Ground Saucer Watch Bulletin - 1976 07 - July

Magazine Overview

This issue of the "SUMMER NEWS BULLETIN" from July 1976, titled 'UFO FACTS & SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHING OF AN ANOMALISTIC PHENOMENA', is an editorial by James A. Spaulding. The publication is from GSW, based in Phoenix, Arizona, and is priced at $3.95 per year.

Editorial: The CIA and the UFO

James A. Spaulding's editorial discusses the CIA's surprising release of sanitized documents concerning the Ralph Mayher photo incident of 1952. The organization had been requesting data from the CIA since the declassification of the Robertson Panel Report in December 1974, suspecting the CIA's significant role in the UFO phenomenon. Spaulding questions the Air Force's Project Blue Book's role, suggesting the CIA was the primary recipient of important UFO data, including military sightings and civilian reports, and that the AF systematically provided this intelligence to other organizations. The Mayher incident is presented as evidence of ongoing intelligence operations interested in UFO phenomena, despite being downplayed by the government. The editorial highlights the CIA's confiscation of Mayher's film data, suggesting its analysis yielded important information. Pressure via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided proof of the CIA's involvement in the Mayher sighting, with the agency allegedly recognizing the 'extraordinary flying craft' depicted in the photos, which have undergone extensive computer analysis.

Spaulding asserts that the CIA and NSA have been collecting UFO data for years, withholding it from the scientific community and the public. He emphasizes that meaningful research will depend on obtaining government-held data and photographs, questioning the government's right to control information on ufology.

The Way Things Are Today - A Look at Ufology Through Biased Eyes

Spaulding critiques the current state of 'scientific ufology', identifying ten major problems:

1. Lack of direct leadership or a central board of consultants.
2. Absence of ground rules, leading to fragmented efforts.
3. A multitude of theories without substantiating action.
4. Lack of continuity between organizations, hindering harmony.
5. Limited funds.
6. Insufficient technical manpower.
7. Insufficient sophisticated instrumentation.
8. A division between 'paraphysical believers' and 'physical investigators'.
9. Lack of communication and data dissemination.
10. No set goals for the future.

He notes that most people view UFOs as sensationalized media stories, caring only briefly before returning to everyday concerns. The 'hobbyist' UFO supporter is described as someone who attends lectures, reads books, and joins groups with little practical contribution to field investigations. The 'weekend theorist' is characterized as someone who relies on books and movies, proposing theories that make established researchers seem conventional, and often focusing on non-physical explanations.

A third type, the 'religious/metaphysical supporter', believes UFOs are messages from heaven, citing contactee cases like George Adamski and Dan Fry. This group interprets UFO sightings as signs of alien goodwill and often accepts photographic evidence uncritically. Spaulding argues that this perspective turns ufology into a religion, where natural occurrences are interpreted as alien signals or warnings. This group constitutes about 50% of those involved in UFO study and are major consumers of tabloids.

He notes that some highly educated individuals are now studying contactee/abduction cases, referencing incidents like the Pascagoula fisherman and the Betty and Barney Hill cases. These encounters often begin with a sighting, followed by abduction, and then psychological testing, including hypnosis. While the media may validate these cases due to the involvement of scientific figures, Spaulding criticizes the testing as often incomplete or not thorough enough, suggesting that while witnesses may have had psychological experiences, nothing is scientifically proven.

Spaulding contends that true UFO researchers who investigate thoroughly often find discrepancies and methodological flaws, particularly with hypnotists who may not detect faking. He believes this lack of objectivity violates scientific rules and aids the 'paraphysical believer', splitting ufology further by prioritizing the 'occupant' over the 'object'.

He then introduces the 'physical evidence' researcher, who focuses solely on solid facts and objective testing. This type is considered an 'endangered species', comprising less than a thousand individuals. This researcher, while open to the ET hypothesis, believes UFOs are 'nuts and bolts' hardware, not supernatural phenomena. They face challenges as 'boring' physical cases cannot compete with sensationalized abduction stories in the media. This researcher must endure criticism and watch colleagues pursue 'paraphysical wet dreams', while the media portrays UFO enthusiasts as lunatics. The physical-oriented researcher must remain objective, prioritize the object, and study hard evidence, avoiding 'black magic' and moving forward in a straightforward path.

The Last Straw: The Travis Walton Fiasco

William Spaulding addresses the criticism from APRO regarding the Travis Walton incident, stating that this issue provides supplementary proof that the entire incident was a hoax. He retracts any previous suggestion that an 'object' was observed, claiming Walton and his witnesses are lying, and that APRO leadership may be involved in a cover-up. Spaulding criticizes APRO for increasingly sensationalizing abduction cases, comparing them to tabloids, and points to the Pascagoula incident as an example of 'ultra-subjective' involvement, with polygraph and hypnosis testing yielding no absolute results.

He expresses frustration with APRO's 'redundant verbage' and 'chastisement', accusing them of using 'cheapest shots' in their remarks. Spaulding states that GSW has been investigating the Heber incident and cannot tolerate more damaging rhetoric from APRO, especially since GSW believes they can prove APRO's findings are false.

Spaulding likens Travis Walton's case to busing in Boston, calling it a 'trial case' for investigative research. He believes that accepting Walton's story would endorse figures like Daniel Fry and George Adamski. He stresses the importance of learning from all facts to form hypotheses and becoming more objective with mysterious incidents. While acknowledging that an authentic abduction-type incident is possible, he argues that the Walton case should have sharpened senses rather than led to violations of scientific analysis.

