the a.p.r.o. bulletin nov-dec 1972

7/28/2019 The A.P.R.O. Bulletin Nov-Dec 1972

1/9

THE A. P. R.O. BULLET I NThe A.P.R.O" is the offid al co pyrighted pu bli cation of Ihe Aeriel Ph enome na Research Or ganization Inc. (A.P,R .C . ), 39 10 E. Kie indil le Rd ., Tutson, Arizona85712, and '5 Issued everY,o lher month 10 members i ~ e r s . The Aeria l Phenomena Re search Qrgllnizal ion Inc., I non -profit corporation established underIhe 111:0"5 0, Ihe S I ~ l e of ,Amona ,II federa!l-.: recognized sC1et:'lIfic and educlll!On il l lax exempt organizaTion, is dedicated fo Ihe cvenTuel 50lulion of Ihe phenomenonof unIdentified flY ing Ob ,II,I,. Inqulfl c-r. pertaining 10 membershIp Ind subscriphon may be mlldc 10 Ihe above address.

VOL. 21, NO.3

INCIDENTTHE FALTERSACK CASEThe September - OctoberBulletin carried details based onpress reports of a car failurein southern Wisconsin (Page 7,column 3). Field In vest igatorKathleen Salzwedel was asked toinves tigate and the following issupplementary information to theoriginal report .Greg Faltersack, 18, wasdriving home from his girlfriend'shouse at 2:30 a .m . Monday, August21. He was proceeding east at50 miles per ho ur on County RoadJF between County Road F andHighway 164. The window on thedriver's side was open and theradio was pla ying. He noticedno static. The engine suddenlycut off and there was a completeelectrical failure . He hi t thebrakes, skidded about 23 feet,ending up on the left side of theroad . The car, a 1963 Plymouth,had power s teering and he was

unable to control it .Fa ltersack sa t in the carrecovering from the shock, thenheard a two-tone electrical soundabout an interval of a musical4th of 5th apart, the higher onefirst, a s li ght pause between each.He heard these sequences threetimes, then got out of the car , lookedup and saw a round orange objectwhich appeared to be 40-50 feetabove the trees which were approximately 40-50 feet high . Theob ject was at about 75 degreeselevation. As soon as he gotout of the car the ob jec t beganto move away and up, diminishingin size until it disappeared at anelevation of about 85 degrees. Asthe object moved away he hearda sound of rushing air.Fa ltersack attempted to starthis car and did so with difficulty.The lights , radio and horn didn'twork and it was later dis coveredthat a ll fuses had been blown.The temperature gauge showed thatthe engine was overheated.

(See Fal te rsack - Page Five )

TUCSON , ARIZONA NOVEMBER-OECEMBER 197

AT NOGALES, ARIZONAVon Braun ChallengedBy Mrs. Granchi

Famous German rocket expertWerner Von Braun visited Rio deJaneiro in early November and onthe 12th held a Press Conference.He was in Brazil to attempt to sellhi s Fairchild s ate ll ites to theBrazilian government and most ofthe ques tion - and - answer periodwas devoted to this.Toward the end of the conference however, the inevitablequestion about the existance ofUFOs was brought up. The interviewers were Brazi lians askingquestions in Portuguese which werein tutn interpreted by a professionaland putto him in English. Von Braunthen answered in English and hisremarks were converted back toPortuguese for the crowd .In answer to the question aboutUFOs, Von Braun stated thathehadonce read a report put out byWright - Patterson Air Force Basein Dayton, Ohio, in which al l but3% of the reports were exp lainedas mi.s conceptions of ordinary object s , and a tmosphe r i c orastronomical phenomena. He concluded his statement by saying thatthe remaining 3% of the hard corereports were nothing more thanhallucinations.At thi S, Mrs . Granchi stood upand, addressing Von Braun,identified herself as an APRO FieldInvestigator, and as ked Von Braunif he knew who Dr. J . Allen Hynekis, and he replied, "Yes," addingthat Hynek is a highly res pectedscientis t in his field. Mrs . Granchithen asked i f Vo n Braun was awarethat Dr . Hynek had recently writtena book which di s agreed with whathe had jus t announce d about UFOs .Von Braun responded that he did notknow anything about the book.Mrs . Granchi as ked Von Braunif he was aware that an APRO UFOSymposium had been held at the

(See Gra ll cbi Pa ge Four)

In the ear ly morning hours ofAugust 20, 1972 a stra nge objectwas seen for a period of timeover No gales, Arizona , which islocated on the border between theUnited States and Mexico . Severalpeople saw the object, and havebeen interviewed, and it is quitelikely that many others observedit . The case is being continued,but sufficient information isavailable at this time to presentit here.Mrs. Helen Sutherlin, a teacherin the public school system atNogales, was wakened by an"unearthly howl" from he r whiteSamoyed dog who was outside thehouse in the back patio. Shelaid in bed watching a strangeb lu i sh - s i l v e r l igh t whichilluminated the curtains of the bedroom wi.ndow . The dog continuedto howl so she went outside tosee what was wrong.Going through the kitchen, shereached the side door, stepped out,and was immediately aware of apecu liar droning sound whichsounded as though it came fromabove and from some distance.When sh e looked up into the skysh e saw an oval - shaped lightsour ce which appeared to be thesource of a cone of bluish-silverylight which bathed the main sectionof the city. She descr ibed it asbeing like a flashlight sh ining downon the ground . It kept flashingon and off and the light from itga ve cars and tops of houses asort of irridescent glow as i f theywere them selves giving off thelight.Mrs. Sutherlin estimated thatthe light flashed on a nd off eightto ten t im es and that sh e watchedit for approximately 30 minutes.Her dog had quieted down when sh ecame ou t and she was able toobserve it closely for that periodof time. Although she cannot pinpoint the exact time, she said thatthe kitchen clock read 2 :30 at onetime when she glanced at it butdoe s not know i f s he looked at

