Ground Saucer Watch Bulletin - 1976 06 - June

Magazine Overview

Title: SUMMER NEWS BULLETIN
Issue: JUNE 1976
Publisher: GROUND SAUCER WATCH INC.
Country: U.S.A.
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of the Ground Saucer Watch (GSW) Summer News Bulletin, dated June 1976, is presented as the first of three such bulletins distributed free to members and researchers. The publication acknowledges the economic and time constraints that prevent GSW from producing a regular, monthly bulletin. It highlights that GSW is supplying MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) with some of its reports and analytical evaluations of UFO pictorial evidence, which MUFON has published in its monthly publication, Skylook.

Introduction by James A. Spaulding

James A. Spaulding, Director of GSW-Eastern Division, introduces the bulletin, noting that June 1976 is symbolic of their summer news bulletins. He praises Skylook, edited by Dwight Connelly, as offering the best reading material among the top three organizational bulletins (APRU, NICAP, and MUFON) and recommends it to GSW members. Inquiries for MUFON membership and Skylook Magazine can be directed to specific addresses for Mr. D. Connelly (Editor) and Mr. Walt Andrus (Director) of MUFON, Inc.

Working Relationship with CUFUS and Dr. Hynek

The bulletin discusses GSW's ongoing working relationship with Dr. Hynek, Director of CUFUS (Center for UFO Studies). It addresses recent negative publicity and editorials that have tarnished CUFUS's image and Dr. Hynek's reputation, noting that many look to him as the unofficial spokesman for scientific ufology. GSW acknowledges claims that CUFUS is not disseminating all received information to researchers. While not wishing to argue about other organizations' methods, GSW notes that they have sent data to CUFUS without receiving acknowledgment. Spaulding suggests that CUFUS's primary problem is a lack of communication, attributing it to being understaffed, which he believes contributes to the current state of scientific ufology. He urges unity and improved communication from Dr. Hynek, suggesting simple feedback like postcards or reports. Information and membership in CUFUS is available by writing to their Evanston, IL address.

The Travis Walton Case: An In-Depth Investigation

The core of this bulletin is a detailed examination of the Travis Walton UFO encounter case. The author recounts attending a national UFO conference in Fort Smith, Arkansas, which aimed for objectivity but resulted in no high-level resolutions, though it fostered a sense of potential constructive teamwork among organizations.

The Encounter

Three weeks after the conference, on the night of November 5, 1975, a significant UFO sighting occurred in Northern Arizona, involving occupants. The primary witness, Travis Walton, was reportedly captured by a beam and spirited away by a UFO crew. For five days, Walton was a prominent figure in the news.

GSW's Skepticism and Investigation

The author expresses personal skepticism regarding UFO encounter cases, particularly abduction scenarios, due to the often subjective and psychological nature of the evidence, which can fuel criticism. However, given the case's proximity to GSW's location, they investigated. The sighting involved six co-workers of Walton who observed a brilliant white, solid metallic object, approximately 15 feet in diameter and 8 feet thick, hovering 20 feet above the ground and about 100 feet away. As Walton approached the object, he was struck by a blue light and fell to the ground. His co-workers drove away but returned 15 minutes later to find no trace of Walton or the object.

Witness Testimony and Polygraph Tests

Local law officials conducted a search, and the six witnesses were given polygraph tests. Five tests indicated they were telling the truth, while one was inconclusive. Questions about killing Travis Walton and seeing him taken aboard a spacecraft were answered with "No." When asked if they saw an extraordinary object, they answered "Yes."

Walton's Disappearance and Return

Five days after his disappearance, Walton reportedly called his brother, Duane, claiming to be near Heber. Family members drove to the site and then to a hospital in Tucson, though no trace of Walton was found there. This trip to Tucson was later revealed to be a ruse to deter media attention.

