Phil snyder mufon

Phil snyder mufon DEFAULT

Mufon Ufo Journal

Published on July 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 18 | Comments: 0 | Views: 445

Download PDF   Embed   Report





Founded 1967


(USPS 002-970) (ISSN 0270-6822)
103 Oldtowne Rd. Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A. DENNIS W. STACY Editor WALTER H. ANDRUS, JR. International Director and Associate Editor THOMAS P. DEULEY Art Director MILDRED BIESELE Contributing Editor ANN DRUFFEL Contributing Editor ROBERT J. GRIBBLE Columnist ROBERT H. BLETCHMAN Public Relations PAUL CERNY Promotion / Publicity MARGE CHRISTENSEN Public Education REV. BARRY DOWNING Religion and UFOs LUCIUS PARISH Books & Periodicals LOREN GROSS Historian T. SCOTT CRAIN GREG LONG MICHAEL D. SWORDS Staff Writers TED PHILLIPS Landing Trace Cases JOHN F. SCHUESSLER Medical Cases LEONARD STRINGFIELD UFO Crash / Retrieval WALTER N. WEBB Astronomy NORMA E. SHORT DWIGHT CONNELLY DENNIS HAUCK RICHARD H. HALL ROBERT V. PRATT Editor / Publishers Emeritus (Formerly SKYLOOK) The MUFON UFO JOURNAL is published monthly by the Mutual UFO Network, Inc., Seguin, Texas. Membership/Supscription rates: $25.00 per year in the U.S.A.; $30.00 foreign in U.S. funds. Copyright 1990 by the Mutual UFO Network. Second class postage paid at Seguin, Texas. POSTMASTER: Send form 3579 to advise change of address to the MUFON UFO J O U R N A L , 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin,.Texas 781554099.

Following feedback from our readers, we've tried distancing ourselves from some of the current controversies roiling ufology, but it seems the subject will not go away. Rather than sticking our heads in the sand while waiting for it to disappear or evaporate, we've decided that you — the concerned reader and subscriber — should be informed of some of the ongoing developments likely to affect the future of the field. We feel, on one hand, that honesty and open publication will best enable you to make up your own minds about such matters, and, secondly, that those who may feel unduly criticized are quite capable of mounting their own defense, which we welcome. We also apologize for the lateness of the January issue, but have added four additional pages in an effort to compensate and keep current. We have much more material on hand, and hope to be back to our regular schedule next issue. We appreciate your patience.

In this issue

Copyright 1990 by the Mutual UFO Network, Inc. (MUFON), 103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED No part of this document may be reproduced in any form by photostat, microfilm, xerograph, or any other means, without the written permission of the Copyright Owners.

The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Tax under Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a publicly supported organization of the type described in Section 509 (a) (2). Donors may deduct contributions from their Federal Income Tax. In addition, bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of Sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the code.

The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor and do not necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, the staff or MUFON. Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to published articles may be in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or in a short article (up to about 2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: the article author may reply but will be allowed half the wordage used in the response; the responder may answer the author but will be allowed half the wordage used in the author's reply, etc. All submissions are subject to editing for style, clarity, and conciseness. Permission is hereby granted to qoute from this issue provided not more than 200 words are quoted from any one article, the author of the article is given credit, and the statement "Copyright 1990 by the Mutual UFO Network, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155" is included.

What Jung Believed About UFOs
By Dennis Stillings
Author Dennis Stillings directs the Archaeus Project (2402 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55114). This article, along with contributions by Hilary Evans, Michael Persinger, Alvin Lawson, Peter Rojcewicz and others, appears in the current issue of Archaeus 5, available for $8, postage paid, from the above address. In 1958, C. G. Jung published his classical ufological work, Ein moderner Mythus von Dingen, die am Himmel gesehen werden.1 Jung

felt very strongly that the reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) that began in the years 1946-47 portended great social, political, and perhaps even environmental changes. He even tied the UFO phenomenon into the transition from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius.2 The points made by Ein moderner My thus with regard to UFOs are: 1) "Something is seen, but one doesn't know what."3 The word "seen" is qualified here. According to Jung: "The formulation ['Something is seen, but it isn't known what'] leaves
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

the question of 'seeing' open. Something material could be seen, or something psychic could be seen. Both are realities, but of different kinds."4 2) The UFO Phenomenon, whatever its ultimate nature might be, is the focus of projections5 involving archetypal images arising from the collective unconscious. These projections give rise to statements about UFOs and their behavior that can be readily and successfully compared to images and structures found in mythology and folklore. The fact that

this can be done does not say anything about the ultimate origin or nature of the UFO phenomenon. "The apparent physical nature of the UFOs creates such insoluble puzzles for even the best brains, and on the other hand has built up such an impressive legend, that one feels tempted to take them as a ninety-nine per cent psychic product and subject them accordingly to the usual psychological interpretation. Should it be that an unknown physical phenomenon is the outward cause of the myth, this could detract nothing from the myth, for many myths have meteorological and other natural phenomena as accompanying causes which by no means explain them ... For primitive man any object, for instance an old tin that has been thrown away, can suddenly assume the importance of a fetish. This effect is obviously not inherent in the tin, but is a psychic product."6 3) The UFO phenomenon is "real." This aspect of Jung's argument generates a great deal of confusion. Jung often used "real" to refer not only to external physical reality, but to the reality of the psyche. He was far more interested in what he termed "psychic fact." A psychic fact can be any statement, image or belief that someone expresses. Unicorns are a psychic fact and, as such, have a certain psychic reality, part of which still exerts its influence by way of our fascination with stories of such creatures. Therefore one must be very cautious about Jung's use of "real." Jung's positions are fairly conservative ones, to which he attempted to adhere in as rigorous a manner as he could; nevertheless, he took note of the reports available at the time and considered — more or less as a sideline — the evidence for other interpretations of the phenomena. Unfortunately, Jung's purely speculative sallies into alternative interpretations have led to considerable misunderstanding — a very active misunderstanding that was prepared to latch onto anything to feed itself. This misconception has resulted in some ufologists claiming that Jung supported this, that, or^ the other theory, simply because he mentioned it and made a few cogent comments.

C. J. JUNG Jung paid about equal time and attention to speculations that UFOs were insects, 7 that they were generated by parapsychological effects,8 and that they could even be related to ball lightning (giving a prescient nod to Phil Klass) or as-yetunknown manifestations of electromagnetism (anticipating Michael Persinger?)9 as he did to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH). This is especially so if one subtracts the many comments by Jung — comments he would probably not have bothered to make in the normal course of things -- on the physical reality of extraterrestrial flying saucers that were aggressively elicited from him over the years by numbers of eager UFO buffs. Manned by Extraterrestrials? This is the single issue that I wish to address here. My conversations and correspondence with several ufologists has made it abundantly clear to me that evidence of even the weakest of Jung's endorsements of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is of the utmost importance to them.

This in spite of the fact that Jung was that most contemptible of things — an armchair ufologist. He did no fieldwork, he had available only a fraction of the vast ufological literature now available, and he indulged in psychological interpretations of UFO reports — a methodology now entirely out of fashion. Jung's comments on matters ufological, other than the psychological ones, were retailed from the opinions of active ufologists, such as Ruppelt and Keyhoe — reason enough not to become too attached to his pronouncements on issues of the physical reality of UFOs. Be that as it may, the fact that several modern ufologists — and not only ufologists — cite Jung in support of the silliest and most unscientific of ideas has moved me to attempt to clarify as much as possible (and I believe it can be made quite clear) what Jung's position was in regard to extraterrestrial invasion of our airspace. The source for much confusion on Jung's beliefs derives from the letter from Jung to the weekly magazine Weltwoche (Zurich)10 in response to a request for an interview. Several questions and answers followed, and all were printed in the same issue. Translated extracts from his interview were published in Flying Saucer Review (London), in Courier Interplanetaire (Switzerland), and in the APRO Bulletin (U.S.). The extracts were translated in such a way as to give the most favorable impression to the notion that Jung supported a spacecraft theory. None of these tendentious translations were submitted to Jung prior to publication. These extracts received a great deal of publicity and were picked up by the international wire services. Jung's response to those unauthorized articles was unequivocal. "As a result of an article published in the APRO Bulletin" he noted, "the report has been spread by the press that in my opinion the UFOs are physically real. This report is altogether false ... I expressly state that I cannot commit myself on the question to the physical reality or unreality of the UFOs since I do not possess sufficient evidence either for or against."11 And, in a letter to Major Donald E. Keyhoe, Jung wrote: "The article in
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

APRO Bulletin July 1958, which caused all that stir in the press, is unfortunately inaccurate."12 In spite of these clear disavowals, certain ufologists continue, irresponsibly, to cite the spurious extracts in support of their contention that Jung believed in the reality of invading ETs. Timothy Good does just this in Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Coverup.13 In examining Good's claims and the way he presents them, I am not concerned with demonstrating Jung's actual position on UFOs, but merely with showing that Good's account of Jung's position is inaccurate, misleading, and motivated by his own commitment to the ETH. According to Good: "... Jung made a thorough study of UFOs since first becoming interested in 1946, and in addition to being a consultant to the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) wrote a book entitled Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies, which has led sceptics to jump to the conclusion that he regarded the phenomenon as entirely psychological in origin. Nothing could be further from the truth." (p. 435) Good is quite right here. Jung certainly stated that he did not think that — if the reports of sightings were to be regarded as accurate — the UFO phenomenon was purely psychological. Good cites the following passage, which purports to be quoted from Jung: "A purely psychological explanation is ruled out by the fact that a large number of observations indicate a natural one, even a physical one. ... The American Air Force (despite its contradictory statements), as well as the Canadian, consider the observations to be real. ... However, the 'discs' ... do not behave in accordance with physical laws but as though without weight, and they show signs of intelligent guidance, by quasi-human pilots" [Original emphasis], (p. 435) I assume that the passage above is an edited version of: "The possibility of a purely psychological explanation is illusory, for a large number of observations point to a natural phenomenon, or even a physical one ... . Despite its contradictory statements, the American Air Force, as well as the

Canadian, consider the sightings to be 'real,' and have set up special bureaux to collect the reports. The 'disks,' however, that is, the objects themselves, do not behave in accordance with physical laws but as though they were weightless, and they show signs of intelligent guidance such as would suggest quasi-human pilots. Yet the accelerations are so tremendous that no human being could survive them."14 It should be noted that the translation quoted by Good has certain features that are more supportive of the extraterrestrial hypothesis: there are no quotation marks around "real"; the subjunctive phrase "such as would suggest" is replaced by "by," with no qualification; the words set in italics and denoted by Good as "original emphasis" are not the same; and the sentence "Yet the accelerations are so tremendous that no human being could survive them" is left out of the quotation altogether. This last sentence indicates that Jung's assertion of "quasi-human" pilots is based on the inference that human pilots would be killed by the acceleration — not that he had any other special knowledge or information about such hypothesized pilots. Good's quotation is at substantial variance from the version published in the superbly edited Collected Works. It seems apparent that Good is uncritically citing the unauthorized versions of Jung's 1954 statements — versions that even UFO buffs recognize as spurious.15 "Unequivocal" Good also quotes the letter from Jung to Major Donald Keyhoe to support his contention that Jung's position on the government cover-up of UFO information was "unequivocal" : 16 "If it is true that the AAF or the government withholds tale-telling facts, then one can only say that this is the most unpsychological and stupid policy one could invent. It is self-evident that the public ought to be told the truth, because ultimately it will nevertheless come to daylight. There can hardly be any greater shock than the H-bomb and yet everybody knows of it without fainting." "If it is true" is not an unequivocal
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

way of putting things. Jung is unequivocal about his opinion of the military //it is concealing information. He is not unequivocal about whether they are in fact doing so. He is merely speculating. The following quote 17 also originates from the unauthorized extracts: "If ... the extra-terrestrial origin of the phenomena should be confirmed ... it would put us, without doubt, in the extremely precarious position of primitive communities today in conflict with the superior culture of the whites: the rudder would be removed from our grasp, and we should lose our pleasant dreams. "Naturally, it would be chiefly our science and our technology which would have to be consigned to the scrap-heap. What such a catastrophe would mean on the moral plane we can in some sort judge by the ruin of primitive cultures of which we are the witnesses. That the construction of these machines proves a scientific technology, and one immensely superior to ours, admits of no two opinions.18 Just as the Pax Britannica put an end to the disputes between the tribes of Africa, so our world could unroll its Iron Curtain and use it as scrap iron, with all the millions of tons of guns, warships and munitions. But we would have been 'discovered' and colonized — sufficient reason for universal panic! "If we wish to avoid such a catastrophe, the authorities in possession of important information should not hesitate to enlighten the public as soon and as completely as possible and should, above all, stop these ridiculous antics of mysteries and vague allusions" [Original emphasis]. The "original emphasis" asserted by Good does not appear in the version to be found in the Collected Works. Apparently, someone also substituted the more definite word "these" for the more hypothetical "such" in the "emphasized" sentence. Good also claims that Jung was a consultant to the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO).19 It is worthwhile to see how Jung regarded this relationship: "My relations with APRO are confined to the following: while I was collecting material for the

above-mentioned book [Flying Saucers], the APRO Bulletin approached me in a friendly manner. When this organization recently asked me if they might consider me to be an honorary member, I consented. I have sent my book to APRO to inform them of my position in regard to the Ufo question. APRO advocates the physical reality of the Ufo with much zeal and idealism. I therefore regard its misleading article as a regrettable accident."20 Scarcely the sort of endorsement one would expect from a committed consultant! It may be that Jung casually agreed to be a consultant, even though he apparently did not remember doing so;21 on the other hand, it is well known how eagerly fledgling organizations with little recognition will leap for the opportunity to include a famous name on the letterhead. This issue is open to speculation. Timothy Good was also the coauthor, along with Lou Zinsstag, of the very silly book, George Adamski: The Untold Story,22 which, among other bizarre arguments designed to rehabilitate Adamski — one of the most thoroughly debunked of UFOhoaxsters — attempts to defend his claim that the other side of the moon has lakes, mountains and vegetation. Lou Zinsstag laments the maliciousness of the Swiss weekly, Weltwoche, for subsequently publishing a note clarifying the misunderstanding provoked by the unauthorized extracts taken from that publication. That note concluded that "... via this intricate path [by way of the unauthorized mistranslations], C. G. Jung was made to look like a gullible believer in flying saucers" (p. 46).

CSI #27
UFO scholars will recognize CSI Publication #27 as, perhaps, the strongest of all attacks on Jung with regard to his position on UFOs. It is anonymous and is very polemical in tone. The sour grapes attitude of the writer leads to some" exceedingly strange arguments, including direct attacks on Jung's ability and knowledge as a psychologist.23 The author of CSI Publication #27

— at least in the early pages of the document — gives the impression of being an intelligent, thorough individual. His reason, however, is soon devoured by a gobbling, abject belief in the ETH. Since many of the points he made in this paper have formed the substance of subsequent publications regarding Jung and UFOs it is worthwhile examining them in some detail. In general, the feeling one gets from the author of the CSI publication is that Jung was, in some sense, supposed to have written a treatise on the reality of extraterrestrials, and that by not doing what he never intended to do, he had somehow betrayed ufologists and had not told the truth. The author is perplexed and angered by the ambiguities and contradictions of Jung's statements. The psychological commentaries are, for him, unintelligible and represent an inexplicable detour from the really important ideas — those concerning the possible reality of the ETH. He tries with considerable energy to throw the psychological ideas out of consideration, even suggesting an alternate way of reading the text of Flying Saucers ... so that one may avoid reading the psychological commentaries altogether.24 The CSI author notwithstanding, we may comfortably assume that Jung, a pioneer psychologist of international standing, really did wish his work to be considered a psychological study. In relation to that, he considered himself to be on an empirical project devoted to elucidating the psychic aspects of the phenomenon. Jung states quite clearly that his expertise and authority do not extend beyond that range. Expecting this to be understood, he ventured what must be regarded as opinions and speculations. For Jung, even those speculations that went beyond the limits of the psychological nevertheless evoked in him new ideas of psychological interest. This fact, combined with his years of psychological investigation, with its inherent ambiguities and paradoxes, produced statements in his writings that, when taken at absolute face value, are indeed contradictory. This, by the way, is not a problem that Jung vengefulMUFON UFO JOURNAL

ly visited upon ufologists. Psychologists — even Jungian psychologists — often have the utmost difficulty in sifting out Jung's exact position on any number of psychological concepts. This is an important point. Jung did not single out his work Flying Saucers as a special opportunity to exercise a newly discovered personal desire to be ambiguous. A little of this ambiguity is relieved, however, by Jung's statement, in 1957, to Lou Zinsstag, a complete saucer believer, that his book on flying saucers would be coming out soon, and that she "would probably not like it much."25 Thus Jung indicated, in advance of publication, that he regarded his book as skeptical with regard to the expectations of the saucer-believer. Let us look at some actual ambiguities and contradictions (other than Jung's ideas of "seeing" and of what is "real") in his UFO book — one example from the "real" and one from the psychological. One of the most definite statements Jung makes is in regard to the detectability of UFOs by radar. I strongly feel that Jung's serious consideration of this and the idea of a government coverup was determined to a large extent by his favorable opinion on Keyhoe's writings and the friendly correspondence he and Keyhoe carried out. Jung's strongest statement with regard to radar occurs in Flying Saucers, p. 413: "So far as I know it remains an established fact, supported by numerous observations, that Ufos have not only been seen visually but also have been picked up on the radar screen and have left traces on the photographic plate. I base myself here not only on the comprehensive reports by Ruppelt and Keyhoe, which leave no room for doubt in this regard, but also on the fact that the astrophysicist, Professor Menzel, has not succeeded, despite all his efforts, in offering a satisfying scientific explanation of even one authentic Ufo report. It boils down to nothing less than this: that either psychic projections throw back a radar echo, or else the appearance of real objects affords an opportunity for mythological projections." Putting aside the fact that the very
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

next sentence after this starts with "Here I must remark that even if the Ufos are physically real ... ," we seem to have pretty positive endorsement of the radar effect. At this point, I must also put aside questions of the state-of-the-art in the 1950s with regard to radar and the glitches, both known and unknown, that might have occurred with greater or lesser frequency. Jung, however, in his irritatingly contradictory style, still expressed skepticism about radar. Early in Flying Saucers, he states that he has consulted with Max Knoll, a radar specialist, and that what he had to say with regard to the reliability of the radar sightings was "not encouraging." In a letter to Charles B. Harnett (Dec. 12, 1957) Jung remarks that "The only tangible fact seems to be the radar echo, but I am informed by experts on radar that such observations are not beyond reasonable doubt."26 But perhaps the most revealing statement by Jung about radar and his real overall opinion occurs in his Flying Saucers: "From many of the reports, particularly the early ones, it is evident that the Ufos can appear suddenly and vanish equally suddenly. They can be tracked by radar but remain invisible to the eye, and conversely, can be seen by the eye but not detected by radar. Ufos can make themselves invisible at will, it is said, and must obviously consist of a substance that is visible at one moment and invisible at the next. The nearest analogy to this is a volatile liquid which condenses out of an invisible state into the form of drops. In reading the old texts one can still feel the miracle of disappearance and reappearance which the alchemists beheld in the vaporization of water or quicksilver ... The fantasies born of musing over the steaming cookingpot — one of the most ancient experiences of mankind — may also be responsible for the sudden disappearance and reappearance of the Ufo." (p. 332f.) Here Jung is quite ready to throw radar in with visual sightings and interpret them together in alchemical terms, as he did with many patients' fantasies and dream images. This inMUFON UFO JOURNAL

dicates very strongly Jung's bias in favor of a psychic/psychological interpretation — even with regard to the physical evidence produced by radar. At the very least,- this passage indicates that Jung was not thinking of the radar evidence in exactly the same way a hard scientist would. This again supports my assertion that, for Jung, the whole manner of discussing reality was quite different from that understood by most people, and by ufologists in particular. This discussion of radar has led to the point where we must consider Jung's ideas of the relationship of psychic phenomena, particularly parapsychological phenomena, to the question of the reality of UFOs. This idea is, again, one of considerable controversy among ufologists and, again, Jung's expression of his ideas on this score seem ambiguous and contradictory. Those quotations that are cited against Jung believing in UFOs as a parapsychological phenomenon are the following: "The ... hypothesis that Ufos are something psychic that is endowed with certain physical properties seems even less probable, for where should such a thing come from? If weightlessness is a hard proposition to swallow, then the notion of a materialized psychism opens a bottomless void under our feet. Parapsychology is, of course, acquainted with the fact of materialization. But this phenomenon depends on the presence of one or more mediums who exude a weighable substance, and it occurs only in their immediate vicinity. The psyche can move the body, but only inside the living organism. That something psychic, possessing material qualities and with a high charge of energy, could appear by itself high in the air at a great distance from any human mediums — this surpasses our comprehension. Here our knowledge leaves us completely in the lurch, and it is therefore pointless to speculate any further in this direction."27 And: "It is hardly possible to [discuss] the analogy of the Saucers with parapsychological phenomena, since a basis for comparison is totally lacking. If we wished to take such a
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

possibility seriously, it would first have to be shown that the "apparitions" are casually connected with psychic states; in other words, that under the influence of certain emotional conditions a major population group experiences the same psychic dissociation and the same exteriorization of psychic energy as does a single medium. All we know at present is that collective visions do exist. But whether collective physical phenomena, such as levitations, apparitions of light, materializations, etc., can also be produced is a moot question. At present any reference to the parapsychological aspect only demonstrates the boundless perplexity in which we find ourselves today."28 I especially want to draw the reader's attention to the context of the emphasized word "physical" in this paragraph. Clearly, Jung also uses the word to cover a range of possibilities. So when Jung says that a merely psychological explanation won't do, he may well be considering sources of physical manifestation exclusive of those familiar to mainstream science. In fact, Jung does consider that parapsychological factors might be involved.29 Early in the text of Flying Saucers,30 he brings up his theory of synchronicity in connection with UFOs, and on p. 411f. he goes into a considerable discussion of parapsychology and psychokinesis in connection with the subject. His statement that "the notion of a materialized psychism opens a bottomless void under our feet" may, without difficulty, be regarded as ironic in tone. Much more explicitly, in a letter to Fowler McCormick (March 20, 1956), Jung writes "One does not even know for certain whether [the Ufo] is a natural phenomenon, or a contrivance invented by beings comparable to men, or rather a beast like animal travelling in space, a sort of huge space-bug, or — last but not least — a parapsychological phenomenon ... ."31 Space Insects & Ambiguity In order to read Jung properly, a definite prerequisite is a high tolerance

for ambiguity. Such tolerance is not a major trait of the average ufologist. But let us leave this topic of Jung's contradictions and ambiguities and go on to some specific criticisms, made by the author of CSI Publication #27, of other aspects of Flying Saucers. One point, which might seem minor to anyone but the author of the CSI document, involves the meaning of the German word Wesenheiten. The author begins by complimenting the translator of Ein moderner Mythus into English, R. F. C. Hull. ... "Hull's translation reads well and is reasonably accurate. However, an important exception should be mentioned: in both Chapter IV and VI J u n g refers to the UFOs as Wesenheiten (beings, entities). And in both places we find that the translator has suppressed this idea, substituting "objects" or "pheonomena" for the correct rendering "entities." The effect is to obscure from the English reader what is perhaps the most interesting point in whole book: Jung's independent rediscovery of the space animal theory."32 After reading the CSI document, one is impressed by how much time and effort the author spent on things less interesting than the space-animal theory. This translation issue was picked up by Richard Toronto in his paper "Did Carl Jung Believe in Flying Saucers?"33 and used (as far as I can tell) to bolster the idea that Jung believed the UFOs to be real — and maybe space insects as well. Having been a graduate student in German literature and a translator for a major biomedical company for a few years, I was suspicious of this translation of Wesenheit, a term that is very difficult to translate. The dictionaries give a variety of possible translations, some of which support the interpretation by the CSI author, and some that do not. Both sorts of interpretation are usable in the context of what Jung was saying. Relying not on dictionaries, then, but rather on common usage, I consulted a prominent German professor at the University of Minnesota by phone. Without giving him any indication of what I was working on, I asked him, first: what the root noun of die Wesenheit — das Wesen — meant.