(See Nogales - Pa ge Three)


2/9

PAGE 2 THE A.P.R.O. BULLETIN

THE A.P.R.O. BULLETINCopyright 1973 by theAERIAL PHENOMENARESEARCH ORGANIZATION, INC.3910 E. Kteindale RoadTucson, Arizona 85712Phone: 602-793-1825 and 602-326-0059

Coral E. Lorenzen, EditorNorman Duke, Richard Beal,Brian James, Jacqueline Joseffer, ArtistsA.P.R.D. STAFFInt,mllllonill Ol.ecto..... L. J. LorenzenAQlslllnt Dlrec:10r .......Rk:hard Greenwell5ecretuy-TrNSUre .... Corlll E. LorenunM, ml)er$llip Sec.etary . Mldelelne H. CooperSteff Llbr.rlen . . . . Allen Benz

CONSULTING PANELSBlolOglcil SciencesAnetomy .....Kenneth V. Anderson, Ph.D.Biochemistry ....Vledlmlr Stefanovlch, Ph.D.BIology ......... RObert S. Mellor, Ph.D.Blophyslu . . .... John C. Munday, Ph.D.Exobiology ... Fr .nk B. Salisbury. Ph.D.Medicine ........ Benjamin Sawyer. M.D.Mlc,o.,lolQiY ..... MO h itmmea A. Ath,. . Ph.D.PhY11010iY ......... Harola A. Cahn, Ph.D.

Zoology ...... RICh,na Etheridge, Ph.D.Physical SclenusAeronaullcs . . Rayford R. S a n d e u ~ M.S.M.E.Astronomy . . Leo V. StandeTord, Ph.D.Ast.Ophyslcs . .... Rlc:hard C. Henry, Ph.D.Civil En ilinearing . . Jemel A. Harder, Ph.D.Computer Tech ...... Vlasllmll Vysln. Ph.D.Elee. Engineering Kenneth HeU4l, Ph.D.E!ec. Engineering . . Brlan W. Johnso", Ph.D.EIOt. F.:"gln",lng . Lorin P. McRae, Ph.D.GeOChemlltry . Harold A. Wlliliml. Ph.D.GoolO0' . . . . . . Philip Seff, Ph.D.Metallurgy . . . Rol)en W. Johnso". Ph.D.Meb liurgy ....... Walter W. Walke,. Ph.D.Dcea"o,'aphy .. . . Dale E. Brando", Ph.DOptics .........B. Ro y Frieden, Ph.D.Pnyslcs ...... MIChael J. Ouggl", Ph.O.Radlallon Physlc:s . . HO'lc:e C. Dudley, Ph.D.Seismol09Y .......... Ohn S. Den. Ph.D.

So


3/9

NOVEMBER- OECEMBE R 1972

Nogales(Continued (rom Page One)

t when she came out of the houseor when she re - encered it .After the thirty-minute observation, the lights of No ga l e ssuddenly went out and Mrs. Sutherlin became alarmed and went inside .During her interview with Mr . andMrs. Lorenzen she said she wassure that many people had seenthe object because before the powerfailure she had observed manylights turned on in previously darkhouses in the area .She returned to bed and did notattem;Jt to observe any more .Because of certain timeelements in this case it is qUitelikely that Mrs. Sutherlin mis - readthe clock because the power failurethat she refers to took place atapproximately 3:35 a.m.

Our second major witness isyoung (22 years of age) MarcoFlores, part owner of the Houseand Cellar, a night club andrestaurant for young people inNogales .At 1 a .m . in the morning of the20th, he closed his busines s , thenspent an hour working on the books10 that he wouldn't get "behind inis work". At a little after 2 a.m.he went to an al l night restaurantwhere he had breakfast and ta lkedwith friends. He left th e restaurantshortly after 3 and drove to hisapartment on Western Avenue. He

then undressed and, Sitting on theedge of his bed, was playing hisgUitar and looking out the windowwhich faces southeast - east. It wasapproximately 3:20 or 3:30 by hisestimate that his air conditionerand lights went off. Looking outthe window he could se e that al lof Noga les, including Nogales,Sonora, Mexico. was in darkness.At that time Marco heard ahumming sound which seemed to beabove his apartment and acrossWestern Avenue he saw a lightedarea approximately 1/4 mile indiameter. It appeared to betraveling from the north to thesouthwes t.At this point it is important tonote that the screens on the apartments in that co mplex are mountedon the outside. The window wasopen, so Marco decided to unlatchthe screen and go outside ra therhan stumble through the darkenedcuse . When he got outside helooked up and over his apartmentand saw a glowing round objectencircled by a ri ng. UnfortunatelyMarco is color blind so he could

THE A.P.R .O. BU LLETIN PAG E 3

Br i an James' Rendering of Flores Sightingnot give any description of thecolor of the object but he did sa yit appeared to be metallic and it sglow reflected off the overcastsky. He estimated that it wastraveling about 35 miles per hour,was at and altitude of approximately200-300 feet, and that he watchedit a good m inure before it wentout of sight behind a hill at therear of his apartment. He notedthat the lighted area across WesternAvenue was traveling at the samerate of speed as the object itselfand felt they were in some wayconnected. The city lights cameback on after the object was outof sight.Marco then went ins ide anddebated as to whether he shouldreport the object to the police .At approximately 10 minutes laterhe heard an explosion and the lightswhich had been dimming andbrightening after the first powerfailure, went out and stayed out.Marco again went outside and thistime saw a lighted area in the skyto the north by northeast (wherethe local power station is located ),opposite from the direction in whichthe UFO had disappeared. He thencalled the loca l police and toldthem about the light in the northand they informed him that thepower plant had "explod ed". Thenext day he r eported the objecthe had seen (he had hesitated thenight before, afraid of the usualridic ule) and they said that he wasthe only one to report such anobject.The Nogales Herald carr ied ashorr one-inch story aboutMarco'ssighting and then severa l people(including Mrs. Sutherlin) called toinform him that they had seen some-

