 %

NIGHT.WITHOUT.MOON(darkened areas on

the figure); 52,8 %28,5 %

c) Relatively to the number of nocturnal UFO cases and nocturnal total1 time, we have:

NIGHT WITH MOON-'S; of nocturnal UFOs 40 %% of nocturnal time 52,4 %

NIGHT WITHOUT MOON60 %47,6 %

CONCLUSION:If we admit,we must have the

same number of UFOs during thewhole time considered, we havea theoretically unexplainableincrease of UFOs during the

periods of darkness (particu-larly during the night, and thenight without moon as it couldbe expected logically). Thereal numbers of UFOs seen dur-ing these periods of darkness

are exceeding the theoreticalnumbers expected for these sameperiods. The hypothesis ofequivalence of all the hours ofday ,or night for a UFO to beseen cannot be the right one

(the hypothesis of "equiproba-bility" is often applied instatistics).

The time being held constant,I can calculate two theoreticalnumbers by the simple mean of

proportionnality in cases A,Ba,Bv,Bc and I give the geometri-cal mean of these two numbersfor each, of these cases.' The.unexplainable increases are thedifferences between real andtheoretical numbers:

Onexplainable increases for lightless time:

ABabc

58,312,421,924,8

We can now calculate the corresponding rates .of increase: ,

A

Ba

Bb

Be

r.i.= 58,5 = 486 % (enormous increase!)- 1 2 .

12,4 = 28,6 %' 43,4

21,9 = 62,2 %35,2 ' • ' . - .

The conclusion is very sim-ple: during periods of lowerluminosities—such as night.andnight without moon--the numberof UFOs observed is greaterthan the number of UFOs thatcan .be expected from . a., theor-etical point of view, the lowerthe luminosity, the higher thenumber of UFOs seen. Becausethe UFOs are not shy—I presume--we.must, admit the followinghypothesis:

1) the UFOs are often veryluminous by themselves

2) the UFOs are of a physi-

62

cal nature ,

These two simple logical ex-planations are of unusual im-portance, as anybody will ack-nowledge...! hope such littleremarks will perhaps help us togo out of the, "parapsychologywave," which is nowadays a deadend of Ufology. Thanks to suchmen as the late Dr. McDonald.and Mr. McCampbell, we can hopethat the physical hypothesis ofUFOs will be the hypothesis ofthe XXI century, if not of theend of our own XX century.

Ph.D. dissertation studies McDonaldPaul McCarthy has written a

Ph.D. dissertation which takesa detailed look at James E. Mc-Donald's 1966 UFO activities,making the case that the scien-tific .process is a politicalprocess.

Chapters of the thesis in-clude one on the University ofColorado Project; one on the1968 Congressional Symposium,essentially arguing that McDon-ald masterminded it; one on theoffice of Naval .Research ''Con-troversy in which Phil Klassattempted to discredit McDonaldand claim that he misspent Navy

funds; and one on the AAAS Sym-posium in Boston showing howSagan § Page, for their own;questionable motives, pushedthrough a panel discussion overthe objections and severe op-position of Menzel and Condon.

The-study portrays McDonaldas a "revolutionary" scientistforced to adopt "extreme" tac-tics (in opposition to theother-extreme tactics of UFOdebunkers) in order -to pursuethe UFO problem. The study sofar has only been circulatedprivately—Richard Hall.

EDGE OF REALITY reviewBy Connelly

(continued from page 16)to attack the groups he claimsto want to work with is, tocoin a phrase, beyond reality.It is especially surprisingthat he should falsely accusethese .groups of the very thingswhich CUFOS is undeniably guil-ty of: such as failing to pro-duce "scientific" papers.

Vallee, for his part,- showsinexcusable ignorance concern-ing the "bulletins", of. these.UFO groups, charging that "ifyou buy the typical bulletin ofone of these groups, you willhave a two-page . editorial thatsays Mr. Such-and-Such has re-signed; Mrs. So-and-So's kneesaren't getting any better (clubnews); So-and-So gave a lectureand it was enthusiastically re-ported in the MORNING STAR REG-ISTER: and, we're making greatprogress. That's about it."

Here at Skylook we receiveall the major "bulletins" andmost of the minor ones—foreignand domestic—and, whatevertheir demerits, none fits Val-lee 's strange perceptions.

Even this aspect of the book.is interesting,, however, sinceit too indicates where thesetwo "names" are—in terms oftheir perceptions of other UFOresearchers and groups. Ingeneral, the Hynek-Vallee Ruleapplies: the farther the re-searcher, group, or publicationis from the U.S., the more ac-ceptable the researcher, group,or publication becomes—withthe exception of CUFOS, ofcourse.