Doubts and Refusals

Walton claimed to have been aboard the spacecraft and held until his release several days later. He was scheduled for a lie detector test on November 14 but failed to appear. Sheriff Gillespie expressed doubts about Walton's story based on a personal interview. William Spaulding of GSW also had information casting doubt on the story and ordered the termination of the investigation due to Walton's refusal to submit to objective scientific testing outside of civilian UFO organizations. Dr. Lester Steward, a consultant for GSW and MUFON, interviewed the Walton brothers and found their behavior suspicious, noting their refusal of professional testing and evaluations. Dr. Steward concluded that Travis was likely hallucinating.

GSW Evaluation and Conclusion

After a time-consuming investigation, GSW concluded the Travis Walton case was a hoax based on several factors:

1. Walton never boarded the UFO, supported by the witnesses and polygraph results.
2. The Walton family has a history of UFO sightings.
3. Duane Walton's statements about Travis being found and UFOs being friendly, along with his reluctance to have a camera ready for their return, raised suspicion.
4. Walton's mother showed no outward emotion and stated UFOs would not harm her son.
5. The Waltons refused outside scientific help from those who doubted the abduction story.
6. The media and GSW were fair to witnesses, but the Waltons only spoke to those who did not doubt the story as it began to unravel.
7. APRO criticized GSW and Dr. Hynek for their negative stance.
8. There is evidence suggesting the Waltons "sold" their story to the National Enquirer, which twisted the narrative.

The Role of APRO and Media

APRO (Aerial Phenomena Research Organization) became involved, and the bulletin notes that APRO claimed GSW "struck out." GSW states they were ordered by their Board of Directors to withdraw from the case due to potential negative publicity. On November 14, 1975, GSW held a press conference, withdrawing from the case and stating that while a sighting might have occurred, the abduction portion was a hoax. APRO then announced they were "taking over" the investigation, which GSW suggests was a politically and monetarily motivated move, as APRO had contacted the witnesses 72 hours prior to GSW's press conference.

Critique of UFO Organizations and Investigations

GSW criticizes APRO and other civilian UFO organizations for lacking the substantial funds needed for proper investigation. The bulletin argues that tabloids have done little for scientific ufology, often sensationalizing cases. GSW questions who paid for Travis Walton's lodging and medical/psychological testing.

The author expresses frustration with accusations of being a "publicity seeker," stating that their lectures and media appearances far exceed what they would gain from endorsing a subjective sighting. They deplore Duane Walton's accusations, viewing them as cheap tactics that harm the character of individuals, the organization, and scientific ufology.

GSW defends its investigation as thorough, despite the limited time and cooperation from the witness. Their investigation included:

1. Three field investigators spending days in the area.
2. Scientific equipment checks for magnetism and radiation.
3. Ground sample corings.
4. Interviews with witnesses.
5. Character witness profiling.
6. Review of the prime witness's past record.
7. Continuous media interface.
8. $800 spent from member and organization accounts.
9. Attempts to obtain blood and urine specimens from Travis for analytical purposes.

GSW notes that APRO claimed they "struck out" with the Waltons, but GSW's consultants never believed the story, and the evidence was insufficient. GSW "dropped" Travis as much as his brother and friends disregarded them.

Polygraph Testing - Who's Kidding Who?

The bulletin provides an evaluation of polygraph testing, particularly in Arizona. It highlights:

1. Most polygraph businesses are members of associations but these have no regulatory power.
2. No license is required in Arizona (or 18 other states).
3. The American Polygraph Association is lobbying for licensing.
4. Ideal charter rules require a BA and/or 5 years of law enforcement experience, but accredited universities offer courses of around 280 hours.
5. Anyone can become a polygraph operator in Arizona by simply advertising.
6. An ideal operator should also be a psychologist or doctor in social sciences.
7. Equipment should meet minimum requirements, including three physiological outputs, but much equipment lacks state-of-the-art peripherals for objectivity.
8. A minimum of sixty minutes is required for a good polygraph test, which is often violated.
9. Many polygraph organizations are profit-driven, with science playing a minor role.