thing strange that night, too.Among others who observedsomething strange that same nighwas Mr . John Gleeson, an employeeof the Telephone Company who hadgotten up to leave for his ranchHe was going to his truck whenthe power failed and he noted a"ball of fire", which was his onlydescription, in the sky in the southeast over town. He said he hadmade several trips to his pickuptruck before leaving, and saw theball of fire to the southwest duringone of the tr ips and that the nexttime he left the house he heard theexplosion. He headed hi s truck in

the direction of the 'explosion andfound that it was the power plan(straight south of his home) whichwas on fire.Mrs . C on s ue la Corra l e s ,secretary of the Sacred HearParish in Nogales, was anotherwitness. She said that her husbandsaw Usom eth ing flas hing" first, andwoke he r up. They looked outtheir bedroom window at whaappeared to be a s ilver-coloredrainbow or halo of light directlyeast and qUite close to their housewhich li t up the surrounding terrain. At the same time they hearda buzzing s ound which she describedas a rising and falling "rrr - r r r -- rrr" somewhat like a motorThe Corrales' first thought therewas somethin g wrong with thecooler on the house next door buit became louder and louder, andthen s uddenly died out.After watching the light forso me time the Corra les' heard anexplosion, the light dimmed andbegan going on and off like a cautionligh t. They then saw the ligh(See Noga/es ' Page Four)


4/9

PAGE 4Nogales

(Continued (rom Page Three)from the power plant explosion,very prominent in the northeastsky. The Corrales ' stayed up andprepared coffee as Mr. Corraleshad to go to work and they didn'tattempt to observe further. Mr.Corrales is manager of the Chev rolet dealership in Nogale s , Sonora.Because the power plantexplos ion occ urred at close to thetime the object was seen by theobservers, the Lorenzens decidedto try to ge t at the cause of thepower failure, and in the courseof their investigation Mr. Lorenzeninterviewed the manager of thePower Plant who said that they hadeventually found that someone hadpoured inflammable fluid into theplant through a window and thensomething like a "Moloto v cocktail"had been thrown in which explodedand started the fire. He alsosaid that the arson was consideredto be an act to cause diversionwhile a load of drugs was smuggledacross the border from Mexico .This, of course, cast a newlight on the' whole affair and theLorenzens had to consider thepossibility s ugge s ted by the plantmanager that Mrs. Sutherlin hadobserved a helicopter ground -li ghting th e area while customsofficials and pOlice hunted fo rsmugg l e r s . T he Lor enzen scontacted the Nogales police whosaid they don't have a helicopter,then Border Patrol officials whosuggested that we talk to U.S.Customs . Mr. Lorenzeneventuallycontacted the Tactical InformationProgram of U.S . Customs wherehe learned that that organization,which supervises air search, hadonly one aircraft and that i t hadnot even been in the air on themorning of August 20.

In summation, considering thetime elements involved, it appearsthat Mrs. Sutherlin observed anob ject ground - lighting the Nogalesarea sometime between 2:30 and3:30, and it may well have beenthe object seen by Marco Floresat 3:30 a.m. from his apartmenton Western Avenue. Th e objectseen by Mrs. Sutherlin seemed tobe qUite high in the sky (80 degreeselevation) and li t up a large portionof the Nogales main city area(see drawing by Brian James),whereas the object seen by Marcowas clo ser and the area i t illuminated was considerab ly smaller.This might be accounted for bydistance from the ground - i.e.,

THE A.P.R.O. BULLETIN

the closer the object the shorterthe cone of li ght and therefore thesmaller the arefl of illumination.Unless the investiga to rs of thepower p lan t exp lo s ion a reconcealing something or simplyoffering an explanation for some thing they can't explain, it doesnot seem likely that the object orobjects seen by Marco,Mrs. Sutherlin, Mr. Gleeso n andthe Corrales' are connected to thepower failure in any way, and thepresence of the objects or objectsjust prior to the explosion at thepower plant is pure coincidence.For geographical locations per tinem to this case, see the mapaccompanying this article . Thecircled letters, A, B, C, D, E, Fand G indicate the locations of(A) the power plant, (B) Gleeson'sobservation pOint, (e) Mrs.Sutherlin's lo cation, (D) Marco Flores'apartment, (E) Western Avenue,(F) Corrales' home and (G) th eU.S . - Mexico international border.Brian James had rendered anexcellent representation of th escene where Marco observed theot] ject as well as the ob ject itself.At press time we are a waiting thefinal drawing of Mrs. Sutherli n'ssighting . Mr. James was put intouch with the witnesses and thedrawings are executed according totheir testimony.Granchi

(Continued (rom Pa ge One)Univers ity of Arizona in Novemberof 19 71, and that it cons isted ofan all - scientific panel. Von Braunadmitted that he had not know ofthis either.

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1972

Von Braun finally admitted thathe is not very t o - d a t e on thesubject and that maybe I should .disqualify myself as a UFO expert."The latter statement causedge neral laughter from the crowdand Mrs. Gr anch i retired from theconversation. Shortly after, theAssociated Press correspondentapproached Mrs. Granchiandaskedma ny questions concerning APRO .A few days later, Mr. and Mrs.Lor e n zen were interv iewed byUnited Press International at therequest of 0 Globo, one of Rio deJaneiro's la rge s t daily newspapers.A rat!1er lengthy story went out onth e international wire as a result.Besides being a top-notch FieldInvestigator, Mrs. Granchi hasproved he r worth in the field ofpublic relations in Brazil and allresearchers should be grateful toher fo r laying to rest the old beliefthat because a ma n is an expert inhis particular field of endeavor, heis automatically qualified to makeexpert statements on unrelatedscientific problems with which heis unfamiliar.