Although the book is a so-bering letdown, even a soberingletdown can be worthwhile andinteresting. I highly recom-mend the book.

Musgrave wants info

Information concerning thehistory of UFOs in Canada isbeing sought by John Musgrave,10510_86th Ave., Edmonton, Al-berta, Canada T6E 2M6. Hisstudy is being financed by agrant from the National Re-search Council. . .

Director's MessageState directors

The success of MUFON may bedirectly attributed to the out-standing organizational andplanning work being performedby active state directors. The

r"following new appointments arebeing made to strengthen this

asset.j. Forrest R. Lundberg, former-ly state section director forPolk and Warren counties, hasaccepted the position of statedirector for Iowa, succeedingHarold E. Cowdin. Forrest hasdemonstrated a sincere interestin the UFO phenomenon and wasthe moderator and co-host forthe 1975 MUFON UFO Symposium inDes Moines. His mailing addressis: Commodore Hotel, Room 207,3440 Grand Avenue, Des Moines,IA 50312, and telephone (515)255-2141. Desmond H. Bragg,Ph.D., 1411 Hackley Street, DesMoines, IA 50313; telephone(515) 285-1647, has graciouslyconsented to become state sec-

- tion director for Polk and War-ren counties. Dr. Bragg headsup the Department of Educationat Drake University, and wasthe co-host for the Des MoinesUFO Symposium in 1975.

With the termination of VFONand personal commitments, HerbRoth has resigned as state sec-tion director for ArapahoeCounty. He was also serving asthe acting state director forColorado when Larry Childsmoved to Seattle, WA. We areprivileged to announce thatRobert A. Spencer, a MUFONfield investigator since 1973,has been selected as the statedirector for Colorado. Bob andhis family reside at 4430 Glad-iola Street, Golden, CO 80401;telephone (303) 279-4682. Hiscredits include a B.S. in Busi-ness Administration, past pres-ident of the Denver Astronomi-cal Society, and he is current-

By Walt Andrus

ly secretary/treasurer of theNational Amateur Astronomers.Herb Roth has turned over hisentire UFO files to Bob so theymay be perpetuated.

We wish to send our deepestsympathy and offer our condol-ences to Mrs. Dorothy C. Mickleand family upon the death ofWalter A. Mickle, M.D., MUFONconsultant and acting state di-rector for Louisiana.

Theodore F. Peters, Ph.D.,2742 Collinswood, Newberry,S.C. 29108; telephone (803)276-7174, has been appointedstate section director for New-berry, Laurens, Saluda, Green-wood and Lexington counties.Ted is a professor at NewberryCollege and presently is teach-ing a college level course onUFOs.

Ted Bloecher, state directorfor New York, has appointedRobert D. Clayton, M.A., P.O.Box 38, Diamond Point, NY12824; telephone (518) 644-2496, as state section directorfor Essex, Hamilton, Warren andnorthern Washington counties.Bob is a professor of historyand anthropology.

Russian translator

Susan L. Claywell, 10229Virginia, Kansas City, MO64131, has volunteered totranslate Russian technicalpapers for MUFON. She has aB.A. in Soviet Area Studies andone year of graduate study to-ward her M.A.

Clips appreciated

Your international directorwould like to express his ap-preciation to the numerouspeople serving the "UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICE" who have sofaithfully sent newspaper arti-cles to the MUFON office. Ap-

propriate UFO reports fromthese clippings are sent i;o RodB. Dyke in Seattle, Washington,MUFON Staff Member.

Official UFO magazine

Compliments are extended toRichard H. Hall, internationalcoordinator, for his fine arti-cle in the February 1976 issueof OFFICIAL UFO titled "MUFON—The Mutual UFO Network." It isa very objective view of MUFONas a scientific UFO investigat-ive agency, and relates some ofthe outstanding people involvedand their contributions inhelping to resolve the UFO phe-nomenon. It was our pleasureto meet Bernard O'Connor, Edi-tor of OFFICIAL UFO, during theUFO Conference in Ft. Smith,Arkansas, last October. Bernieand the many MUFON members whohave been submitting articlesfor this magazine are respon-sible for making it the mostcredible UFO magazine availa-ble on the newsstands today.