GSW emphasizes that passing a polygraph test does not automatically make a story 100% reliable. All factors, including operator qualifications, error, subject's profile, and testing technique, must be considered.

Dr. Hynek's Visit and Reversal

Dr. Allen Hynek, considered a spokesman for scientific ufology, visited Phoenix to address alumni and talk to Travis Walton. This visit was seen as a reversal given previous tensions. Hynek was reportedly under media pressure and sought the complete story, especially with an upcoming Playboy Magazine article on the Walton case. After interviewing Travis, Hynek notified the media, stating Travis was sincere, not under the influence of drugs, and that there was no evidence of a hoax, criticizing the unfair publicity. However, Hynek left Phoenix without speaking to GSW, leaving them to field media questions. GSW contacted Hynek, who stated the evaluation was not finished and further testing was required.

GSW expresses frustration with the situation, noting that for six weeks they remained silent, weighing political ramifications. They maintain their investigation was not sloppy and that their conclusion that the abduction was a hoax was valid. They suggest that other cases, like Pascagoula, could also be proven hoaxes.

The author laments the lack of objectivity among technical peers in ufology, warning that without self-policing, they play into the hands of government agencies seeking to withhold UFO information from the public, reducing ufologists to the level of cultists.

Hindsight: What Should Have Been Done

Ideally, the Walton incident should have been investigated differently. While physical investigation (soil analysis, witness interviews) was sound, the author points out that there are no established guidelines for psychological tests in ufology. Civilian organizations often rely on consultants who may have only a slight interest in ufology, with their primary profession paying much more. The bulletin critiques the use of psychological matrix tests and regressive hypnosis, stating that without critical technique, hypnosis can be misused. Polygraphic testing is also discussed, with the conclusion that while the techniques are sound, their application can be criticized.

GSW suggests the following for future abduction incident investigations:

1. Gather all physical data at the site.
2. Conduct thorough, taped interviews with each witness.
3. Interface with the media, with witness permission, to disseminate data.
4. Establish a hypothetical board of scientific ufologists from different organizations to arrange for independent psychological and polygraph tests conducted by technicians and psychologists not connected with any UFO organization.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly advocates for rigorous, objective, and scientific investigation within ufology. It criticizes sensationalism, lack of funding, and internal organizational conflicts that hinder progress. GSW positions itself as a proponent of evidence-based conclusions, even when they contradict popular narratives or involve controversial figures like Dr. Hynek. The bulletin emphasizes the importance of maintaining high standards and integrity within the field to gain public trust and effectively pursue the truth about UFO phenomena. The Travis Walton case serves as a central case study illustrating these challenges and GSW's commitment to a critical, scientific approach.

This document, identified as Page 10 of a publication titled 'UFO' (likely a magazine or newsletter), dated March 27, 1975, discusses various aspects of UFO phenomena, including a specific sighting, theoretical explanations, and the state of ufology as a field.

Key Articles and Content

Proposed Guidelines for UFO Investigations

The initial section outlines a set of proposed guidelines for UFO investigations, emphasizing collaboration among organizations. Key points include:

• Monies for testing would be supplied by all participating organizations.
• Two ufologists would assist in question formulation and ensure the validity of techniques and equipment.
• No directors or co-directors would be permitted on the board.
• The board would simultaneously publish results or interim media releases to all involved organizations.
• No tabloid or newspaper would receive an exclusive story unless the board members voted in majority.

The author notes that anything short of these guidelines would be "ultra-subjective," leading to minimized emotions and confusion between organizations, preventing accusations of individual organizations attempting to solve the phenomena alone. It also suggests a blending of talent to aid in problem-solving.

Public Perception and Internal Strife in Ufology

The text addresses the public and media's perception of the Walton incident as a "complete joke." It highlights the "battle" among "experts" who are more concerned with claiming they were right about specific cases (e.g., Travis going to the moon) than with objective truth. The author laments that the "body politic" views scientific ufology as a hobby for "pseudo-cultists," leading to a loss of support where it counts. The issue of belief percentages, possibly from a Gallup poll, is mentioned but not quoted directly.