In Future IssuesThe 1973 issues of the Bulletin ':will contain:An occupant sighting from Indiana accompanied by illustrations byStaff Artist, Brian James .A complete report on the SouthAfrican sightings of June and July

by Frank Morton, APRO's Representative fo r South Africa, includingthe re s ults of his investigation inthe landing of a UF 0 which damagedthe asphalt surface of a tennis court.More and detailed informationon the Brazilian "flap" of 1972.- - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - ~ ~ -

7

16'l----- _ __ r


5/9


Faltersack(Conlinued (rom Page One)

Greg drove to his sister 's homewhere he Uves. woke her and theywent back to the scene but sawnothing. They then notified theWaukesha County Sheriff's Depart-ment and deputies were dispatchedto the location where they foundskid marks where the car hadstopped. They alao verified thatal l the fuses in the car had beenblown and that the engine wasoverheated. It was found thatFaltersack had not been drinkingand the investigating officersbelieved his story.The sighting area : The locationof the area where the object wassighted is a rather lonely stretchof road through a swampy area.There are trees on both sidesof the road, about 40 feet inheight and there are several hou sesa mile or so east of the locationbut none in the immediate vicinity.The Waukesha County Airport isthree miles to the south, InterstateHighway 94 runs ea s and westabout 2 1/ 2 mUes south and thesighting area Is just outside thesuburbs of the city of Milwaukeeand is mostly residential.Environmental Factors : The skywas clear, moon and stars viSible.The temperature was about 70degrees after a very hot day, therewas heavy dew on the ground. Theweather was clear with groundfog starting in patches and therewas no wind. The time was between2 and 2;30 a .m. Central DaylightSavings Time . Accordingto Faltersack, the moon was highin the southwest, full or nearly so ,visible, no clouds in the vicinity.Many stars were visible .There were no other cars on theroad. After Faltersack arrived athis sister's house the lights werefound to be functioning again.10 ou r preliminary report wenoted that Cred had had troublewith engine overheating prior tothe incident. He has had furthertrouble since the sighting, but noted[hat because of the overheatingproblem he checked the radiatorfrequently and added water. Thetemperature gauge on the dashboardwhich usually stabilized at 170-190degrees had been stabilized beforethe sighting, according to Greg,but read 220 afterwards. However,Faltersack thinks the radiatortrouble- since the sighting mightsimply have been due to hotweather.

THE A. P.R.O. BULLETIN PAGE Other Details: The objectseemed to disappear by movingstraight up and away. There hadbeen no Ught shining and noreflection on the road before thecar stopped. The -electronic"sound came from above the car,ceased when he gOl out, where-upon the object began to get smallerand the rushing air sound washeard.The object appeared to be about2 feet in diameter at arm's lengthwhen first seen. When questiOnedon this point the witness said acircle one foot id diameter wouldnot cover it. It appeared to besolid and not gaseous or nebulousand became dimmer as it movedup and away.There is some disagreementconcerning the apparent size . Gregsaid it did not move behind trees,nor were there any branches infront of it . However, the trees

are close to both sides of the roadand i f the object appeared as largeas he said it was, part of it shouldhave been obliterated by treebranches.The witness did not have any i l leffects after the Sighting. He feltshaky after the car stOPped, and wasfrightened during the sighting.After observing the object he feltshaky and sat in his car for afew minutes before trying [ 0 startit . After a few minutes he noticedt:'lat mosquitoes were biting himwhich he said indicated the extentof his upset as he Is extremelybothered by mosquitoes and wouldordinarily notice them right away.Greg Faltersack is the managerof a Kentucky Fried Chicken outletIn M U w a u k ' ~ Wisconsin, has ahigh school education. His visionis poor and he wears strong glassesat al l times.It has been found that the sisterwith whom Greg lives is a UFOen thus ia s t of the Adamski-contactee cult type and thereforeGreg probably hears about thesubject quite often. It was thissister who convinced Greg thathe should report what he had seen,although he was re luctant to do so .It was Mrs. Salzwedel's opinionthat Greg is sincere. that he actuallysaw something and was quite upsetand puzzled by hi!'; experience.

ADDRESS CHANGESAlways include old an d newZip Codes.

Press Repo rts(Continued from Page Two)

maintain its distance. At this time iI w9 a.m . giving Ihe pilot a good view of tobjecl. While flying over Ihe " Barragedo Estreito" at barely 10 kilometers froUberaba Ihe object suddenly streakaway and out of sight at a "dizzyispeed". Lopes Buono told Sgt. SilvMOUa, co mmander of the Brazilian AForce unit in Uberaba that he had "nevsecn any thins like it in my entire careas a pilot". Thanks to Richard Heiden fthis one.May, 1972, off the coast o f Chi/e. TChilean trawler, "Doggenbank" and tfishing boat "Felipe" were aUegedpaced for five hours by a UFO whichanged colors from bright blue to liggreen to orangered. The object, accoring to Captain Morales of the fishinboat, suddenly "showed up " near them

and after fifteen minutes began changicolors. It then approached the shipshigh speed making a " highpitched humwhich terrified the crews, consisting of 3men . The trawler was towing the fishinboat and the object kept th em companat approximately 1,500 meters altitu(about 5,000 feet) until they reache d thharbor, a period of about five hours. Threport was made on May 2nd outVaJaparaiso , Chile.May 27, 1972, Brazi/ia, Brazil. Athough this does not consist of a prereport, one of APRO's contacts in Brawas informed that at 7 p.m. on this dateUFO was observed as it hovered about 3meters (approximately 100 fee t) over tGuards Battalion or the presidential mitary zone in Brazilla and was watched ball of the soldiers on duty. It was definitIy an object and not just a light. We hopto obtain further information on thsighting.

Notice To AllField Investigators

The Recommended Proc edurefor APRO Field Investigato rsrecently published by APRO, wmailed to all active Field Investgators who received and returnea special form requesting a copU you are an active Field investgator and if you did not returyour form requesting a copy of thnew manual (due, perhaps, to aoversight) you may do 80 now orany time in the future. The manuis provided free of charge by APRheadquarters.

