NUMBER 115 THE MUFON JUNE 1977

UFO JOURNALFounded 1967 ^0^ * $1.00

••••••̂ ^ OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF MUFON/ MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INCM^B^̂ M^

Photogroph baken October 17, 1973, over ELkhore, West VLrgunLo,

MUFON UFOJOURNAL

103OldtowneRd.Seguin, Texas 78155

DENNIS WILLIAM HAUCKEditor

WALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFON

PAULCERNY -.Promotion/Publicity

REV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOs

ANN DRUFFELCalifornia Report

LUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/History

MARJORIE FISHExtraterrestrial Life

RICHARD HALLAssociate Editor

MARK HERBSTRITTAstronomy

ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/Publicity

TED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases

DAVID A. SCHROTHSt. Louis/Mass Media

JOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO Propulsion

NORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYEditor/Publishers Emeritus

LENSTRINGFIELDCommentary

Ik. NORM UFO 10UMML to frtUui M*Ml *f DMMotari UFO Mmt, bpta, Ton SetatripMfc'ntii:SI.OO tu jui hi U.S.; $5.00 p« jui briipi. Copjnfht197Tbi ««ul UFO Mmt Stun* dm putifi piM« SifotB, Tun Mire mMimMt copta ht MUFOIIUFO JOUIML103 OMom Id., Sipia, TOD 71155.

FROM THE EDITORIn view of the

critical articleson computer photoanalysis appearingin this issue, Ifeel a few wordsare in order.

First, as anEditor, I believeI have a very real.responsibility topresent both sidesto any controversy.Therefore, whilethis issue mayseem weighted

against the useof computers inthe analysis ofphotos, the articlesdo serve to help usremember that notechnique is 100#foolproof.

Personally, Isee computer analysisof photographs andother scientificapproaches to theUFO problem as off-ering our only hopefor a solution.

In this issueN O C T U R N A L UFO P H O T O G R A P H E D 3

By T h e o d o r e SpicklerA I R C R A F T P I L O T SPOTS UFO 4

By Don BerlinerC A L I F O R N I A R E P O R T 5

3y Ann DruffelUFO O B S E R U E D I N SAN P A B L O 7C O I U P U T E R P H O T O A N A L V S I S 8

By R - i c h a rd HallNEIiJ O H I O A B D U C T I O N C A S E 9

By Bill J o n e si l lUFON-NC T R A I N I N G C O N F E R E N C E 11

B y G e o r g e F a i u c e t tA L T E R N A T E R E A L I T I E S .....12

B y T h e o d o r e Sp ick le rI N O T H E R S W O R D S 1 3

By Luc ius P a r i s hNEtlJ H A d l P S H I R E C L O S E E N C O U N T E R 14

By R a y m o n d Fomler X John OswaldD I R E C T O R S (HESSAGE 19

By UJslt A n d r u sR E C A P P I N G AND C O m f i l E N T I N G 20

By R i c h a r d HallA S T R O N O m y NOTES 20

By mark R. Herbstritt

The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL aredetermined by the editor, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of MUFON. Opinionsof contributors are their own, and do not necessarilyreflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON.Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON or to:Dennis W. Hauck, 114GostlinSt., Hammond, IN 46327

Permission Is hereby granted to quote from this Issueprovided not more than 200 words are quoted fromany one article, the author of the article is givencredit, and the statement "Copyright 1977 by theMUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin,Texas" Is included.

NOCTURNAL UFOIN WEST VIRGINIA By T h e o d o r e SpiLckler

Date of Sighting: October 17,1973Time of Sighting: 9:15Zone: ESTLocation of Sighting: Elkhore,West Virginia, McDowell CountyNumber of Witnesses: OneName of principal witness: Mr.David BodnerSighting Evaluation: UnkownSignificantPrincipal investigator: TheodoreSpickler

Southern West Virginia experi-enced a UFO flap during Octoberof 1973 and on Saturday nightOctober 13, seventeen year oldDavid Bodner grandly informedhis parents that he was going togo outside to see a flying saucer.They laughed; he went outside andpromptly saw a nocturnal lightpass overhead that he felt certainwas no ordinary object. His curi-osity thus nurtured he prepared foradditional sightings by loading aPentax 35 mm camera with tri-Xfilm. Five nights later on October17 the UFO returned and we havethe resulting photo to study.

The time was around 9:15 p.m.EST, David had just come out of thehouse and while looking at theground caught a glimpse of some-thing quite bright in the sky to thenorthwest. It passed overhead inabout 45 to 60 seconds exhibitinga number of unusual features.A fluttering motion was coupledwith the flashing on and off of theentire object. Its appearance wascuriously lacking in any kind ofsymmetry or reasonable structure.

The intensity of the flashing wouldchange on each flash and was com-pared to the light put out by thebanks of floods set up to illuminatea football field at night. He esti-mates that each flash lasted forabout five seconds with threeseconds of blackness in between.The size was described as "huge"and far away: initially the light wasabout half the size of the full moon.

The photograph is consistent withthe description of the object madefrom memory by the witness. Onecan see that the object was flut-tering, blinking on and off, andchanging intensity. The object wasalso quite intense as can be inferredby the halation.

The photograph was hand heldwith the shutter set at "bulb".The lens was wide open and had afocal length of 50mm. David recallsthat the exposure was about 10 to15 seconds long which suggests thatsome of the blurring in the thirdand forth set of object images mayhave been due to camera motion JIt is important to emphasize thatthe strange squiggle shape of the

object is not 'the path of a movinglight on the object but seems tohave been a continuously visibleshape. Since the camera wasfocused on infinity we can estimatethe angular size of the object. Itsimage was about 3 mm on the nega-tive which suggests that it sub-tended an angle of about 3Vi degreefrom the camera. To play with thisfurther, it would take an object 120feet in diameter at a distance of2,000 feet to meet the requiredangle.

If any aspect of this case promptsme to consider it as unknown andsignificant it is that a very similarobject was photographed on thevery same night by a gentlemen inColumbus, Ohio. A weak copy ofthis picture can be found on pagefour of the Flying Saucer ReviewVolume 19, no. 6 Nov.-Dec. 1973.Ken Chamberlain is the reportedsource of the photograph and appar-ently worked for the ColumbusDispatch. Mary Borders of thephotographic department for thatnewspaper informed me that the

(Continued on page 7)

3

Aircraft Pilot SpotsObject Over Columbia

Learning to fly a small airplanein the mountainous territory nearBogota, Colombia, is challengeenough for most people. But whenthe natural hazards are supple-mented by the presence of a large,unknown flying machine, it has tobe most disconcerting.

For 22-year old student pilotManuel Jose Lopez Ojeda, theexperience of May 5, 1977, was asclose to catastrophic as he canreasonably be expected to en-counter in a normal life. For 55minutes, he was totally out of con-trol of the situation, as first his air-plane failed to respond to move-ments of its controls, and then hiseyesight faded to almost nothing.That there would be no permanentdamage either to the pilot or theairplane was far from obvious dur-ing the experience.

Ojeda took off at 9:15 a.m. for aroutine solo training flight abovethe 8,500' mountains north ofBogota, in a little 100 hp Cessna150. An hour later, as he was prac-ticing steep turns near the town ofTabio, he noticed that all thegauges on his insturment panelwere reading either zero, or in thedanger zone. As he later told veter-an Colombian commercial pilotRudy Faccini:

"I started looking for a field tomake a forced landing. But when Istarted looking down on my rightside, I saw a huge vehicle—amachine—was a few feet below me,and at times he would come rightbelow the aircraft. And when Itried to straighten the steep turn4

in which I was, I found the controlsof the aircraft would not obey. Thewhole aircraft seemed to be lockedinto this machine, or being control-led by somebody else."

The young pilot described theUFO: An inverted dish, with a dia-meter of 15-20 meters (50-65 feet)and a thickness of about 3 meters(10 feet). In the top center of thecraft was a red and yellowishfluorescent lamp. "The UFO wouldnot rotate—it was stationary. Andwhen it would move, it would movein a straight and horizontal line inquick movements. Doing zig-zag,but straightline movements. (It)was white—snow white—I couldn'tsee any people, and I couldn't seeany windows...it was completelysealed."