In summary, ufology is described as gaining members but losing support. The author expresses concern that if organizations focus only on subjective abductions and sensationalized encounters, ufology will falter, losing the momentum gained over the past decade since the era of "swamp gas." The internal bickering within the community is seen as a lack of unity in researching the phenomena.

A quote from a past philosopher, "Arguing is good for the soul," is contrasted with the internal strife that shows a lack of unity.

Personal Accounts and Media Interactions

Two numbered points provide personal anecdotes:

1. The author personally agreed with Duane Walton's "Tucson hospital ruse," intended to "buy" investigation time without being besieged by reporters if Travis's return from a UFO ordeal was revealed.
2. At Dr. Hynek's request, the author spent time with Robert Wallace, a reporter from CBS in Chicago, who witnessed unsuccessful attempts to further test Travis.

The Ventnor, NJ Sighting (January 19, 1976)

This section details an interview with Sonny Schwartz, a GSW Field Investigator #061 and Atlantic City Press columnist, who was a prime witness to an event on January 19, 1976. The interview was recorded on March 21, 1976.

At approximately 5:05 AM, Schwartz was riding in a Ventnor, NJ police car with Patrolman Frank Ingargiola. Instead of returning to Schwartz's apartment, they drove onto the boardwalk at Ventnor beach. Schwartz noticed an extremely bright white light in the sky over the ocean, brighter than anything he had ever seen. He initially thought it might be a flare from a fishing boat, but the light did not diminish and appeared to be coming closer.

They watched the light for about ten minutes. Schwartz suggested they drive down the boardwalk toward Atlantic City to see if the light followed, which it did. Patrolman Ingargiola, who had extensive experience in the Navy, expressed alarm, stating he had never seen anything with such intensity.

As they drove towards Atlantic City, they passed a barge with a derrick doing construction work. Schwartz initially thought the light might be a marker light on the derrick, but it continued to follow them even after they passed the barge.

They then drove to Albany Avenue and down a ramp to the beach. Ingargiola expressed terror as the object appeared very close and much larger than a full moon. The weather was cloudy and overcast with a temperature in the low 20s and wind gusts up to 50 mph. The object reportedly had a luminous green haze and three triangular eruptions on its lower portion.

Ingargiola drove back to the boardwalk and radioed headquarters to contact Atlantic City police. Several Atlantic City police officers arrived and observed the object. As more cars approached, the object moved further away and disappeared. When some cars left, it reappeared. Ingargiola attempted to elicit a response by flashing the police car's spotlight on and off, but received none.

Further Observations and Media Reaction

The Atlantic City police notified the Naval Air Experimental Station, which reported no radar detection. The Coast Guard was dispatched from Long Island. A police sergeant with high-powered field glasses observed the object, as did Patrolman Ingargiola. More police cars arrived, and the object disappeared completely.

After about ten minutes, they headed back to Ventnor and at approximately 5:20 AM, saw the object again, much closer. As they neared the original sighting location, the light became intensely bright. Schwartz noticed a "man," "human," or "something" moving along the street-side railing of the boardwalk with a lurching gait, not turning its head, and with its right arm almost touching the boardwalk. The figure appeared to be about 6 feet 6 inches tall, with immense broad shoulders, wearing a ten-gallon cowboy hat. Despite 50 mph winds, the hat did not blow off, and no effort was made to hold it.

They watched the light for about a minute, then looked for the "being," but it had disappeared. With no exits off the boardwalk nearby, they conducted an extended search and gave up. On the way back to Ventnor, they heard police radio reports of the object being sighted in various coastal communities.