(See Notice Page Six)


6/9

PAGE 6 THE A.P.R.O. BULLETINNotice

(Continued (rom Page Five)Likewise. if there are FieldInvestl$ators who were overlooked (i.e., they never receivedthe special form, or returned theform but never received the manual)simply drop a line to AP ROexplaining the situation. Some FieldInvestigators who renew severalmonths late may have this problem.AP R0 ' s new ComprehensiveUFO Sighting Report Form Is alsopan of the new manual; in anemergency, Field Investigatorsmay run Xerox copies from theoriginal in the manual instead ofwaiting for additional copies fromAPRO Headquarters . AU the abovealso applies to APRO Consultantsand Representatives in foreigncountries.~ , ~

Book ReviewUFOs:' A Scientific Debateby Carl Sagan and Thornton PageCornell University Press296 pages , S12.S0

Review by Dr. John S. DerrMartin Marietta AerospaceDenver, Colorado(Dr. Derr Is APRO's Consultant inSeismology.)ContentsContributorsEditors' IntroductionSelected UFO CasesI .2.3.

4.5.

6.7.8.

Part 1 - BackgroundEducation and the UFO Phenomenon - - Thornton PageHistorical Perspectives:Photos of UFOs - - William K.HartmannAstronomers' Views on UFOs- - Franklin RoachPan II - ObservationsTwenty-one Years of UFOReports - - J. Allen HynekScience in Default: TwentyTwo Years of Inadequate UFOInvestigations - - James E.McDonaldUFOs - The Modern Myth - Donald H. MenzelUnusual Radar Echoes - -Kenneth R. HardyMotion Pictures of UFOs - R.M.L. Baker, Jr .

Pan III - Social and Psychological Aspects9. Sociological Perspectives onUFO Reports - - Robert L.Hall10. Psychology and Epistemologyof UFO Interpretations - Douglass R. Price-Williams11. Psychiatry and UFO Reports--Lester Grinspoon and AlanD. Persky12. On the Abilities and Limitations of Witnesses of UFOsand Similar Phenomenon - Frank D. Drake13. Influence of the Press andOther Mass Media - - WalterSullivanPart IV - Retrospective andPerspective14. UFOs : The Extraterrestrialand Other Hypotheses - Carl Sagan15. The Nature of Scientific Evi

dence: A Summary - - PhilipMorrisonDiscussion-Reported by the EditorsIndex

This is the book we've beenwaiting for, the somewhat augmented proceedings of the AAASSymposium held in Boston. Massachusetts. on December 26 and 27.1969. This was the first timethat UFOs were the subject of acomprehensive scientific forum ata major scientific society. Theagenda was the most comprehensiveof any up to that time, followingmany approaches to understandingthe subject . A great variety ofexplanations, hypotheses and attitudes were covered, ranging in onedimension from the honcstastonishment of "We can't explainthe residual unknowns" to thedogmatic "There are no residualunknowns." In another dimension,conclusions ranged from "Theobservations are real" to "Everyone is hallucinattn$' fabricating.or misinterpreting. Here at lastis a responsible treatment of theUFO phenomenon in almost itsfull complexity, a study fa r morevaluable than the Condon Report,and fa r less costly to the taxpayerto produce! This book belongson the shelf of every seriousstudent of UFOs, along with Hynek'sThe UFO Experience, the CondonReport, and the UFO Encountercases published in Astronautics andAeronautics .With few exceptions, the bookis most readable. The introduction,

NOVEMBER-DeCEMBER 1972a statement of background andphilosophy. contains a summary ofeach paper. and also a summary"of the cases referenced in the test. (A detailed summary of eachpaper, written by this reviewer,was printed in The APRO Bulletin.Nov . -Dec., 1969 .) As the editorspOint out In the introduction. thevalue of the symposium lies 1nit s "application of scientificthinking to problems of humaninterest." In this case, the powerof the scientific method is usedto confront unscientific claims andmethods. Perhaps Walter Sullivanrealized this best when he said,"I disagree With Dr. Condon, whovehemently opposed this symposium, because I feel that UFOsrepresent a human phenomenon thatis fa r m o ~ e imprtant than any ofus realize. Our attitudes and perceptions are conditioned to a degreefa r beY0D.d our capabilities of directobservation." (p. 261)Another way in which thesymposium has great value is inthe way it opens many new areasfor fruitful legitimate scientificinvestigations. Examples are thesearch for Lilliputian stars orplanets (Roach); sociological investigations such as popularized pseudo-science as a stimulus tostudy true pcientific method (Page).or correlations of UFO repons withsignificant space achievements(Haremann); Freudian aspects ofUFO perceptions (Grinspoon andPersky); etc.Still another value of thesymposium is that it s proceedings.this book. is a place where scientific papers on all aspects of tbeUFO subject are being publishedand will receive the circulationthey deserve. The Condon Report.was the first such collection. Beforethis, a few papers were publishedin the recognized journals (Hynekin J. Opt. Soc. Am. and Baker inJ. Astronaut. Scir., for example),but most were printed privatelyby the variOUS UFO organizationsand without the benefit of criticalreview. This book is clear evi dence of this need, and the timehas come fo r SCience, officialjournal of the AAAS, to take overthis function. The appearance ofBruce C. Murray's review inScience of Dr. Hynek's book isa we lcome, encouraging sign thatthe editorial policy may be changing in the direction of being more open. One purpose of the symposiumwas to remedy the lack of scientific

( See Debate- Page Seven)


7/9

NOVEMBER-OECEMBE R 1972Debate(Contin ued from Page Six)communication in the field, whichin Dr. Hartmann's view, "hasallowed a distorted UFO mythologyto develop." (p. 15) Ironically,those who criticize this mythologymost are those who most effectivelyblock communication I The resulthas been the evolution of UFOnoise. which Dr . Ha.::unannpredicted would reach a new peakcoincident with the publication ofpictures of Mars returneCl byMariner 9. This lack of communication has preventeCl mostscientists from seeing that thebest unexplained cases, epitomizedby tbe radar-visual cases, divergeradically from the i'0pular conceptof a "flying saucer. Thus, effortsto suppress investigation of UFOsare counterproductive: only openinvestigation and discussion canput the issue in proper perspective.