He laughed, then replied: "There are some words that are impossible to translate. [Das Wesen] means "numinal," "nature," the character of a person, the essence of something. [It is] one of the words Germans love to use because it is so nebulous." I next asked him what die Wesenheit meant. "Ah, that is the abstract34 of das Wesen" He laughed again. "It can even be a term for God. It is the catchall term for anything with a great many aspects. It is an abstraction of an abstraction." It is clear that Jung's choice of the word Wesenheiten was an excellent one. The term could be considered to convey no position at all with regard to the phenomenon; or, if anything, the ideas imbedded in it of the "numinous" and of "God" and "nature" would fit in very well with Jung's general approach. Another error in the CSI publication, which I have difficulty understanding, involves the accusation that Jung "applies 'his' space-animal hypothesis (of whose prior existence he is evidently entirely ignorant) to the interpretation of two UFO cases reported nearly four centuries ago" (p. 7). The problem here is that it seems unlikely that Jung took any special credit for his "discovery," since Jung cites Gerald Heard's hypothesis that flying saucers are a species of bees from Mars. In any case, I know of other nonufological people who have come up with the spaceinsect/space-animal idea independently. Furthermore, Michel Meurger, in his ground breaking study, Lake Monster Traditions: A Cross-Cultural Analysis, has demonstrated, by way of actual field studies, that stories about anomalous animals, such as lake monsters, become transformed — according to the events and spirit of the times — first, into technological contrivances of some familiarity and mystery, such as secret Nazi submarines, and then into much more mysterious UFO-like vehicles with extraordinary performance characteristics.35 This deep folklore connection between anomalous animals and UFOs was unknown to Jung, but he would certainly have found this information useful. Along similar lines,

there is evidence that the legends of the American Indian Trickster figure have been incorporated into reports about "phantom helicopters" and anomalous cattle mutilations. 36 One of the very bizarre ideas that the CSI author puts forward is that Jung's book, Ein moderner Mythus, was intended to be read only by "his coterie of students and admirers, but that when he found his views suddenly thrust into an embarrassing notoriety among the hoi polhi, he yielded to the temptation to beat a strategic retreat"; and "For the press and public, 'scientific' skepticism; for friends and initiates, space insects!" (p. 7) This is, of course, nonsensical. Aside from the fact that Ein moderner Mythus was published by the wellknown Rascher Verlag of Stuttgart, Jung's status, especially in Europe, was such that it was scarcely possible that widespread discussion of the book would not occur. The fact that it didn't cause a Jung-believes-in ETsand-their-spaceships uproar is that most readers of the book were not caught up in the concerns of the ufologist of the time. Since Jung was a famous psychologist, the book was taken for what is was — a psychological monograph. In short, neither the intelligentsia, nor the hoi polloi, read the book from the UFO buff's perspective — a perspective that tends to disregard the straightforward and commonsensical view of Jung's work. It may also be assumed that Europeans, reading Ein moderner Mythus in the original — and therefore without benefit of the "magic" of a ufologist's translation — did not find the work to be indicative of a serious commitment to the "reality" of UFOs. This assertion — that Jung's book was conceived as a quasi-private document on his belief in the reality of UFOs — is further refuted by the fact that Jung expressed himself quite skeptically about UFOs in private correspondence to friends and acquaintances, as can be verified easily by reading his published letters. Much is also made of Jung's concern over notoriety and fear for his scientific reputation. This is the reason, ufologists claim, that he backed down from his pro-ETH position.
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

Again the extreme insularity of ufologists is clearly demonstrated. As has been said, "When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." The fact is that Jung's theories and hypotheses regarding archetypes, the collective unconscious, and synchronicity (to mention but three) were met with tremendous hostility from the scientific community — as his defense of Freud and psychoanalysis had been years before. Later, in spite of the potential consequences to his career, he challenged Freud's considerable authority. The publication of Answer to Job caused an enormous furor that went all the way to the Vatican and engendered attacks from such notables as Martin Buber and Victor White, causing Jung ultimately to lose the close friendship of the latter. In the context of these issues and conflicts having real, immediate, and serious consequences for Jung, ufological squabblings are very small potatoes. There are numerous additional criticisms to be found in CSI Publication #27, but they are simply not worthy of consideration, and reflect a bitterness and disappointment that one usually finds only in cases of extreme religious disillusionment. Jung continued to express skepticism about the reality of UFOs right up until his death. Perhaps Jung's last words on the subject were said to Eugene Rolfe during an intimate interview just six months before Jung's death. A young man, knowing of Rolfe's impending visit to Jung, asked him to ask Jung if he had changed his opinion about flying saucers. Jung responded: "I had no opinion about them! 1 am just interested in them from the psychological side."37 Afterword Some months ago, I felt that one of the simplest ways to find out what Jung believed about flying saucers would be to write to someone who had known him personally and intimately. The most obvious choice for me was Dr. Marie-Louise von Franz. Von Franz had been Jung's student, research assistant, and colleague almost continuously over a period of

some 27 years. She collaborated with Jung on his studies in alchemy, writing a companion volume, Aurora Consurgens, to Jung's difficult late work, Mysterium Coniunctionis, and contributed substantially to the writing of Aion. She also collaborated with Emma Jung (C. G. Jung's wife) on The Grail Legend, and brought this work to completion after Mrs. Jung's death. I wrote to Dr. von Franz regarding Jung's beliefs about flying saucers and received the following reply: Dear Mr. Stillings, Neither the early Jung nor the late Jung believed in the reality of extraterrestrial ufos. He thought there was "outside in matter" something unknown behind it. But he was interested in. that there were such powerful fantasies around them. They are psychically real. In his paper he analyzed the meaning of these fantasies. That's all. All my best wishes Marie-Louise v Franz
Notes 1. Zurich / Stuttgart: Rascher Verlag. This essay appears in English as Flying Saucers: A Modem Myth of Things Seen in the Skies in a number of editions. All references to this work in this paper will be to the authoritative version published in Civilization in Transition, vol. 10 of The Collected Works ofC. G. Jung (CW 10) (New York: Pantheon Books, [1964] 1970), pp. 307-433. Page references are to the 1964 edition. 2. Jung, Flying Saucers, pp. 311-312. 3. Ibid., p. 312. 4. "Statement to the United Press International." In The Symbolic Life, CW 18 (Princeton: N.J.: Princeton University Press, |1953] 1976), p. 631 and n. 5. 5. The Jungian concept of projection is the subject of considerable misunderstanding. Rather than going into a long and complicated discussion of this idea, I will instead refer the reader to Marie-Louise von Franz's book Projection and Re-collection in Jungian Psychology: Reflection of the Soul (La Salle, III.: Open Court, 1980) and to Lee Worth Bailey's article, "Skull's Lantern: Psychological Projection and the Magic Lantern" in Artifex 8, 1 (Spring 1989): 2-10. 6. Flying Saucers, p. 329. It is common for UFO buffs to reject Jung's assertions about the mythological and psychological aspects of the UFO phenomenon. This completely untenable position reveals a deep-seated fear that any such critique might be fatal to their beliefs. One finds similar fears among second-rate artists and writers. Jung, however — in contrast to Freud — rejected the idea that art could be entirely reduced to matters of personal complexes. 7. Ibid., pp. 316, 352. 8. Ibid, pp. 313, 314f., 411f., 416; "Letter to Weltwoche (Zurich), Jhg. 22, no. 1078 (9 July 1954): Further Supplementary Questions." In CW 18, p. 630. 9. "Letter," p. 628f. NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

10 Jhg. 22, no. 1078 (July 9, 1954). 11. "Statement," p. 631. 12. "Letter to Keyhoe." In CW 18, p. 632. 13. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1987. 14 "Letter," p. 627. 15 The anonymous author of CSI (Civilian Saucer Intelligence) Publication #27, saucer believer though he obviously is, even admits that the quotes Good continues to cite at this late date are inaccurate and slanted. See CSI Publication #27 ([New York]: typescript, hand-stamp-dated "Jul 1 1959"), p. 2. 16 Good, p. 436. Compare with the version to be found in "Letter to Keyhoe," p. 633. 17 Good, p. 436. 18 This sentence in italics should be compared with the version to be found in "Letter," p. 629. Of course, Jung means that if there were machines with the performance characteristics indicated by the reports, they would represent a technology far in advance of our own. 19. Good, p. 435. 20. "Statement," p. 632. 21. CSI Publication #27, p. 5. 22. Kent, England: Ceti Publications, 1983. 23. For a calmer evaluation of Jung's contributions in his ufological role, see Ronald D. Story's entry on Jung in The Encyclopedia of UFOs, ed. Ronald D. Story (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 188-189. 24. CSI Publication #27, appendix 3, p. 1. 25. Zinsstag and Good, p. 48. 26. Letters, ed. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffe' vol. 2: 1951-1961 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, [1953] 1975), p. 403. 27 Flying Saucers, p. 416. 28 "Letter," p. 630. 29 Parallels between aspects of UFO reports and phenomena common to parapsychology have been noted by the parapsychologists I. Grattan-Guinness (Society for Psychical Research lecture, 1977 [on audiotape]) and Manfred Cassirer (Parapsychology and the UFO, London, 1988). 30. P. 313. 31 Letters, vol. 2, p. 295. 32. Appendix 3, p. 3. 33 Article in Argosy UFO. Unfortunately, whoever sent this to me years ago did not include the citation. Copies of the article will be sent to whomever is interested. The article is essentially a less polemical summary of the issues stated in CSI Publication #27. 34 The suffix -heit or -keit in German turns the root noun into an abstraction: dasMensch means "man"; die Menschheit means "mankind." As the reader has noted, das Wesen is already abstract and exceedingly vague, hence the German professor's amusement at die Wesenheit. 35. Michel Meurger, Lake Monster Traditions: A Cross-Cultural Analysis (London: Fortean Tomes, 1988), pp. 77, 82, 102-103, 112, 114-115 and 285. 36. Dennis Stillings, "Helicopters, UFOs, and the Psyche." Artifex 7, 3 (Fall 1988): 2-14. 37. Eugene Rolfe, Encounter with Jung (Boston: Sigo Press, 1989), p. 212.

Advise change of address (include county and phone no.) to: MUFON 103 Oldtowne Rd. Seguin, Texas 78155-4099

Therapist and Investigator: A Definition of Roles
By Rima E. Laibow, M.D.
Laibow is a clinical psychotherapist specializing in the treatment of both child and adult patients. She is the coordinator for TREAT - Treatment and Research on Experienced Anomalous Trauma. Laibow lives in New York. Stories of abduction by sentient non-human creatures are changing residence. Where once they were the sole province of religion, folklore and other systems based in belief, today we are confronted with the fascinating prospect of seeing such purported encounters moving into the domain of science and being subjected to the strictures of research, compilation, data-accumulation and analysis. We look at the encounters described with non-human beings and ask, "Are alien abductors REAL?" using REAL to signify physically based experiences, not experiential ones. I propose that alien abductions are real whether they are physical manifestation of anything that has "happened" or not. 1 propose that alien abductions are an appropriate subject of serious scientific concern. This is true whatever our personal belief structure regarding alien abductions demands that we believe about their possible origin. I further propose that alien abductions are of great importance in understanding ourselves, whatever their origin may be. Since examination of the population reporting these experiences reveals a highly symptomatic post traumatic state in many individuals, I further propose that those experiencing the abusive and harmful aspects of alien abductions should be treated with the same respect; concern and therapeutic modalities as victims of rape, terrorism, civil disasters and other lifechanging traumatic events. Alien abductions are popularly thought to have burst upon the scene with Betty and Barney Hill in their celebrated story of an encounter in 1961. In fact, more (and less) well

documented and investigated cases exist earlier (1957), according to Thomas E. Bullard in his exhaustive study (UFO Abductions: The Measure of a Mystery, Fund for UFO Research, 1987). Stories and artifacts suggestive of this sort of episode predate modern society but their interpretation must remain speculative. When the unfolding of the Hill's strange case took place, it was first perceived by Betty and Barney as an anomalous event, then investigated by Walter Webb and others who were active UFO investigators, then taken up by other, non-therapist investigators. Finally, in order to provide the highest quality assistance possible, the help of a qualified professional was sought. Benjamin Simon, M.D. was perceived to have outstanding credentials as a military and civilian psychiatrist. His experience in battle fatigue and hypnosis was thought to give him a rather special and highly applicable expertise in cases which might be roughly similar to the Hill's. In addition, he was seen as having an appropriately disinterested stance: it was assumed that, as a medical practitioner and a trained therapist he would, of course, have no stake whatsoever in what the eventual outcome of the case, (i.e., the "reality" of the trauma) "should" be. In other words, as the significance of the Hill case increased (in terms of their own discomfort and in the estimation of others) the more specialized and expert assistance of a psychotherapist was sought. Ill Prepared In fact, Dr. Simon was ill prepared to pursue the case. His world view, his personal prejudices and his narrow understanding of the appropriate application of hypnosis in traumatic recall as well as the military stance of his clinical approach made him, in this case, a very poor therapist and a disastrously poor researcher. In spite of the data, in spite of the lack of

support for his own beliefs and in spite of the consistent and unshakeable story which Betty and Barney Hill told both in and out of hypnosis, Dr. Simon was unable to shed his prejudices and preconceptions both in the therapy sessions themselves and in the conclusions to which he came. His work provides a paradigm of the practitioner skilled in some areas of therapeutic work who assumes that such skill prepares him for different work which requires significantly different, highly specialized information and experience. Such a therapist can be expected to botch the case just as Dr. Simon did. He can also be expected to use the therapeutic equivalent of blaming and namecalling to relieve himself of responsibility for the poor outcome that his ill-equipped state made inevitable, again just as Dr. Simon did. Such a therapist then labels the patient with pathology where none (or lesser levels of disturbance) exists, consistent with Dr. Simon's conclusions. None the less, while the cautionary lesson is clear, it is also clear that the progression of perceptions and participants which occurred in the Hill case is the one which we see today in the development of our thinking about alien abduction. After the Hills shared their experiences with a public divided in its receptivity, there was little active public focus on the abduction problem. A book or two (like The Andreasson Affair, Fowler, 1979) appeared, but the subject failed to produce much serious concern. Here and there a supermarket journal might pick up the theme but the issue lay dormant (and/or non-existent) in the main. However, in 1981 Budd Hopkins courageously published Missing Time and attracted the attention of a wide segment of the public. He had found (and was found by) a diverse and interesting group of people who, like Betty and Barney Hill had had strange and improbable
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

experiences of various troubling kinds. They were unable to sort out and understand pieces of their lives, scars on their bodies, portions of their emotional and reproductive experiences, phobias, dreams and so forth which affected (and afflicted) them profoundly. They had, like the Hills, segments of time missing and, like the Hills, were distressed and concerned about the unknown and unknowable quality of what they perceived to be anomalous in their lives. Phillip J. Klass (Alien Abductions, A Dangerous Game, Prometheus, 1988) soundly castigates pioneering investigators like Hopkins and David Jacobs for what he deems their temerity and hurtful interventions with abductees. But without their work and writings, papers, etc., those properly trained in the work of assisting in the healing of wounds would likely never have noted the need. Their role in alerting and sensitizing the therapeutic community to this area of concern cannot be overestimated. It is to the credit of the therapeutic community that in slowly but steadily swelling numbers they are confronting this set of therapeutic issues, seeking training and making networking connections with one another to assure the quality and depth of treatment necessary for optimal service to the population which has been abducted either experientially or by physically real creatures in.nuts-and-bolts type crafts. Collaboration The abductees he worked with were assisted by Hopkins in the preliminary investigation of their questions and then, because he knew that delving in the mind, unlocking the trauma and opening the gates of memory is serious business not undertaken casually by either the curious or the unprepared, he sought out Aphrodite Clamar, a PhD in active clinical practice. She carried out the session in her office with Hopkins present as an observer. With the consent of the patients, the material from these sessions formed the core of Hopkins' first book on alien abductions. Thus, Hopkins worked within the structure of an appropriate colMUFON UFO JOURNAL

laboration between himself and a skilled clinician. In doing so, he set up a serviceable model for future work. A therapist is trained to recognize serious mental disturbance, suicidal ideation, depression of various sorts, and psychopathies of a wide variety in all of their manifestations, the existence of serious warning signs of imminent or delayed crisis and so on. If these intrapsychic realities were intuitively obvious, special training would not be required to learn to discern them. The therapist has the resources to medicate a patient if appropriate or to hospitalize a patient if necessary (or arrange for such treatment if he is not medically licensed). Especially if the therapist is a medically trained person, familial, personal arid social histories, including an exhaustive review of systems and a reproductive history is of special significance. The casual association of two seemingly unrelated complaints may provide to the trained and attuned ear crucially important information which the patient, and the abduction researcher, may miss completely. Of course, the same is true on the other hand as well. The clinician may not be competent to carry out a thorough alien abduction research program. The time which he spends dealing with patients is time which the investigator can spend investigating other aspects of the case. Again, casually available events, facts and perceptions may provide valuable clues for understanding the phenomenon which the investigator recognizes as patterns from his studies and research. Thus, just as a thoracic surgeon and a cardiologist may both serve the needs of the same patient, they do so best if their effort is collaborative, not competitive. The thoracic surgeon working closely with the cardiologist must become deeply informed in the other's specialty, but he does not become a specialist by enlarging his base of information to include that of his colleague: he merely becomes a better collaborator. It is to the benefit of the patient to be served by the most skilled person available, not by an interested worker in another area whose passion for understanding and good intentions leads . him to practice a partially
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

mastered skill. In one respect whatever one believes the origin of the abduction experience to be makes no significant difference: the clinical indications for treatment of some sort of posttraumatic-like symptions are frequently abundant in this population. People who experience themselves to have been abducted by aliens are often in severe emotional pain regarding many aspects of the experience. They agonizingly question their own sanity, previous life organization and coping strategies, self-esteem and the capacity for intimacy which they have achieved, their life history and the basic safety with which they may (more or less) confidently predict the course of the ordinary arid expectable events of their lives. If the abduction victim has indeed been the object of repeated (but partially or totally repressed) alien depredations from early childhood on, there is abundant reason to demand that the most highly skilled attention will be brought to bear on the toxic and pervasive impact which such trauma, like the most malignant sort of child abuse, can be expected to have had. The nearly breathtaking capacity of people to cope, to. compensate, to make do, to keep on keeping on in the face of abysmal hurt is amply and heroically demonstrated by the survivors of domestic and social tragedy on every scale. Love, tenderness, humor and resilience manifest themselves comingled with despair, anguish, pain, irrational repetitive and avoidant behavior and isolation. But the cost is also staggering: it requires a well trained, compassionate and skillful therapist to deal with the narrow and broad spectra of impact in such a case. We know from the clear data presented by studies of the survivors of traumatic events that treatment is possible, but true resolution is difficult unless the clinician is specially skilled. We also know that the effects are long term, multigenerational and very damaging when the abuse has been sustained, pervasive, repressed and repeated. The children of the victims of such trauma also become victims. They are at high risk for being deeply hurt through either the symbolic or

explicit repetition of the trauma suffered by their parents. They are also at risk for the damage sustained through being nurtured by parents whose own early lives make the intimacy and trust of the parent-child bond more difficult to create and sustain. These are certainly appropriate areas of intervention for the skilled and specialized talents of a therapist. Therapy is indicated here: the mere uncovering of the repressed material which constitutes the traumatic events is not sufficient. Truly, the real trauma comes later in the damage sustained in the emotional, psychosocial, intrapsychic and interpersonal realm of the abductee's long-term experiences in life. But even if the events have not occurred through such depredation we are still facing squarely the realm of the specialist. Few who have witnessed first hand, or elicited through their own efforts, the unfolding of firsthand stories of alien abduction can remain unconvinced of the genuineness of experience which the story-teller is living. The fears are real, the tears are real, the terror is real and the experience is real. These affects and concepts come from somewhere and must be accounted for. Let us assume that their ultimate origin is entirely within the psyche of the patient. Then, like a dream of terrifying content and reality, they represent significant parts of the unconscious life of the patient metaphorized and concretized for the sake of expression. They are associated with fears, phobias, symptomatic behavior of other sorts. Like any intrapsychic conflict they reside within the internal landscape of the patient and they call out for therapeutic assistance. The same distortions which, according to this hypothesis, create the scenario must be addressed by a therapist if the patient is to be free of the burden of such conflicts and distress. There can be no doubt that these affects are charged with intense emotion and themselves are deeply hurtful to the patient if unresolved. Further, if there is a weakening of the reality testing apparatus because of the intense charge which these conflicts and feelings carry, then there is yet more reason that a therapist,

(whose domain includes affect and its processing) must be the treating person. The discrimination between states of intact and faulty reality testing, unravelling of the strands of conflict and distortion, should be the careful, cautious and informed work of therapy. This work simply cannot be carried out by an untrained person, no matter how well motivated, intuitive, caring or loving such a person is. In fact, the very qualities of deep involvement, fervent advocacy and personal championing which make some investigators such assets to the investigative procedures must be addressed by the qualified therapist. It is not the task of an investigator to monitor his countertransference, but the therapist is required to do so continuously and unremittingly for the good of his patient. But these divergent focuses and requirements are the stuff of which active and fertile collaboration between therapist and investigator can come. It should be noted that only those cases which pique the interest of an investigator will demand such collaboration. It is the task of a therapist to treat patients who require it whether their case material is more or less exciting than another patient's. This represents yet another distinction between investigators and practitioners of the healing arts. Investigators have the luxury of focusing on "interesting cases." Therapists treat people in need of help whether their stories are "new" or not. Whether or not investigators find themselves eager to pursue a particular case, they should regard themselves as morally and ethically bound to offer competent referral to a therapist for the unweaving of the twisted strands of abduction-related experience from the tapestry of the patient's life. Reweaving that tapestry is the work of the ensuing therapy. I assume that both therapists and investigators can be found who are intelligent, compassionate, deeply concerned about the people with whom they work, intellectually rigorous and possessed of boundless energy. But these qualities alone are no substitute for the skills of a professional. The specific diagnostic skills, longitudinal

perspective, clinical experience and objectivity which we can demand of a therapist are not to be had by good will alone. They come from study, experience, supervision, scholarship, the upholding of licensure standards and both required and voluntary continuing education. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the differences between a superb therapist, an adequate one and an inadequate one, and a considerable body of literature exists which concentrates solely on these distinctions. Suffice it to say that caution, recommendations of others knowledgeable in this area and a watchful eye kept open until a trusting and solid therapeutic alliance has been established are as essential here as in any other therapist/patient relationship. And it is well to remember that the general skill base of any competent, compassionate therapist alone is riot sufficient to assure that the correct choice of a therapist has been made. Special training is necessary to treat anomalous trauma. Alien abduction reports are anomalous in several important regards, including the problem of the difficulty of knowing with certainty whether the trauma has taken place at an event level of reality or an experiential one. But clearly, trauma has taken place in the life of the sufferer. For many people reporting abduction experiences, there has been significant trauma. Posttrauma-like states are a clinical reality in this population and require a skilled response. The pain and anguish, helplessness and vulnerability, panic, sense of unsafely, developmental impairments, low self esteem, sleep disturbances, disorders of mood and psychosexual damage which may occur must be dealt with carefully. Coping If the coping mechanisms of the patients are adequate at the time of evaluation, then no therapy would be required. But such a judgement is not a casual one. Therapists spend years learning to make the distinction between when therapeutic intervention is appropriate and when it is not. And the results of such evaluation may not be the same as an uninformed or
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

casual, although well meaning, assessment. There is a massive difference between the investigation of trauma (whatever its origin) and its treatment. Unearthing events, feelings, trauma, etc. frequently does result in the temporary lightening of the symptom burden of the patient. People sometimes do feel better simply when repressed affects are derepressed. But these derepressed affects and experiences have not been kept out of awareness without deep and significant impact on the entire life of the patient. Such impact is rarely consciously known to the patient, so the answers to superficial questions intended to evaluate functional level may be superficially intact-sounding, while the unconscious reality may be that such intact functioning is being achieved only through great internal cost and compromise. These hidden traumatic affects profoundly impact upon personality structures, interpersonal styles, patterns of intimacy, panic, anxiety and phobic responses (which may be designed to ward off these intolerable feelings), mechanisms of ego defense, the sense of self, sexual responses, cognitive systems, communication skills and a myriad other aspects of the ways in which people put themselves together. And each of these areas is profoundly shaken by the release of these affects. It is not sufficient to derepress material, offer a little counseling, some words of comfort and call it a day. And yet reports abound that there are nontherapists active today who do just that. Investigators sometimes feel that their task is research alone and elicit material with scant attention to the issues addressed in this paper. Sometimes they are available for warm and friendly contact and comfort, sometimes they are not. Sometimes the abductee is offered one or two sessions of an hour or so duration in which a bolus of material is uncovered. Follow up may be light to absent. Further contact may be non-existent. In many cases there is neither a support system nor therapeutic contact available post session. Sometimes a patient is assumed to

be in "good hands" after such a level of exploration because he or she is, after all, in therapy. But therapy with a therapist unlearned in this particular area does not necessarily guarantee a suitable outcome for the patient. The scenarios of abuse and tragedy by therapists who, while wellmeaning, are totally unprepared to deal with post traumatic disorders (an area of special skill in itself), let alone post abduction sequelae, are legion. It is the responsibility of therapists to learn enough to either become fully competent in the treatment of these experiences or to learn how, when and to whom referrals may be made. But it is in three way collaboration between investigator investigating, therapist treating and the patient giving permission and active assistance in the sharing of information that this work is properly carried out. There are two more areas in which the needs of the patient are not well served when investigation takes the place of therapeutic treatment and inquiry. The first is protection for patients. When Abraham Flexner made his landmark report on the state of medical education in the United States in 1910, he decried the sorry state of competence assurance existing at that time. Patients were without means to verify that the claims of competence made by their physicians were accurate, that these practitioners had attended or completed (satisfactorily or otherwise) any training in the medical arts at all, that they were using tested, safe or appropriate treatment modalities or that they were accountable for their deeds (or misdeeds) in any appropriate way. There was no redress for malpractice, indeed, a clear definition of malpractice did not exist. Out of this lamentable state of affairs the modern North American system of professional education, training and licensure was created. While the individual qualities of each practitioner is still a variable, a minimum level of competence, accountability and appropriate practice is guaranteed by the licensure system. Membership in professional societies is, in most cases, maintained only when continuing professional education is accomplished. Licenses can be suspended
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

or revoked for the protection of the community. Practitioners are, in general, covered by malpractice insurance, making redress in the form of compensation through litigation possible should it become necessary. Licensed practitioners must maintain (and must protect) their licenses, hospital privileges, academic appointments, institutional affiliations, membership in professional societies and their reputations within the professional and lay communities. Mental health professions are skilled in the ongoing use of supervision. Therapists are accustomed to engaging other members of their own professional community in supervision to assist them when they encounter difficult case material. Investigators do not, in general, make use of this model of conduct, nor are they trained to recognize when it would be appropriate. And by whom would they be supervised? By other investigators, similarly untrained in therapeutic considerations? Because they are licensed by the state, therapists are subject to peer review. Their conduct can be scrutinized and their competence and practices can be adjudged impaired if that is the case. These are heavy burdens for professionals and responsible practitioners regard them with great gravity. Unfortunately, investigators are free of these burdens. Although some have academic and other institutional appointments, they are not accountable for their clinical actions in the same way since their professional responsibilities lie in non-clinical areas. But these burdens of licensure, insurance coverage, hospital, academic and clinical appointments and continuing education all protect the patient, the patient's family and the general level of practice of therapy in the community. Without them, the patient not only has no recourse to remedy of various sorts should the clinical situation go badly, there is no method to assess competence available and no legal, ethical or moral obligation to provide high quality care over as long a period of time as appropriate. Even these safeguards provide only an imperfect safety net, but without it, there is no guarantee whatsoever of any degree of quality