An 82-year-old man who jogged the boardwalk every morning reported to the Ventnor police two weeks prior to this sighting about a "hulking figure" matching the description, which also disappeared when police arrived. The old gentleman reportedly stopped jogging on the boardwalk after that.

The report of the sighting was inadvertently picked up by an early morning disc jockey, relayed to the press and TV, leading to the two witnesses being harassed by the media for weeks.

The Coast Guard issued a statement attributing the sighting to the reflection on clouds of mast lights from fishing boats offshore. One woman called Schwartz to report that a relative of hers was on the crew of the Coast Guard boat sent to investigate, and that crew was instructed not to speak about the sighting.

An editorial note mentions an article from the March 27, 1975, Atlantic City Press, quoting Robert D. Barry of the 20th Century UFO Bureau, who claimed the Coast Guard was staging a cover-up because they had actually seen the UFO and were ordered to remain silent.

Book Review: "Stalking the Trojan Horse" by John Keel

This section is a book review by W. Todd Zechel, GSW Field Director -WI.

John Keel's book, "UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse," is described as gaining popularity among UFO followers. Zechel characterizes the book as a "hodgepodge witches' brew of metaphysical and psychic phenomena." Keel is credited with raising legitimate questions and forcing UFO buffs to reexamine their beliefs.

Keel introduces a new theory called "ultraterrestrial," attempting to explain the origin of UFOs. Zechel notes that Keel, like himself, found the extraterrestrial hypothesis wanting. However, Zechel criticizes Keel for dismissing the extraterrestrial theory with a "swirl of his magic pen." Keel's method of debunking is to point out that only a select number of UFO reports fit the extraterrestrial origin, thus deeming the ETH incorrect. He then introduces his ultraterrestrial theory, incorporating a broad spectrum of metaphysical phenomena as a "blanket explanation." Zechel argues that Keel accepts any reported phenomenon (leprechaun, gnome, vision of the Holy Mother) as a "transmogrification of a supernatural entity," essentially inventing a cure-all.

Zechel states that faulting Keel's book is not nit-picking but like wading through "stinking garbage." He likens Keel's approach to that of Von Daniken, suggesting that Keel presents assorted "crazies" as respectable men, akin to publishing the ravings of madmen without identification.

Keel criticizes hard-core UFO groups for not satisfactorily explaining reports that don't fit the extraterrestrial criterion. Zechel counters that Keel's theory is more convenient than accurate, and applying it to Keel's own cases yields no more sense than the extraterrestrial theory. The "bottom line" is presented as zero.

Zechel believes Keel's attempt is to devise a solution for a complex problem, with honorable intentions. However, the mistake is in using both extraterrestrial and ultraterrestrial theories as formulas to solve every sighting. If a formula doesn't work, the hypothesis is discarded, a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" routine.

Zechel's contention is that not all sightings can fit into one category, and one hypothesis cannot explain all aspects of the phenomena. Keel's attempt to prove that all phenomena are interrelated fails. Zechel acknowledges Keel makes some valid points, particularly in suggesting that UFOs might be paraphysical and that supernatural entities can transmogrify. However, this does not rule out extraterrestrial origin, nor does it mean every hallucination is a transmogrification of an ultraterrestrial or extraterrestrial entity.

In conclusion, Zechel states that Keel's "scatter gun approach" missed the mark but wounded the "beast." He suggests that more accurate marksmen might bring the beast down, but a wounded beast is always the most dangerous.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights recurring themes of the challenges in UFO research, including the subjective nature of evidence, the internal divisions and "bickering" within the ufology community, and the often-skeptical or sensationalized media coverage. There is a clear concern that the field is losing credibility and support due to a lack of unified, rigorous investigation and a focus on sensational aspects. The editorial stance appears critical of unsubstantiated theories and internal conflicts, advocating for more objective and unified research efforts. The review of John Keel's book strongly critiques his methodology and the broad, catch-all nature of his "ultraterrestrial" theory, suggesting it lacks empirical grounding and is a convenient, rather than accurate, explanation.