Although al l the papers contribute to some phase of thediscuSSion, there are certain keypapers which can be divided Intothree groups: With respect to theextraterrestrial hypotheSIS (ETH),there are the believers, the nonbeUevers and the methodicalagnostics. J. Allen Hynek comesacross as a believer, although heneatly ducks the issue by claiminghe is a reporter. His paper isan introduction to his book, TheUFO Experience, which has beenwell reviewed in various journals(B.C. Murray, Science,l77.25Aug.1972, p. 688; P.E. McCarthy. TheAP RO Bulletin, May-June 1972,6, etc,) . On the subject ofscience is not always whatscientists do," he summarizes hiscriticism by saying he is "wearyof pontiflcation by those who havenot done field, or home, work, soto speak: (p. 37) It will beclear to the reader that thosewho have done the most field andhome work ar e also those mostconvinced of the validity of UFOs tudy. For example, those whocriticize his "s t rangeness prObabili ty" table and areunable to se e how it isolates themost important cases, clearly havenot done their homework. Dr.Hynek 's philosophy of scienceshows clearly in his quote fromGoudge, which stresses the importance of leaving room in theestablishment science for ge nuinelynew empirical observations andnew explanation schemes . He alsoquotes Schroedinger that a scientistmu st be curious, capable of beingastonished, and eager to find out.

THE A.P.R.O. BULLETINEVidently. the more most menbecome a part of the establishmentthe more they lose their abilityto be true, objective SCientists.James E. McDonald's paper ismost significant for its expressionof the coutage of his convictionsand his willingness to take a stand.He blames the Air Force for a"grand foul-up , but not an intentional "grand cover-up". (p. 54)In his opinion, the Condon reportis "qUite inadequate" , (p. 54) in partbecause the body of the reportdoes not justify Dr . Condon'ssummary. In fact, he suggests"that there are enough Significantunexplainable UFO reports withinthe Condon Report alone to document the need for a greatlyincreased level of scientific studyof UFOs (p. 55) and he cites thespecific cases he considers unexpiained. His subsequentpubltcationin ASlronautics and Aeronautics(July 1971, pp. 66-70) of the factsof the South Central U.S., July 17,1957, case, and Gordon Thayer'saccount two months later (ibid,Sept. 1971, pp. 60-64) oftbe Lakenheath and Bentwaters RAF /lJSAF,England, August 13 14, 1956, case,have finally presented his challengeto the scientific community. Thesetwo cases. witb Dr. McDonald'sInterpretation and criticism, areincluded In this book. They havenot been explained, and in tbisreviewer's opinion, certainlycannot be until tbe scientificcommunity takes his challengeseriously. if then. In view of thisevidence, Dr. Mc Donald statesunequivocally, "it is difficult forme to se e any reasonable alternative to the hypothesis thatsomething in the nature of extra terrestrial devices engaged Insomething in the nature ofsurveillance lies at the heart of theUFO problem." (McDonald's emphasis, p. 90)Donald H. Menzel considersUFOs to be nothing more than amodern myth. His thesis is thatpeople are receptive to the ETHbecause they aren't smart enoughto ngure OUt the real cause of astimulus they report as a UFO. Henotes that It is difficult to believein UFOs when there are no genuineartifacts, a point certainly valid.On the other hand, his point aboutUFOs beIng unreal because theyseem to disobey the laws of physicsIs not valid. To some observers,this may Indeed appear to be thecase, but as in his own exampleof meteors apparently moving upward with re spect to the localhorizon, observations under ad -

PAGE verse conditions are not capabof proving or disproving relationships to physical laws . PhilMorrison's comments onthehumbeing as an observational instrment bear this OUt.Dr. Menzel enjoys calling DrHynek and McDonald's views "subjective", but the same can easibe said about his views, too. Udoubtedly he has solved many UFcases, but he certainly can't claito be scientific by giving a probabsolution without thorough studfirst. The suggestiOn ofreasonable solution does not,fact, solve a casel If Dr. McDonaerred, at least he erred on thside of scrupulous Investigattonanpresentation of al l the facts.Dr . Menzel errs, it is In his havintoo much faith in the establishmenas Indicated in his support of thCondon report as "unbiased". OnsuspeCtS that he is saying that threport Is unbiased because heunbiased and agrees with it .these two men were running fothe office of district attorney, thchoice would be obvious.In the Washington National Aiport case, for example , Dr. Menzasserts that the radar anomaloupropagation was caused bymarginal case of partial trappingciting his wartime experience aproof. He may be correct, bhe convinces no one because hrefuses to perform the admittedlcomplex mathematical analYSis hassertions require before they cabe scientific proof. The reviewerpersonal experience with one his lectures confirms that he tendto talk down to hi s audience, vastlunderestimati ng their ability [follow his arguments. The resuIs that he disappoints his audiencwithout proving his case. In happendix 5, he analyzes orthotenrigorously and shows that thnumber of Michel's lines is completely predictable from purelrandom points . Dr. Menzelstatistics are quite convincing:only he would devote himself arigorously to the radar UFOprob lem , sc i ence mighbe advanced significantly.In another of his valuablappendices, his description of threports of the Zond IV reentry Ia clear warning to InveStigators tbe skeptical. It seems that perhapany "fiery objects streaking acrosthe sky, sending out showers osparks, and leaving bright trailbehind them, (p. 155) should bcJassUied as mereors or re

(See Debate Page Eight)