assurance in the clinical skills offered to the abductee undertaking to deal with his internal life. Paid What investigators can and do offer to abductees is the opportunity to be "treated" without charge. Since they are not licensed or trained in the area of therapy, scrupulous investigators like Hopkins and Jacobs do not receive monetary reward directly from the patient for their labors. They are, however, investigators who investigate. They increase their understanding through this investigation, enlarge their data base and, in the case of the reputable and prominent workers, share their increasing knowledge in appropriate and highly useful ways. But they are paid for their labors. Authors are paid to write books and hope to make money from this activity which, in a society like ours, is deemed only right, proper and fitting. Academics write and publish papers, deliver talks, write scholarly and nonscholarly books, teach courses, get tenure, receive promotions, media coverage and may make money from the books they write, too. Television and radio talk shows, movie rights to books, lectures and other activities attendant on the writing of these books generate income through fees, royalties, advances, direct sales and other pathways. These are appropriate rewards to offer to investigators who write, to writers who investigate. Such investigators are privileged to be able to earn part or all of their living through their work with abductees, Yet, curiously, a strange idea has somehow been generated that although it is appropriate for investigators to earn their living through the exercise of their particular skills, it is not similarly appropriate for therapists to be fairly compensated for a similar exercise of their skills. The feeling has somehow developed that it is not appropriate for a therapist to be fairly compensated for the time he expended in the exercise of abduction-related therapy since the investigators "will see me for nothing." This represents a shocking, proPAGE 14

found and highly inappropriate devaluation of the skill and training offered to patients by members of the professional community. All of us who are engaged in the treatment and study of alien abduction experiences realize that, whatever the locus of origin we assign to this phenomenon, we are potentially dealing with a problem of enormous dimensions. The clinical needs of a potentially large population will not be adequately met by the volunteer efforts of the small number of enthusiastic therapists who are in a position to donate a smaller number of sessions to an even smaller number of cases. Indeed, too much eagerness to offer too many hours of cut-rate or free therapy may signal a novice or inadequate therapist and should provoke caution. Instead, we can predict that a significant portion of the hours available for the clinical services of a significant number of well trained and highly skilled practitioners may come to be required to deal with the abduction phenomenon. If we are to engage the sustained commitment of a large number of highly trained and competent professionals in treating these experiences, we must face the reality that the commitment of resources to them for their time and skill is only just. Professionals in private practice earn their livings through the allotment of their time. If we are to involve practitioners of a high level of competence, we must expect them to value their time fairly and support that assessment. Time allotted to one patient cannot be allotted to another. Treatment is demanding of the therapist and requires sustained, simultaneous and careful attention to a huge number of cues, realities, questions, ideas, feelings, diagnostic considerations, clinical decisions, etc. Many psychotherapists make the decision to reduce or eliminate our fees on occasion for humanitarian reasons, but that must be left to the discretion, financial ease and personal choice of the practitioner here just as it is in any other area of clinical practice. In order to have the option of choosing the finest doctor available to us we are, as a society, accustomed to making choices in a free market. We expect doctors to make a living

through the use of their clinical skills. Like investigators, psychotherapists, too, are entitled to use their skills in a climate of fair compensation and patients are entitled to assistance at the highest levels of competence. Abduction research is a field rich in puzzles and the opportunity to increase our understanding of ourselves and our world on many different levels. Tragically, there is no dearth of case material. The area has plenty of room for good minds and different areas of specific competence. The alien abduction phenomenon presents, in fact, too large a picture for any one of us to see alone. But I believe that it is essential for workers in the newly emerging study of Anomalous Trauma to respect scrupulously the special areas of expertise which people in different disciplines, using divergent focuses, can bring to this field. Central to this effort, of course, is the patient whose "interesting case" acts as the bridge linking the therapist and investigator. Both therapist and investigator will, of course, be engaged in a process of research and this is best carried out from a stance of close collaboration. But the investigator is not a therapist and must refrain from acting as if he is one. Therapists and investigators can supplement, support and "crosspollinate" each other through fruitful and appropriate collaborative efforts. Therapists and investigators are practitioners in two quite separate areas of specialization. Each specialty needs to inform and educate the other in open cooperation.


Amateur Radio Net
80 meters — ,3.960 MHz Saturday, 9 p.m. 40 meters — 7.237 MHz Saturday, 8 am. 10 meters — 28.460 MHz Thursday, 8 p.m. All times Eastern Standard or Daylight
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

An MJ-12 Informant
By T. Scott Grain, Jr.
Grain is a staff writer for the MUFON UFO Journal. During the past decade or so, evidence has been accumulating that the U.S. Government was involved in retrieving crashed UFOs and their occupants. A major outlet for these types of cases first surfaced in the summer of 1978, when Ohio researcher Leonard H. Stringfield presented 17 abstracts reviewing 'Retrievals of the Third Kind,' cases of alleged UFOs and occupants in military custody, at the Mutual UFO Network's annual symposium held in Dayton, Ohio that year. Critics of Stringfield's paper argued that because his informants wished to remain anonymous, it was virtually impossible to verify their claims. He continued his quest for more details on the UFO crash retrieval question, and published subsequent updates in 1980 and 1982. But spectacular claims require extraordinary evidence, and Stringfield's anecdotal evidence was insufficient to prove the case. In 1980, noted linguist Charles Berlitz and UFO investigator William L. Moore released a book, The Roswell Incident, that described how the military intervened and kept secret from the American public the recovery of a crashed UFO and occupants outside Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. The case was recently reexamined on the September 20, 1989 episode of NBC-TV's "Unsolved Mysteries," which highlighted several witnesses to the investigation and one informant. The informant, Sappho Henderson of West Hills, California, told how her late husband, Captain Oliver Wendell Henderson, was the pilot who flew the saucer wreckage in the Air Force plane to a base in Dayton, Ohio. Walter G. Haut, who was public-relations officer at Roswell Army Air Force base in July 1947, also appeared on the show, and verified that wreckage from a flying saucer was recovered by the Air Force. In September 1989, UFO researcher Jerome Clark indicated that at

least three dozen new informants have been interviewed, and that the "Roswell incident is surrendering more and more of its secrets, including the biggest ones." Investigators for the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies are making some interesting discoveries, and hopefully a report of their findings will be released in the near future. More Support Support that a UFO did crash near Roswell was^ bolstered up again in 1987, when English writer Timothy Good published for the first time alleged official U.S. Government documents outlining how twelve men working for the U.S. Government orchestrated the recovery and evaluation of a crashed disc that was removed from Roswell, New Mexico, in July 1947. A similar release of this so called 'Briefing Document: Operation Majestic 12' occurred several weeks later in the USA by the research team of William L. Moore, Jaime H. Shandera and Stanton T. Friedman. According to the documents, MJ-12 was a group of distinguished scientists, military and intelligence officials, established by President Harry Truman to control the recovery of UFOs. Newspapers around the globe reported the allegations that the United States Government covered up a UFO crash landing and recovered its occupants. But no official spokesman would confirm that any of this was true. How does one prove MJ-12 exists and the documents are real? Canadian UFO researcher and nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman, was awarded a $16,000 grant by the Fund for UFO Research to answer that question, and he has generated a great deal of information to support the validity of the documents. Unfortunately for Friedman, and the rest of the research community, all the original designated MJ-12 members are dead, so any confirmation must
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

come from second hand information or by locating other supporting documents to prove the case. A progress report of his investigation was made at the 1989 Mutual UFO Network symposium, held in Las Vegas, Nevada. Friedman reported there is "... no indication that the documents are fraudulent and a host of small details which tend towards legitimacy for MJ-12." Working on the assumption that the Majestic-12 documents are authentic, Canadian UFO researcher Grant Cameron and I found an anchor in which to conduct our own investigation. We decided to pursue people, not documents. Since the Briefing Document clearly states the project is a "TOP SECRET Research and Development Intelligence operation" responsible to the President of the United States, Cameron and I went fishing for former members of the R & D Board who were active during the late 1940's and early 1950's. Someone out there had to have knowledge of a project of this magnitude. During our hunt, we discovered another researcher who had been doing a similar check, William Steinman in California. Steinman, author of the book, UFO Crash at Aztec, had been corresponding with Fred Darwin, the former Executive Director of the Guided Missile Committee for the Department of Defense's R & D Board from 1949 to 1954. Steinman asked Darwin who would be likely candidates for a flying saucer recovery operation, if there ever was such a project. His reply is extraordinary, considering he named these people in 1984, three years before the Majestic-12 documents were made public. Darwin listed the following names: 1.) Dr. Vannevar Bush 2.) Dr. Karl T. Compton 3.) Dr. Lloyd Berkner 4.) Dr. Robert F. Rinehart 5.) Dr. Eric A. Walker 6.) Dr. John Von Neumann

Bush and Berkner both appeared on the Majestic-12 list in 1987. One name that came up that we found interesting was Dr. Eric Walker, former President of Pennsylvania State University. The fact that Walker might have been involved originated with American physicist Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher. In the 1950's, Sarbacher was serving as a consultant for the military's R & D Board and was a member of the Guidance & Control panel. In a September 15, 1950 interview with Canadian scientist Wilbert B. Smith, Sarbacher told Smith flying saucers exist, we have not been able to duplicate their performance, and the subject of flying saucers is classified two points higher than the H-bomb. When the contents of this 1950 interview were made public through one of Leonard Stringfield's monographs, "UFO Crash/Retrievals: Amassing the Evidence-Status Report III," in 1982, Steinman managed to find Sarbacher in Palm Beach, Florida, and wrote him for more information. In a letter to Steinman dated November 23, 1983, Sarbacher confirmed he was "... invited to participate in several discussions associated with the reported recoveries, ..." (of UFOs) but that he was unable to attend the meetings. Sarbacher stated that U.S. laboratories analyzed the material that reportedly came from these flying saucer crashes and that the hardware was "... extremely light and very tough." Sarbacher described the beings that controlled the flying saucer to Steinman. He states: "There were reports that instruments or people operating these machines were also of very light weight, sufficient to withstand the tremendous deceleration and acceleration associated with their machinery. I remember in talking with some of the people at the office that I got the impression these "aliens" were constructed like certain insects we have observed on earth, wherein because of the mass the inertial forces involved in operation of these instruments would be quite low." In an October 1985 issue oi Flying Saucer Review, editor Gordon

Creighton gave further details about Sarbacher's involvement in his article, "Top U.S. Scientist Admits Crashed UFOs." Creighton writes that although Sarbacher didn't attend, the meetings about the recoveries were held at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, where officials were to report their findings to scientists connected to the Defense Department's Joint Research and Development Board. Walker During a telephone interview between researcher Stanton Friedman and Robert Sarbacher, he asked Sarbacher if he could recall anyone who attended those meetings. Although he could not recall his name, he named enough clues to Friedman, that when William Steinman reviewed the conversation, all the evidence led to Dr. Eric A. Walker. In the early 1950's, Walker was serving as Executive Secretary of the Research and Development Board, and would have been a logical candidate to be asked to attend UFO retrieval meetings, if they were held. In a letter to Grant Cameron, Steinman said that when he made the discovery, he telephoned Sarbacher and asked him if Dr. Eric Walker was the individual he was trying to remember. Sarbacher's response, according to Steinman, was Walker was the man who attended all those meetings at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. If the evidence we have gathered is true, we now have identified a scientist who was in a position to con-

firm or deny the U.S. Government's crash retrieval program. Steinman states he telephoned Walker on August 30, 1987. According to Steinman's "word for word" telephone transcript of the interview, Dr. Eric A. Walker confirmed attending these meetings at Wright-Patterson AFB regarding the "military recovery of flying saucers, and the bodies of occupants." According to Steinman, Walker acknowledged that he knew of MJ-12, and was familiar with it since 1947. In the interview, Walker tells Steinman to "leave it alone," that he is "delving into an area that you can do absolutely nothing about." Steinman responds that the people have the right to know the truth, and that he is "... not going to drop it." Steinman has been investigating Walker since 1984, and received several letters from Walker, one of which discusses a downed saucer. Grain and Cameron teamed up in the fall of 1987, to learn as much as we could about Walker's involvement, before releasing his name to the public. Although Dr. Walker is being less responsive these days regarding inquiries into his past involvement with UFOs, Cameron and I believe we have gathered enough background material on Dr. Walker to show he was in the right place at the right time to know if the United States had a crashed UFO in military custody. A report of our findings has been assembled in a book, UFOs, MJ-12 and the Government, which we hope to release in the near future.

Calendar of UFO Conferences for 1990
March 30, 31 & April 1 — The First Great UFO/ET/Humanoid/Visitors/Aliens & Abduction Congress, - Holiday Inn, Bordentown, New Jersey (5 miles south of Trenton, N.J.). April 6, 7, 8 — Ozark UFO Conference - Inn of the Ozarks, Eureka Springs, Arkansas. April 28, 29 & 30 — Fourth European Rencontres UFO Congress - Lyon, France. Sponsored by Association D'Etude Sur Les Soucoupes Volantes. May 11, 12 & 13 — 27th Annual National UFO Conference - Holiday Inn Oceanside, Miami Beach, Florida. June 28, 29, 30 — 10th Rocky Mountain Conference on UFO Investigation - University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. July 6, 7,8 — MUFON 1990 International UFO Symposium - Pensacola Hilton, Pensacola, Florida. MUFON UFO JOURNAL NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

MJ-12 Rebuttal
By Robert G. Todd
I can no longer stand by and allow Stanton Friedman's proclamations to go unchallenged. I am convinced by Friedman's various MJ-12 papers and articles that he is more interested in keeping MJ-12 alive and kicking, than he is in reporting his alleged research accurately, honestly and objectively. Indeed his papers and articles contain distortions, exaggerations, and in some cases what appear to be outright deceptions. He has managed to reduce his writings to little more than pro-MJ-12 propaganda, and in the process runs the risk of implicating himself as a willing co-conspirator in the perpetration of a hoax. In the September 1989 issue of The MUFON UFO Journal, Friedman proclaims in his "progress report" on MJ-12 that "None of the objections [to MJ-12 and the MJ-12 documents] raised to date appear to hold up." Despite the obvious conviction with which he makes his statement, it is patently untrue. It's almost as if Stan believes that his making the statement makes the statement true. At best, he expects the world to accept what he says as gospel, and many in the UFO research community are doing just that. In the August 1989 issue of The MUFON UFO Journal, Dennis Stacy reported on the speakers' presentations at the Las Vegas MUFON Symposium. According to Stacy, "Friedman recounted that thus far the controversial MJ-12 briefing document, along with the so-called CutlerTwining and Truman-Forrestal memos, continue to hold water." Let's examine the Cutler-Twining memo and the circumstances surrounding its alleged "discovery." First, let's examine the evidence that proves almost conclusively that the Cutler-Twining (CT) memo was planted in Record Group 341. The CT memo is obviously out of place among the files in which it was "found." It purports to be a carbon copy of a memo from the National

Security Council (NSC) intended for Air Force General Nathan Twining. Presumably, the original of the memo went to General Twining. If so, what is a carbon copy of an NSC memo doing in retired Air Force Intelligence files? The thought that the NSC sent an extra copy to Twining simply isn't rational. Likewise, the thought that the NSC sent a carbon in place of the original is equally ludicrous. The CT memo is filed in entry 267 of Record Group 341. The records in this entry are identified by their Top Secret register numbers. The CT memo does not bear such a number. The number would have been placed on the document by the Air Force, not the NSC, where the memo allegedly originated. More importantly, the records among which the CT memo was located were reviewed by both Air Force reserve intelligence officers, and staff members of the Archives' Records Declassification Division. In a letter dated March 16, 1989, Ed Reese, Friedman's primary Archives contact, informed me that: "In none of these reviews was the Cutler-Twining memorandum identified as present and requiring any special attention. But the declassification guidelines used by both the Air Force and the National Archives personnel would not have permitted them to declassify National Security Council documents. If discovered in the files during any of these reviews such a documents [sic] would have been withdrawn and provided to a National Security Council declassification specialist for final determination. It was never so identified." The purpose of the declassification reviews was to assure that no classified documents would be made available to researchers. As Stan Friedman will agree, the Air Force had only a general knowledge of the documents contained in these files. As a result, the Air Force and Archives reviewers would have to perform a documentNO. 261 JANUARY 1990

by-document review. If such a review were conducted, the memo would have turned up and would have been recognized as requiring special attention. As Reese pointed out, neither the Air Force reviewers nor the Archives reviewers would have been permitted to declassify an NSC document. Planted? As indicated in his writings, Stan Friedman would agree that the CT memo almost certainly had to have been planted by somebody. The question is, Who? Stan Friedman proclaims that the most reasonable theory is that socalled "insiders" planted the memo in the files for Moore and Shandera to find. He wants — and expects — us to believe that certain elements within the MJ-12 organization conducted some kind of surveillance on Friedman's research activities, learned of his interest in Record Group 341, ordered the CT memo stolen from one high-security area at one federal facility and planted in another highsecurity area at another federal facility. In addition, he apparently expects us to believe that these alleged inside sources also went to Ethiopia to pick up a couple of postcards, wrote teasing clues on the postcards hinting at the whereabouts of the CT memo, and then flew off to New Zealand to mail the postcards. In short, Stan's theory requires us to believe a laundry list of improbable — and unproven — events. I contend that the circumstances surrounding the alleged "discovery" of the CT memo point to the most likely suspects: Bill Moore and Jaime Shandera. After all, Friedman himself has claimed that Moore and Shandera were the first researchers to examine these files following the official declassification review in 1985, a review which failed to detect the presence of the CT memo. In fact, for

reasons that mystify me, Friedman makes this claim to show that an outsider couldn't have planted the memo. The apparent implication is that both Moore and Shandera are above suspicion. Since they are above suspicion, and since they were the first researchers to examine these files and the first to discover the CT memo, the only explanation left is that an insider planted the memo for Moore and Shandera to find. As an argument against suspecting Moore and Shandera of planting the memo, Stan Friedman asked me several of what he calls "kind of rhetorical questions." (I suspect they were "kind of rhetorical" because he thought it sufficient to raise the questions, neither expecting nor wanting answers. It would seem he feels that by his stating the questions alone, his points are proven by the questions themselves.) For example, Stan asked why, if Moore and/or Shandera planted the CT memo at the Archives, did they go to all that trouble? Why not just mail the CT memo? He points out that this would have been cheaper than two guys going from California to Washington, D.C. The fact is, there are several excellent reasons. First, Stan himself has told us why Moore and Shandera were at the Ar.chives. Stan had learned of the ongoing declassification review of Top Secret Air Force Intelligence files in Record Group 341. He also learned, through my request for the formerly Top Secret report entitled "Analysis of Flying Object Incidents in the U.S.," that UFO-related documents exist among these files. Moore and Shandera were at the Archives because they were looking for Top Secret, UFO-related Air Force Intelligence records. • They certainly weren't there to find the CT memo, since Friedman has already reported that they didn't catch on to the alleged clues on the alleged postcards until after they "found" the CT memo. Consequently, the expense of two guys going from California to Washington, D.C., can't be cited as a reason why Moore and Shandera wouldn't have planted the memo in the Archives. But that leaves the question of why,

if Moore and Shandera created the CT memo, didn't they simply mail it to themselves and claim it was sent anonymously? Alternately, they could have simply created the document and claimed that one of their alleged "inside sources" gave it to them. This avoids entirely the single most important reason for planting the CT memo in the files at the Archives. If the CT memo had been mailed to Moore or Shandera by an anonymous source, or even if they had claimed it had been furnished by one of their alleged "inside sources," the memo would have been just another suspect document that could not be verified. Although the team of Moore, Shandera and Friedman seem to feel that if a document can't be proven to be a fake, it must be real, more discerning researchers tend to treat documents supplied anonymously as fake until proven authentic, which is not to say these researchers ignore these documents and make no attempts to authenticate them. But by planting the CT memo in the files at the Archives and feigning "discovery," the illusion is created that the document is absolutely authentic. While the Archives cannot say the document is a fake, they are in the unenviable position of having to certify that the document was indeed "found" among their holdings, despite their own misgivings which they have listed in a report filed with the document itself. Critical Evidence There is no other way to turn a completely fake document into a seemingly genuine document. After all, the document was "found" in the official files of the Air Force housed at a government facility. And once the document surfaces and gains acceptance as genuine, it would show clearly that something designated "MJ-12" existed and had close links with the President, the NSC and government personnel Moore, Shandera and Friedman long ago identified as the most likely people to be involved with crashed saucers. Although the CT memo isn't explicit in terms of crashed saucers, it appears to verify the existence of MJ-12 as an organization,

and by implication would tend to support the even more suspect documents Moore, Shandera and Friedman claim were supplied to them by their alleged "inside sources." It would be a deviously clever plan. Although it makes no explicit reference to crashed saucers, the importance of the CT memo can be understood if you think in terms of where the other MJ-12 documents — and the MJ-12 story itself — would be without the CT memo. It remains a critical piece of evidence, both for and against MJ-12. It may be that Moore and Shandera are merely the victims of circumstance. Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding the alleged discovery identify them as the most likely suspects. I didn't invent the circumstances. Now, let's look at the other facts that offer more than enough reason to have what Jean Sider calls "convincing suspicions" that the document isn't genuine. One of the most apparent problems with the CT memo is the classification marking, "Top Secret Restricted," which appears in the upper, righthand corner of the memo. I recognized the marking as suspicious, and so did Barry Greenwood. But more importantly, the personnel at the Eisenhower Library also saw it as suspicious, and in their July 13, 1987 letter to me listed the classification marking as one of the reasons they believe the CT memo is a fake: "The classification marking on this memorandum is one we have never seen on an Eisenhower Administration document. "Top Secret" and "Restricted" are two different levels of classification. There neither is, nor ever was, a classification level known as "Top Secret Restricted." The use of "Restricted" as a classification marking was discontinued in November 1953." It should also be pointed out that when "Restricted" was in use, it was the lowest classification level in existence, while "Top Secret" was the highest. I ask who the authority is here: The Eisenhower Library personnel who work with these records day after day, or self-proclaimed expert Stanton T.
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

Friedman? I believe the answer is obvious. The classification marking on this document is sufficient reason to suspect the CT memo of being fake. Furthermore, the onionskin paper on which the CT memo was typed bears a watermark. So far as I am aware, Stan Friedman has failed to locate even one other official onionskin prepared by or for Cutler which bears such a watermark. Doesn't it strike anybody as odd that of all the Cutler correspondence Stan Friedman claims to have reviewed, not one of them was on the same onionskin paper on which the CT memo was written? Granted, the fact that Friedman has found none does not prove conclusively that none exist. But with all the other irregularities surrounding this document, it certainly can be taken as one of Jean Sider's "convincing suspicions." Granted, too, is the fact that not all NSC materials have been examined to see if they contain carbons made on this particular kind of onionskin paper. But what constitutes a reasonable search? Stan Friedman won't be satisfied until every scrap of paper at the Eisenhower Library has been examined. With that kind of logic, it could never be proven that this single CT memo is the only document on this kind of paper. If all NSC records were to be examined, and none were found to have been prepared using this kind of paper, Stan Friedman would simply turn around and say that the government obviously didn't allow access to all NSC documents. And in his opinion, when it comes to a choice between believing the government and believing Stan Friedman, Stan Friedman wins hands down. Another "convincing suspicion" that the document is not genuine is the fact that it was prepared as if intended for Robert Cutler's signature. As it turns out, Robert Cutler was overseas between July 3rd and July 15th and couldn't possibly have either prepared or signed the original. We know nobody signed the carbon, which may be one reason a carbon was used instead of the original. With a carbon, one wouldn't necessarily expect to find a signature thereby relieving the forger of the risky chore of

attempting to forge an acceptable signature. Stan Friedman points to an earlier Cutler memo which asks Cutler's associates, Coyne and Lay, to keep things moving out of his basket. Friedman states that the CT memo merely advises of changes in an already scheduled meeting, and that either Coyne or Lay would certainly have the authority to send such a memo for Cutler. This is true. But what is also true is that both men had the authority to prepare the memo over their own names, especially considering that Cutler was out of the country and the change in schedule was a relatively trivial administrative matter easily handled in a straightforward manner. But neither of their signatures appears on the memo, nor is there any indication that either man signed for Cutler. Even though Stan Friedman contends that Cutler instructed his staff to keep things moving out of his basket, and Friedman also contends that either Coyne or Lay could have prepared the memo in Cutler's absence, to my knowledge, Stan has failed to find even one other document dating from the time of Cutler's absence which bears Cutler's name, as if intended for Cutler's signature. Since Cutler instructed his staff to move things out of his basket, either Coyne and Lay used their own signatures on other documents prepared for Cutler, with the CT memo being the single exception, or there weren't any other Cutler documents that needed to be moved out of his basket. Since Stan described the NSC as a virtual paper mill, and implies — as does the earlier Cutler memo — that Coyne and Lay would have to handle at least a moderate amount of Cutler's paperwork for him in his absence, it doesn't seem likely that Coyne and Lay handled only the one matter addressed in the CT memo. I asked the Eisenhower Library to look for other records for the period of Cutler's absence to see if there were any that might have been handled by Coyne or Lay but displayed Cutler's name, as if intended for his signature. While cautioning me that their check was limited only to the most obvious files in their holdings, and included
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

only open, declassified materials, they stated: "Our search did not locate any documents in this limited time period with Cutler's name on them, except for Cutler's memo to Lay and Coyne of July 3, 1954 (a memo which he apparently wrote before leaving for Europe)." The July 3, 1954 memo instructed Coyne and Lay to keep things moving out of his basket. In the absence of any other documents from this time period that bear Cutler's name, I must conclude that the most likely explanation is that the forger did not know Cutler was out of the country and that no other such documents exist. Despite Stan's proclamations to the contrary, this remains the most reasonable explanation for the facts available to us. Stan Friedman would have us looking for other documents for the rest of our lives, documents that, in my opinion, probably do not exist. We could report to Stan that we searched every scrap of paper in the Eisenhower Library, and he would reply, "Well, obviously the documents are somewhere else." And then another massive search would ensue. Stan Friedman goes to incredible — literally — lengths to divert suspicion from the CT memo, and from Moore and Shandera. In his Las Vegas paper, for example, he says he reviewed a number of documents and that "A number of items were stamped Restricted Security Information. I found one stamped Confidential Restricted Security Information, and I found another one that was apparently labelled Secret Restricted Security Information." Later he claims that he "sent a few items [to Philip Klass] with RESTRICTED SECURITY INFORMATION, CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED SECURITY INFORMATION and SECRET RESTRICTED SECURITY Information [sic]." The obvious implication of his statements is that these documents somehow show that the "TOP SECRET RESTRICTED" marking on the CT memo is legitimate, thus eliminating one objection to the document. Stan furnished me with copies of these same documents. Even a casual

review will show that the markings on these documents undoubtedly were the result of regrading actions by the government, either upgrading or downgrading. The original classification markings were left on the documents and the new markings were also applied. Not one of these documents show a combined classification, such as that found on the CT memo. What's more, and worse, the nature of the reasons for these markings are so obvious that any attempt to portray them as anything other than the results of regrading actions has to be the result either of gross incompetence or deliberate deception. I leave it to Stan

to select the phrase he considers most appropriate. I don't believe a competent researcher could make an honest mistake by interpreting the meanings of these markings in any other way. The assertion or even the suggestion or implication that these markings somehow validate the markings of the CT memo is completely without merit. Stanton Friedman's papers cannot be relied upon to present an accurate picture of his research and conclusions. I caution the public to take Friedman's conclusions with a ton of salt. His assessments and evaluations sometimes are as spurious as the MJ-12 documents themselves. He is

not an objective investigator, researcher or reporter. While this article has concentrated on the Cutler-Twining memo and Stan Friedman's questionable reporting, numerous problems exist with the other MJ-12 documents, and with MJ-12 as a whole. Although Stan Friedman has proclaimed these problems solved, the reality is that they have not been solved. The sheer number of irregularities associated with MJ-12 and the MJ-12 documents should convince any reasonable person that, in all likelihood, MJ-12 is a cosmic hoax.