While his airplane was apparent-ly under the control of somethingelse, Ojeda began to realize hisvision was fading. "It was likebeing in a fog...I couldn't distin-guish any objects too far, so Iasked for guidance, to be able toreturn to my base. (Another) air-plane approached my aircraft.By this time, my vision was lostcompletely. I couldn't see any-thing...not the dashboard...!couldn't see outside my airplane."

With no vision, and fewer than40 hours of flying experience tofall back on, Ojeda was almost help-less. At the time he first noticed hiseyesight was failing, the object wasdeparting, leaving him able to flythe airplane. But without visualcues, there was little he could dobut call for help.

Two flight instructors from Bogo-ta came to his rescue, one of themflying as close as he felt safe, andguiding him via voice commands.As recorded by the control tower,the dialogue went partly like this:

"Instructor: 'OK, noew beginslowly the turn to the left, slowly,slowly, slowly. Turn to the left...to the other side is the left! Left,left, that's right...the left is theother side. To the side by the door.Turn to the side by your door. Doyou hear me?

"Pilot: 'I hear you disti nctly.'"Instructor: 'Good, but turn to

the left. Not to your right, but tothe left. That's it, turn more. Yes,softly, continue turning very softlyvery softly.'"

For what seemed like hours, thiswent on, with the instructor tryingdesperately to keep Ojeda frompanicking, while he carefully fedhim orders to keep the plane flyinglevel and to guide it back towardBogota. Once near the BogotaAirport, the problem became one ofgetting him down in one piece.The instructor then flew in front ofOjeda's airplane, hoping the youngman could see enough to followhim donw.

Twice during the attempted land-ings, Ojeda almost flew into thecontrol tower. He was still withoutvision, and was clearly near col-lapse admitting at one point thathe could not remember his ownname. Finally, enough vision .returned to enable him to follow theairplane in front of him (which he

(Continued on page 7)

Ann Druffel

CALIFORNIA REPORTThe MUFON Analysis of the SedonaPhotograph: A Rebuttal By Eric Herr

The lead article of the August1976 MUFON UFO JOURNAL isan analysis and evaluation of thenow-famous Sedona, Arizona UFOphotograph. This photo; taken byMr. C.D. Ghormley on September23rd, 1967 and since reproduced innumerous publications, shows anoblique streak of light apparentlyrising from the ground in front ofa small mountain.

The author of the MUFONanalysis is that organization'sPhotographic Consultant and StateDirector for Arizona. He is also theDirector of Ground Saucer Watch,a Phoenix—based group. He is analleged expert on the computerenhancement of UFO photographsand has written several papers onthis topic for MUFON, as well as forFlying Saucer Review and theCenter for UFO Studies. Each ofthese papers is primarily an explan-ation of computer enhancementtechniques, and all contain substan-tial errors. Because the Sedonaarticle is both representative andthe most recent, I shall discuss itprincipally, refer only occasionallyto the others.

First, in spite of his mentioningDr. James Harder's quite reason-able suggestion (in the March-April 1973 APRO Bulletin) that theimage may have been producedby an object emitting light, theauthor concludes that "The Sedonaphotogarph is a lens reflection anda typical example of a misidentific-ation of a common anomaly."

In fact, the optics of the camerawholly forbid the image from beinga .lens reflection. The Kodak"Holiday 127" camera used by the

photographer has only a single lens,not the complex lens system neededto produce the many "reflections"which comprise the striated imagein the Sedona photograph. If thecamera did have such a lens system,the intensity of the reflectionswould differ widely depending uponthe number of surfaces from whichthe light was reflected. In such alens system, the individual reflect-ions would also differ far more insize because they would be pro-duced by different sequences oflens element curvatures. Further,both the light source and the re-flections must be on a line radial tothe axis of the optical system,which they are not. Moreover,unless there was an unreportedmirror-like object in front of thecamera, there could be no reflect-ions at all, because the sun was tothe right and behind the photo-grapher. Finally, Dr. James Hardertested the camera over several;weeks in an effort to obtain similarimages from internal reflections,and was not successful.

Another erroneous belief ex-pressed by the MUFON analystis that fraudulant UFOs may bedetected by their supposed lowerreflectivity. One of his commnetsto this effect is that "A hoaxphotograph generally consists ofsuch trite items as Frisbees, cameralens caps, pie plates, etc. Thedensity profile from such a commonobject would be of low reflecti-vity..." Although it is true thatsmall, nearby objects of mundaneorigin are generally used to producea hoaxed photograph, the belief thattheir reflectivity would be lower

than that of a bona fide UFO has nobasis in reality. The reflectivityof an object is a function of itssurface characteristics, and is notdependent upon size or common-ness. Rather, because of the lesserdegree of atmospheric attenuation,the proportion of observablereflected light will be higher,not lower, for nearby objects.Further, because of the relativelack of light scattering by the inter-vening atmosphere, the contrastshown by nearby objects is typicallygreater. This greater contrastproduces an apparent reflectivitythat is also higher, rather thanlower, for nearby objects.

A further misconception in-volves the nature of the pictureelements (pixels) created in theprocess of computer enhancement.Although the author correctlynotes that pixels define the limitof resolution in the enhancementprocess (as grains of silver definethe resolution of film), and furthercorrectly points out that' each pic-ture element is assigned a (num-eric) value based on the averagelevel of gray contained in its minuteproportion of the picture, he laterignores these facts by writing that"...pixel data strongly suggests theimages are fairly close to thecamera. Distant objects wouldhave wavy and broken pixeledges..." He Elaborates on thisparticular error (on page 248 of theProceedings of the 1976 Center forUFO Studies Conference) in a seriesof drawings which show in-dividual picture elements neatlydivided into light and dark sections!The captions state: "Pixel edges

5

are sharply defined (when the)subject (is) close to the camera..."And: "Pixel edges are widelybroken and extremely fuzzy (whenthe subject is aO great distance fromthe camera."

On the contrary, the edges of thepicture elements are not at allchanged by the distance of thephotographed object. The compu-ter generates one integer numberrepresenting one gray-value foreach picture element. This numbermay be multiplied or divided(to change the, contrast, .for ex-ample), but it may not be replacedwith two or more numbers to pro-duce several gray-values within asingle pixel because, as the nameimplies, the picture element isindeed the limit of resolution andcannot be subdivided. Like the dotsof phosphor on a color televisionscreen and the. tiles in a mosaic,the pixels change only in lightvalue. It is the eye alone thatintegrates them into images which,as a whole, may be judged fuzzyor sharp.

In still another unwarrantedconclusion, the author writes that"With the type of camera and filmutilized (ASA speed) it is simplybeyond the realm of possibility1 tophotograph an 'object' traveling thespeed of a bullet, in 1-1/60 of asecond." On the contrary, it is notonly possible, but commonly done.Whether an image will be producedis determined by the amount oflight striking the film. This amountis a factor of the brightness of the.light source and the time thatsource is exposed to the film. Al-though films with higher ASAspeeds by definition react morerapidly to light, in any properlyexposed photograph, such as theSedona photo, the only two relevantparameters are the object's bright-6

ness and the angular velocity. Forexample, photographs are routinelymade of artificail satellites travelingin excess of 18,000 miles per hour—far faster than the speed of a bullet.The ASA speeds of the films usedin these photos vary widely; if thesatellites were not illuminatedsufficiently or were photographedwith a non-tracking camera at tooshort a distance they would notregister on any film.

As with many satellite photos, thefilm in the Sedona case would showa streak-like image if the path of anobject more distant than a fewmeters were approximately perpen-dicular to the optical axis of thecamera and were reflecting oremitting sufficient light. There isno reason to believe it would not.

Another judgment of thisMUFON analyst is even less valid:"The irregular geometry, on theimages edges, violates the standardgeometry shapes of previous objectsthat have been paternized andcategorized..." In English transla-tion, he is saying that "The shape ofthis image is different from theusual shapes I have seen, thereforeit cannot be bona fide." Suchillogic requires no refutation.