8/9

PAGE 8 THE A.P.R.O. BULLETIN

Debate(Continued from Page Seven)entering spacecraft, no matter howmany windows are observed or howlow they are perceived I In thislight, one can understand hisskepticism concerning the FatherGill occupant case. Some w1llfind his explanation as incredible

as the reported sighting itseU, butgiven the lack of independent investigation, the whole matter isinconclusive.Dr. Menzel gives as one reasonfor debunking UFOs the idea thathe doesn't want to encourage"pathological science," and citesvarious examples, such as N rays,which have been disproved. On theother hand, it is possible thatpathological theories in science,like the effects of hysterical contagion described by Robert L. Hall(p. 216), will die of themselves inthe proper time, but that theorieswhich survive just may not be sopathological after all. One of hisexamples, bUndfolded astronautsseeing flashes of light, which heattributes to normal physiologicaleffects, has since been shown mostprobably to be due to cosmic rays.Microscopic cone-shaped indentations have been found inastronauts' helmets, indicating thestopping of heavy cosmic particles,and Cerenkov radiation, a wellunderstood source of light, wouldresult from such particlestraversing the eye at the propervelocity.Dr. Menzel's arguments withDrs. Hynek and McDonald over whatis or is not mirage, mistakenidentification of conventional objects, anomalous propagatiOn, etc.,serve to eliminate much of thenOise, and concentrate attention onwhat are the best cases, i.e thosewhose study is most likely to uncover genuine new phenomenaunknown to science. Science ismo&t likely to be advanced by caeeful, unemotional, and criticalexamination of these cases, e,g.,the radar-visual examples cited asappendices in Dr. McDonald'spaper. Presumably Dr. Menzelhas these cases in mind when hecr)l1cludes that he .. could advocatesupport of research in certainatmospheric phenomena associatedwith UFO reports." (p. 146) Atlastl After both sides have finishedchallenging each other's methodsprejudices, and credibility, bothare able to agree that furtherstudy of the trUly puzzling atmospheric phenomena may yieldvaluabloa new scientific knowledge I

Those who debunk UFOs woulddo well to study the paper byRobert L. Hall on "SociologicalPerspectives on UFO Reports." InDr. Hall's view, some 'hard-coreUFO cases stand up betterthan many a court case,' (p. 219)a comment which leads intO Dr.Morrison's ideas on the na ture ofphysical evidence. Dr. Hall isclearly critical of the debunkerswhen he says, "Some skepticalscientists, faced with detailedreports by reliable witnesses.loudly and confidently asserti nte rpre ta t ions which conflictstrongly with available testimonyand show a startling degree ofdisrespect for the reason andcommon sense of intelligent witnesses.- (p. 218) The editorsalso noted this phenomenon in theintroduction (p. XlI): "The readerwill occasionally find in these pagesthe heat of passion as well as thelight of scientific inquiry." Dr .Hall is able to understand sucha t t i tudes . however because"scientists are human and behaveaccording to the same principlesof human behavior asnonscientists." (p. 220) His conclusion is definitely positive(p. 221): "The very strength of ourresistance to the evidence on UFOssuggests to me that there is clearlya phenomenon of surpassing importance here." This importance maylie in the field of physical SCience,behavioral SCience, or both.Frank D. Drake's comments onwit n e sse s should be requiredreading for aU UFO field investigators. His paper gives interestinginsights into the operation of hoaxesand the degeneration of accuracyof testimo:1Y with time. Estimatesof t ime duration seem to be accurateand lasting, but color perceptionsare almost random, perhaps aresult of different dark-adaptedeyes seeing different colors whenconfronted with a bright stimulus.In his investigations, he observedan interesting phenomenon of asimultaneous sound like baconfrying attached tofireballsightings,which he hypothesized to resultfrom feed-through from one perceptive center of the brain toanother. The implications of hiswork are that, unless an observerrecords his experience almostimmediately. much detail andaccuracy will have been lost, butthat some observers willhavefalseperceptions r e ~ a r d l e s s .Ca rl Sagan s perspective of thesubject makes him a mildly hostileagnostic. In his view, it is premature to say that interstellar

NOVEMBER-OECEMBER 1972space flight is impoSSible, but.assuming that nothing can travelfaster than the speed of light, itis highly unlikely. There i s n ' ~enough data on UFOs yet makea good judgement. so one shouldkeep an open mind. He considersthe search for extraterrestrialintelligence to be very important.but thinks that UFO study is notthe best approach. Rather, heprefers that support should go toN ASA' s unmanned planetaryprogram and attempts at interstellar radio communication. twoareas that he and Dr. Drake aredeeply committed [0 at [he moment.Considering the frustrations of UFOresearch, these aspects of the spaceprogram show the greatest promiesof yielding the most significantadvances in our understanding thecosmos.Philip Morrison takes his standas the arch defender of the citadelof the scientific method. Thevalidity of various phenomena andphysical laws is established byobservers using instruments."From the point of view of drawinginferences about events, a witnessis simply an extraordinarily subtleand complex instrument of observation." (po 278) Thus, therecording of observations becomes",critical. but so too does the manner and circumstances under whichobservations are made. "No witnessis credible who bears a sufficientlystrange story," (p. 282) becausea witness is only one observat ion.and the existence of any strangephenomena, including UFOs, canbe proved only by "independent andmultiple chains of eVidence, eachcapable of satisfj'ing a link-by-linktest of meaning. (p.280) Todate.no UFO observations have been ableto pass this test. However. althoughnot sympatheuc to the ETH. hewill always be "sympathetic to anypositive effort to follow a link.-by-link evidential chain" (po 289) toidentify the UFO phenomenon.In summary. the book Is a mostvaluable scientific medium whichplaces tWO key papers, McDonald'sand Menzel's, in proper context.Dr. McDonald argues the believers'case beautifully; Dr. Menzel arguesthe debunkers' case with mixedsuccess. The other papers enrichour awareness of the complicationsof the issue, its various avenuesof approach and the rigor theyrequire, it s legitimacy, and its:"9value to science. This book wtllcertainly be a classic, and probablythe most widely referenced bookon the subject for at least thecoming decade.