Kansas City symposium

The "1976 UFO Public Infor-mation Sympsoium" was held onSaturday, March 27, 1976, withtwo identical sessions at theMidland Theater in downtownKansas City, MO, under thesponsorship of MUFON of KansasCity. Speakers were Stan Fouch,Ted Phillips, Dr. J. Allen Hyn-ek, and Walt Andrus, with hostand moderator Ross Reagan ofWDAF Radio. All of us are in-debted to Stan Fouch, statesection director for Kansas;Thomas H. Nicholl, state direc-tor for Kansas, and the manyMUFON people in the Heart ofAmerica group who conductedthis successful symposium andwere hospitable and gracioushosts in their homes.

Recapping and commentingThis month's column is directed toward

articles appearing in the February, 1976,issue of SKYLOOK.

The San Antonio, Texas, oc-cupant case (5/3/75) bears sucha striking resemblance to theRirie, Idaho, (11/2/67) occu-pant encounter in so manyfeatures of appearance that itinvites detailed comparison.

In both cases disc-like UFOswith transparent "bubble" domesapproched vehicles, stoppedand hovered above them. Eachhad two occupants with largeears and hairless heads (eyesand other features differ), oneof whom looked directly at thewitness while the other lookedaway. ' Both UFOs seemed to have"control panels."

The Idaho case is reported,with detailed sketch, in UFOs:A NEW LOOK CNICAP, 1969) alongwith two other cases • in whichtwo occupants were seen insidea clear dome. The four casescontain many features in com-mon, including brilliant lights(green, red, and orange) eitheraround the rim or like a. beamfrom the underside, 'and Vehi-cle-like UFOs that hovered atlow altitude, turned and til-ted. In the recent Texas casea strong odor like burningwires or metal was noted; inBlenheim, N. Z. (7/13/59) anodor like pepper filled theair.

The summary of separate in-vestigations of the Travis Wal-ton abduction story is usefuland informative. Some pointsworth consideration have beenmade by GSW, NICAP, and APRO,but can we say that all thefacts are in and , investigationis complete?

It seems to me that somepeople are committing the samesin often attributed to scien-tists—leaping to conclusionsand failing to resolve discrep-ancies or gather all the infor-mation before passing judgment.There is no excuse for us notto suspend judgment (whether ornot scientists practice what

By Richard Hall

S*n5/3/75-

they preach) in complex casesof this kind.

Some clarification is neededof the Waltons1 pre-existingattitudes toward the knowledgeof UFOs and of the NICAP claimthat Travis tried to force him-self on a talk show host. Onthe other hand,. APRO's psycho-logical testing yielded strongpositive results, and severalwitnesses attest to the basiccircumstances of the encounter.I agree that skepticism towardspectacular UFO cases is farhealthier than gullibility, buta negative form of skepticismthat prejudges a report may bejust as selfdeluding as gulli-ble belief.We should be far more willing

to keep a case open indefinite-ly, arid feel less compulsionto come up with a final "yes"or "no" answer simply for or-ganizational image reasons.The best image is cautious,careful open-mindedness andpainstaking investigation.

Schuessler's resignation

Deputy Director John Schuesr-sler's candid resignationstatement touches on many cri-tical points as well as frus-trations of UFO investigation.It needs to be said openly thatserious friction .exists betweena number of important MUFONpersonnel and Dr. Hynek's Cen-ter for UFO Studies (CUFOS). I,too, have some reservationsabout CUFOS -but I continue toapprove of MUFON's policy offull cooperation.

Whatever we may think of

Hynek or CUFOS, the Center is arallying point for scientistswho treat UFOs seriously. Webadly need the resources ofscience to properly study UFOs.Politics makes -strange bedfel-lows ; we need them and theyneed us. Mare tact and diplom-acy on both sides would help,for the sake of our commongoals.

stronomyNotes

By Mark R. Herbstritt

May SkyMercury--for the first week

of the month it should be vis-ible low in the west just aftersunset, but by the 20th it isin inferior conjunction.

Venus—it is difficult toobserve, rising just minutesbefore the sun at mid-month.

Mars--moving into Cancer, itis now past the meridian atsunset and sets about midnight.Late on the llth (at 21 hoursE.S.T.) Mars and Saturn are inconjunction.

Jupiter—in the latter partof the month it is easy to ob-serve as a morning "star" ris-ing in the north of east beforethe Sun.

Saturn—in Cancer it is wellpast the meridian at sunset andsets at about midnight.

The Aqiiarid meteor showeroccurs from the 1st to the 6th.

MUFON UFO Journal - 1976 4. April - Skylook

Documents

Transcript of MUFON UFO Journal - 1976 4. April - Skylook