The bulletin lists six points of data presented as absolute proof of a hoax in the Travis Walton case:

1. A tape recording exists of Duane Walton and Mike Rogers discussing the family's previous UFO experiences.
2. Two witnesses testified to the Walton family's prior UFO record.
3. Falsification of polygraph testing.
4. A motive for the sighting.
5. An affidavit from a prominent person involved, proving reported data is subjective and false.
6. Proof of tabloid monetary involvement.

Spaulding challenges the Lorenzen's implication that six individuals involved in the Walton investigation should take polygraph tests. He states that he and the other five individuals do not believe in the 'outer space fairy tale'. He proposes a lie detector test under specific conditions: the Lorenzen's must take the test, Travis Walton must undergo a qualifying re-test, tabloids cannot fund the testing, and a competent scientific individual must administer it.

He deplores APRO's 'outward lying and subjective testing', stating it's one thing to be fooled but another to lie outright. He believes this will erode future credibility.

GSW has been cooperating with Philip Klass, a skeptic of the ET hypothesis, providing him with data on the Travis Walton case. Spaulding believes that if the Walton sighting had been accepted, scientific ufology would have been set back twenty years. The GSW staff admires Klass's investigative reporting on this incident. Although they disagree with Klass on other UFO sightings, they concur 100% with his findings on the Pascagoula and Walton incidents, valuing his objective research.

Pascagoula Abduction

By W. Todd Zechel, GSW Director of Field Operations-WI, this section critiques the Pascagoula abduction case, stating it further damaged the credibility of scientific ufology. Dr. Harder, the prime researcher, is described as having no credibility to lose, especially given his affiliation with APRO and the National Enquirer. The article compares Harder's role in ufology to Nixon's in the presidency, calling him an embarrassment. It also notes that Hynek is competing with Harder for the title of 'expert' in UFO abduction cases.

Hynek is credited with stating the obvious in a way that sounds like scientific observation, while Harder makes no such pretense. The article details the basic story: Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker were fishing on October 11, 1973, near the Shaupeter Shipyard in Pascagoula, MS, when a mysterious blue light-source appeared and descended. A spacecraft opened, and three humanoid aliens floated aboard. After an examination, the men found themselves back on shore. Parker does not remember the details as he passed out.

Hickson reported the experience to the local newspaper and then the Sheriff's Department. Hickson and Parker were examined locally and at Keesler AFB, but no physical abnormalities were found.

Hynek and Harder quickly investigated, with Hynek initially stating he believed the men were telling the truth and had a genuine UFO experience. Harder conducted a time-regression hypnosis session, which he deemed successful, confirming the men were telling the truth. Following this, Hynek and Harder held a press conference where Hynek reiterated his belief in the men's 'frightening experience', emphasizing they should not be ridiculed.

An 'ED NOTE' clarifies that Dr. Hynek later stated he was misquoted, attributing the confusion to the press mistaking him for Harder due to their similar last names. Hynek reportedly said the men had an experience that was real to them and they were not lying.

Harder's statement was more positive, suggesting abduction by extraterrestrial beings and that 'a very strong feeling of terror is practically impossible to fake under hypnosis.' The article questions the thoroughness of their investigation, noting that the incident occurred in daylight in a visible area, yet no other witnesses reported anything unusual. Furthermore, Hynek and Harder allegedly failed to check Hickson's background, which would have revealed he was fired by Ingalls Shipyards for 'conduct unbecoming a supervisor' and had filed for bankruptcy due to 'hopelessly high personal debts'.

Hickson and Parker retained attorney Joe R. Colingo, who believed the story was worth 'a million dollars'. Colingo arranged for Hickson to take a polygraph test administered by Scott Glasgow of the Fendleton Detective Agency. Glasgow's affidavit stated his opinion that Hickson told the truth about seeing a spaceship, being taken aboard, and seeing three space creatures.

However, the article questions Glasgow's qualifications, noting he graduated from a reputable polygraph school but was never certified, as he had not submitted his tests for evaluation as required. It also points out that Colingo chose an inexperienced polygraphist, despite many experienced ones being available, and that the examination consisted of only four short tests.

Spaulding concludes that Hynek and Harder were deceived by a 'clever con-artist'. He criticizes their superficial investigation, which gave the impression of rigor. He questions the reliability of Harder's hypnosis, citing a University of Wisconsin professor who stated it is easy to fake a hypnotic trance and that hypnotists must be very alert. He suggests that Hickson was good enough to fool Harder, and Hynek verified the subjective testing.

The article states that Charles Hickson succeeded in fooling the researchers and putting Pascagoula on the map, but his expected 'millions' never materialized. Hickson's credibility was further damaged by inconsistencies in his story when appearing on talk shows, with details like the time of the incident and the spacecraft's size changing. He eventually faded from public view.

Hynek and Harder are described as continuing to promote 'improbable contact' stories, confusing the public. Spaulding questions whether the government would fund Hynek's research, given the circumstances.

An asterisked note indicates that in October 1975, at the Fort Smith UFO conference, Hickson refused to take a qualifying polygraph re-exam, which the symposium had billed as a main feature.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of UFO phenomena and the organizations that study them. There is a strong emphasis on the need for scientific rigor, objective investigation, and the pursuit of verifiable evidence, particularly government-held data. The editorial stance is highly skeptical of sensationalized abduction cases and 'paraphysical' interpretations of UFOs, viewing them as detrimental to the field of ufology. The publication actively seeks to debunk alleged hoaxes, such as the Travis Walton and Pascagoula incidents, and criticizes researchers and organizations perceived as lacking objectivity or promoting unsubstantiated claims. The underlying message is a call for a more disciplined, evidence-based approach to UFO research, free from sensationalism and subjective biases.