9/9


UFO s And TheHypothesis

by Dr. Philip SeffDr. Se{{ is a consul!ing geologistin Redlands, California and is aConsultant to APRO in Geology.Modern astronomers agree thatof the hundreds of billions of planetsexisting In our universe, anestimated twO to five billion ofthem could support life as we knowi t . Even i f the greater percentageof these are discounted, one couldhardly suggest that none of theplanets on which conditions forlife are adequate have includedIntelligent forms of life in theirevolution . (We will ignore thepossibility of life based on otherthan the carbon atom, because ourimagination would stagger i f wewere to attempt to describe a day

in some l i fe ' not as we know it.")With our home planet as aknown example , the qual i tyessential for the evolution ofthinking creatures who have harnessed flight has been four and onehalf billion years of time. Two andone half billion of those years~ e r e spent preparing the earth forand almost tWO billionmore elapsed before the appearanceof thinking creature about a mUlionyears ago. This does not suggestthat the evolutionary rate is aconstant because, as on our planet,it was determined by a uniquecombination of events. But anawareness of our earth's historydoes provide a referent by whichto determine sequences, variables,and relative rates of change.Although early man conceivedof flying, and for over 2,000 yearsmany of the principles of flighthave been understood, it has beenless [han seventy years since thefirst manned heavier-than-air craftwas flown successfully. In thespiralling technology of those fewintervening years, we have beenable to put men on the moon. It isdifficult for us to imagine whatstage of space travel we will haveachieved a thousand years fromnow. But, certainly, the onlylimiting factor, according to ourpresent scientHic knowledge, is thespeed of light.In the vastness of space, it\liQuid take more than four years,the rate of over 186,000 milesper second, to reach our nearestneighbor over seven trill ion milesdistant. As we reckon time, withour life span of about seventy

THE A.P.R.D. BULLETIN

earthly revolutions around the sun,this becomes a serious obstaclefacing interstellar travelers fromthe planet Earth. But travelersf rom other plane ts a re notneces sa r i l y r e s t r i c t ed byour seventy-year life span.Accepting the hypothesis thatthere are many planets whichsupport life as we know it , wewould truly be audacious to imposeour e v o l u t i o n a r ~ rate and ourconcept of "time on them. If theyare thousands, or possibly evenmillions, of years ahead of us Inevolution, and i f their concept of"time" is ten or a hundred timesours, the hypotheSIS of an extraterrestrial origin for UFOs doesnot seem too fantastic after all.Symposium Proceedings

APRO urges all members toobtain The Proceedings ot theEastern UFO Symposium (held atBaltimore, Maryland on January 23,1971), a new publication broughtOUt by APRO and available at $3 .00postpaid in the U.S., Canada andMexico ($3.50 all other countries).Please make checks payable toAPRO.Back Bulletins Available

APR 0 has a stock of backbulletins which are available tomembers and subscribers at 50cents each, postpaid, as pe r thefollowing list:1958 - Jul.1959 -Mar., Jul.1960 - Jul., Sep., Nov.1961-Jan., Mar., May, Jul.,Sep Nov.1962-Jan ., Mar., May, Jul.,Sep., Nov.1963-Jan., Mar., May, Jul. ,Sep" Nov.1964 -Jan., Mar.1967 - Nov., Dec.1968 - Mar" Apr., May-June,Jul.-Aug., Sep.-Oct.,Nov.-Dec.1969 - Jan.-Feb. , Mar.-Apr.,May-Jun., Jul.-Aug.1970 - May-Jun., Nov.-Dec.1971 - Jan.-Feb., Mar.-Apr.,May-Jun., Jul.-Aug.,Nov.-Dec.1972 - Jan.-Feb., Mar -Apr.,May-Jun., Jul.-Aug.

When ordering, be sure toindicate exactly which bulletins arerequired. Send remittance for thecorrect amount and print name andaddress clearly.

PAGE 9

New Book ByAPRO Consultant

Dr . Robert S. Ellwood, APRO'sConsultant in Religion, is the authorof a new bookpubUshed by Pre!ltlceHall. Entitled Religous and Spiri .ruaI Groups in Modern America.the hook covers such topics asceremonial magic, witchcraft,satanism, Rosicrucianism, scientology, Hindu and Buddhistmovements in the U.S. and muchmore.Of particular interest to APROmembers might be the chapter onUFO cu l t s , which includesdiscussion on t h ~ . G l a n t Rock SpaceConvention and ~ e r a l celebratedcontactees and t h e ~ l i g l o u s motivations involved. 'Pl)..e book isexpected to become a c & ~ i c textbook and it is believedt:that apaperback version will afSe,.. beprinted. No prices ar e k n o w ~ ...this time but publication i ~scheduled for January, 1973.Interested parties may order thebook through their local bookstores.Dr. Ellwoqd, a specialist on fareastern religions and new religiOUSmovements in the United States, isan Associate Professor of Religionat the Unlverl:!lty of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Field Investigators'ProceduresThe Recommended Procedures{or Field Investigators (R P F l )which were issued this fall toAPRO's Field Investigators haselicited considerable favorablecomment. Many individuals haveindicated that the thorough treatment of field investigationprocedures was well worth thelong wait.Mr . and Mrs. Lorenzen followedthe RPFI in their investigation ofthe Nogales incident (see Page I)and although both participated in

the preparation of the RPFI. theywere happy to find that it wasmost useful in the investigation.Mr. Donald Worley, long-timeAPRO investigator in Indiana hassubmitted an occupant report fromseveral years back and followedthe gUidelines presented in theRPFI. The report, utilizing thenew comprehensive report formand supplements, is unique andvery detailed. It wUl be presentedin a future issue.

the a.p.r.o. bulletin nov-dec 1972

Documents