Did Huge Triangle Shaped UFO Abduct Two U.S. Jet Fighters in Puerto Rico?
By Jorge Martin MUFON - Puerto Rico
Since 1987 the island of Puerto Rico has been the scene of an important wave of UFO sightings and CEIII's. It all began after a mysterious underground explosion and tremor in the region of the municipalities of Lajas and Cabo Rojo, at the island's southwest corner. In this report I will try to summarize one of the most relevant events — the encounter of two jet fighters with a huge UFO and their disappearance after being abducted in mid-air by the strange craft, an incident that was witnessed by dozens of people who couldn't believe their eyes. The Incident The night of December 28, 1988 developed normally until 7:45 p.m., when many residents of the Maguayo, Betances, Olivares, and Sabana Yeguas communities of the towns of Lajas and Cabo Rojo witnessed something they will never forget. Among the witnesses were Mr. and Mrs. Wilson Sosa and their family, Mr. Charles Manuel Mercado and his family, Mr. Edgardo Plaza and his wife

Carmen, and many others who were at that moment at a store on Luis Monoz Marin street in the Betances area, in Cabo Rojo, and on Road 101, that goes from Lajas to Boqueron, Cabo Rojo, a coastal resort area. Many others observed what happened; the encounter and disappearance of two U.S. jet fighters, from the Olivares and Vertedero sectors of Lajas, and would be able to give more details of the UFO. All witnesses stated that the UFO was triangular shaped and totally silent. Some of those who saw it from the Lajas sector assured us that "it seemed to have some kind of extended appendage in its frontal section with many brilliantly colored lights constantly blinking on and off." Mr. Wilson Sosa, resident of the Betances community in Cabo Rojo, who is a UFO investigator and a great collaborator of ours in this area, explains what he, his wife and children experienced: "Starting at 6:00 p.m., we were seeing jet fighters passing over the area. At 7:45 p.m. or so, we heard some others that were either from the Puerto Rico National Air

Guard or from the U.S. Navy. Even though they were high you could still clearly hear their engines. I was paying strict attention to their fly-over because about a week before another one of those jets, an F-14 or F-15, chased another UFO, a small one, over the Sierra Bermeja (a small mountain ridge) and the Laguna Cartagena (a lagoon), sites related to many of the UFO incidents that have been occurring in this area since 1987. I came out to watch them and then saw that big UFO flying over the Sierra Bermeja. It was enormous! Humongous! It was blinking with many colored lights. I ran and got my binoculars. I could clearly observe that it was triangle-shaped and slightly curved at its rear side. "It made a turn back and then came over, lower and appeared much larger. It was then that we noticed two jet fighters were directly behind it. When the UFO went to the west, one of the planes tried to intercept it and passed in front of it, at which time the UFO veered to the left and made a turn back, reducing its speed. The jets had tried to intercept it three times,
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

and that's when the UFO decreased its speed, almost stopping in mid-air. It was incredible! How something that big could remain almost motionless in the air was unbelievable. Considering its size, it must have been very heavy. The second jet remained at the right side of the UFO while the first one positioned itself at the UFO's left rear side. "Then ... I don't know exactly what happened ... if the jet entered the UFO by the rear, by its rear upper side ... or what. That's when we all yelled because we were afraid there would be a collision and maybe an. explosion due to it." Sosa continued: "The jet in the back just disappeared on top or inside the UFO, because I was seeing everything through my binoculars and it didn't come out from the rear, the upper side or the other sides. I said to myself 'Good heavens; what happened? It disappeared!' The second jet remained very close to the right side of the UFO. It looked very small alongside that huge thing. As the UFO flew a little to the west, the jet disappeared, as well as its engine sound. This was identical to what happened when the first jet seemed to disappear inside the UFO. "That UFO was huge! I tell you that that ship was bigger than this community's baseball park. You could observe its gray metallic structure and great central yellow light that was being emitted from a big bulging luminous circular concave appendage. At the triangle's right 'wing' tip it had brilliant yellow lights, and on the left one it had red ones." (See Sosa's drawing of the UFO as he recalls it.) These details were noted with the aid of his binoculars apparently. After trapping the jets it lowered its position and came very close to the ground over a small pond known in the area as Saman Lake. It stood still in mid-air for a moment ... then straightened its corners and gave off a big flash of light from the central ball of yellow light. It then divided itself in the middle into two different and distinct triangular sections! It was just incredible! The triangle to the right was illuminated in yellow, and the other one in red. That's when they both shot away at great speed, one

to the southeast, and the other one toward the northeast, toward Monte del Estado. "You could see red sparks falling from it when it divided itself," explained Sosa. Mr. Carlos Manuel Mercado, another resident, related what he saw: "My wife Haydee yelled to me 'Manuel, come, run quickly. Look what's coming there!' As I came out to see, Wilson (Mr. Sosa) was calling me too. Then I saw that huge thing like a big light ... at first I couldn't identify what it was. It had a very bright yellow light that almost blinded you, a great yellow light, like a giant spotlight. "Suddenly, I saw two planes coming ... each one at the side of that thing. When they got nearer to that ship ... which I drew here (see drawing by Mr. Mercado) ... one of the jets came and crossed in front of that thing to the left and the other one crossed in front of it from left to right. Then, when they got next to it, we thought that they would collide with it. It stopped in mid air! ... the jets seemed to go inside of it and that's the last we saw of them. Then that thing ... it must have been a ship ... because it was real big ... it then veered back and that's when we noticed that it looked like a triangle. It had some lights on both sides and a great ball of light in the middle, from where the yellow light was emitted. When it veered and stopped over the Saman Pond, it divided itself and one of the sections shot away at great speed to the east and the other one took off to the north. Those jets seemed to be trying to intercept that thing, force it to change its course, which they did on three occasions, until the thing stopped and trapped them. It grabbed them and took them both away! To me that's what happened. "I was real nervous, because that thing was so big, and it was coming straight in our direction, and I shouted 'Those jets are going to collide with that!' ... but instead they seemed to throw themselves into it ... and they just disappeared! At the same moment the noise of their engines stopped. We couldn't hear them anymore." "It was like something out of a science fiction movie, incredible," said Mrs. Eduviges Olmeda, resident of
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

the Finquitas de Betances residential sector. "From our balcony we could see everything. Those planes were circling and getting in front of that thing with the big yellow light ... it was beautiful! ... and suddenly it stopped and the planes seemed to disappear inside of it." Mr. Edwin Olmeda, husband of Eduviges, gave his account of the incident: "That certainly was a UFO, and it was really big. It was glowing with a big yellow light and didn't make a sound as it flew over the area, but the jets did. You know, we recently moved to this place, and this is the second occasion we have seen UFOs over the area. The first one was about three weeks ago, and it was like a flying saucer but shimmering with light. Something is going on around here." The details given by the Olmedas and their children about the incident and the UFO's description are similar to those given by the other witnesses. More Accounts Ivan Cote, a young resident in the Sabana Yeguas sector of the town of Lajas, explained what he saw: "That was between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. I was in the yard and all of a sudden I saw this huge thing like a triangle with big lights and many similar blinking colored lights. Then some military jets arrived and began, I would say, to try to corral that thing, and there were other smaller red luminous objects that were around the triangle and were circling it and seemed to be protecting it from the planes. I really think that thing is what people call a UFO, a flying saucer. Suddenly the planes seemed to enter or be sucked into (it) ... I thought there would be an explosion, a collision ... but they just disappeared. I couldn't see them or hear them anymore. "Then another jet came, but it flew away, apparently because they saw what happened to the other two, and got lost in some clouds while the smaller UFOs with red lights were chasing it. That is all I saw. Those jets did disappear. My grandmother, Josefina Polanco, saw it all, too, because I called her out to see." Ivan's account was important, because it made clear that the big

UFO was apparently being escorted by a number of smaller UFOs which were trying to prevent the jets from getting too close to it. But, whatever happened to the jet that escaped being chased by the smaller UFOs? We have not been able to get more information on it. Youngsters Juan and Jeffrey Acosta, as well as their family, residents in the Vertedero sector of Barrio Olivares, in the town of Lajas, also saw what happened, repeating the details given by all the others. They also made us a drawing of what they saw that night (notice the similarity to the drawing made by Mr. Mercado). The Acosta family stated that "that thing was much bigger than the jets. Those jets seemed like mosquitoes next to It," said Juan. Cover-Up Right after the incident happened, some of the witnesses called me to inform me about it. Having the hour and details of the incident, I called the Federal Aviation Administration office in Isla Verde, where my call was politely attended by a supervisor by the name of Ed Purcell. After informing him about the incident he stated that the FFA knew nothing about any UFO incident in the area or any incident as the one described, but that they were informed that "there was some military movement down in the southwest region in Cabo Rojo and maneuver operations were being done by personnel apparently from the Roosevelt Roads Naval Base, in Ceiba." At the Puerto Rico National Air Guard Muniz Base, also at Isla Verde, we were informed that they knew nothing of the incident, but that if it indeed happened none of their interceptors had anything to do with it because none of their jets were flying that night. We later verified their information with an inside source. The same information was given to us from official sources at the Campamento Santiago National Guard base in Salinas, at the island's southern part. Representatives of the F.U.R.A. (Fast Action United Forces), a special air police force commissioned to fight

against drug smuggling by air radar unit at San German stated that they had no knowledge of such an incident, but showed real interest in it. They told us, as well as a high ranking officer of the Criminal Investigations Corps of the Puerto Rican Police Department in the western zone, that they had noticed that a lot of combat jets were seen overflying the western zone at low altitude over areas not commonly seen before. But, we received a big surprise when we called the next morning, Thursday, December the 29th, to the Roosevelt Road U.S. Naval Base in Ceiba. After asking to talk with someone in the air operations division of the base, we were attended by a gentleman by the name of Burdsey, supervisor of air operations. After informing him of the incident he responded: "That's absurd! It's not true, it's ridiculous! What's more, for better proof, I can tell you that we did not have any personnel in that area either day or night on Wednesday, yesterday. Whoever said that is wrong because it's not true. They must be wrong." We explained to the officer that many people from the area that we personally knew as serious persons called us giving the same details, and he insisted in saying that "... they couldn't have seen that because it's not true. The whole version is absurd." Due to his answer we called back to the Federal Aviation Administration office at Isla Verde to check if they knew anything on such an incident or a UFO report (even though we knew that they have a rule not to say anything to the media about UFOs). An officer by the name of Mirabal received our call. He knew nothing about the incident, but he assured us that"... there were air practices in that area in Cabo Rojo last night. Wednesdays are the official days for practices in that sector, and it is officially notified to the Administration as such." He couldn't explain why Roosevelt Roads Base denied having any jets down there, but he assured us that for all he knew they had air military movement in that area on Wednesday night. Interestingly, later that day I called back to the F.A.A. and another officer

there (who asked me not to give his name) assured me that "I don't know anything on that incident you are talking about, but even so, whenever there is an incident related to UFOs we are not allowed to investigate it, a special investigation is done by a special division of the F.A.A. stationed in Washington, D.C. ..." I was really surprised at his statement because this was the first time, as I recall, that an F.A.A. officer stated that they do investigate UFO sightings and incidents. Definitely, there is an obvious contradiction in the information given to us by the F.A.A. personnel and the one given by the Roosevelt Roads Base officers. Someone is not telling all he knows on the matter, as apparently they want to cover-up this important incident ... and this hushhush attitude emanates from Roosevelt Roads Naval Base. But this is not over yet ... Black Helicopters On December 29, we went to Cabo Rojo and Lajas accompanied by our friends Jose Reyes and his wife Damaris. We interviewed the already mentioned witnesses, as well as many others whose accounts of the incidents are similar to those already described here. Up to now there are more than 60 witnesses of the incident. When we talked to Mr. Carlos Rocafort, supervisor of Air Operations at the El Mani Airport in the city of Mayaguez, next to Cabo Rojo, he stated, (knowing nothing about the incident), that on Wednesday, Dec. 28, at 8:30 p.m. (let's remember the incident happened at 7:45 p.m.) a small military Cessna airplane arrived at the airport with 4 individuals who, as rumors said, "were going to investigate something important that had happened in the area." Looking in the Cabo Rojo - Lajas for more independent witnesses we talked to Mr. Aristides Medina, a retired veteran of the U.S. Army and a resident in La Parguera, a resort area, who told us that: "At about 8:20 p.m. a bunch of black helicopters arrived, and for hours overflew the Sierra Bermeja and the Laguna Cartagena areas without any lights. They did that until about 12:00 a.m. They
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

seemed to be searching for something in that sector. Apparently they tried not to be seen, and were flying low. They definitely were looking for something there, maybe the planes that the UFO took away or some kind of trace. Apparently they were equipped with infrared equipment, and that could explain why they were not using any lights in the search." At dawn, after the choppers left, five U.S. Navy ships and one U.S. Navy carrier were stationed some 15 miles out in the Atlantic ocean just in front of the area known as the Cayo Margarita. They have been stationed at this location for quite sometime. Comments The multiple testimonies and witnesses, all of them independent from one another, and from different sectors in the Cajo Rojo - Lajas region, indicate that the incident of the UFO encounter and the subsequent abduction-disappearance of the two U.S. jet fighters did happen on that night of Wednesday, December 28, 1988, at 7:45 p.m. over the Laguna Cartagena in Cabo Rojo. I must add that there is a possibility that the jets that were abducted were not from the Roosevelt Roads Base, but that they were instead from the U.S. carrier that was stationed some 20 to 25 miles out at sea at that moment. It is very possible that this carrier is the one that helped the U.S.S. Iowa after its unfortunate accident north of Puerto Rico (16-inch gun turret explosion). A week after the incident I was able to talk to a Navy Officer here on the island [whose name I can't give for obvious reasons]. He informed me that "There are radar tapes that show what happened, and they were classified at once and sent to Washington, DC to be analyzed. We were able on the radar systems of the ships that were stationed nearby to see what happened. We saw when the smaller targets on the radar, which represented the jets, merged with a bigger one [the UFO]. After that the big target seemed to split and shot off at great speed. A lid has been placed on the whole incident. Many things like that have been happening, but we are not allowed to comment on

anything we see. Many strange things are happening in the waters of Puerto Rico that should be known." I must say that there is a great amount of information on UFO incidents here on the island of Puerto Rico that seem to indicate that there is some kind of struggle currently going on between the U.S. military and UFOs. Finally, the local government "leased" the area at the Sierra Bermeja and the Laguna Cartagena to the federal government and another extension of the area is currently under control now of the federal government, under the excuse that they are organizing a Voice of America Radio Station in the Sierra Bermeja zone. But to the investigators and residents in the region the real and obvious reason seems to be that they are controlling the area in order to give a constant follow-up to the UFO presence there. Conclusion This is an important case, because if it can be officially proven that those two jets disappeared and some kind of official documentation on the incident can be found through the use of the FOIA, then, as you know, the government would have to make a

statement on the reality of the event, and therefore on the reality of UFOs. Somewhere in the United States four families were notified of the disappearance of their relatives [the pilots of those jets] on 28 December 1988, and some kind of documentation pertaining to those notifications has to exist somewhere. For all I know, Naval Intelligence is in charge of the investigation of the incident and the jets disappearance, so that agency would be a very good place to start sending requests through the FOIA. This case is a solid one due to the fact that there are more than 60 independent witnesses of the incident which can't be easily denied. I hope MUFON can work out this important case as professionally as it has always done in the past, because I'm sure that many more facts will emerge from it. Note: If any member of MUFON, or a serious investigator wants to contact us, he/she can write to: Jorge Martin - Santa Ines street #1671, Altamesa, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00921, or call [809] 761-4210 or [809] 783-9784. You can also call Mr. Wilson Sosa for details on this incident at [809] 851-7934.
(Space limitations prevented including the drawings referred to in this article.)

Looking Back
by Bob Gribble
FORTY YEARS AGO - January 1950: Dr. B. was driving on a highway in isolated Bahia Blanca Province, Argentina (exact date unknown), when he saw a metallicappearing, disc-shaped object resting on the ground just off the road to his left. He stopped the car and watched the craft for a few moments. Except for a flashing light on top, nothing transpired, so he decided to approach it. There was an opening in the side and he looked in. A red light was pulsating in the dome at one-second intervals, but the vehicle seemed to be empty, so he crawled through the small opening. Inside, he looked around and immediately saw that the craft was not deserted — there were three small
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

men in the circular enclosure. One sat at what appeared to be a control chair in the center, and two were lying on lounges along a curved wall. Another curved couch was empty. All three were dressed in brown tight-fitting overalls that exposed only the hands and the face; their feet were encased in some kind of boots. Dr. B. estimated they were about four feet tall, their skin a tobacco-brown, their eyes light colored. He could not distinguish colors too well, for the light was not good. In front of the little man in the center chair varied-colored rays were playing across what looked like a television screen, on top of which was a rotating globe of glass or other transparent material. Dr. B. touched one of the beings,

which felt rigid. It was then, he said, that he got the feeling he was in the presence of some kind of alien life. He rushed out of the vehicle, got to his car and sped off, not stopping until he reached his hotel about 75 miles away, where he related the incident to friends. The next morning Dr. B. and some friends returned to the landing site but the disc was gone. They did, however, find a pile of gray ashes which were warm to the touch and which turned their hands green on contact. Hovering overhead was a cigar-shaped craft with two small disc-shaped vehicles nearby. A few seconds later, the two discs merged with the larger vehicle, which then turned a blood-red color and went into a high speed vertical climb and out of sight in a few seconds. For weeks afterward Dr. B. suffered from a strange skin irritation, fever and blisters.


THIRTY YEARS AGO - January 1960: On the third, Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, of Washington, D.C., in a sermon in Baltimore, Maryland, concluding the week-long 175th anniversary of the Methodist Church in America, said we will come to know the people who populate the great planets of the universe in the not too distant future. "The future will at least be a period of stretched minds, with fundamental readjustment in the world of philosophy, and of course, theology," he said. "Before another 175 years have passed, we will have conquered space and come to know the thinking, the culture, the dreams, the problems, the limitations of the people who populate the great planets of the universe. The next 175 years must be characterized by an intellect big enough to speak out a new philosophy, to use new power to create and maintain peace."

feet in diameter, but the glare was so blinding I couldn't see any details. I jumped out and saw it hovering above me. I was so rattled, I pulled out my revolver, but something kept me from firing." The disc remained over the car for about three minutes, then began to move, climbing faster than any jet and disappearing into the clouds.

THIRTY FIVE YEARS AGO January 1955: Dr. V. Hajek, a Czechoslovakian engineer, and his wife were returning to Melbourne, Australia, from a motorcycle trip to Adelaide on the llth when a strange event occurred. "Midway across a small bridge outside Torquay I heard a dreadful noise. I thought the bridge was collapsing, and as I turned my head I saw out of the corner of my eye an object like a large metal propeller rotating at high speed," Hajek said. "It was making a noise much louder than a Vickers-Viscount jet. The noise seemed to be superimposed on a sizzling sound of high pitch. "A clearer view of the craft, which was traveling at a speed between 700 and 800 mph about a quarter of a mile from me and approximately 300 feet up, showed me that it was elliptical and highly polished. It was slightly blurred because of the rotating motion, but it gave me the impression of a large propeller spinning at terrific speed." Dr. Hajek estimated the vehicle as about 40 feet in diameter. It was in his sight for about 12 seconds. It climbed rapidly, leaving no vapor trail. Mrs. Hajek supported her husband's statement.

TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO January 1965: There was a nearcollision between a delta-shaped object and an aircraft at dusk on the third, as a four-engine Electra airliner operated by a major airline, was approaching Washington, D.C. Several miles from the airport, the flight crew sighted what they thought was an ordinary aircraft. Abruptly it turned and moved swiftly toward the Electra, a huge craft showing a black silhouette in the dusk. The Captain yelled out, "What the hell is it?" Suddenly, the vehicle turned away and disappeared at tremendous speed.

About 20 hours later and eight miles west of Lynden, at 8:20 p.m., a mother and three daughters at Custer, Washington, watched while a huge glowing object descended from the sky and landed near their house. The intense light illuminated the surrounding area, including the side of the house and the yard. The craft remained grounded for several minutes, then ascended vertically in a burst of speed and disappeared. Investigators found, in the 16 or so inches of snow, a large circular imprint about 10 to 12 feet in diameter, while the ground beneath the melted snow ring showed evidence of having been scorched. Oval-shaped tracks eight inches long and eight inches apart, in single file, were found leading from the landing site to a clump of evergreens, where they disappeared.

Just after midnight on the 12th, Department of Justice Inspector Robert E. Kerringer was on patrol duty north of Lynden, Washington, when a bright glow suddenly lit up the ground. "It was so powerful," Kerringer said, "I could see farm buildings in the distance. I was about to stop and get out when this huge shining, thing swooped down, right over the car. The thing was round, about 30

TWENTY YEARS AGO January 1970: Mrs. Doreen Kendall, RN, reported she saw a bright, circular object about 50 feet in diameter, containing two human-like occupants, hover only 40 feet from the hospital where she worked in Duncan, British Columbia, Canada. Mrs. Kendall said the two male-type figures were inside a brightly-lit dome on the disc-shaped craft. She said she had gone into the extended-care wing on the second floor of the hospital to examine a patient around 5 a.m. on the first. The nurse pulled back a curtain by the bed and found herself looking at the glowing dome of the craft, stationary in the air opposite the children's ward, one floor above her. It was slightly tipped downwards towards her, 40 feet away, and 60 feet off the ground. At first she could only see the upper halves of the figures inside, but
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

when the vehicle later tilted she got an even better look. Kendall said the craft was silvery and metallic, with a "necklace of lights" around the middle. The two figures inside the dome had "strikingly good looking physiques," and were clothed in tight-fitting uniforms of a soft-looking material. One stood before a glowing, chromecolored instrument panel while the other, either shorter or standing in a recessed spot, stood behind him. Both had stools to sit on, she said. The vehicle emitted no sound. After a few moments, the second occupant, sensing he was being watched, turned to look directly at her. He was wearing a darkish fabric, similar to his uniform and headgear, which obscured his facial features. He touched the "pilot" with his ungloved hand, which was fleshtoned and human-like. The pilot pulled back, forward, then back again on a control lever and the craft tilted sideways, affording Mrs. Kendall an excellent view of the interior. She said the dome appeared to be lit from below rather than from above. She added that she felt no fear, but called out when it appeared the vehicle was about to leave. Mrs. Freda Wilson, another nurse, arrived a step ahead of five other hospital employees who watched the craft circle slowly and finally disappear to the north. Mrs. Kendall said the vehicle seemed to almost touch the patio outside the hospital, and in size spanned about five hospital windows.