Another of the author's miscon-ceptions is his equating the densityof the photographic image of anobject with the physical densityof that object. In describing theprocess of color contouring, he cor-rectly writes that "Areas shown aswhite and shades of blue and greenrepresent respectively lighter filmdensities than areas shown asyellow and shades of violet and red.The thickness of an image is con-stant within all areas that are dis-played as the same color." How-ever, he continues by making thefollowing error-filled statements:"In reference to Figure 2 (a black

and white print of the color-con-toured Sedona image), the gray-values are directly related to thecross-sectional thickness of theobject(s). With the utilization ofcolor enhancement the photo-graphic density is electronicallyanalyzed. The measurements takenfrom the color data show clearlyan uneven distribution of color.This indicates a non-homogeneousdensity across the entire face por-tion of the UFO, i.e., a tenuousmatter or one of varying cross-sectional geometry." And on page18 of the March 1977 issue ofOfficial UFO, he says: "Suchthings as object density, exactshape, relation of true size to dis-tant objects, and reflectivity of theobject can all be learned fromcolor enhancement."

In fact, in color contouring, allareas of the image displayed asthe same color have the samephotographic density, not neces-sarily the same physical density.Only in instances of translumin-escence or X-ray photography isthere an equivalance. Otherwise,there is no relationship betweenphotographic and physical density.Photographic density refers to therelative opaqueness of the filmin question. This opaquenessvaries proportionally with theamount of light to which the filmhas been exposed, and is not inany way correlated with the physicaldensity, or amount of matter pervolume, of the object photographed.Therefore, any equating of either"object density" or "cross-sectional thickness" with photo-graphic density, whether by colorcontouring or other means, is false.To believe otherwise is to believethat an object may be made lessdense or less thick by painting itwhite!

The author insures the obvious-ness of his confusion of photo-graphic density with physicaldensity when he attempts to explainthe function of the cursor: "Hypo-thetically," he says in the Sedonaanalysis, "if a UFO was a hoaxeditem, such as a pie plate, a mon-tage, or a hub cap, the cursor lineswould 'profile', with some respectto the density, into a flat, shallowshape." And on page 52 of the 1976MUFON Symposium Proceedings(together with diagrams illustratingthis erroneous belief), he says:"A profiling cursor (an electronic'cutting knife') denoted by thewhite lines through the objects inour photographs, reveals theobject's real shape, i.e., flat, round,eliptical, etc." And: "Conversely,a trangible, bona fide object wouldhave profiling cursor lines withsubstance."

Quite the contrary, the cursordoes not show the image's profile;it is not a "cutting knife" throughthe image; it can not show that eventhe most tangible object has sub-stance! The sole function of thecursor is to allow the plotting(typically on a video screen) of therelative brightness of the individualpicture elements along any givenline through a photograph. Therelative brightness of each pointis plotted along the edge of theenhanced photo; the resultantpolygram is in no way a measureof the "substance", or physicaldensity of the; original object,but instead depicts the proportionaloptical dentisty of the object'sphotographic image as measuredalong a single line of pictureelements within that image.

AfCSF-OJW,

CORRESPONDENTS WANTED

We often receive requests foiexchanges of information andletters with American MUFONmembers. Any member wishing toestablish such a correspondencemay write to:

Mr. Jerzy E.Wielunski, Chopina4-3, 20-026 Lublin, Poland.

Mr. Henri Depireux, Av. GeorgesHenri, 299, B. 1200, Bruxelles,Belgium.

Mr. Brian G. Panter, 7, ChurchClose, Braybrooke, Nr. Mkt. Mar-borough, Leic's LE16 8LD, England

(Con tinued from page 3)

photo in question was classifiedas "spot news" and could not bereleased.

Columbus is about 170 miles tothe northwest of Elkhorn. It isfeasible that the Columbus objectflew straight to the southeastwhich is the direction reported byDavid. If it did, it would pass overElkhorn.

The Columbus photo shows asquiggly line of somewhat differentshape but with the same blinkinglight pattern with a varying inten-sity and shifting position in the sky.The difference in the shape of thelight may be due to angular positionof the camera being differentin the two photographs.

If we can tie the two photographstogether the sighting evaluationcould be changed from Unknown-Significant to Unknown-GreatSignificance.

(Continued from page 4)said looked like a shadow) andmake a safe landing. As soon asthe airplane had rolled to a stop onthe runway, men from the airportbomb squad helped him into awaiting ambulance which took himto a hospital. There, his facultiesreturned quickly, under the care ofa doctor.

According to commercial pilotFaccini, "The guy is a serious typefellow. I spoke to his instructor,and during the few weeks that hehas been at the school, he hasshown to be a capable pilot...and heis serious and quiet and has notmade an impression on anybody asbeing a charlatan. His story hasbeen somewhat reluctantly told,but it has been accepted, and theybelieve that he did encounter some-thing or other on that morning of.May 5th."

(Acknowledgements: RudolfoFaccini; "El Tiempo" of Bogota,and to Miss Beatrice Zimmer, ofFairfax, Va., for her excellenttranslation of articles from thatnewspaper.)

UFO OBSERVED IN SAN PABLO

Rio De Janeiro (ANSA)—Thesudden appearance of an unident-ified flying object in the sky of theindustrial triangle of Gran SanPablo is intriguing to the localpopulation. It's picture (an ovalor round, white object in the darksky) was viewed on television andwas displayed in the press. Anofficial source affirmed that diversesignals made with the reflector ofthe vehicle were "answered by thestrange bright object that gave offa strong red light."

COMPUTER PHDTDdlMW515 By Richard Hall

Because of the controversy sur-rounding some of the photo evalua-tions reported by William H.Spaulding of Ground Saucer WatchPhoenix, Arizona (MUFON PhotoConsultant), I spent considerable"^time during June conducting apersonal investigation into thenature of this kind of analysis. Inthe process, I learned some inter-esting things both about the inter-pretations being made and aboutthe facilities utilized. I present myfindings here, but they are by nomeans the last word; further dis-cussion and critique is greatly tobe desired since the work beingdone is of great importance to UFOinvestigations.

Based on a paper by J.F. Herr,San Diego, California, criticizingSpaulding's interpretations, it doesappear that Spaulding has eitheimisunderstood or misexpressed themeaning of the computer enhance-ment findings on a number of speci-fic points. This was confirmed tome by another MUFON scientificconsultant, and I have seen cor-respondence by a third person(MUFON scientist).questioning ;the ,accuracy of Spaulding's descriptionof the use of the cursor in runninga density profile across a picture,as it appears in the 1976 MUFONSymposium proceedings.

It should be said that Spauldinghas performed an important serviceby making us aware of this usefultool, and by under-writing photo-analyses for MUFON at consider-able personal expense. He hasasked me to state that MUFONmembers should submit $15. foreach single photo or sequence to beanalyzed, but that after about8 '

January 1, 1978, GSW will nolonger process any photographsoutside of their own organizationalstructure. GSW presently (lateJune) .has about 50 pictures inprocess of evaluation.

Special Data Systems, Inc., doesthe computerized color contouring,edge enhancement, etc. for about$25 per photo (David Rutland,Box 249, 508 So. Fairview, Goleta,CA 93017; 805-967-2383), and theresults must then be interpreted bya set of guidelines, plus someknowledge of physics and/or photo-graphy. Two other facilities are,or will be, available and these willbe mentioned below.

It is at the point of interpre-tation where the controversy arises.Herr makes, the following points,confirmed independently:

(1) "...the belief that their re-flectivity (small close-up objectused to create hoax) would be lowerthan that of a bona fide UFO hasno basis in reality...because of thelesser degree of atmosphericattenuation, the proportion of ob-servable 'reflected' light will-=behigher, not lower, for nearby ob-jects."(2) Herr criticizes Spaulding'sstatement that "...pixel • datastrongly suggests the images arefairly close to the camera. Distantobjects would have wavy and brok-en pixel edges...", commentingthat "the picture elements (pixels)are not at all changed by the dis-tance of the photograhed object."The MUFON scientist pointed outthat Herr is correct, but thatSpaulding might be correct if hesaid, "Distant objects would have

wavy edges," leaving out the word"pixel." Whether or not this istrue is a matter for further researchhe said, but "Available theory andexperiments suggest that edgewaviness (caused by atmosphericeffects) may be picked up by com-puter enhancement—suggest thateffects may be picked up by com-puter enhancement—particularlyby color contouring.''(3) "...equating the density of thephotographic image of an objectwith the physical density of thatobject," Herr considers to be themost serious error. The MUFONscientist said, "Herr is right.There is not generally any relationbetween photographic density and'mass density'...photographic den-sity is the measure of relativebrightness of the object photo-graphed. If the object is a source oflight or is opaque and is reflectinglight, or is any combination of thesetwo, the photographic density willnot be related in any way to themass density (or weight) of theobject photographed. Neither willthe photographic density be relatedto thickness of the object...theimage can only give two dimension-al information coupled with relativebrightness (of various visible por-tions of the object) information."