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO January 1975: The strange object came in from the west about three in the morning and landed in time to be seen by a passing car about 60 feet away. George O'Barski was driving near North Hudson Park in New Jersey, just across the Hudson River from Manhattan, New York. It was the week of the 12th. On this particular morning, O'Barski, 72, was taking an accustomed shortcut, listening to his car radio, when static began to interfere with the music. He slowed down, fiddled with the dial, then heard on his left a droning sound. A bright, large object flew by on the

other side of a row of trees, traveling in the same direction as his car. In seconds it stopped, hovering about 10 feet above the ground. The craft, he said, was about 30 feet in diameter, flat on the bottom, with vertical sides and a domed top. Its maximum height was about eight feet. It was surrounded with regularly spaced vertical windows, a foot and a half wide and an equal distance apart. The vehicle itself was dark but intense light shone from the windows, illuminating the ground nearby. As the craft hovered, a ladder apparatus appeared at one side, a vertical door opened, and uniformed figures descended. There were at least nine of them, each clad in a light-colored coverall and about three and a half feet tall. Their faces were not visible because of some kind of helmet. He kept his car moving slowly, but the beings paid no attention to him. Each carried a large spoon-like tool and a little bag with a handle. They moved quickly, spooning the dirt into their bags. In a few moments they were back inside, and the vehicle ascended, moving north. O'Barski, at his closest, was 60 feet away. The entire incident took place in less than four minutes. The next morning George went back to the park and walked over to the spot where the craft had landed, one mile west of Broadway, in downtown New York City. There, in a small area, were about 15 little holes, about five or six inches deep. On Thursday morning, January 15, 1976, at 3:00 a.m., almost exactly a year after the first landing, a UFO landed in the same spot. Two witnesses observed the landing; neither knew about the January 1975 sighting. (Editor's note: This is the case that motivated Budd Hopkins to become interested in the UFO phenomenon.)

with white lights. A strip along the bottom was Y-shaped," Mrs. White said. "The ship itself looked like a great big ball covered with tiny red lights. The whole thing had a greenish hue." More than 200 residents subsequently reported seeing "space ships" hovering overhead since the first of the month. Residents say they have seen smaller craft launched from a mother ship, about six at a time. In a matter of minutes, there would be 12 or 18 smaller craft around. When all of the satellites rejoin the carrier, "It shoots straight up and disappears." (Editor's note: Norma White is a former State Section Director in West Virginia and now resides in Salisbury, MD.) Ansted Police Officer Charles Crosier said, "I saw red globes flying around the mountains to the east and south of town. They were flying low over the trees on the ridge line and would suddenly shoot directly up at a tremendous speed. I counted a dozen, about 20 feet in diameter. There were no wings and no sound." Motorists have reported discshaped craft, larger than jets, flying under the new river bridge. One motorist said: "I was driving down the road when I saw white lights low in the woods. My cruise control went out and my digital clock stopped working. I pushed the gas pedal but the car wouldn't go. Then, all of a sudden the car took off at 80 miles-per-hour." Residents say their dogs act as if they're going to have heart attacks each time the objects appear. "These are all competent people who have seen these," according to Police Chief Jim Hall. "They're not kidding. They're telling the truth. There's no doubt that something is happening here."

TEN YEARS AGO - January 1980: As the sun set at Ansted, West Virginia, dogs started barking wildly outside The Sandwich Hut restaurant. Norma White, the owner, and several customers ran to the door. All said they will never forget what they saw. "It looked like a great white planet
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990


The Night Sky
By Walter N. Webb
February 1990 Bright Planets (Evening Sky): Jupiter (magnitude -2.5), retrograding westward in Gemini, stands high in the east at dusk. The giant planet remains visible in the southern half of the sky most of the night. It lies 4° below the gibbous Moon on the 5th. Bright Planets (Morning Sky): Early in the month four of the bright planets and two telescopic ones (Uranus and Neptune) mass together in the same constellation, Sagittarius, low in the SE dawn sky. The brightest planet, Venus, unmistakable at magnitude -4.5, achieves greatest brilliancy (-4.6) later in the month on the 22nd. The Galileo Jupiter probe flies past Venus this month en route back to Earth in December — the two worlds giving the craft gravityboosts toward its final destination. To the right of Venus are Mercury (-1.0) and Saturn (0.6). The former is nearly twice as bright at the latter. Mercury appears less than half a moon-diameter above the ringed planet on February 3. To the upper right of the pair stands ruddy Mars (1.3), which passes only a quarter of a degree below Uranus on the 9th, ll/2° below Neptune on the 17th, above the gibbous Moon on the 21st, and finally just below Saturn on the 28th. Jupiter gleams in the west after midnight, setting in the NW before 4 AM in midmonth. Total Lunar Eclipse: The Moon is full on the morning of February 9 and also happens to be eclipsed by the Earth's shadow. In the U.S. only Alaskans will be able to see the first half of the eclipse before the Moons sets. The Moon first contacts the dark umbral shadow at 8:28 AM AST. Totality follows at 9:49. Moon Phases: First quarter — February 2 Full moon — February 9 Last quarter — February 17 New moon — February 25 The Stars: The midevening sky this month provides a good opportunity to practice angular measurements, using the star background. UFO investigators should be familiar with estimating angular altitudes and angular sizes when a witness points outs where he or she spotted an unknown object in the sky. The angle from horizon to zenith (the point directly overhead) is 90°. If the fist is held at arm's length, each fist-height up from the horizon is about 10° of altitude. A five-finger handspan, similarly, covers roughly 15° of sky. Sirius, the brightest nighttime star, lies due south at 9 PM. For midnorthern observers, the luminary is about three fist-heights or two handspans above the horizon — that is, 30° altitude. You can check some other known angles in the sky. For example, the Twin Stars Pollux and Castor are nearly 5° apart. Orion's three belt stars are 3° across, while the constellation's two brightest stars, Betelgeuse and Rigel, are separated by almost 19°. The V-shaped face of Taurus (the Hyades) is about 4° long. In the NE,

The UFO Newsclipping Service will keep you informed of all the latest United States and World-Wide UFO reports (\.e., little known photographic cases, close encounters and landing reports, occupant cases) and all other UFO reports, many of which are carried only in small town and foreign newspapers. Our UFO Newsclipping Service issues are 20-page monthly reports, reproduced by photo-offset, containing the latest United States and Canadian UFO newsclippings, with our foreign section carrying the latest British, Australian, New Zealand and other foreign press reports. Also included is a 3-5 page section of "Fortean" clippings (\.e., Bigfoot and other "monster" reports). Let us keep you informed of the latest happenings in the UFO and Fortean fields. For subscription information and sample pages from our service, write today to:

Route 1 - Box 220 Plumerville, Arkansas 72127

MESSAGE, Continued former astronaut. Presently, he devotes his time to public speaking and is the author of several books and articles. Tom H. McConnell, Ph.D. (Bellevue, Wash.) became a Consultant in Philosophy. He also holds a bachelor's degree in Sociology and Electrical Engineering, and a masters in Geology. New research specialists are Michael W. Snyder, M.S. (Houston, TX) for Remote Sensing and Frank A. Orasin, M.S. (Saratoga, CA) for Finance. NIGHT SKY, Continued the long side of the Big Dipper's bowl is about 10°, while the short side (the Pointers) is around 5°. For southern observers in February, the night sky's second brightest star, Canopus, can be found 37° below Sirius. Finally, did you know that both the Moon and Sun subtend an angle (l/2°) less than that of an aspirin tablet or pencil eraser held at arm's length? Most persons overestimate by a large amount the Moon's apparent size.
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990


In Memory of Dan C. Overlade, Ph.D.
When anyone asked Dr. Dan C. Overlade, "How are you?" his standard reply was "Fantastic, but getting better." Dr. Overlade's optimism and joy for life ended on December 15, 1989 when he died following a series of illnesses in a Pensacola, Florida hospital. The above response provided a real insight into the personal philosophy of this fine gentleman who dedicated his life to helping others both professionally and as a volunteer. Dr. Overlade was a MUFON Consultant in Clinical Psychology and Hypnotherapy. He conducted many of the hypnotherapy sessions in the Gulf Breeze area with abductees, including four experiences by Edward Walters. In preparation for publishing the fourth edition of the MUFON Field Investigator's Manual, Dr. Overlade submitted the chapter devoted to hypnotherapy. In only one year, he established himself as a leading authority in the UFO field among the professionals engaged in working with abductees. He attended Treat I and the Aspen, Colorado meetings and was scheduled to speak on this subject at the MUFON 1990 International UFO Symposium. Considering the impact that he has made in elevating hypnotherapy as a vital tool for professional clinicians in ufology in such a short time, Dan Overlade's talent is going to be sorely missed. For those of us who had the privilege of knowing him personally, the world has lost a true gentleman who had not fulfilled his intended mission in life. Sympathy has been extended to his lovely wife Renee and family for the premature loss of their loved one. Dan was 62 years of age. - Walt Andrus


NO. 261 JANUARY 1990


Director's Message
The Calendar of UFO Conferences for 1990 may be indicative of the increased interest in the study of the UFO phenomenon as we enter the next decade. Without doubt, the printed news and electronic media have provided a resurgence in exposure. A Gallup Poll taken in 1990 would probably further confirm the validity of UFOs as viewed by the general public. The UFO book publishing business has flourished in this receptive environment. It has been very gratifying to note the large number of professional people who have volunteered their expertise through membership in MUFON to help resolve the greatest mystery of the space age. Most people find it difficult to accept the U.S. Government's stated policy on UFOs after 42 years and are determined to learn the facts. It would not be presumptious, on my part, to predict that the revelations and answers to our questions will be forthcoming before the close of the 20th Century, based upon the progress during the past decade. Network News Some members have delayed purchasing their MUFON Field Investigator's Manual pending the publication of the revised fourth edition. Due to major changes in the 4th edition, the publication date has been intentionally delayed. Five hundred additional copies of the present 3rd edition have been ordered to maintain continuity. The F.I. manual is an essential tool for all investigators, research specialists, consultants, and especially field investigator trainees planning to upgrade their status. Field Investigator Trainees who are ready to take the MUFON Field Investigator's examination are asked to contact their individual State Director for the exam or write to MUFON in Seguin, Texas. Shirley Coyne in Flushing, Mich, grades all the examinations and forwards the results

By Walt Andrus
cessor. Burt L. Monroe, Jr. Ph.D., State Director for Kentucky, nominated James C. De Lotel to serve in a dual role as Asst. State Director and continue in his present capacity as State Section Director for Jefferson, Oldham and Bullirt Counties. Bruce S. Maccabee, Ph.D., State Director for Maryland, appointed Robert L. Oechsler to the position of Asst. State Director in addition to his present responsibility as State Section Director for Anne Arundel, Howard and Calvert Counties. Ronald W. Madeley (Houston, TX) has been appointed State Section Director for Harris County, replacing David R. Hillendahl who recently submitted his resignation. W.D. "Bill" Eatwell, living in Houston, TX, has agreed to be the Asst. State Section Director for Harris County to help carry on the fine work and accomplishments achieved by Mr. Hillendahl. The local organization has changed its name from MUFON - HOUSTON to Houston UFO Network (HUFON). Tom Deuley, State Director for Texas, approved the selection of Jim Bolinger (Bellville) as State Section Director for Austin, Washington and Colorado Counties. Mr. Bolinger has had over 20 years of experience in radio and television broadcasting. Skip D. Schultz, State Director for Oregon, appointed Gene F. Elliott (Aloha) to become the new State Section Director for Washington and Tillamook Counties. A typographical error occurred in the MUFON Amateur Radio Net article in the December 1989 issue of the MUFON UFO Journal. The new 10 meter frequency is 28.460 MHz, not 28.046. Two new consultants volunteered their professional expertise during the past month. Brian O'Leary, Ph.D. (Phoeniz, Ariz.) in Astronomy is a Continued on page 26
NO. 261 JANUARY 1990

to the appropriate people. People who join MUFON and only want a subscription to the MUFON UFO Journal will not receive an I.D. card and will be listed as "Journal Subscribers" (JSB) in our files. It will be noted on the Calendar that the first major UFO Conference for 1990 is scheduled for March 30, 31, and April 1 at the Holiday Inn on Route 206 at Exit 7 of the New Jersey Turnpike in Bordentown, New Jersey (5 miles south of Trenton, NJ). It has been modestly billed as "The First Great UFO/ET/Humanoids/Visitors/Alien and Abduction Congress" by Pat J. Marcattilio, the host chairman. Confirmed speakers are Leo Sprinkle, Ph.D. (Laramie, Wyo.); James Harder, Ph.D. (Berkeley, Calif.); Zecharia Sitchen, author; Charles Hickson, abductee; Antonio Huneeus, author (NY); Marianne Shenefield, abductee; Budd Hopkins, author (NY); Jim Moseley, editor of Saucer Smear (FL); Ellen Crystal, UFO photographer; Peter Robins, researcher; Andrija Puharich, M.D. author, physician and parapsychologist; Alice Haggerty, abductee; and Pat J. Marcattilio. A dinner party will start the festivities on Friday evening, March 30th. The admission ticket price is $100 until February 15, thereafter $120. For details and reservations please contact; Pat J. Marcattilio, 138 Redfern St., Trenton, New Jersey 08610 or telephone (609) 888-1358 between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. New Officers Henry H. McKay, Regional Director for Canada, has approved the appointment of W. Daniel Gordica as the new Provincial Director for Alberta, who resides in Calgary. Fred Whiting, the retiring State Director for Virginia, has recommended the selection of Mark E. Blashak of ManakinSabot, Virginia to become his sucMUFON UFO JOURNAL

Sponsor Documents


Nov 16, 2020

Ep. 2-1 : The Prodigal

A lot of returns for the start of Season 2 - returning guest and friend of the show, Grammy-winner Robert Reynolds, fills us in on his new album release, (which you can catch live on our various platforms) a co-host returns to the show, our prodigal son, Josh Shipman, and well, of course there's the return of us... the show! We also talk about what we've been up to during COVID shutdowns, Phil takes us through a much needed guided meditation, we debut a trailer for our new travel show, and finally we descend into chaos, as usual. Remember to keep it sexy, keep it centered.  Music: Intro and outro "A la Bonheur Hotsy Totsy (1964)" by Heinz Kiessling. "Salt Creek" by Nat Keefe & Hot Buttered Rum. Podcast email: [email protected] Support us on Patreon at --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. --- Send in a voice message: Support this podcast:…

  1. Vw rear main seal replacement
  2. Chevron backgrounds free
  3. Masters 25 set
  4. Wet felt bags

Conspiracies That Parallax: JFK’s Assassination & UFO Alien Abductions
Copyright © by Dan Schneider, 12/21/03

JFK’s Assassination      UFO Alien Abductions      My Own Takes On Conspiracist Mythologies      Summations

'Can you prove that it did not happen?'- Criswell, Plan 9 From Outer Space

  My friend Don Moss, an excellent writer & poet, once commented to me on the abundance of the terms within & without in my poetry. He felt that I relied to heavily on such, especially in my Le Bestiaré poem series. I tended to agree, but since the poems focused primarily on the differences between the percipients’ inner & outer world, it was a motif I had accepted as part & parcel of that particular series. However, in most of life’s endeavors the real truth of the thing generally does not lie at such extremes, but- rather- lies in the middle- call it Occam’s Area. Of course, most know what Occam’s Razor is- it’s the generally accepted wisdom that the simplest answer that best fits the known facts to a problem or inquiry is usually the correct 1. I’ll delve into this apothegm later in the essay. I start off this essay with this premise because I believe it to be true- especially when used to describe mysteries & conspiracies from the Ancients through Jack the Ripper through sightings of lake monsters & hairy bipeds & all the way back, again, to the very origins of myth, itself. In this lengthy jaunt I will hope to show that the Occam’s Area for these 2 greatest & most enduring mythologies of the America of the last ½ century come down on opposite sides of the fence for each 1- in the pro-conspiracy camp regarding the murder of the 35th President of the United States of America- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, & in the anti-conspiracy camp for the alleged abductions of human beings by non-terrestrial entities. I will do so by vetting the few known & agreed upon facts in each case, comparing the mythic & psychologic elements in both, show their strengths & weakness vis-à-vis conspiracies, show elements of each that seem congruent & incongruent to each other, detail my own background in regards to forming opinions on both myths, examine the role of the media in both myths, & then toss out some of my own conclusions & opinions.
  The reason for my essaying these topics is not only because of their intrinsic worth as bits of Americana, & human history, but because of my recent reacquaintance with both topics. On 11/20/03, at 8 pm CST, the ABC network aired Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination- Beyond Conspiracy, which posited that the Warren Commission’s finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK was correct. The special was light on substance but heavy on rehash. The ‘supposed’ new evidence was a computer graphics specialist named Dale Myers who designed a supposedly accurate 3 dimensional computer reproduction of Dealey Plaza in Dallas at the time of the shooting. This simulation, it was claimed, decisively proves the ‘Single- or Magic- Bullet’ theory was correct, & that LHO was the lone gunman. Contrary evidence, such as audio evidence of a 4th shot, dissent from Naval coroners regarding the nature of the wounds that killed JFK, the manifest ties of LHO assassin Jack Ruby to the Mafia, & certain government agencies, were glossed over as gossip for the rather far-fetched scenario that a deludely patriotic JR did in LHO to spare Jackie Kennedy pain. Not to mention that Dale Myers’ computer simulation has, according to published & online dissenters, competitors, & cohorts, gone through a # of claimed permutations over the years, each 1 of which tended to get more anti-conspiratorial as he peddled it around to various media outlets. It’s almost as if he was willing to make the model, claim his detractors, go whatever way a prospective buyer asked him to make it go. Furthermore, even a cursory viewing of the simulation shows why online comments from dissenters are justified: 

  ‘If George Lucas can make $200+ million in what were basically bad computer created film(s), and an abundance of CGI can trick people into thinking that Keanu Reeves is a good actor, why should there be any reason to believe that this "truth" is any more definitive simply because a computer simulated it.

  ‘They expect me to believe a guy with a computer can take all the data that's already been combed and re-combed by experts, and extract conclusive evidence from it that those experts didn't find. Sorry, but I'm not that credulous. This is not a recreation of the events as they happened. This is a very pretty CGI animation of the events as Dale Myers believes they occured. (sic)’

  ‘You cannot view an event from a location where there was no camera and derive meaning from it. If no camera on the scene filmed a second gunman, that doesn't mean one wasn't there. If you create your model without a second gunman, then move the virtual camera around and show that there is no second gunman, you have proved nothing. That is the dictionary definition of a tautology: assuming there was no second gunman, there is no evidence of a second gunman. Similarly every scrap of evidence presented by this re-creation which was not in the original evidence is worthless, because it has no basis in fact.

  ‘I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am an agnostic in all things. All I'm saying is that this re-creation adds nothing to the debate. I can Photoshop myself into pictures with every celebrity on the A-list, and it doesn't prove I've left my parent's basement.

  Needless to say, I agree with these & many other comments & this special did not sit well in my mind- for distortions of fact & the condescending tone of anchorman Peter Jennings, was a bit much to take. As for the other major myth I recently picked up & read 2 interesting books I got at a used bookstore- the 1st was a pro-reality book on alien abductions (AAs) called CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE FOURTH KIND: Alien Abduction, U.F.O.s and the Conference at M.I.T., by C. D. B. Bryan, published in 1995, & the 2nd was an anti-reality book on AAs called ALIEN ABDUCTIONS: CREATING A MODERN PHENOMENON, by Terry Matheson, published in 1998. The 1st book purports to be a journalistic look inside the mythos by a reporter who doubts the reality of the myth, but soon comes to believe it due to the sincerity of the ‘abductees’. It is not at all that well written, & after the 1st ½ summarizes the conference the 2nd ½ becomes a farce. The 2nd book, however, is a GREAT book- in every sense of the word. It’s writing is direct & fact-driven, & the writer parses every bit of the mythos to show how it has evolved through time (including detailing how tropes such as the ‘skeptic’-cum-believer used in CDBB’s book is standard fare in the seminal narratives of the mythos)- not unlike I do when dissecting poetry or prose, & its conclusions seem so manifest that 1 wonders why TM is the 1st to put all the pieces together- at least in the published world; I have long advocated almost identical beliefs in my many conversations with believers & skeptics through the years. I may just add TM’s Alien Abductions to the quaternity of great books that influenced me in my life: Loren Eiseley’s autobiography AllThe Strange Hours, Alex Haley’s The Autobiography Of Malcolm X, Leonard Shlain’s Art & Physics, & Walt Whitman’s Leaves Of Grass. Needless to say I shall explore the book’s excellence, & its posits within this essay. That’s enough for now- let’s have some fun.

1) JFK’s Assassination

Solid Evidence   The ABC Special   Examining Dialectics   Back To Basics   Summing Up   My Opinion On The Assassination   Bridges

Solid Evidence

  The idea of ‘conspiracy’ riddles every human society. The idea that shadowy factions control aspects of life to a degree that few people can even dream of exercising is in itself a myth. Most of the proven & alleged conspiracies, conspirators, & underground societies- from Watergate & Iran-Contra back to the death of Julius Caesar, the Lincoln Assassination conspirators to Leopold & Loeb, the Freemasons & Rosicrucians to the Illuminati, Mafia, & Yakuza- share this ideal of power. Some, such as the Holocaust or the Great Leap Forward, prove to be monstrously true. Others, such as the sinking of the Titanic or the McCarthyite Red Invasion of the 1950s, prove to be laughably- albeit cruelly- untrue. Then there are ‘conspiracies’ that live in the dim flickers between possibility & probability. Here nestle nicely this essay’s 2 core myths. Both the JFK & UFO myths depend upon the idea that ‘shadow governments’ exist within our elected republic, & act ‘above & outside’ the law. In the JFK version this entity (or entities) either was wholly responsible for the President’s murder, or aided other entities with assistance (Mafia Hitmen, pro-Soviet &/or pro-Castro groups, White Supremacists) or benign neglect (the KGB, White Russians, LBJ, or a cabal of generals). In the UFO mythos this faction has covered up the retrieval of extraterrestrial vessels & occupants, reverse engineered many of the scientific wonders of the last few decades, & has either looked the other way or actively assisted in the abduction, testing, breeding, & sexual & physical abuse of its own citizenry in exchange for either technology, protection from even more sinister alien agencies, or mere power.
  However, the evidence that each myth brings forth differs fundamentally in quality & quantity. Let me deal with the JFK side 1st. The major problem that most pro-conspiracists have in their credibility is that, just like the ABC special, they ignore facts that contradict their own theories- most notably that Lee Harvey Oswald undoubtedly was in the School Book Depository, on the 6th floor, & almost certainly did fire at the President. Most conspiracists see LHO as a ‘total’ patsy- a wannabe government spook that was setup to be a patsy. The problem is that alot of this ‘handling’ occurred before JFK became a real thorn in the side of the military powers. Not to mention that LHO had considerable ties with pro-Communist, anti-Communist, & organized crime elements, as well. Instead of admitting that LHO was ‘part’ of the conspiracy, most conspiracists resist that declaration. In fact, the conspiracy idea suffers in no way from that admission. I think it’s the need for all myths to have a hero that has led to most conspiracists looking to LHO to fill that role- after all, his killer was a slimebag, all of the supposed anti-JFK factions were reprehensible, & the act itself was sinister. So there must have been someone good?
  But, the evidence contradicts that posit. Anti-conspiracists, however, are even more fanciful in their sticking to ‘facts’ that contradict known truths. For example, the idea that Jack Rubenstein (Jack Ruby’s real name) was a 2nd Lone Nut, who just happened to sneak in to the heavily secured garage to kill LHO, is preposterous. That JR seemed to be shadowing LHO after the assassination, that both men seemed to have known people in common if not each other, had ties to similar organizations, & indeed silenced LHO (& then maintained his own silence till his death 4 years later) being attributed to ‘patriotism’ & a ‘concern for the ‘1st Lady’ is almost laughable. But, instead of losing 1’s self in the labyrinth of claims & counterclaims, let me start off with a few of the undeniable facts that both sides can agree on, & see where Occam would come down.

1)      Most importantly, Jack Ruby kills the alleged assassin of the President. Is it more likely that any person (much less 1 as shady as JR) who would do such an act would do it on a patriotic whim or to silence a co-conspirator?

2)      There is audio evidence of 4- not 3- shots at Dealey Plaza that has still never been convincingly debunked. The Warren Report states there were 3 shell casings left at the ‘sniper’s nest’. The 4th heard shot was determined not to be an echo. That being true, where was the 4th shell casing at LHO’s nest? If that could not be found de facto, there was at least 1 other gunman. That means that either there was the incredible coincidence of 2 separate Lone Gunmen who just happened to shoot at the President at the same time, or there was coordination- hence, a conspiracy.

3)      The lead coroner in the Dallas Parkland Hospital (or possibly the Navy’s coroner in Bethesda, Maryland) claimed for years that the photo of a small entry wound in the back of JFK’s head was actually altered from what he saw- which was a large exit wound in back. He claimed a large flap of skin that blew backward was pulled forward for the photograph. This was finally broadcast 25 years later on national television- but ignored. Even more odd, the notes of all 3 Naval coroners somehow disappeared- despite the highest of import. Were all the coroners involved lying? Or are they telling the truth? If so, what could be the motive for faking legal forensic evidence & destroying notes? Only a coverup fits that bill.

4)      The Abraham Zapruder film remains the wildcard- a totally unexpected bonanza. I’ve seen this film many times on TV, in Oliver Stone’s film JFK, & on the Internet. JFK’s head, when shot, seems to go ‘back & to the left’ as the film famously mantras. Anti-conspiracists point to the fact that ballistic tests using melons show that a bullet makes a small entry wound & a large exit wound whose force pushes the melon forward as reaction to the action of the bullet’s forward passage. This, they say, accounts for JFK’s head’s backward motion. 2 problems crop up, however. 1st, a human head is not a melon, & the cranium is the heaviest bone in the body. It would not react exactly as a melon does. 2nd, even if it did both pro- & anti-conspiracists agree that the 6th floor sniper’s nest was behind & to the right of JFK, so even were a head to react like a melon it would go back & to the right, not the left! But I have seen people shot in the head- there are usually massive wounds at both entry & exit points. These vary according to weapon, bullet, & distance. But, the force of the bullet almost always forces the head or whole body backward. On his commentary to the JFK DVD Oliver Stone assents to seeing this in combat in Vietnam. So, which is the more likely- that the kill shot on the President came from the rear right & caused his head to jerk back & to the left, or that the kill shot came from the front right & forced his head backward & leftward? Occam leans toward the latter- which suggests a 2nd gunman & conspiracy. Forget about witnesses’ claims re the Grassy Knoll, because human witnesses are terrible (more on that later)- besides, the Zapruder film is a far better, & unexpected, witness to the actual.