I wanted to include in this articleBill Spaulding's responses to thesecriticisms, which were invited in aletter dated June 9. However,he replied June 15 that while hedoes want to respond, his busy sch-edule and the imminent MUFONSymposium which he is hostingprevented him from doing so at thistime.

(Continued on page 10)

New Ohio Abduction Case by Bill JonesAssociate DirectorCivil Commission on Aerial PhenomenaMUFON Field Investigator

In one respect, there are twoways to approach UFO field inves-tigation. An investigator can waitfor reports and leads to come tohim or he can go out into the fieldand "dig" them up. As any in-vestigator who has taken the latter,more proactive approach can test-ify, the number of unreported UFO;experience is surprising. For everyUFO report uncovered, leads toothers are found. Dr. J. AllenHynek has referred to this situationas the "embarrassment of rich-es." (2)

One of the most frustrating sit-uations any investigator can con-front is to get a lead to a potentiallyexciting case and be unable tofollow it to conclusion due to therelectance of the principal involvedto talk. This happened to our grouprecently.

Ohio Route 39 runs north fromMansfield through Shelby, Ohio.The area is mostly rural, but is dot-ted with the new homes of peoplewho have moved out of the nearbycities and towns. In late 1975, oneof the residents of this area wasabducted by alien beings, or so heclaims.

During an investigation of theMansfield area we heard a rumor ofthis case and traced it to a man Iwill identify as Mr. Smith. He nowsells farm equipment. In theWinter of 1975, he had his ownbusiness and rented space fromMr. Graham, a samll town busi-nessman andthe principal figure ofthis episode.

Mr. graham has a businesspartner, Mr. Williams. Mr. Smith

first heard about this story fromMr. Williams. So, one night whileMr. Smith and Mr. Graham wereout drinking, Mr. Smith asked Mr.Graham to verify the story. Overa two hour period it reluctantlycame out. At times, Mr. Smithwould make light remarks aboutwhat he was being told and Mr.Graham would quit talking. Be-sides being insulted by Mr. Smith'sremarks, Mr. Graham appearedscared about the matter. Becauseof this reaction, Mr. Smith began towonder if there wasn't somethingto the story after all.

In late 1975, Mr. Graham wasdrinking at Mr. Williams' home.Both Mr. Graham and Mr. Wil-liams like to drink, sometimes toexcess, so this was not unusual.It was late at night when Mr.Graham started home. Somewhereout in the country he realized thathe had had too much to drink, cohe pulled off the road and fellasleep. This is strange since Mr.Graham lives only about a milefrom Mr. Williams. Later he awoketo find four men around his car.He was frightened and thought hewas going to be mugged. Then,he had the feeling that theywere "the good guys." He gotout of his car and into theirs.Realizing he had no reason to feelthat way, he started to get out.He was restrained. He thoughtabout "sucker punching" one ofthem but suddenly he couldn'tbreathe and he was told not to tryan escape again. His brethingability was returned. (3) Naturally,this scared him. The communica-

tion up until that point had beenaudible. From then on it was bytelepathy.

He was taken to an abandonedfarm house containing no furnitureexcept some charis and a table.He was told to undress and lay onthe table. A device was broughtin and he was examined. Thisdevice had two rails that wereextended parallel to and above hisbody. It looked like "a big camera"and rolled on the rails as it scannedhis body. In addition to the scan-ning, some other "physical"test were performed, the nature ofwhich were not revealed by Mr.Graham.

During the examination, Mr.Graham was informed that thealien's race had trouble bearingmale children. Interestingly, hehas several male off-spring. Also,he was told that some of "our"women would be taken for breedingpurposes. At some point, henoticed a single feature about thesepeople that is different fromhumans. The beings sensed thisand told him never to reveal thefeature. If he did, he would die ofcancer.

After the exam he was takenhome where he found his car. Atno time, according to Mr. Smith,did Mr. Graham ever claim havingseen a UFO.

According to Mr. Smith, Mr.Graham lives on fear that he willbe picked up and examined again.We asked Mr. Smith if Mr. Grahamis* afraid of cancer or if any of Mr.Graham's family had died ofcancer. Mr. Smith said no.

Mr. Graham reportedly has nointerest in UFOs. As far as beingcurious about what happened tohim, he isn't. He thinks he knowsall there is to.know.

Later we were able to talk withMr. Williams, Mr. Graham's bus-iness partner. He didn't add muchto what we already knew. Accord-ing to Mr. Williams, he and Mr.Graham were drinking quite heav-ily that night. At one point, hewent into the kitchen to fix another

' drink. Mr. Graham then got up,walked passed him in a "trancelike" state, and left. This happen-ed sometime before midnight.Mr. Williams asked Mr. Grahamwhere he was going as he brushedby, but Mr. Graham ignored himcompletely. A few minutes laterMr. Williams got worried and drovethe mile to Mr. Graham's home tosee if he could be located. Hewasn'tthere.

The next day Mr. Williams askedMr. Graham why he left. That iswhen Mr. Graham related the storyof his experience to Mr. Williams.The only difference in Mr. Williamsaccount and Mr. Smith's is that Mr.Williams remembers Mr. Grahamsaying he was taken into a "space-ship", not-a-farm house. Like Mr.Smith, Mr. Williams fels that Mr.Graham believes the experiencereally happened.

After talking with Mr. Williamswe tried to locate Mr. Graham,himself. As it turned out, thiswas not an easy task, but we finallylocated him at one of his busi-nesses.

Mr. Graham was reluctant totalk with us. He claims to havepushed the whole incident from hismind. When we asked him if thealien's had actually taken his10 .

breathing ability away he actedstartled and said, "how could Ihave forgotten that?" He said hecouldn't remember where he wastaken by the aliens. They didthreaten him with cancer and itscared him. He thinks this hap-pened to him in November, 1975.We talked to him on August 7,1976.

Mr. Graham called the exper-ience a "bad trip" and said hewants to completely forget about it.He made it plain that he didn'twant to talk with us further. Sincea person's privacy must be res-pected, the investigation wasclosed.

What is the truth here? Was thisa hoax or a wild bar room story thatwent further than anticipated?To help answer this question, wedecided to test the one person whowanted to cooperate with us. Wedrew up ten questions designedto test Mr. Smith by using voicestres analysis. A tape was made ofthe questions and answers andanalyzed by one of our consultantswho uses this technique in hisprofession. No unusual stress wasnoted. Mr. Smith, at least, is notknowingly involved in a hoax.

What is the value of this story?By itself, it is a minor event in UFOlore. However, if other casesare discovered with some of thesame strangeness factors notedherein, then this story may be quitevaluable. Someday, these smallpieces may lead to the ansers wehave all been searching for.

So, this is as far as we can gowith this case. UFO investigationhas its rewards and disappoint-ments. This case had a little ofboth—the initail excitement of thechase and the disappointment when

the truth slipped away. But, thatis the name of the game. It's whatkeeps us all chasing those elusivelights in the night.

(1) Other CCAP investigators wereWarren Nicholson, Becky Minshall,and Tim Wagner.

(2) Hynek, J. Allen, "The Embar-rassment of Riches", MUFONProceedings, 1973, pp 62-66.

(3) For another abduction casewhere breathing ability wasimpaired see the article on theabduction of three Kentuckywomen in the October 19, 1976issue of the National Enquirer.

(Continued from page 8)

When I interviewed J.F. Herr onJune 10, he informed me that hisSan Diego group, called PrecisionMonitoring Systems, had obtainedthe hardware for computer photo-enhancement, but that it has to berefurbished. Eventually his group,which consists of scientists and en-gineers, will provide a facility forcontinuation of this important work.In addition, I have learned of ascientist (physical optics) at a majoruniversity doing enhancement ofUFO photographs; he is willing todo so free of charge, provided thepicture is strongly "promising."In other words, it should be astrong phot case with all availabletechnical and other informationnailed down. Anyone having such aphoto case should outline thedocumentation and send a print orsketch to me, and I will act as inter-mediary.

MUFON-NC First AnnualTraining Conference By George Faucett

The Mutual UFO Network, Inc.(MUFON) of North Carolina heldits first annual training conferencein Winston Salem on Saturday,June 25 and Sunday, June 26,1977 in conjunction with the obser-vance of the 30th anniversary ofUFOs in modern times with thesighting of nine mysterious flyingobjects over Mount Rainer, Wash-ington State by a private pilotKenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947.

The program and training con-ference attracted 30 investigators,researchers and representativesof the Mutual UFO Network fromLexington, Winston Salem, Boone,Pfafftown, Lincolnton, MountOlive, Matthews, Wadesboro,Greensboro, and Jacksonville.The two day confab was hosted byofficers and members of the TarHeel UFO Study Group with stateheadquarters in Winston Salem.Some of their members are alsomembers of MUFON. Both groupsare interested in resolving themysteries of the UFO phenomenon.A large number of exhibits andprinted materials were availableat the conference, but the variousspeakers keynoted the trainingsessions, which were held at theHanes Mall Shopping Center andthe Forsyth County AgricultureBuilding.

The conference was opened byNorth Carolina State Director ofMUFON George D. Fawcett, whoextended a cordial welcome tothose present and the greetings ofWalter H. Andrus, Jr., MUFON'sinternational director in Sequin,Texas.

After several opening announce-ments, engineer Wayne LaPorte ofMatthews and State SectionDirector for Mecklenburg, Cabar-rus, Gaston and Union Countiesspoke on "Investigations of theFall-Winter UFO Wave nearGastonia." LaPorte used models ofUFOs, based on eyewitness ac-counts to illustrate his talk. He alsoused charts and diagrams and dis-tributed them to the group foruse with future investigations.

Nolie L. Bell, a Winston Salemengineer and current president ofthe Tar Heel UFO Study Group wasthe next speaker. His topic, "AGeneral Approach to UFO Investi-gations", included parts of a 30hour investigative training courseused by his group to train their owninvestigators. Hints on how tohandle first-hand future fieldinvestigations, based on pastexperiences in the field shouldprove to be an invaluable tool forMUFON representatives in theyears that lie ahead. Bell is theState Section Director for Davidson,Rockingham, Guilford and Ran-dolph Counties.

After supper, George D. Fawcetta newsman from Lincolnton pre-sented a slike-lecture presentationon "UFO Characteristics", whichcovered shapes, sizes, colors,sounds, maneuvers, smells and ef-fects of UFOs on humans, animals,soil samples, instruments andmachines. These characteristicshave remained both persistentand consistent on a global basis forover 30 years now, Fawcett noted.Fawcett, a UFO investigator and

researcher for 32 years now was theauthor of the highly illustrated1975 book "Quarter CenturyStudies of UFOs in Florida, NorthCarolina and Tennessee." He alsoserves as a MUFON field investi-gator for both Lincoln and CatawbaCounties.

A college chaplain from MountOlive, Frank R. Harrison, who isthe State Section Director forWayne, Lenoir, Sampson andDuplin Counties was the lastspeaker of the evening. His topic"UFO Investigations In Easternand Southeastern North Carolina"centered around UFO encounters atthe Seymour Johnson Air ForceBase in Goldsboro and a UFOlanding he personally investigatedfor the Center for UFO Studies,which occurred at Lumberton in1975. The Air Force sighting in-volved both visual and radar track-ings, while the Lumberton caseinvolved multiple eyewitnessesand ground markings.

The morning sessions on Sundayopened with a panel discussion onthe topic with Dan Duke, a collegeprofessor in Boone, joining LaPorteHarrison and Bell on the panel.Questions centered around the CIAand USAF secrecy on UFOs, theridicule curtain, UFO landingsand occupants, UFO fragments,the Men-In-Black controversaryand the need for more governmentor foundation funding for futureUFO investigations and research.

W.D. Redfearn, a high schoolprincipal from Jacksonville and theState Section Director for Onslow,Pender, Carteret, Jones, Craven

11

and Pamlico Counties reported onrecent UFO sightings in Swansborpand Onslow County. Redfearn re-ported on another sighting that lefta 24 foot in diameter circle on theground.

George D. Fawcett and his wifeShirley reported on a 1930 UFOlanding, which included four UFOoccupants, working in teams oftwo picking up soil samples nearChatham, Va. seen by dozens ofwitnesses at the time. This hiddencase is still currently under in-vestigation. The surviving lonewitness to date interviewed is. onewhich is earmarked for futurefollow-up inquiries.

A final presentation was givenby Fawcett, who used the MUFONField Investigator's Manuel, alongwith transparencies to teachthose present how to use the man-uel and its ontents for future UFOfield investigations. A lively ques-tion-answer period was part of thepresentation.

It was agree by all present thatthe second MUFON of NC TrainingConference should be held in 1978and Dan Duke(8oone), Nolie Bell(Winston Salem), David Oldham(Greensboro) and Ray Rhein(Pfaf-ftown) accepted the committee ap-pointment. Rhein agreed to chairthe committee.

State Director George D. Fawcettadjourned the 1st Annual MUFONOf NC Training Conference. Theconference had lasted for a totalof 16 hours and had attracted30 investigators and researchersfrom 10 towns and cities in NorthCarolina. Both MUFON and TarHeel UFO Study Group officialstermed the event a "big success."It was agreed that the second con-ference should prove to be an evenbetter one.12

On The Existance OfAlternate

Realities

Some Physicists and other be-havioral scientists have begun tonotice an uncanny similarity bet-ween the "world view" of modernphysics and the strange ideas es-pressed by serious mystics.(1) Iexcjude from the latter categorythose popular performers who areinclined to bend keys or publicizeencounters with ectoplasm.The "genuine" mystics come backto reality from elusive states ofhigher consciousness where theyhave allegedly experienced asufficient "oneness" with nature todescribe discoveries of modernphysics. These wierd states ofperception have no tie with casu-ality or the familiar rigid structureof space and time that we take soeasily for granted.

Scientific instruments cannot besent along into these "spaces"of altered experience; indeed theprocess of science is unable todeal adequately with mysticsbecause of the entirely personalnature of their experience. Theusual requirements of reporduci-bility and falsification cannot bemet. Yet too many mystics agreeto a significant extent about what

by Theodore SpicklerAssociate Professor of PhysicsWest Liberty State College

it is that can be experienced outthere and these experiences line uptoo well with discoveries of physics;we dare not dismiss the possibilitythat alternate realities exist!

The rigid and premature erectionof a barrier around our own mater-ialistic world that blindly cuts offthe possibility of a larger anddifferent kind of reality would bethe height of intellectual arroganceand utterly against the spirit ofscience. UFO investigators whofollow such a path might find them-selves chasing after sightings,counting port holes, and forevermissing the pointl

Its really very simple everyone,just keep an open,.honest, mind;do not get caught into BELIEVINGanything.

(1) For excellent reading I suggest:The Crack in the Cosmic EggJ.C. Pearce, Pocket BooksThe Center of the Cyclone,Dr. John Lilly, BantamThe Medium, the Mystic,and the Physicist, Dr. L.LeshanThe Tao of Physics, Dr. F.Capra, Random House

Lucius Foriih

In Others5 WordsThe two leading weekly tabloids

have virtually neglected UFOs inrecent weeks, but the apparentincrease in UFO sightings willprobably inspire more articles inthe near future. THE STAR carrieda short report on the Los Angelesarea sightings in their issue forMay 17.