5)      The Rose Cheramie incident. This was where a woman was treated in a Dallas area hospital hours before JFK’s killing, & claimed there was a plot to kill the President. Her story has been generally ignored by anti-conspiracists (& the ABC special) yet has never been disproved.

  As for other claims & counterclaims from both sides. Both are open for debate, & in fact both sides have many websites that debunk & counterdebunk each other- from a website that points out flaws & inaccuracies in Oliver Stone's film JFK to 1 that does the same to errors, omissions, & untruths in the Warren Report. The 5 above ‘facts’, however, are pretty much agreed upon by both sides. That being the case, the pro-conspiracists have the far more credible claim.

The ABC Special

  But let’s examine them & other aspects more closely, as well as how the Beyond Conspiracy (BC) special glossed over them. Before I do, however, let me talk about what I believe was an earlier ABC special on the assassination, which aired, I believe, on the 25th anniversary of the killing- in 1988. I believe it was also aired on ABC. I forget the host, but what I recall vividly gleaning from that show was the audio evidence of a 4th shot- 1 which was replayed several times on the broadcast, & which was clarion, & the 1st aired interview with 1 of the coroners who claimed the JFK autopsy photos had been altered- this stuck in my mind, although I don’t recall whether he was the Dallas or Navy coroner. Nonetheless his words were powerful. Yet, ABC did not deal with its own past claims which countered its newer special. As for point 1, Peter Jennings simply takes it as an agreed upon fact that JR was a patriotic nut whose ties to the government & the Mafia were severely downplayed- almost ludicrously so. As for point 2, the computer recreator Dale Myers mentions the 4th shot, claiming it came from the microphone of a certain Dallas motorcade officer. The cop later claimed it was not his mike, & DM agrees because he claims the officer’s motorcycle would have had to have been in some ‘pink circle’ in the recreation for it to have recorded what it recorded. Since DM claims to show, via film, that the officer was not in the ‘pink circle’, this ‘proves’ that the recording is unreliable. Well, no. Even if we accept that DM’s simulation is accurate & the film sources he reconstructed from were reliable, all it proves is that it was not that officer’s mike which picked up the 4 shots. Whose mike it was is irrelevant because it in no way disproves the 4th shot. In short, the whole recreation’s being used is alot of high tech ado about not alot. & the import of the ‘pink circle’ is never- conveniently- elaborated upon. The 3rd point about the hanky-panky with the coroner’s is ascribed to ‘paranoia’, while the computer simulation is again used to try to debunk the actual shooting. It tries to show that the positions of JFK & Texas Governor John Connally were consistent with the ‘Magic Bullet’ theory. Even if we accept that as true (which pro-conspiracists do not) it still does not explain the ‘kill shot’ to the head, which- no matter how long you debate it, still goes back & to the left- not the right, which would have been consistent with LHO’s alleged position. Again, the special focuses too much on the ‘Magic Bullet’ in an attempt to impress the audience- but the Magic Bullet was  not the 1 in the kill shot to the head. The whole recreation fails to disprove both the 4th shot heard on audio, & the kill shot from the Grassy Knoll- but it was cool to look at. As for the Cassandran Rose Cheramie- the special did not address it at all. I will, in a bit.

Examining Dialectics

The Mythos   More On The ABC Special   Anti-ABC   The Film JFK   Recapping Suspects & Motives   Mano A Mano   Science- Good & Bad   The JFK ‘Experts’

  Instead of spending time reacting to the criticisms levied against the film [OS’s JFK], I will simply discuss the film itself and the history it portrays. The assassination of JFK was one of the most mysterious and tragic events in our country's history, and the explanation given to us by the Warren Commission of a single lone assassin is one of the most ridiculous theories ever presented. Tell me how a single lone assassin who was a marginal shooter could fire three shots from a manual bolt action rifle from a sixth floor window to a moving car below, causing nine wounds in two people from only three bullets, fire these three shots in 5.6 seconds when it required 2.1 seconds to recycle the rifle between shots (you can do the arithmetic), fire one magical bullet that goes through President Kennedy's neck and causes multiple wounds in Governor Connally while remaining completely intact, leave the firing shells lying neatly on the floor, hide the rifle on the complete other side of the sixth floor, run down six flights of stairs past two witnesses who claim to have never seen him, and end up on the second floor of the Depository within 90 seconds of the shooting looking completely calm.


  Much of these assertions are disputed by the anti-camps. LHO has been defined by some as a bad shot, a medium shot, & a great shot- the ABC special claimed he scored an excellent 48 & 49 out of 50 on successive firing range tests, & also had an octagenarian fire 3 rounds from the type of gun LHO used, with time to spare. Conversely, OS claimed that while filming he hired expert marksmen who could not replicate LHO’s feat. Who to believe? When such a dispute occurs it’s best to call it a tie & look to more convincing proof elsewhere. As stated, ABC’s computer recreator supposedly accounts for the Magic Bullet- but, again, that’s not the kill shot bullet. As for claims of the sniper’s nest area, that’s not in dispute, but there is dispute as to whether LHO was actually seen in the break room of the Depository.


  The Zapruder film shows Kennedy's head being thrust violently backward and to the left, completely inconsistent with a shot supposedly coming from behind - more consistent with a shot fired from the front and right, from the infamous Grassy Knoll. I could go on and on with the inconsistencies in the government's case, but the main crucial point is simple: If one bullet could not cause seven wounds in two men, there had to be a fourth shot - Oswald didn't have time to fire a fourth shot - therefore, a second gunman and a conspiracy.


  Right on the kill shot; perhaps on the Magic Bullet.


  Now try to contain your laughter, but this is the following explanation given to the American public by what were supposed to be intelligent individuals (Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, and Allen Dulles among them) and just see how it has trouble even standing up on its own -

  A single lone assassin was responsible for the assassination - Lee Harvey Oswald - he fired only three shots in 5.6 seconds from a manual bolt action rifle with a poorly aligned scope. The first bullet missed, wounding bystander James Tague. The second bullet was The Magic Bullet - it caused seven wounds - two to Kennedy and five to Governor Connally - not only did it do this, but it paused 1.6 seconds in midair before entering Connally. This single bullet, after entering and re-entering two men ends up INTACT on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital - the final bullet strikes Kennedy in the head - supposedly all shots came from behind the motorcade from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.


  The dispute over the Magic Bullet is noted, as for the ‘Pristine Bullet’ the 2 sides differ. The antis claim the bullet is far from pristine if viewed head on, while the pros claim that the almost total lack of frontal flattening is bizarre. That the bullet was found on a stretcher is not disputed, but bizarre in that such a crucial piece of evidence was so nonchalantly overlooked, although pros claim at least 2 witnesses saw Jack Ruby plant the bullet at the hospital JFK was taken to. If 1 can concede to the antis that the Magic Bullet could have done what was claimed (computer simulation or not), 1 has to concede that the Pristine Bullet’s lack of flattening, & sudden appearance hours later on a stretcher points to, at the least, High Strangeness, if not being planted.


  Our villainous Lee Harvey Oswald walks from the building and supposedly decides to kill a Dallas police officer, J.D. Tippit - police take Oswald into custody - unlike all other political assassins in history, Oswald denies any crimes - before he gets to tell his history, a patriotic nightclub owner, Jack Ruby, shoots Oswald live on television while surrounded by cops in the basement of the Dallas police station- Oswald's dead- the first rule of assassination - kill the assassin.

* Oswald does not shoot Kennedy coming up Houston Street which was the easier shot - instead, Kennedy turns onto Elm into a standard assassination triangulation of crossfire.

  This is in dispute- some claim the Houston shot was more difficult since less of JFK was exposed.

* The parade route was changed at the last minute to bring it into Dealey Plaza.

  Not in dispute, factually, although the reasons differ as to why.

* Someone told Colonel Reich of the 112th Military Intelligence Group at Fort Sam Houston to have the group stand down that day - there was very limited protection for the President.

  This is debunked on a # of anti- websites & I tend to see that POV as more credible.

* The media van was placed 14th in the motorcade, where it could not cover the assassination.

  They seemed to have done a pretty good job that whole weekend, despite this (if true)- this is a standard feint used by a side to lend heft, if not accuracy, to a claim.

* The Zapruder film shows Kennedy's head being thrust violently backward and to the left, which is inconsistent with a shot supposedly fired from behind.


 * Lee Harvey Oswald was discovered only ninety seconds after the shooting, drinking a Coke calmly on the second floor of the Depository.

  This is in dispute.

* Several witnesses stated that they encountered people identifying themselves as Secret Service agents all throughout Dealey Plaza - however, the Secret Service has said that they had no agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza at any time.

  Also disputed- antis note, with some common sense, that human witnesses- especially in a panic, tend to unconsciously fabulate.

* Lee Bowers, a watchman at the railyard tower behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, described two strange men behind the fence on the knoll- one dressed in a policeman's uniform.

  Another standard feint that goes nowhere.

* Several other witnesses, among them Gordon Arnold, told of the policeman behind the picket fence - in addition, Gordon Arnold, who had served in the military and knew the sounds of gunfire, stated that he heard a gunshot from behind him while standing on the Grassy Knoll.

  Human witness- not reliable as many witnesses contradict him.

* Photo enhancements of the Moorman photograph (original is below) show clearly a man with a rifle dressed in a policeman's uniform.

  Disputed vociferously.

* There is evidence for several more shots fired in Dealey Plaza - witnesses and even acoustical evidence prove at least four shots.

  The last part is true. Claims for more than 4 seem to be dubious, at best.

* Immediately after the shooting, the entire telephone system in Washington went out for a solid hour.

  Disputed- the extent of the SNAFU is disputed, but that the phone lines would be jammed & crash after such a tragedy is not unreasonable, nor does it point to sinistry- a red herring.

* A third of the President's cabinet was in the air at the time of the shooting.


* There is strong evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby knew each other before the assassination.

  Disputed, but the pros seem to have the edge in credibility.

* A telex was sent to all of the FBI offices around the United States a week before the assassination warning of a possible attempt on the President's life by a militant revolutionary group when he arrived in Dallas. After the assassination, the Bureau instructed all the offices to remove the telex, as an "embarrassment" to the bureau.

  Not disputed, but threats were received all the time. That 1 actually came true would seem a cause for embarrassment. Its removal does not, however, imply a coverup of a national murder, but of a local embarrassment.

* Before the assassination, around 12:15, a man had an epilectic seizure in Dealey Plaza - using up an ambulance that would later be needed for Kennedy - the epilectic never checked into the hospital.

  Not disputed, & 1 of the oddities. But it does not imply any direct causal link.

* Trained Dallas doctors observed and reported Kennedy's throat wound as an entry wound, meaning he would have been shot from the front. The Dallas doctors observed the massive wound in the back of the President's head - how can this be an entrance wound of any kind? The wound measured about 5 cm across.

  Disputed only in so far as the antis doggedly insist on dismissing the coroners. The coroners did not waver. Very strong in the pro camps.

* The body of President Kennedy was essentially stolen from Dallas - Dallas doctors should have performed the autopsy - instead, Kennedy's body was flown back to Washington, for a military autopsy.

  Jurisdictional penis length contests are nothing new, even then. This does not imply coverup.

* News reports around the globe reported that Oswald had killed Kennedy and had background histories of this essentially unknown man in some cases hours before he was even charged with the crime of killing the President.

  This is the basis for OS’s fictional Mr. X (based on Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty- a controversial figure I’ll touch on later) having doubts about there being no conspiracy. There is strong disagreement over what news was released when & to whom globally. This element is very much a jump ball that needs more looking in to.

* Doctors at the autopsy were told not to discuss anything told or seen in the autopsy room- and Commander Humes was essentially told that Kennedy was shot from behind.

  This is consistent with what might go on during a reign of confusion- in & of itself it’s a red herring, but context could shade it 1 way or another.

* President Kennedy's brain has never been found.

  In dispute. Its whereabouts are not publicly known. Decide on your own its import or relevance.

* Photos of Lee Harvey Oswald were clearly doctored and he was cleverly framed as a Communist to cement the image in the minds of the American public as a cold-blooded killer.

  Much disputed- so much so that to include it on a list of undisputed facts raises questions regarding the writer’s motives- but not the spectrum of veracity & the techniques used to effect by this pro- writer.

* More than 75 witnesses or people who have had knowledge of this case, have died mysteriously.

  Highly disputed- & overstated. A few people retracted statements &/or disappeared, but many of those claimed to have died ‘mysteriously’ did not. The man prosecuted by filmic JFK hero Jim Garrison- Clay Shaw- for example, died of cancer- not the mysterious ‘illness’ that pros have claimed. This claim is basically a wash, with, perhaps, a slight edge to the pro side.

* Four days after burying Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson signed National Security Action Memo 273, which reversed Kennedy's Vietnam withdrawal policy, and began the worst war in this country's history.

  Yes. Connection to the assassination- dubious, because the notion that a prescient JFK was gonna withdraw from Vietnam completely is in much dispute 

  These facts are undisputed-  [Wrong.] I hope every single person in this country will agree that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of John Kennedy - we were lied to. I think most people can agree with that - what most people can't agree about is who did it, the most important aspect of this crime. [This last statement is undoubtedly true.]


  Let me examine some bits that are far more hostile to the ABC special. So much so that the website’s URL is actually This is from the Introduction to the site:

  ….How did it come to pass that ABC President David Westin, anchor man Peter Jennings, and writer and researcher Gus Russo met, approved and then decided to concoct a huge deception that is meant to recycle and resuscitate a forty year old deception that very few people believe? We try to do that here in order for the reader to fully understand what and why ABC is doing on November 20, 2003.

  We trace and describe some previous network specials on the subject and how they were influenced and controlled by high officials inside and outside the government. Former Warren Commissoner John McCloy exerted enormous influence over a four-part 1967 CBS special on the assassination itself, and the CIA and Sarnoff family (owners of NBC at the time) had direct ties to a 1967 NBC special on Jim Garrison. We also trace the recent history of ABC, especially the momentous event that Andy Boehm and Jim DiEugenio describe in the 2003 Introduction and original 1987 article entitled "The Seizing of the American Broadcasting Company." This piece describes in detail an example of how the government can influence what is shown --- and not shown --- on the broadcast airwaves that are theoretically controlled by the citizens of this country. We suggest the reader read this bloc of articles first.


  Note how it’s never suggested that these fellows, or ABC, could merely be dupes? They are immediately co-opted into the enemy camp. While everything above may be true the important thing to realize when dealing with extremists (a description the pro- & anti-conspiracists fit snugly in to) is their very extreme nature, itself; such as allowing no ethical wiggle room for their foes.


  We then move on and show as directly as we can how ABC came to the lamentable decision to produce a documentary that is simply insupportable by the facts, circumstances, and evidence. This bloc of articles includes a profile of ABC News President David Westin, how he came to power and how his regime has differed markedly from his legendary predecessor Roone Arledge. We then describe the career of a reporter who sets a paradigm and precedent for ABC's actions on this case, reporter John Stossel who, although billed originally as a consumer advocate, is something short of that. We then examine aspects of the career of the chief consultant on this special, Gus Russo: his career in the Kennedy research field, his differing beliefs at times, and his dubious claim of a Pulitzer nomination. We then connect Russo to the main players behind the November 20th special, Jennings and Mark Obenhaus. We do this through the previous production of theirs based upon the controversial and specious book by Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot.


  I’ll briefly examine some of these claims in a bit, to see if they live up to the billing.


  Finally, we begin to dissect some of the work of Russo and his friend Dale Myers, upon whom ABC has relied. We especially try to examine the work of Myers on the computer simulation he has had for sale for about a decade, and Russo's work on the most important aspect of any murder case, the medical and autopsy evidence. These are the most important aspects of any serious inquiry into a murder case. If those conclusions are faulty, everything that follows from it must be wrong.


  Note the sweeping generality at the end. Just because autopsy evidence may have been wrong does not necessarily imply conspiracy. It could be ineptness. The problem with most of the pro-conspiracists is they focus on too much extraneous minutiae, rather than actual relevant facts. The most blaring example of this is the Magic Bullet, which was not the kill shot.


  But also, through this detailed inquiry we hope to posit some wider, broader, more universal queries about the media itself. Is it possible for any huge network which works so closely with the government to be expected to tell the truth about any highly controversial and influential event in which it plays a controlling role? Who do people at the top of the network ladder serve today? And if they do not serve the public, what alternative does the public have in pursuing factual truth about these events? And does this pursuit of facts not available through the mainstream media, automatically place them in opposition to the media and the government? The exploration of those questions based on accurate information are meant to encourage a democratic debate about the state of our media today.


  Missing in this thesis, however, is the general ineptitude of corporate America. A vigilant dissent will always hold its own against the powerful because there is a natural distrust of the powerbroker. The trick is in retaining the vigilance of the dissent.

  Here’s snippets from another essay on the ABC Lies website. It’s called JFK: How the Media Assassinated The Real Story:

  ….Original, enterprise reporting has been left almost entirely to alternative weeklies, monthly magazines, book publishers, and documentary makers. All such efforts over the last 29 years have met the same fate as Oliver Stone's movie: derision from the mainstream media. At first, the public bought the party line. But gradually, as more and more information slipped through the margins of the media business, and finally through the efforts of Congress itself, the public began to change its mind.


  Actually, the moment JR nailed LHO the Conspiracy Theory took off.


  Today, according to a recent New York Times/CBS poll, an astonishing 77 percent of Americans reject the Warren Report's conclusions. How did such a tremendous credibility gap come about? And, assuming that the majority of Americans are right, how did a free press so totally blow one of the biggest stories of the century? To find out, Village Voice has reviewed hundreds of documents bearing on the media's coverage of the assassination, and has discovered a pattern of collusion and co-optation that is hardly less chilling than the prospect of a conspiracy to kill the president. In particular, The New York Times, Time-Life, CBS, and NBC have striven mightily to protect the single assassin hypothesis, even when that has involved the suppression of information, the coercion of testimony, and the misrepresentation of key evidence. The Voice has discovered that: Within days of the assassination, the Justice Department quashed an editorial in The Washington Post that called for an independent investigation; within two weeks the FBI was able to crow that NBC had pledged not to report anything beyond what the FBI itself was putting before the American people; only four hours after the murder, Life magazine grabbed up one of the main pieces of evidence --- the Zapruder film --- misrepresenting the content to millions of readers in its very first post-assassination issue and then continuing the lie with ever-changing captions and Zapruder frames in its special issue supporting the Warren Commission report; in 1967, a supposedly independent CBS documentary series on the assassination was in fact secretly reviewed and seemingly altered by former Warren Commission member John Jay McCloy, through a "Dad says" memo written by his daughter Ellen McCloy, then administrative assistant of CBS News president Richard Salant; within that same CBS series, the testimony of Orville Nix --- an amateur filmmaker who captured the "the grassy knoll" angle on tape --- was tailored to fit the requirements of CBS's Warren Commission slant. Much of this unethical and immoral practice was accomplished under the pretext of "sparing the Kennedy family."


  Note the echoes to the motives of JR. Yet, much of these assertions produce counter-assertions, so the mooting of either side exists.


  …if anyone was going to end Camelot, far better for the memories, far better for the family, that it be a lone psycho than a conspiracy. And if the media were solicitous to the Kennedys in this way, they were positively patronizing to the citizenry. It was Vietnam all over again: the war was good for the country, so don't report how badly it was going; a conspiracy to kill the president would be demoralizing at home and humiliating abroad, so sweep under the rug any evidence pointing in that direction. And then of course there was the national security issue.


  Echoes of what I just stated above- a lone gunman is far more acceptable than a conspiracy.


  Department memo from Katzenbach to Bill Moyers, then a top aide to Lyndon Johnson, spelled out the Justice Department's strategy, a strategy that would prevail to a shocking degree right through the end of the decade:
1)  The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.
2) Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat --- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.
Katzenbach, whose memo sets out the Warren report results a year before the commission reached them, suggests that a "Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel" be appointed to examine evidence and reach conclusions. In closing he writes, I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

  Actually, this is typical bureaucratic fulmination. It does not, by itself, point to anything damning- despite pro-conspiracists’ objections & my distaste for the reprehensible Bill Moyers.

  ….The [New York] Times did not quit with the Warren report. Two months after the Warren report was released, the Times collaborated with McGraw-Hill and Bantam on The Witnesses, a book of testimony from the Warren Commission hearings edited by the Times. The accounts of those witnesses whose testimony deviated the slightest from the official story were simply edited out. Not included, for instance, was one man's testimony to the Warren Commission that on the day of JFK's murder he had seen two men on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository, where the official line says there was just Oswald. The FBI told this witness to "forget it." His references to shots coming from the railroad yards in front of the president were also deleted.


  Arguments rage over this- but some of the witnesses were, upon further investigation, wrong or distorting. The issue is not that the Warren Commission or The New York Times gave credit to some witnesses over other- that’s common police & investigatory practice- but the methods for determining credibility in the 1st place.


In addition, the section of the transcript where three Secret Service agents' autopsy observations contradict the official autopsy report was deleted. No wonder readers of this expurgated version of the commission's report became true believers. With the issuance of the Warren report, Oswald became the assassin. (Although from the very beginning --- with a November 1963 Life article on Oswald headlined, "The Assassin: A Cold Lonely Man Who Resented All Authority" --- there was no presumption of innocence and little inclination to consider other explanations.)


  Much of this is true, although the observations of agents does not hold the weight of the contradictory coroners.

  ….Life was in Dallas making arrangements to buy the original Zapruder film only four hours after the assassination. Of the four existing home movies taken that day in Dealey Plaza, the 8mm film, shot by a middle-aged dress manufacturer, was considered to be the best record of JFK's murder. According to Richard Stolley, who is currently the editorial director of Time Inc. and who handled the Zapruder transaction for Life, the order to acquire the film and "withhold it from public viewing" came from Life's publisher, C.D. Jackson.
  And who was C.D. Jackson? A staunch anticommunist who played a crucial role in the direction of U.S. policy throughout the 1950s, both as "psychological war advisor" to Eisenhower and as a member of anticommunist front groups, Jackson's publication had long been known for "always pulling chestnuts out of the fire for the CIA," as the late Drew Pearson once put it. Having shelled out $150,000 for the film (the Zapruder family attorney claims the number was even higher), Stolley headed back to New York with the original print under his arm, leaving investigators with a copy that was next to worthless in terms of forensic analysis. By permitting the chain of custody to include Life magazine, and by accepting a mere copy of a crucial piece of evidence, the law-enforcement authorities were well on their way to compromising their investigation. The critical Zapruder film was kept exclusively in the hands of Time Inc. and out of the public's reach for the next 12 years, allowing Life to take the American people on one of the longest rides ever in American journalism.
  In its very first issue after the assassination, Life seriously misrepresented the content of the Zapruder film, a practice that would continue until the film finally gained general release in 1975. The doctors at Parkland Hospital, who had worked on the president, had reported that he had suffered an "apparent" entrance wound to the throat. Since the book depository, from which Oswald had allegedly fired, was to the presidential limousine's rear, how, some were beginning to wonder, did the president suffer a frontal throat wound? Life's December 6, 1963, edition gave a simple and conclusive explanation, based on the Zapruder film, an answer only Life could provide. Wrote Life: "The 8mm [Zapruder] film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed to the sniper's nest just before he clutches it." This description of the Zapruder film went a long way toward allaying fears of conspiracy in those early days, for it explained away a troublesome inconsistency in the lone assassin scenario. There was only one problem: The description of the Zapruder film was a total fabrication. Although the film shows Kennedy turning to the right --- toward the grassy knoll, that is --- at no time does he turn 180 degrees toward the book depository. Indeed, by the time he is hit, he is once again turning toward the front.  

  Herein is 1 of the central forensic mysteries- has the Zapruder film been tampered with? If so, then computer simulations like Dale Myers’ are utterly worthless, but, so too, the pro-conspiracists’ claims of visual proof of a Grassy Knoll 2nd Gunman. Like it or not both sides have top deal with that troubling question & its implications. Both sides gloss over this fact by accepting the Zapruder film face up.


  ….The October 2, 1964, issue underwent two major revisions after it hit the stands, expensive changes that required breaking and resetting plates twice, a highly unusual occurrence. That issue of Life was illustrated with eight frames of the Zapruder film along with descriptive captions. One version of caption 6 read: "The assassin's shot struck the right rear portion of the President's skull, causing a massive wound and snapping his head to one side." The photo accompanying this caption --- frame 323 --- shows the president slumped back against the seat, and leaning to the left, an instant after the fatal bullet struck him. The photo makes it look as though shots came from the front --- the railroad trestle --- or the right --- the grassy knoll. A second version of the issue replaces this frame with another, the graphic shot of the president's head exploding (frame 313). Blood fills the air and all details are obscured. The caption, oddly enough, remained the same --- describing his head snapping to one side. A third version carries this same 313 slide --- frame 323 has been thrown on the dumpheap of history --- but now with a new caption, one that jibes perfectly with the Warren Commission's findings. "The direction from which shots came was established by this picture taken at the instant the bullet struck the rear of the President's head and, passing through, caused the front part of his skull to explode forward." Nice try. Of course, as all the world would learn years later, it was the back of the president's skull that would explode, suggesting an exit wound, and sending Jackie Kennedy crawling reflexively across the trunk of the limousine to try to salvage the pieces. But this would not be fully understood until the Zapruder film itself had been seen in its entirety.