An interesting article on theTravis Walton case and the con-troversy surrounding it may befound in the June issue of PENT-HOUSE. The author of the article,Bill Barry, is in the process ofwriting a book on Walton's claimedexperience. Additional detailswill be presented as they becomeavailable.

The July issue of UFO REPORTcontains articles by Gene Steinberg,Curt Sutherly, Ronald Anderson,B. Ann Slate, and others, includingan interview with Dr. David M.Jacobs, author of THE UFO CON-TROVERSY IN AMERICA.

The quality of the material inthe July issue of ARGOSY UFOseems to have declined somewhatfrom recent issues, but perhapsthis is only temporary. Contributorsinclude Robert Barrow, Don WorleyGeorge Friedrich, Bill Quinaltyand others.

And now we come to the Julyissue of OFFICIAL UFO! First,if you've seen the issue and haveread the letter from the "dis-traught mother" on the front cover,don't believe a word of it. ' It is

totally fictional, concocted by thepublisher in order to (hopefully)boost circulation. Dennis Hauckis resigning as editor of OFFICIALUFO because of this action. I pre-dict that things will go downhillrapidly after Dennis' departure andif OFFICIAL UFO is still "alive"in 1978, I'll be greatly surprised.The same is true for the otherCountrywide magazine whichDennis has been editing, ANCIENTASTRONAUTS. It's a shame tosee publications die solely becauseof the greed of publishers, but suchis the case in this instance. Also,as if the cover price of $1.50 perissue were not rip-off enough, theJuly issue is Vol.2, No.5, whereasthe previous issue (May) was Vol.2,No. 3. That is, there is no Vol. 2,No.4 issue of OFFICIAL UFO, butif you are a subscriber, you will becharged for this non-existent issue,unless you protest (as I certainlyhope you will). Now, having saidall this, let me also say that the Julyissue contains articles by GeorgeEarley, Allen Benz, Don Worley,Don Wilson and others which arewell worth reading, if you can getpast the cover. 1

The #6 (Summer) issue of TRUEFLYING SAUCERS & UFOS is nowavailable. A couple of the articles—by Robert Barrow and WendelleStevens—are worth your attention,but the majority of the issue ismore rehash.

BEYOND REALITY FOR July-

August contains articles on CBS-TV's less-than-objective viewpointon UFOs and the CIA role in UFOresearch, along with other materialwhich may be of interest to Ufo-logists.

Norman Oliver, one of Britain'sleading UFO researchers and editorof BUFORA JOURNAL, is pro-ducing a series of "Skyquest"cassette tapes which deal withUFOs and astronomy. The first twoUFO tapes—"UFOs and You"and "UFOs Over England"—arenow available, as are the first twoastronomy tapes, "Sky Exploring-Around Polaris" and "Our SolarSystem." The UFO tapes arepriced at $4.50 each by surfacemail ($5.50 by airmail); the astron-omy tapes are $4.25 each by surfacemail ($5.25 by airmail). All tapesare 30 minutes in length. Futuretapes in the UFO series will presentin-depth reports on landing/contactcases in England, includingportions of interviews with witness-es. All tapes are professionalydone and merit your attention.Orders may be sent to Mr. Oliverat 95 Taunton Road - London SE12SPA, England.

Paris Flammonde's UFO EXIST!is now available in a Ballantinepaperback edition at $1.95.

Coral & Jim Lorenzen's newBerkley paperback has beenpostponed until November. Thetitle will be CLOSE ENCOUNTERSTHUR SPACE AND TIME.

13

NEW HAMPSHIRECLOSE ENCOUNTER

By Raymond E. Fowlerand John P. Oswald

This sighting occurred on 24February 1976 at Stratham, N.H.(About 1.25 miles from downtownExeter, N.H.,) Apparently, at leastsince the early 1960's, the generalExeter, N.H. area, has had muchUFO activity including a number ofincidents reported a t . ranges ofless than 3 miles from the witnesslocations .in this particular case.Two . good close-encounters havebeen investigated which occurredrecently and nearby: July ,15,1975 at 0.87 miles range and Feb-ruary 10, 1976, at 1.90 miles range.Two -other interesting local UFOreports were documented in Feb-ruary 1976 (3rd and 12th).

On 26 February 1976, the wit-ness, after having regained'a feel-ing of relative stability and confi-dence, decided she should reporther experience to the Exeter,N.H., Police Department and didso, in person, in the morning.The police informed her that thesighting had technically taken placein Stratham, N.H., and she wasreferred to the Stratham, N.H.,.Police Department. Since no onecould be reached there at that time;the Exeter, Police gave her thetelephone number of a part-timepoliceman employed by Strathamwhich is a very small town. The wit-ness filed a report. The ExeterPolice had also given the witnessmy home phone number.

I became aware of this reportwhen the witness phoned me atabout 9:45 a.m. on 26 February1976. She described the incidentduring the telephone conversation14

D r a w i n g o f o b j e c t m a d e by the eye iun l tness .

and agreed to an in-person inter-view at her home for the followingday at 12:30 p.m.. A taped inter-view was conducted on this datealong with other tasks involvedin the routine investigation of thiscase.

Two other UFO reports are knownto have been made for the nightof 24 February 1976 in this region.

At about 9:28 p.m., on 24 Feb-ruary 1976, Mrs. Jane Smith,age 28, was driving in her auto-mobile alone. She had just left theChildrens' Center, and was drivingthrough the quiet downtown areato reach Portsmouth Avenue.She drove to the edge of Exeter,N.H., going NE on Portsmouth

Avenue. She then turned left ontothe west-bound on-ramp of theRoute #101 by-pass (see maps).Proceeding along the on-ramp,Mrs. Smith looked to her left tocheck for merging traffic mustbefore she was to enter the high-way. At that point, she saw alarge strange lighted object hover-ing low, just above the east-boundlanes, and directly across fromthe intersection of the west-boundon-ramp and the highway. Shestopped her car within the on-rampat the edge of the west-bound laneand directly across from the object,in order to observe it.

Her first impression was that theobject could possibly be a helicopter

with short ski-like landing geardeployed. However, as she sat inthe car scrutinizing the large object,at a range of 20-30 feet, for 2minutes, she realized that she waslooking at a UFO and possibly' 'they" were looking at her. Duringthe 2-minute observation period,no other cars were seen. Her motorwas running, windows up and a.m.radio on. She was wearing glasses.(She has good corrected vision).No sound was heard and she wasnot aware of any E.M. effects.

During her two minute experi-ence, in which time she examinedthe object in detail, Mrs. Smith'smood changed from the initialtotally mundane, through!—sur-prise, curiosity, wonderment,incredibility, a growing terror,and, then, panicked flight. Whenshe concluded that she had to getaway, shw did exactly that. Sheroared away on the by-pass, leavingthe UFO just where it had been.Mrs. Smith said she never lookedback until she had -gone about 5miles. She was nothing more.When she arrived at her homeshe woke up her husband. At thatpoint, still prior to 10:00 p.m.,Mrs. Smith said she was hysterical,i.e., crying and shaking. Mr. Smithconfirmed this and thought at firstthat there had been a terribleaccident as he had never seen hiswife act in that manner before.When he got her calmed sufficientlyshe realted what had happened.Mr. Allen, who drives a tractortrailer truck and gets up at 3:00a.m., said he was still drousy whenhe heard the strange account. WithMrs. Smith not knowing what to doand Mr. Smith being sleepy, theresult was that they both went tobed. Throughout the night, Mrs.

Smith kept waking up abruptlyin a state of fear.

The next day, the witness wasstill upset but could not decide whatto do. On the second day, shewent in person to the Police Stationbright and early in the morning, tomake her report. WShen I inter-viewed Mrs. Smith in the afternoonon Friday (less than 3 full days afterthe incident), she was still nervous.She was smoking a lot and edgy withher child, who she did not want tohear the interview.

The witness sighted a circular•disk-shaped object which hoveredmotionless, in a level attitudedirectly above and beyond the eastbound lane, with its landing gearabout 12 feet above the pavement.The edge closest to her appearedto be directly above the center line.She described the object as being aslarge as a small 4-room house.The body of the craft was smoothbut not shiny. It was not especiallylight or dark. She could not deter-mine the color of the body due toyellow light (low intensity) whichwas directed downward from smallhooded lights around the craft.The hoods or shields on thses smallyellow lights were in form as ifone would cup one's hand againsta wal with the bottom open so thatthe light would be directed down-ward. She could not actually seethe light sources under the littleshields. A silver-colored, metallic-looking rim encircled the upperportion of the craft. The bottomof the object appeared to be flat,or nearly so, with a "black" mark-ing on the edge nearest Mrs. Smith.She could not see the entire bottomdue to darkness or possibly becauseof'some tilt. Therefore, she couldnot see how far the mark extended

across the bottom. The mark lookedlike a black cross, about an inchor so wide and painted on a less-dark surface. Four apparent"legs" extended vertically from theouter portion of the craft's bottomand were spaced equally at 90degree intervals. Each was about4-4.5 feet long, 2 by 4 inches incross section and appeared to godirectly into the bottom of the craftwithout braces. On the end ofeach leg was a horizontal foothaving the same 2 by 4 inch crosssection. The feet, all orientedparallel to the road, were roughly15 inches long with the 4 inch widesurface facing down. (Foot areawas about 60 square inches). Thesurface of the legs was similar tothat of the body of the craft, i.e.,smooth and dark.

A dome was affixed to the top ofthe craft. It had distinct darkbounded sections which all gloweda yellow color. The dome sectionsappeared as though they couldhave been translucent but nothingwas seen inside the dome, such asshadows, etc., even though the wit-ness looked carefully. Thesesections on the dome were notsmooth on the surface but insteadseemed to be covered with manysmall bumps, like a "beaded"surface but instead, seemed to becovered with many small bumps,like a "beaded" surface on someglass shower doors. Mrs. Smithsaid that the sections did lookessentially like a glass material.On the left side of the dome was asteady red-glowing circular light.It was roughly 20 inches in dia-meter. Its color and intensity weresimilar to our red traffic stop.lights-a vivid red.

The large red light and the dome15

glowed as if lit from within. Theyellow dome, which was not inten-sely bright, appeared to be aboutthe same color as the circle of sidelights. (A distinct yellow color withperhaps a trace of green.) The sidelights were of low intensity, as if forlighting a walk-way at night. Lightfrom the UFO was not definitelyobserved falling on the pavement,nor trees or making shadows.If such were the case, it was notobvious to the observer whose mainattention was upon the craft itself.Mrs. Smith studied the objectintently at very close range for.about 2 minutes. She observedthe UFO from inside the closedcar. The car engine was idlingquietly and the radio (AM) playingsoftly. She heard no sound andnoticed no effects. (EM, etc.).The UFO was absolutely stationaryduring the sighting duration.

There is no indication that Mrs.Smith is not telling the truth or thatshe is incapable of normal percep-tion. She was in good health andwas not unduly fatigued. She hadnot used any drug or medicationand had no history of mentalaberations. One can safely con-clude that her experience was notcaused through some mentalmechanism. There are no reason-able precedents in psychologyfor normal unmanipulated peoplehaving experiences like this (i.e.,observing large detailed objects,etc.) except, of course, in other UFOcases. Unless we arbitrarilydecide to change our conceptionsabout human observations at thislate date, we must conclude that themost plausible explanation for thisevent is that Mrs. Smith saw anobject approximately as she hasdescribed it.

Since I think that Mrs. Smith is16

V

P e r s p e c t i v e drawing s h o w s UFO as nit a p p e a r e dabou t 20 f ee t f rom mi i tness1 ca r .

giving an honest account and thatshe did indeed (by any reasonablestandard) view something at closerange which cannot be explainedin terms of present day humanknowledge, I have evaluated hersighting as being in the "signi-ficant" unknown category.

It must be appreciated that whileMrs. Smith did not believe in thereality of UFOs. many other reports

of UFOs have been made in thelocal Exeter, N.H., area over thepast two decades, including anumber that were reportedly seenwithin 2 miles of this particularsighting location. Further, othergood reports were made locallyduring the month of February1976 of which, Mrs. Smith had noknowledge.

Oweing to the circumstance that

the UFO was seen with its "feet" v"^"only about 13 feet above the east-bound half of a road of knowndimension, and, from a known posi-tion at very close-range, a fairlyaccurate estimate can be made ofthe UFOs size. Each of the twolanes is about 11 feet wide with anapproximately 10 foot pavedshoulder on the south side whichin turn is bounded by a low guardrail. Mrs. Smith estimates that theside of the UFO closest to her wasdirectly above the center line ofthe road with its legs extendingdown into the east bound lane. Thisbeing the case, the edge of the UFOfarthest from her would have beenapproximately over the guard rail,hence, a diameter of about 21 feet.

i'/̂ -:;-.V_,

*$M̂fek?4^fo&W7««!ff•&y ••*£*.•!?.,• •Infrared photcgraph taken over the area ofthe sighting.

(Dap of area of the sighting.17

She estimated that the top of theUFOs dome whould have beenabout as high "as a telephone pole"above the pavement and that thefeet were so low that a tall tractor

.trailer truck (13 feet) would haveperhaps hit them. Her husbanddrives a tractor trailer truck and shesupplied this estimate before Iasked for it. She also estimatedthat the UFOs "legs" were 4 to4.5 feet long. The closest ones aredrawn as 1.3 inches long on hersketch with a 5.0 inch craft diameterat 17.5 feet.. However, if the "legs"were drawn only slightly longerthan in their actual proportion,the calculated diameter would havebeen larger. Also, taking a 3.7inch overall height from her sketchwith a 20 foot UFO diametei(5 inches on sketch) yields a calcu-lated UFO height (feet to dome top)of 15 feet. This, plus the 13 footclearance of the "feet" would givethe dome top height above the pave-ment as 28 feet, which, I suppose isapproximately "as tall as a tele-phone pole".

Close-encounters around Exeter,N.H., and elsewhere, in whichapparent landing gear was reportedhave been infrequent. Therefore,it is quite interesting that "legs"and "feet" were reported for theother case of February 10, 1976,which occurred only 1.9 miles awayfrom the Smith sighting location.That particular UFO, reported bytwo reliable adult witnesses, hasalso been investigated and evalua-ted as a "significant" unknown.The "legs" and "feet" in that case,although not seen as well werereported to be about 3 to 3.5 inchessquare in cross-section. A similar-ity in landing gear construction18

can be seen in thse two cases as-well-as for that of a previous welldocumented local case which RayFowler and I investigated.

What function would landinggear serve other than landing andwhy deploy it when not using it?What more logical function can weimagine for the dim yellow sidelights than for lighting the groundall around the side of a landed UFOfor the purposes of occupants dur-ing EVA? In this same vein, egressfrom the bottom of the craft wouldprovide a 4 to 4.5 foot ceiling,just right for short occupants.

Even if the intensity of the sidelights could be varied to permitbetter illumination of the groundduring hovering and low-levelflights, why would they be designedto cover .such a wide arc. (i.e.,180 to 360 degrees?). Possibly theside lights had something to do withpropulsion or attitude control butmy guess would be illumination,especially with the "glass-like"dome "glowing" the same color. .

Note that the "legs" and "feet"reported by Mrs. Smith are similarto the December 14, 1975, case atSalt Springs, Florida which wasreported on page 2 of the January1976 APRO Bulletin. Also, thissame bulletin reports on a NewMexico case from the summer of1972, in which occupants were seenstanding under the edge of a landedcraft with long thin "legs". Thatcraft was actually parked in theroadway of an interstate highway.

(Continued from page 19)

the April 1977 issue Number 113).Based upon his long tenure andexperience in ufology, he is veryqualified to make certain observa-tions of "the state of the art"."In Other Words" by Lucius Parishcontains book reviews and com-ments on newsstand publicationsas evaluated by Lou for the infor-mation of JOURNAL readers,coming from a world recognizedauthority. As Staff members of theJOURNAL, these men are express-ing their personal and un-editedopinions.