  That question- why did Jackie sprawl across the back of the car?- has never been answered. It sure seems as if she were trying to recover something shot from the opposite direction, or instinctively hide in the opposite direction.


  ….By 1966 The Times seemed to be moving away from its stance of unquestioning support for the Warren report. In a November 1966 editorial, the paper acknowledged that there were "Unanswered Questions."….That investigation lasted for less than a month. The best look inside the brief investigation came in a Rolling Stone interview with New York Times reporter and assassination investigation team member Martin Waldron. Waldron told Rolling Stone that the team found "a lot of unanswered questions" that the Times did not choose to pursue….But finally, the lid blew off in 1975 when activist Dick Gregory and optics expert Robert Groden approached Geraldo Rivera with a newly unearthed clear copy of the Zapruder film. Finally, the American public was to see the Zapruder film in its entirety, unmediated by any editors or censors. ABC's Good Night America show was the first national television airing of the film to include the deadly frame 313. (Pirated copies had started to crop up in the mid '60s but were of such poor quality they had no dramatic impact.) "It was one of those things where I said [to ABC], 'It gets on or I walk,'" Rivera told the Voice. ABC relented, but only after Rivera agreed to sign a waiver accepting sole financial responsibility if Time or the Zapruder family sued. Rivera maintains that Time-Life did not sue because "they were blown away by the reaction to the program." The airing of the Zapruder film on Rivera's show was a catalyst for renewed interest in the murder and ultimately culminated in four congressional investigations into various aspects of the controversy.


  It’s scary to realize that at 1 time Geraldo Rivera had principles, ain't it!

  Oliver Stone's movie JFK relies on the Zapruder film to support the film's central contention that Kennedy's fatal wound came from the front, and that therefore a conspiracy existed. Referring to the 8mm film, Stone told the Voice: "It was key. It is the best smoking gun we have to date." Despite the compelling use of the Zapruder film in Stone's movie, the man who helped acquire it for Time-Life remains convinced that the Warren Commission got it right and that Oswald did in fact shoot Kennedy from the book depository. "There is nothing in the Zapruder film which contradicts the Warren report," says Dick Stolley. Oddly enough, the man who shot the film, Abraham Zapruder, according to an article authored by Stolley in the November 1973 Esquire, told the Life reporter, "My first impression was that the shots were coming from behind me" --- that is, from the infamous grassy knoll

  This claim is something that is consistently downplayed by the anti-conspiracists.

  CBS decided to go ahead with a documentary series in the fall of 1966, as the cynicism about the assassination continued to mount. Books on the subject were starting to stimulate a national debate. Reports on the suppression of crucial evidence --- including the fact the Warren Commission never even saw the actual autopsy photos and X-rays of JFK --- had became parlor talk around the country. Buzz phrases like "magic bullet" were being used for the first time to express a growing cynicism. Public opinion polls indicated that a majority of the respondents had begun to doubt that Oswald was the whole story.
  The CBS effort was nothing if not monumental. Whereas those who had come before had used fixed targets to test the magic bullet hypothesis, CBS went a giant step further, rigging up a moving target. But the money and manpower thrown at the project was undercut all along the way by errors in procedure and logic; if not motive. For instance, in trying to determine whether Oswald could possibly have fired all the rounds believed to have been squeezed off in Dealey Plaza, CBS used a rifle that was faster than Oswald's: capable of three shots in 4.1 seconds as opposed to 4.6 seconds for Oswald's. The 11 CBS marksmen fired 37 firing runs of three shots each; of those, an amazing 17 of the 37 runs were disqualified as Cronkite said "because of trouble with the rifle." And, even with their faster guns and time to practice, the 11 marksmen averaged 5.6 seconds to get off their three shots, with an average of 1.2 hits. Oswald, a notoriously bad shot firing with a slower gun, is alleged to have done much better --- three shots and two direct hits in 5.6 seconds, with no warm-up. CBS neglected to inform its viewers of the poor total average hit ratio. How did CBS interpret these rifle tests? "It seems reasonable to say that an expert could fire that rifle in five seconds," intoned Walter Cronkite. "It seems equally reasonable to say that Oswald, under normal circumstances, would take longer. But these were not normal circumstances. Oswald was shooting at a president. So our answer is: probably fast enough."

  Such reasoning, applied to other things, would probably have gotten Uncle Walter pink slipped years earlier.


  ….Danny Schechter's Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy, features Walter Cronkite conceding that CBS News in 1970 censored Lyndon Johnson's own doubts about the lone-assassin theory. Cronkite tells Schechter that Johnson invoked "national security" to get CBS to edit out his remarks long after they had been captured on film. Cronkite and CBS, of course, reflexively complied.

  But perhaps nothing revealed CBS's prejudice in the series more tellingly than the network's treatment of Orville Nix, a man who was wielding a movie camera across from the grassy knoll on that fateful day. Nix, who had worked for the General Service Administration as an air conditioning repairman in the Dallas Secret Service building, sold his footage to UPI for $5000 in 1963. But, according to his granddaughter Gayle Nix Jackson, the film only brought him heartache.

"The FBI had issued a dictum to all of Dallas's film labs that any assassination photos had to be turned over to the FBI immediately," recalls Gayle Jackson. "The lab called my granddad first and, like the good American he was, he rushed it to the FBI." Nix had to turn his camera over to the FBI as well. "They took the camera for five months. They said they needed to analyze it. They returned it in pieces," recalls Jackson. In 1967 Nix dutifully turned out for the CBS re-creation. Recalls his granddaughter: "His turn came to reenact what he saw. They said, `Mr. Nix, where did the shots come from?' He said, `From over there on that grassy knoll behind the picket fence.' Then it would be, `Cut!' We went through this six or seven times and each time it was, `Cut!' And then a producer stepped forward and said, `Orville, where did the Warren Commission say the shots came from?' My granddad said, `Well, the Texas Book Depository.' The producer said, `That's what you need to say.'" CBS producer Bernard Birnbaum, who worked on the documentary, denies the exchange. "We never tried to put any words in anybody's mouth, absolutely not," he told the Voice. Birnbaum says CBS did give Warren Commission critics air time and cites a segment of the documentary where another eyewitness contends shots came from the grassy knoll. "We were looking to disprove everything," he insists.


  He said/she said bits like this only clog the real facts- interesting, but ultimately pointless.

  ….Throughout the early 1960s, when Walter Cronkite said, "That's the way it is ..." we had no reason to doubt him. The bashing of Oliver Stone's movie JFK by the bastions of the American media --- CBS, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and The Washington Post --- is said to spring from the sincere desire on the part of the keepers of America's memory to see that our sacred history does not fall prey to revisionist charlatans. While Stone's film does take serious liberty with history, the virulence with which the film has been attacked seems to say more about a defensive press that missed and continues to miss a major story than it does about any flaws in JFK.

  Another interesting point- the attacks against JFK, the film, are far out of proportion with its impact. In fact, the attacks lent the film even greater weight- ironic, since OS has always stated the film was not fact, but only a possible explanation- a counter-myth to balance the Warren Commission’s seminal myth of the Lone Gunman. Let’s take a look at some of the attacks against that film.

The Film JFK

  Here’s another bit of reactionary virulence to OS’s film:


  In discussing the media’s reaction to Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK, Sam Smith commented that, “It is one of contemporary journalism’s most disastrous conceits that truth can not exist in the absence of revealed evidence. By accepting the tyranny of the known, the media inevitably relies on the official version of the truth, seldom asking the government to prove its case, while demanding of critics of that official version the most exacting tests of evidence.”(emphasis in original) Nowhere is this phenomenon more visible than in Kennedy’s medical/autopsy evidence. The original, official findings are accepted without serious scrutiny, as if the government was institutionally incapable of anything but impartiality. Challenges, by contrast, are run through the most withering gauntlet, perhaps for the obvious reason that it is the government that sits in judgment of the merits of the challenge….If nothing else, the handling of JFK’s medical/autopsy evidence provides a case exemplar of how easily things can get started on the wrong foot, and why reinvestigations conducted by the original investigative authority may prefer to keep them on that foot.

  The choice of three inadequate pathologists to perform the autopsy of the century was certainly a very bad step in the search for truth, but perhaps only the second error, after allowing the government to do Kennedy’s autopsy in the first place. The doctors’ having been told that, as already discussed, three shots had been heard before JFK fell forward to the floor of the limousine, and that a rifle barrel was seen being withdrawn from an upper floor window behind JFK, certainly influenced the findings of men whose clinical capacities to sort out complex injuries were well below par.


  Other than the Zapruder film the autopsies remain the most central evidence pertaining to the question of a 2nd shooter. That so many questions abound is 1 thing- that no questions are raised in the mainstream media another, even more damning 1.


  ….Besides the President’s brain and tissue slides, the camera that took JFK’s “best evidence” autopsy photographs has vanished, as have the HSCA tests that revealed that the camera failed a test to match them with the official photographs. The skull fragments that ostensibly proved the bullet’s direction by their supposed beveling characteristics have disappeared. Original autopsy notes were vaporized by JFK’s chief pathologist, who followed that up by signing false affidavits about them, and then by giving the Warren Commission misleading testimony. Also, multiple lines of evidence suggest that crucial – what might fairly be described as “diagnostic” – autopsy photographs are also missing, if not falsified.


  Again, the silence from the mainstream media is too much to ignore in this regard.


  ….Since the best scientific judgments cannot be rendered until all data has been analyzed, it is safe to say that the best scientific judgments are not yet in on the JFK medical/autopsy evidence. So does the evidence merit a reexamination by a new panel of experts? The reader will have to decide for himself how much suppressed, and contradictory, evidence it takes to justify a reappraisal. Or to justify lack of confidence in prior appraisals. But today it is not an exaggeration to argue that still, nearly 40 years later, there remain myriad unanswered questions.

  Had JFK’s death been a simple matter of a sole, deranged act by a disgruntled loner, how likely is it that so much inconvenient evidence would have been suppressed or ignored?


  This is a very good point. Why so many apparently covert maneuvers if LHO was truly a singular wacko?
  While the prior examples showed overreaching & distortion as pertains to the 2 camps’ presentation of the ‘facts’ they find relevant, the following excerpt, from an online piece by a Milicent Cranor called ‘Neck and Torso X-rays: Selectivity in Reporting’ vividly illustrates how peoples’ will to believe can be directed:


  "Pick a number," says the gypsy, "any number from one to ten."  Suppose you say "Seven."  The gypsy then tells you to look beneath the big black book on the table. You do so and, magically, you find a small piece of paper contain a single message: "7."  Proof of clairvoyance.  If you had tried again and said "Ten," the gypsy would have asked you to look beneath the teapot. There you would have found a slip of paper with the number "10" written on it. But the gypsy quickly directs your attention to other matters – he dares not perform more than one demonstration of his clairvoyance per session, or even the most gullible would catch on.

  The above scenario demonstrates the power of undetected selectivity.  Once it is detected, it loses its power. There is a long history of selectivity in the reporting of images on the x-rays of the neck and torso of the late John F. Kennedy.


  The piece then veers off in to far too technical terms which basically assert that the wounds on JFK’s body were inconsistent with shots fired from the School Book Depository. Yet, this technique has been equally applied to other aspects of the murder, which I have illustrated.


Recapping Suspects & Motives


  An online article from the History Matters website by a Rex Bradford, Lasting Questions About The Murder Of President Kennedy, addresses the aforementioned issues, as well:


  The U.S. Government has gotten out of the business of answering these questions, having done so twice (in 1964 and 1979, with different answers). But it doesn't take much hunting in the national media, or any encyclopedia or school textbook, to discover the official societal answers to these questions:
  Who killed JFK? Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone (and Jack Ruby acted alone when he killed Oswald in the basement of a police station two days later).
  Was there really a government coverup? No, although there was perhaps excessive secrecy and a desire to avoid inflaming the situation given Oswald's Communist background.
  Are there any smoking guns in the new records? No (not that it is necessary to actually read them to discover this).
  Will we ever know what happened? The Warren Commission figured it out in 1964, but irresponsible "conspiracy theorists" have misled a public all too willing to believe that such a larger-than-life figure as Kennedy could not be brought down by a single disturbed loner.
  Does it matter anymore? Hey, it was almost 40 years ago. Get a life!

  Note how these points echo through every bit of information put out by the anti-conspiracists- a group that, in comparison to the pro-conspiracists, are as homogeneous as milk. Later on some more questions of merit are pointed out:


  Other aspects of coverup are so overt and open that they often escape comment. An example is the Warren Commission's treatment of Jack Ruby, the man who shot Oswald. An honest and aggressive investigation would have immediately hauled Ruby to Washington for several days of grilling. Instead, the Commission put off interviewing Ruby until June 7, 1964, when chapters of the Warren Report were already being drafted and edited. During his single interview, held in a jail cell in Dallas, Ruby begged several times to be taken to Washington where he could speak more freely. Ruby said at one point: "Gentlemen, unless you get me to Washington, you can't get a fair shake out of me." The supposed reason for not interviewing Ruby earlier was to avoid interfering with his trial, but even crediting that excuse, the trial was over months earlier. As Warren noted: "And I wish we had gotten here a little sooner after your trial was over, but I know you had other things on your mind, and we had other work, and it got to this late date." The Commission declined to take Ruby to Washington, leaving him in his cell, where he died in January 1967. 


   Further on is a summation whose many points we will see can be applied not only to the JFK assassination mythos, but the UFO mythos, & many others, as well:


  Members of the general public, like the journalists and pundits who mostly live on the other side of the fault line, are not particularly well-versed on the particulars of the assassination. In both cases, shared assumptions and general belief systems matter more than detailed arguments over facts and evidence. In defense of the general public's belief in conspiracy, it can be argued that the populace "smells a rat" for many very good reasons, including basic commonsense ones like Jack Ruby's shooting of Oswald. In defense of the elite opinion, the Warren Report and modern versions of it such as Case Closed seem to effectively debunk many of the conspiracy arguments. The emphasis here is on the word "seem." The set of facts available for any author in this case is vast, and selective use of these facts can and has made for books which are persuasive to the uninitiated by scoffed at by experts of the case. Also, many of the arguments which seem so effective ultimately devolve to appeals to authority, and rely on the assumption that those in law enforcement and high political positions would not lie about such important matters. This is an issue of belief more than provable fact, and there is good reason to doubt its truth in many instances

  ….Any serious investigation of the Kennedy assassination quickly becomes an adventure in epistemology—the issue quickly becomes not "what does the evidence say" but "how do we know what we know?" One strategy that makes sense to many is to start first with the physical base of evidence: the films, the photographs, the bullet fragments, the rifle, and so on. But there is a paucity of such evidence to begin with, much of it having mysteriously disappeared. Furthermore, legal traditions and common sense dictate that there be a "chain of possession" for such evidence, in order that the veracity of the physical evidence be upheld. But most of the primary physical evidence in this case has no such chain of possession, or is of suspect origin in the first place.

  The "magic bullet," for instance, tied to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others by its rifling marks, was found in Parkland hospital well after the shooting. It was found on a stretcher near some elevators by a hospital employee. The Warren Commission asserted that the stretcher was Governor Connally's, but more detailed analyses have shown it was probably that of a patient unrelated to the shootings. The bullet is slightly flattened at the base but otherwise unmangled, and looks remarkably similar to test bullets fired into tubes of cotton. In other words, it has all the earkmarks of a "plant," and the scene of confusion at Parkland Hospital provided ample opportunity.

  ….And what about the societal and historical view of the assassination, that which appears in history textbooks, encyclopedias, articles in the New York Times, or any other indicator of official opinion? These, with a few exceptions, have remained strikingly free of the grim reality which has come pouring out over the decades. Microsoft Encarta, based on the Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedia, contains this in its brief description of the JFK assassination: "two shots were fired.....Kennedy fell forward..." In these few words alone there are two errors of basic fact. First, the Warren Commission found that three shots were fired (there may have been more, but there certainly weren't less). Second, the Zapruder film shows unequivocally that Kennedy fell backward rather than forward. That such mis-information appears in encyclopedias to this day is hardly a good omen for the future.


  Later on, RB takes on a list of suspect groups. Let’s see if even a seemingly ‘sober’ pro-conspiracist can resist the urge to slant & distort:


  So who did kill JFK? The short and easy answer is that we do not know, the crime having never been honestly investigated by those who had, at least in theory, the judicial power to get to the bottom of it. That failure is a bitter legacy from which there is no escape….What follows, it should be obvious, is one person's overview analysis of the historical record; others can and do (vehemently) disagree.

  Lee Oswald - It was proven long ago that one man did not fire all the shots in Dealey Plaza that Friday afternoon in Dallas. More than three decades of additional information has only confirmed this judgment, despite the ferocity with which it is still held in some quarters. This is not to say that Oswald was necessarily an innocent patsy—it seems quite possible that he was part of the murder plot. That too is uncertain. Oswald remains a true enigma, in many ways the most mysterious figure of the assassination landscape. The boy who watched "I Led Three Lives for the FBI," joined the Marines, served as a radar operator at a base in Japan which happened to house U-2 spy planes, learned Russian somehow and defected to the Soviet Union, came back to the U.S. with a Russian wife to work at menial jobs, occasionally passing out pro-Castro leaflets while also being seen in the company of serious anti-Communist crusaders, still defies easy analysis. Oswald remains a mystery, despite the attempts to flatten him into two-dimensional cartoons, whether that of the Crazy Marxist of the James Bond CIA Spy. The truth is likely stranger and more complex than either caricature, and may never be untangled.


  Note how he rejects the either/or of the extreme anti- & pro- views re: LHO as victim. Yet he asserts that it was proven long ago that there was more than 1 gunman. Officially it’s a no, & even people who think a conspiracy likely- like me- have to admit the evidence is only circumstantial, however compelling. Unfortunately, as noted previously, too much corroborating evidence is not around anymore.


  The KGB - The circumstantial case for Soviet involvement in the assassination was laid out by Edward Jay Epstein in a book called Legend, based on his conversations with legendary CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton. There are indeed some mysteries related to Oswald's sojourn in the Soviet Union, and the Soviet defector Nosenko who came to America in 1964 with the untrue story that the KGB never had any interest in Oswald. But why the Soviet government would want to kill Kennedy, other than to fulfill its reputation as the Evil Empire, has never been clear. In any case, the tapped phone calls in which Oswald was impersonated shatter any such notion. It is very unlikely, to say the least, that the KGB would fake evidence of an incriminating contact between Oswald and one of their assassination experts. The episode instead smacks of, as Katzenbach wrote in his memo, "a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists."


  This is probably true, since any link to murder may have provoked Armageddon. But, rogue factions within the KGB or Soviet military cannot be discounted, especially when we have seen in recent years just how inept National Security really has been- from 9/11 to ex-CIA agents easily selling information for years; not to mention that ‘rogue’ elements in our own government are readily seen as possibilities.


  Fidel Castro - While the public reports generated by the investigations have been careful not to point the finger at Cuba's Fidel Castro, behind the scenes a great deal of attention has been focused there. Virtually all of the relevant evidence came from the CIA's Mexico City station. Witnesses claimed to have seen Oswald take money to kill Kennedy at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. Tapped phone lines produced ambiguous but sinister information. A defector from Cuba's intelligence service, DGI, claimed that Oswald had met with DGI agents on multiple occasions. Dissecting this and related evidence is well outside the scope of this essay, and will instead be treated under essays in the topic The Framing of Oswald. It is this author's strong view that the connection is ultimately false and indeed a setup, and has been used effectively to throw off track the various investigations, particularly the Schweiker subcommittee of the Church Committee.


  Castro has long been suspect, especially with the motivation of ‘getting JFK before he gets me’, but Cuba had far more to lose than the USSR by assassinating JFK. & would Castro have believed LBJ would go softer on him than JFK?


  The Mafia - The books promoting the "organized crime hit" theory are generally uncompelling to this writer, crystallized in the absurd depiction of a Mafia chieftain lamenting to near-stranger Edward Becker "Take the stone out of my shoe!" But there is abundant circumstantial evidence implicating certain mobsters, most particularly Johnny Roselli (one good source is Sons and Brothers by Richard Mahoney). And the HSCA took the veil off Jack Ruby and showed his deep mob ties. But Rosselli was at the nexus of the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. And the emerging story of Ruby's involvement in gunrunning to Cuban exiles (see the LaFontaine's Oswald Talked and Peter Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, in addition to the account Nancy Perrin Rich told the Warren Commission) puts him into the same milieu. Rather than an organized crime hit, what seems more likely is a new use (by CIA officers or agents) of an existing relationship. The choice of the "hoodlum" Ruby to silence Oswald is perhaps a classic case of the use of "cutouts" to keep suspicion away from an operation's ultimate sponsors. As Peter Dale Scott has noted, Ruby's connections are broader than just the mob in other ways, extending via his Teamsters contacts into the political realm.


  To me, most people who blithely dismiss the Mafia as a source of the JFK killing do not fundamentally understand the organized crime mentality. I will go on about that a bit later, but consider that since the end of Prohibition Organized Crime enjoyed almost 3 decades of unparalleled freedom to engage in illegalities. J. Edgar Hoover’s ties to mob figures is known, as well as both parties’ hatred for JFK & RFK (who was leading the anti-Mafia charge), not to mention the irrational aspects of many Mafia actions based on emotion. The RFK investigations smacked of betrayal by the scion of a man the Mafia made 1 of the 10 richest men in America, at 1 time. But, that the Mafia acted alone is not likely. More likely is that the mob found sympathizers in the government, & both found it much easier to kill a national leader when 1 of the parties controls the movement & protection of that leader. The Mafia also saw JFK as a weakling who could not even take out Castro- a man who cost the mob billions in illegal revenue annually. Weakness is a despicable trait in Mafia circles. The use of JR as a beard also seems quite possible, as he was in debt to Mafia figures for his very livelihood. Plus, unlike the young healthy LHO. JR was less likely to go pigeon on them, as he already knew he was dying of cancer. So there was no need to silence the silencer.


  Anti-Castro Exiles - Another group known to hate President Kennedy were the anti-Castro exiles, for whom Kennedy's failure to provide support during the Bay of Pigs invasion was unforgivable. Oswald's 1963 summer in New Orleans put him in contact with members of exile groups, including DRE member Carlos Bringuier, who engaged Oswald in a possibly-staged fracas. The story of Sylvia Odio remains unresolved, as well. Ms. Odio, daughter of an imprisoned anti-Castro Cuban, told the Warren Commission that three men came to her door one evening in September 1963, two of them Latins and the third Lee Harvey Oswald. One of the men told her on the phone the next day that Oswald was "loco" and wanted to kill Kennedy. These and other stories possibly implicating anti-Castro Cubans have never been satisfactorily resolved. But even if members of these groups were involved with Oswald, or with the setup of Oswald, they hardly had the power or knowledge to conduct sophisticated operations like the Mexico City frameup. At most, such groups would have been working under the direction of their CIA handlers, who included among them David Phillips or Howard Hunt.


  RB’s analysis is probably correct.


  Lyndon Johnson - Que bono? Who benefits? The fact that Lyndon Johnson came from Texas provided for some an immediate circumstantial case for his involvement in the murder of his predecessor. Nearly forty years of subsequent research has never answered this question one way or another. Certainly it is true that Johnson was aware that the Oswald lone-nut story was untrue—he said so many times, including in a conversation with Warren Commissioner Richard Russell on the eve of the Warren Report's publication. But Johnson nonetheless used the false Communist conspiracy evidence to press Earl Warren onto the Commission against his will, as Warren noted in his memoirs and as evidence in LBJ's November 29 1963 phone call with Richard Russell. Johnson played an active early role in the coverup, but the charge that he was involved in the murder remains speculation.


  Again, the author’s assessment seems the best interpretation.


  The Right-Wing - In the Warren Commission's sole interview with Jack Ruby, Ruby dropped a giant hint about the involvement of the John Birch Society and right-wing ex-general Edwin Walker, and then declared " giving the people the opportunity to get into power, because of the act I committed, has put a lot of people in jeopardy with their lives. Doesn't register with you, does it?" Earl Warren answered "No, I don't understand that." Dallas, Texas, was in 1963 a hotbed of right-wing militarism and racism, and the behavior of the Dallas Police fueled suspicions of a Dallas-based right-wing plot. Wealthy oilman H. L. Hunt, whose son had met with Ruby just prior to the assassination, went into hiding for a time after the Kennedy murder. A locally-based right-wing plot, by itself doesn't begin to explain the sophisticated setup of Oswald in New Orleans and Mexico City. To the extent, however, that right-wing figures were enmeshed in the broader anti-Kennedy political landscape, their involvement seems much more plausible.


  This faction might well include covert Klansmen inflamed as much by RFK’s involvement in Civil Rights as the Mafia’s hatred for the Kennedy family’s ‘betrayal’. But, as stated, they were probably marginal figures used by people with greater power.


  The CIA - There has long been suspicion that Oswald was an agent of U. S. intelligence, probably the CIA, though no documentation to that effect has ever emerged from the files. An entire book, Spy Saga by Dr. Philip Melanson, explored many of the reasons for this conclusion. The release of Oswald's CIA "201" file shows that the CIA had a much more active pre-assassination interest in Oswald than previously admitted, and anomalies in the record add to, rather than reduce, the mystery of Oswald's intelligence connections. Dr. John Newman's Oswald and the CIA explores some of the new revelations in the documentary record released in the 1990s. But if Oswald indeed was some kind of agent of the CIA, that hardly makes him a CIA killer. In fact, it raises the likelihood that this association is what led to his selection as a "patsy." What better way to force the CIA into a coverup than to paint one of its own as the killer of the President? In any case, the CIA as an organization, vast as it is, is hardly a credible suspect in the assassination per se. But individual officers, and possibly a powerful cabal of them as opposed to merely a few "rogue" agents, may very well have been part of the plot. The Mexico City stories of a Soviet/Castro conspiracy were vigorously pushed by certain figures in the CIA. More importantly, the pre-assassination activities of some of these persons and the handling of the "Oswald" telephone taps has never been adequately explained. This includes the actions of counterintelligence officers in CIA headquarters, who opened the 201 file on a Lee "Henry" Oswald and created the deceitful October cables reporting falsely on the Oswald Embassy contacts. The CIA has lied for over 35 years about the taped Embassy phone calls, and its story of why a photograph of Oswald in Mexico City was never obtained by its photographic surveillance is hard to believe. This photographic surveillance became known to the Warren Commission, though only because Oswald's mother Marguerite complained loudly that she had been shown a picture of Jack Ruby before Ruby killed her son. She had in fact been shown a picture of the "Mexico City Mystery Man," which had been flown from Mexico City to Dallas on a Naval Attache plane, apparently mistaken for Oswald by the CIA Mexico City station itself. The identity of this person has never been determined, and the CIA expressed great concern about the Warren Commission's plan to publish the photo, even with the background cut out. One CIA memo even suggested that the face of the man might be altered in the published photo. If this idea was really promoted to protect the identity of an innocent bystander, it shows a touching sensitivity in an agency otherwise involved in larger matters such as overthrowing foreign governments. The stories of the telephone taps, photographic surveillance, the interrogation and handling of various Mexico City witnesses, and CIA files on Oswald, are far too complex to discuss adequately here—see The Framing of Oswald topic. In summary, it is clear that the CIA's involvement with and monitoring of Oswald has been covered up and lied about; furthermore a few individual officers engaged in highly suspicious actions which have never been adequately explained.


  Likely the CIA had a hand in some matter of the assassination- be it providing a patsy or covering up info after the fact. Especially strong is the fact that they could have provided vengeful Mafiosi with valuable information as to where best take out JFK, plus a convenient stooge to distract attention from their involvement.


  The Military - The U. S. military has never been the focus of any of the investigations, even though such a focus is warranted. The autopsy which has generated so much controversy over the years, and rightly so, was a tightly controlled military affair at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. One of the autopsy doctors, Dr. Pierre Finck, told jurors at the Clay Shaw trial that an Army General was in charge of the Kennedy autopsy, and that he had failed to dissect the neck (necessary to track the bullet's path) because he had been told not to. Autopsy participants were issued orders not to speak of what they had seen under penalty of court martial; these gag orders were not lifted until late the House Select Committee's tenure, and even then only after much exasperated prodding by that Congressional body. It was learned in the 1970s that the Army had maintained a file on Lee Oswald, but it was "routinely destroyed" in 1973. One witness, a Col. Robert Jones of the 112th Military Intelligence group, told the HSCA that Army intelligence personnel were in Dealey Plaza the day of the motorcade. The Committee members gingerly danced around the question of whether any of them might on or near the grassy knoll and might have shown identification which could be mistaken for Secret Service id's. This was because a man behind the "grassy knoll" apparently flashed forged Secret Service identification to a Dallas police officer moments after the gunfire, as that police officer told the Warren Commission. All Secret Service agents were in the motorcade at the time. In any case, the circumstantial case for military involvement in the assassination remains that, circumstantial, and includes the foreign policy motives discussed elsewhere on this website. Kennedy had initiated a withdrawal from Vietnam, and was actively pursuing accomodation with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Military leaders of the day were adamantly opposed to such moves, as is well documented in the transcripts of the Cuban Missile Crisis and elsewhere. New Vietnam records, explored in Newman's JFK and Vietnam and Kaiser's American Tragedy, show a military fiercely gung-ho on confrontation in Vietnam and elsewhere, to the point where there was repeated advocacy of the use of nuclear weapons in Indochina. But motive is hardly sufficient where a Presidential assassination is concerned, and the military autopsy is greatly disturbing in many respects but inconclusive. The most compelling evidence of military involvement is also the most controversial, and includes the notion first put forth in David Lifton's 1980 book Best Evidence that the military took control of Kennedy's body itself prior to the autopsy, in order to manipulate it and control the autopsy findings. Lifton interviewed Navy personnel who told him that the body had come in, before Jackie Kennedy arrived, in a grey shipping casket. Some recent evidence, including the revelation that many Bethesda witnesses observed a large rear head wound like that seen at Parkland Hospital, obviates the need for a complex head-surgery-prior-to-autopsy theory, which was always the most implausible part of Lifton's thesis. But other new evidence adds weight to the notion of military control of the body. The tapes of Air Force I en route from Dallas to Washington contains very curious discussion of the need for a special ramp to escort the "First Lady" off the plane on the right-hand side, which was enveloped in darkness (Mrs. Kennedy did not deplane by that route). The most compelling new evidence, though, is the untranscribed and previously-suppressed audiotaped interview of Richard Lipsey, the military aide in charge of moving Kennedy's body from Andrews Air Force Base to Bethesda for autopsy. Lipsey told the HSCA staffers that he had used a second "decoy" ambulance with a second casket to move the body, according to Lipsey to avoid possible problems with crowds. But if this account is true, the body would have had to have been removed from its original casket before the plane left the ground in Dallas, unless Jackie Kennedy herself knew of the switch. Lipsey's account, which goes to the heart of a military conspiracy to kill the President and cover up the evidence, was buried by the HSCA and never followed up.


  The military loathed JFK for both the Bay Of Pigs’ refusal to send air support, & for sweeping aside their concerns during the Cuban Missile Crisis, not to mention numerous firings of generals & admirals JFK thought incompetent, bellicose, or deceitful. The evidence for the military’s involvement is compelling, but RB is correct- circumstantial. & guess what? Most of the points (even minutiae- far too numerous for me to detail when the Internet awaits your own investigation!) made in his essay are hotly debated. But, his following ‘thought experiment’ is 1 worthy of contemplating- & it is 1 that Oliver Stone used as the rationale for JFK. To me it, again, too easily dismisses  other groups, just as the film did- but it is interesting & compelling:


  A thought experiment may be helpful at this point. Imagine that it is 1963, the height of the Cold War, but it is not Kennedy who has been killed. It is Nikita Khruschev, leader of the Soviet Union, recently humiliated by the U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In this thought experiment, it is Khruschev, not Kennedy, who received a military autopsy whose results ran directly counter to the reports of the civilian doctors who first treated him. Imagine that later one of the autopsy doctors admitted that a Soviet general ran the autopsy, and that this doctor said he was ordered not to track the path of a bullet. That crucial autopsy photographs known to be taken went missing, that trained medical witnesses disputed what was shown in those that remained, that the official autopsy camera went missing after an investigation failed to match it to the photographs. Imagine it was Russia where the security services destroyed evidence linking themselves with the purported killer, who was declared to be a lone "rabid capitalist," but who seemed to be surrounded for the last year of his life by KGB operatives. That secret evidence finally revealed that the purported killer had been impersonated in a supposed phone conversation with CIA agents. But Khruschev's successor, without revealing the impersonation, had led those investigating the crime to think that the alleged assassin had indeed made these disturbing calls, and there might be nuclear war with America if this got out. And so on. Take the single bullet theory, the killing of the alleged assassin while in police custody, and all the rest of the JFK assassination story, including the fact that the murder was followed by a major expansion of a war, a war that secret documents years later showed Khruschev had ordered be wound down.

  Everyone in the U.S., from the New York Times to the man on the street, would have a field day with this scenario. It would be completely obvious to everyone that Khruschev was killed by his own political enemies with the help of the KGB, for political reasons. It would be obvious that the "story" of the lone capitalist was just that, a story, propped by phony "evidence" that would be completely disbelieved. You wouldn't need 1/10th of the evidence pointing toward a high-level conspiracy that is present in the JFK assassination to convince just about anybody of this.


  But just as you think that RB has avoided some of the most egregious sins, we get another dip into totally unsupported fantasy:


  And what of Bobby Kennedy, the devoted brother of the slain President? As evidence has emerged that RFK suspected that a right-wing plot killed his brother, so evidence has also emerged that he aided the coverup. The missing brain, tissue slides, and other original autopsy materials, which could shed much light on the medical mysteries, disappeared while under his control. The casket used to transport JFK's body from Dallas, with unknown contents, was dropped from military aircraft into 9000 feet of water a few months later, on RFK's orders. The Garrison grand jury transcripts contain allegations from multiple sources that Kennedy was involved with the Federal government in obstructing Garrison's probe.

  Bobby Kennedy? Coverup? Was the phony Communist conspiracy idea used against him as well? Perhaps, but doubtful. It is hard to believe that the Assistant Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, was not privy along with Hoover, LBJ, and Rowley, to the fact that the Mexico City tapes were recordings of an imposter. Asked to comment for an AP story about these tapes in 1999, Katzenbach issued this lame denial: "Whether I knew anything about it at the time, or what I knew about it at the time, I don't recall." And if Katzenbach knew, would not his boss Robert Kennedy know?

  So what stayed RFK's tongue? Was it some dark Kennedy secret, his or his brother's, that would be exposed, perhaps related to covert Cuban operations including the Castro assassination plots? Was it simply recognition that, despite the title of Attorney General, he was now powerless in the face of the new order?


  All of the above assertions are just that. There has never been convincing evidence otherwise- & note the overtones of Kennedy blackmailability- Marilyn Monroe, too? 


Mano A Mano


  Let me now delve in to some of the more personal snipings & literary techniques used by both sides against their foes. As I stated earlier, there are websites from the pro- & anti-conspiracy camps that point out manifest errors & inaccuracies in each others’ takes. Here are 3 of the most thorough. This site,, is very detail-oriented, but even a cursory examination of it (& I spent hours) reveals that much as the misdirected focus on the Magic Bullet distracts from the actual kill shot, much of this website practices similar sleight of hand (or word, or hyperlink?). For example, the fact that an innocent bystander, James Tague, was hit by 1 of the 3 bullets is not disputed. Yet here is a direct copy of what appears on the page ( dealing with this:


The Tague Wounding


  -One of the ongoing mysteries of Dealey Plaza is the origin of the fragment that hit James Tague. Three graphics images, all rendered Autocad drawings, test two scenarios. First is Posner's theory that a shot at about Zapruder frame 160 was deflected off a branch of the Live Oak in front of the Depository and hit the curb in front of Tague. The other theory is that a fragment of the head shot hit Tague. TAGUE1.GIF, TAGUE2.GIF, and TAGUE3.GIF show the trajectories involved.


  -TAGUE4.GIF deals with the same issue, but this time the drawing is from conspiracy author Josiah Thompson. The diagram, drawn on a map of Dealey Plaza, shows the path a fragment from the head shot would have to have taken to hit Tague. Warning: this file is extremely large for screen viewing, and you may prefer to download it and print it. 


  -Tague's own testimony is interesting -- although not capable of resolving all the issues his wounding raises. Bill Goggins interviewed Tague in 1997, and discusses his recent testimony and Warren Commission statements in "James Tague: Unintended Victim in Dealey Plaza." Goggins debunks one minor, but widely cited, error regarding Tague's wounding.


  -A lead smear on the Main Street curb near where Tague was standing may -- or may not -- have something to do with the shooting.

  Point 1 raises 2 plausible components & elaborates. This is a standard literary technique known as ‘grounding’. In order to decontext something, or make something inherently implausible seem plausible, or something banal seem extraordinary, 1st a writer- or storyteller, must give the audience a familiar footing. Point 1 does so because it reeks of science & authority. Point 2’s picture is not too different from Point 1’s 3rd picture. This is known as ‘reconfirming’. It attempts to show that what was initially stated is indeed so. Later on we’ll see how UFO alien abduction writers use this constant grounding/reconfirmation technique over & over to bolster witness credibility for outrageously sill claims. But here it’s wonderful to see such a visual representation. On to point 3. In it Tague is vague as to which shot hit him- the piece states: ‘When asked what overall theory he believes explains how he was wounded, Tague was very ambiguous and unclear. He did state that he felt there was more than just one shooter. He also seemed very suspicious of the government and how the FBI handled him and the pieces of related evidence around Dealey Plaza. He is amidst writing a book accounting his place in the Dealey Plaza assassination. He was considering the title "Wake Up America." It became quite clear that Tague distrusts the government.’ Yet, despite that the whole rest of the piece seems intent on ramming the 3 bullet thesis down both the reader & Tague’s collective throats. Yet, Tague’s assertations are glossed over as ‘interesting -- although not capable of resolving all the issues his wounding raises’. This is a classic feint. Someone’s assertion is effectively held up for ridicule even as it is supposedly shown in an unbiased light. After grounding & reconfirmation, a feint is next in line, to open up doors of doubt. Point 4 is a piece of evidence, presented as minutia, that is described as ‘A lead smear on the Main Street curb near where Tague was standing may -- or may not -- have something to do with the shooting.’ This is the last piece, which is the dangling end, the red herring. This is the final part of a process of discrediting & misdirection. Someone whose experience is central to determining if there was a 2nd shooter & coverup is ultimately marginalized in a seemingly logical fashion. Yet the conclusion & whole arc is itself a red herring. Why is Tague’s experience shown this way? Because the author, 1 John McAdams, wants to convince his reader that any possible evidence gleaned from this aspect of the case is not important. Otherwise, why lump him in with other more farfetched & disliked aspects in this manner?:


Phil Snyder's Testimony of His Third Heaven Visitation

Club news: MUFON meets Oct. 23 in Fayetteville


The McPherson Camp of the Sons Of Union Veterans of the Civil War will meet at 7 p.m. Oct. 18 at Gusano’s Pizza, 2603 W. Pleasant Grove Road in Rogers. Members gather at 6 p.m. for dinner and socializing.

The Sons Of Union Veterans is a patriotic, fraternal organization made up of male descendants of members of the United States Army, Navy or Marine Corps, or those who served as government officials during the Civil War. The meeting is open to all.

Information: (479) 381-6883.

Hill N Dale

The Hill N Dale Hiking Club will be hiking at 9 a.m. Oct. 19 on the Ozark Highlands Trail from Morgan Fields trailhead to Hair Mountain and back. This is a total of five miles. This is the highest point on the Ozark Highlands Trail, with an elevation gain of 800 feet.

Participants will meet at Ozark Highlands Trail’s West Cobb Trailhead, north Farm to Market Road 1504 in Ozark. Just more than 5 miles of gravel road is involved to get to the trailhead. A high clearance vehicle is recommended.

Information: Bev Munstermann at (479) 721-2193; email [email protected]; or visit


The Northwest Arkansas Senior Democrats will meet at noon Oct. 19 via Zoom. The speaker will be Sen. Jim Hendren. Hendren departed from the Republican Party last spring and started a new organization called Common Ground to elect candidates who will support legislation that addresses the real problems faced by Arkansans. They aim to ensure strong voter power and voter choice. Misty Orpin, the executive director of Common Ground, will also address the group.

Information: (479) 267-1967.


The Rotary Club of Fayetteville will meet at noon Oct. 21 at Mermaids Restaurant in Fayetteville. Leigh Wood, with KUAF, will be the speaker. Lunch is $15. A Zoom meeting is optional. Email the club for zoom information.

Information: [email protected]


The Northwest Section of Arkansas Mutual UFO Network will meet from 9:30 a.m. to noon Oct. 23 at the Fayetteville Drake Field Airport conference room. A review of the educational benefits of the MUFON University website for field investigators will be presented. Section meetings are open to members, guests and anyone with a genuine interest in the UFO phenomenon.

Information: (479) 422-9586.

Calico Cut-Ups

Calico Cut-Ups quilt guild will meet at 1 p.m. Oct. 25 at St. Theodore’s Episcopal Church, 1001 Kingsland Road in Bella Vista. Park behind the church on the lower level leaving the drive-through clear for loading and unloading. Guests are welcome for a $5 guest fee that helps defray program costs for the paid speaker. This fee is applied to your membership if you choose to join the guild the same day you visit.

The lecture, presented by Lola Jenkins, is titled “Quilter Gone Wild,” and she will take listeners on a journey of her quilting out of the box.

Jenkins will be vending as well, so come early to socialize and check out her work.

Information: Email [email protected]


The Northwest Arkansas Genealogical Society will meet at 6 p.m. Oct. 25 at the Bentonville Public Library. The program will be a roundtable discussion. Topics will include court house records research. Everyone is welcome.


Computer Club

The Bella Vista Computer Club has scheduled programs for October with information provided on the website at Due to covid restrictions, classes will be limited to eight persons.

BVCC has scheduled the following classes and workshops:

Oct. 27 — “Computer Security for Regular People, Part 2,” 4-6 p.m.

Oct. 29 — “Installing Wi-Fi Printers,” 9-10 a.m.

Nov. 6 — Help Clinic, 9 a.m.-noon

Nov. 17 — Help Clinic, 9 a.m.-noon

Visitors and guests are welcome. The yearly BVCC membership is $25 for the first member in a household and $10 for each additional member in the same household.

The Bella Vista Computer Club generally meets at 7 p.m. on Mondays in Room 1001, on the lower level of the Highlands Crossing Center, 1801 Forest Hills Blvd., Bella Vista. In light of continuing covid-19 conditions, the club highly recommends masking and observing social distancing, or consider attending the meeting by Zoom if you are unvaccinated or have other at-risk persons in your household.



Snyder mufon phil

Phil Snyder

American voice actor, stand-up comedian, author, animator, musician, singer-songwriter, director, screenwriter and producer

Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder.jpg

Snyder in 1997


Philip Charles Snyder

(1953-02-06) February 6, 1953 (age 68)

Ellensburg, Washington, U.S.

  • Voice actor
  • stand-up comedian
  • author
  • animator
  • musician
  • singer-songwriter
  • director
  • screenwriter
  • producer
Years active1974–present
AgentTisherman Gilbert Motley Drozdoski[1]
WebsiteOfficial website

Philip Charles Snyder (born February 6, 1953)[2] is an American university professor, voice actor, stand-up comedian, author, animator, musician, singer-songwriter, director, screenwriter and producer.


He was born the sixth child in a family of ten children. He began to demonstrate his love for, and natural skills in entertainment, especially impressions, at an early age. Snyder moved to Los Angeles, California, in 1974 to pursue a career in show business. After a few false starts, he became a regular paid performer at The Comedy Store. He began pursuing a career in voice-overs for animated cartoons and commercials. In 1996, Snyder had his first guest role in an animated TV series as Newt Gingrich and "Bob" in an episode of Steven Spielberg's Pinky and the Brain. The episode title was "The Pink Candidate".

In 1998, Snyder starred in his first feature film as Mr. Toad in the American version of Martin Gates's The Wind in the Willows.[a] Snyder also played the villain, Thaddeus J. Pinchworm, in The Wacky Adventures of Ronald McDonald, which was animated by Klasky Csupo.

In May 2010, Snyder began to voice the Disney character, Jiminy Cricket. His first appearance as him was in the popular video game series, Kingdom Hearts.[3] He took over the role from Eddie Carroll, who died in April 2010.

He is also the voice of the Mattel Toys interactive talking toy, "Stinky the Garbage Truck," which made its debut in 2010.

Snyder began teaching at the University of Houston in their College of Technology's Digital Media Program in 2013, and won their Teaching Excellence Award in 2015.[4]



Year Title Role Notes
1995 The Wind in WillowsMr. Toad (voice)
2001, 2003 The Wacky Adventures of Ronald McDonaldThaddeus J. Pinchworm, Stiles (voices) Direct-to-video series[2][1]
2002 The Creation Adventure Team: Six Short Days, One Big AdventureProto (voice) Direct-to-video
2003 The Creation Adventure Team: A Jurassic Ark MysteryProto (voice)
2014 The Elements Club: Lord of Flawless StrengthVarious voices Direct-to-video


Video games[edit]

Theme parks[edit]

Year Title Voice role Notes
2003 Health RoyaleSlim Pick-It [1]

Commercials and promos[edit]

  • Disney Christmas Ad: Jiminy Cricket (Disney Home Video)
  • Stinky Garbage Truck Ad: Stinky (Young & Rubicam/Mattel)
  • Tropicana Orange Juice: Orange (Pepsico/Element 79)
  • 7-Eleven Stores: Cartoon Man (Richards Group/PBS)
  • Popeye’s Chicken: Popeye, Olive, Whimpy (Hill, Holiday Altschiller)
  • Premier Parks: Popeye, Olive, Bluto (Ackerman McQueen)
  • Toys ‘r’ Us: Tough Guy, Crazy Guy (Wells Rich Greene)
  • Blockbuster Video: Octopus (Bernstein-Rein)

Television and episodic webisodes[edit]

  • Ad It Up: Just Ad Milk (Pilot): Writer/Producer/Director (KAZAP Corp.)
  • The Numbears: All Roles (8 Million YouTube Views) (KAZAP Corp.)
  • 24—online Animated: George Mason (Imagine Ent.)
  • Something So Right: Hector the Stuttering Parrot (Universal/NBC)

Radio, commercials, and talk shows[edit]

  • Discover Card: Elf (Shine Adv/DG Entertainment)
  • Quik Trip: Dad (Richards Group)
  • Jc Penney: Crazy Announcer (Ackerman McQueen)
  • Boatman’s Bank: 3rd Little Pig (TBWA Kerlick Switzer)
  • Infincom Copiers: Dudley Doo-Right, Snidley (Moses Anshell)
  • Rick Dees Top 40: Featured (Syndicated)

Comedy clubs and live concerts[edit]

  • Comedy Stores of Hollywood, Las Vegas, La Jolla, & Universal City, Atlantis Hotel in Atlantic City (Jeff Kutash's "Superstars & Stripes") Also regular at Ice House, Laff Stop, Igby’s, Coconuts, Laugh Factory, and Los Angeles area comedy clubs. Toured with World Champion gymnast, Kurt Thomas's "Gymnastics America" as MC/Host.



  1. ^ The version of The Wind in the Willows which starred Phil Snyder as Mr. Toad was originally produced in the UK by M.G.P. Productions, with Rik Mayall in the role.


External links[edit]


Subterranean Secrets

«Not only is our government focused on

building deep secret cities,

but so are Illuminati families.»

The beautiful artwork in ancient Spanish caves, or the catacombs in Rome remind us that man has always had an underground presence.

During the 1990’s, my research repeatedly brought me in contact with individuals who stated that they had been in deep underground military bases.

Of course a number of these are openly admitted by the American government, for instance Cheyenne Mountain. And many are not.

I discovered that not only was our government focused on building deep secret cities, but the Illuminati families were also. Furthermore, they were using technology that the public was unaware existed. The idea behind it all was to create safe and secret places for themselves.

Witnesses have described,

  • elevators going miles down

  • super-fast trains

  • back-up government agencies

  • genetic experiments

  • warehouses of stock piled materials

  • a non-human human hybrid project

But what continues to haunt me was the look one eyewitness gave me when he said,

«Fritz, you don’t have a clue. What is going on is beyond all you have thought of.»

And after that, there was a stoned-faced mask on his countenance.


My first experience with this subject was when I was a fifth grader in Hawaii.

On one field trip we were taken inside the iconic Diamond Head volcano where the government of Hawaii had an unused facility in case they needed to flee a nuclear holocaust.

I realized the government had placed their survival on a higher priority than the people they supposedly served. The rest of us sheeple were to be left to die. Your tax dollars at work.

The American government secretly received a boost in their abilities to build underground when they brought over Xaver Dorschin Operation Paperclip. He was head of the Nazi’s Todt Organization which built some incredibly sophisticated underground cities for the Nazis.

Bear in mind this organization had built the Autobahn for the Nazis far in advance of our Interstate system. The American and Russian governments have kept secret how sophisticated these underground Nazi cities were.

For years, I had tried to track these Deep Underground Military Bases and their purposes, doing such things as traveling to Dulce, NM.

When I met Phil Snyder who had worked on these bases, I was excited to compare my discoveries/info to his firsthand knowledge. We were able to share information several times until he was suicided the day before we were to meet again.

Afterwards, I placed my information on the 140 American DUMB bases in Deeper Insights Into The Illuminati Formulain the middle of book between part 1 and part 2.

Different agencies have their own underground installations. That explains why there are so many.

  • NSA

  • CIA

  • FEMA

  • Naval Intelligence

  • the Air force NORAD,

…and others all need their own secret underground bases.

Some of the work with,

  • strategic reserves

  • nuclear activities

  • secret weapons

  • communications and computers

  • hardened defense structures,

…are legitimate activities for underground bases.

And others,

  • genetic manipulation (like cloning)

  • individual mind control

  • population control

  • lethal ways to kill populations,

…are not.

We have truly lost control over our government. If you’ll pardon the pun, it is truly out of oversight.


Area 51, NV (above image) and White Sands Missile base, NM have been large tracts of land where underground installations have allowed for exotic black ops research.

Unfortunately, the information that leaks out does not sound good.

These black ops are not projects for the public good. Many of them are downright scary. Some are bizarre like keeping a severed human head alive. And instead of being U.S. government projects, many of the levels on these bases actually belong to the Illuminati and their secret government, which has been operating since 1954.

Besides vast tracts of land in sparsely populated regions, the ocean has become a grand place to locate secret bases.

What are some of these bases like? Some have facilities for growing food. Many are connected. Spokes link areas to other areas. Hi-tech camouflage and quick shutting entrances conceal the entrances. Witnesses claim non-human species inhabit the lower levels.

My personal take on these things is that this is a modern-day example of the Nephilim that were created by interbreeding in ancient times. So we are witnessing more apocalyptic signs.

The same shivers that ran down my spine as a ten year old student when I went into the underground city at Diamond Head volcano near Honolulu continue today when I contemplate these bases and their uses.

These bases are designed so the elite could survive a nuclear war or world-wide epidemic, or a natural disaster like an asteroid hit, reversal of the earth’s pole, or a galactic dust cloud which they allow us to endure while they live in safety.

Whatever disaster they see coming, they are prepared. 



Now discussing:


420 421 422 423 424