The JOURNAL welcomes shortsignificant papers on new dis-closures and facts relating to theresolution of the UFO phenomenon.It is not intended nor will it be avehicle for people to attack otherpeople in ufology. Positive andconsturctive criticism of researchmaterial and studies that eitherfurther develops a point previouslyadvanced or that identifies a possi-ble error by enumerating the cor-rection as viewed by the writer fallinto this category. As Editor ofTHE MUFON UFO JOURNAL,Dennis W. Hauck is held respon-sible for the ultimate decision uponpublished material.

In conclusion, I must emphasizethat MUFON does support theefforts of people who are doingconstructive research in the UFOfield to resolve this phenomenon.This is in direct contrast to the"debunkers", who have beenreceiving entirely too much publi-city in the nations press throughtheir negative comments, withoutfactual evidence to substantiatetheir unjustified claims.

DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE w

The Mutual UFO Network, Inc.is basically a scientific UFO re-search organization of volunteersbanded together to resolve the UFOenigma by combining their talentand resources as prescribed in ourcharter. There is a strong tendencyamong a few MUFON membersand JOURNAL readers to hold theInternational Director responsiblefor every action or statement madeby one of our State or ProvincialDirectors, State Section Directors,National Directors, Board Membersor Consultants if it does not agreewith their own philosophy or view-point. MUFON is composed ofvolunteer leaders in the UFOFIELD THROUGHOUT THEWORLD. When we are dealingwith a controversial issue such asufology, where the answers to thephenomenon are still being sought,any "Saturday Morning Quarter-back" can find some reason tocriticize someone's statement oraction. If the person making thecomplaint can provide positivehelp to correct or imporve thesituation, their comments and sug-gestions are solicited.

Your International Director doesnot intend to engage in a corres-pondence dialogue with each andevery person who "finds fault"with the research efforts of MUFONmembers or their statements tothe press. We have the confidencein our leadership that they areperforming to the best of theirability and their statements expressthe honest facts at their disposalat that point in time. MUFON,unlike other organizations, screenthe people who represent it as our

leaders, based upon their interestin the UFO phenomenon, formaleducation, experience, talent, andrespectability status in their owncommunities. We definitely sup-port their actions, provided theymeet the four basic goals and ob-jectives in MUFON's charter toresolve this perplexing enigma.

Each one of us, in our own way,can contribute to the resolution ofthis phenomenon, justifiably.identified as "the greatest mysteryof our age", by their positiveindividual efforts. The combinedMUFON resources of volunteersworking together in a mutualeffort will be a giant step forward.The scientific and engineeringresources available in MUFON'sleaders and consultants is fabulous,and needs only to be utilized toit's fullest capacity.

To clear up any misunderstand-ing concerning the position of Inter-national Director, the fifteenmembers of the MUFON Board ofDirectors elect the InternationalDirector and corporate officers.Therefore, the Board of Directors isthe governing body of the MutualUFO Network, Inc. MUFON hasmany spokesmen and spokeswomenthroughout the world, representingtheir state or nation, providing theleadership and motivation so vitalto our continued growth as ascientific UFO research organiza-tion. This factor makes MUFONunique in organizational structureand is the key to our successas a truly representative worldwidenon-profit research organization.

To briefly elaborate on specific!points concerning the operations

and philosophy of MUFON, THEFOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED FORREADERS PERUSAL: Since weare dealing with a phenomenon thatpresent day science has been un-able to explain adequately or dupli-cate in the laboratory, no individualhas all of the answers to thisenigma. Therefore, not one of uscan be the sole judge of the theoriesand hypotheses advanced as logicalexplanations. Papers submittedfor publication in THE MUFONUFO JOURNAL will be first eval-uated by the MUFON Consultantshaving the specialized expertiseto judge and test the scientificattributes proposed. They shouldbe reasonably short and concise,with back-up data, if they are tobe published, due to space limita-tions. All submitted papers shouldbe mailed to MUFON at 103Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Texas78155, where they will be repro-duced and forwarded to the ap-propriate consultants for theirevaluation.

We are extremely proud of theStaff members of THE MUFOUFO JOURNAL, since no otherUFO publication has assimulatedthis quantity and quality of talent.The JOURNAL'S Editor, Dennis W.Hauck has established himself inthe UFO publishing field as editorof UFOLOGY and former editor ofOfficial UFO and ANCIENTASTRONAUTS. Associate EditorRichard H. Hall and also MUFONInternational Coordinator, quiteoften utilizes his monthly column"Recapping and Commenting"as an editorial. (For example see

(Continued on page 18)19

RECAPPING AND COMMENTINGBy Richard

(Comments in this month's columnare based, in part, on articlesappearing in the February 1977issue, No.Ill, circulated in June).

Why would a UFO descend ontwo men in a Louisiana fishing boat(Jan. 21, 1977), flooding them ina beam of light that "froze" allactivity and formed a "cone ofsilence"? What could extraterrest-rials possibly be up to, and if notextraterrestrials who?

These questions, though present-ly unanswerable except in termsof outright speculation, are at theheart of the trend toward doubtingthe E-T hypothesis and gropingfor other explanations. For, what-ever they are, UFOs do have apropensity for one-on-one or smallgroup encounters, especially whenthe humans are in vehicles rangingfrom rowboats to helicopters andusually when they are isolated fromother humans.

It is easy to say that they are"studying" us, as a catch-allexplanation, but this raises endlessquestions of why, and to whatend? At any rate, this "personal-ized" attention and capricious(to us) behavior sticks in the crawsof scientists and others who thinkthey know how extraterrestrialsought to behave. But does anyonereally know that, or is one set ofspeculations being substituted foranother?

Most investigators agree thatUFOs observed close-up appearmachine-like and seem to be guidedby intelligence, with roughlyhumanoid occupants often seen too.What, then, is more reasonablethan to test that hypothesis (onedoesn't believe" an hypothesis)as the simplest and most straight-forward explanation?

The controversy centers around

Hall (MUFON Internationaldata that allegedly militates againstnuts-and-bolts technology—abruptor seemingly instantaneous dis-appearances (as in the Californaihelicopter case in this same issue),"impossible" maneuvers, shapechanges, as well as the vast dis-tances in space which many astro-nomers believe makes visitation allbut impossible. These are puzzleswith no simple answers, but they donot preclude explanation in termsof a super-advanced technologywhose workings we would not belikely to fathom. The often citedanalogy holds true: What couldcavemen have made of an over-flight by a Concorde supersonicjet? Or a television picture? Theirconcepts could not possibly haveencompassed these phenomena.

Still, it seems to me that thearguments most often advancedby proponents of other hypothesesagainst ETH are not the theoreticalor technological ones, but thebehavioral ones. The beings don'tbehave "right" or do what they"ought"to. Only preconceivednotions of proper E-T behavior,perhaps overly influenced by a longlegacy of science fiction literature,could lead to that conclusion.

My own best guess is that eitherwe are dealing with a foreignculture from some planet in spacewhose technology is so far beyondours that it defies full explanationwithin our present concepts, or withbeings from other realms or"dimensions" that our presentscience knows nothing about.Neither of these is subject to satis-factory proof unless we can obtainsome hardware, or detailed radarand tracking gear data, that at leastcould tell us that UFOs really arespacecraft of unknown origin. Shortof hard data, we are all left to specu-

Coordinator)late. The only other solution insight is for the beings, whereverfrom, to conclusively communicatewith us and tell us the answers.One effort depends on us, the otheron them. Therefore, I opt for theone that is within our power to dosomething about. We need all theinstrumented data we can get, andthat might at least point us in theright direction.

I Mark R. Herbstrirt

stronomyNotes

THE SKY FOR SEPTEMBER 1977

Mercury—On the 5th it is in infer-ior Conjunction, but by the 21st it isat greatest western elongation,standing about 17 degrees abovethe eastern horizon at sunrise.

Venus—It is visible in the east forabout three hours before sunrise. Itis less than half a degree south ofSaturn on the 18th and about thesame amount north of Regulus onthe 22nd.

Mars—In Gemini, it rises aboutfive hours after sunset and is ap-proaching the meridan at sunrise.

Jupiter—In Gemini, it rises beforemidnight and is nearing the mer-idian at sunrise.

Saturn—In Leo near Regulus, itis now a morning star rising oneor two hours before the sun.

The alpha Aurigid Meteor showeroccurs on the 22nd.