Ground Saucer Watch Bulletin - 1976 08 - August

Magazine Overview

Title: SUMMER NEWS BULLETIN
Issue: AUGUST-1976
Publisher: CIVILIAN AERIAL PHENOMENA RESEARCH ORGANIZATION (GSW)
Country: U.S.A.
Date: August 1976

This issue of the GSW Summer News Bulletin delves into various aspects of UFO research, emphasizing scientific methodology, data analysis, and the challenges facing the ufology community. It features articles on objective research, computer photo analysis, and critiques of UFO organizations, alongside specific case details and investigative reports.

Objective UFology: A Cause and Concern

This article, authored by William H. Spaulding, posits that in scientific ufology, the most significant invention is objective researching. It draws parallels to the invention of the wheel in physical science and the concept of zero in abstract science, highlighting their fundamental importance. Spaulding argues that abandoning objectivity in research would be a grave error, akin to abandoning the wheel or zero. He stresses that a scientific approach, free from subjective biases, is crucial for the advancement of ufology, which he dates back to mid-1947.

Results of Computer Photo Analysis

Another article by William Spaulding details GSW's extensive work in evaluating hundreds of UFO photographs using computer image enhancement techniques. The analysis includes edge enhancement, color contouring, digitizing, electronic densitometry, and pixel measurements. The bulletin presents a list of photographs that, according to GSW's analysis, provide strong evidence of extraordinary flying objects and are not attributable to lens anomalies, processing artifacts, models, or misidentified conventional phenomena. The article notes that as software improves, their analysis methods will be updated.

A comprehensive list of analyzed photographs is provided, with details such as location, date, and a code (e.g., DD, NL) which likely indicates the preliminary evaluation of the photograph's authenticity or origin. Some entries are marked with an asterisk (*), indicating that the analysis was performed without photographer permission and thus cannot be used for publication. The preliminary evaluations for these analyses were conducted by Fred Adrian, GSW's Photographic Consultant.

The bulletin also distinguishes between genuine unidentified flying objects and those identified as crude hoaxes, photographic anomalies, or misinterpretations. A list of such cases is presented, including Rex Heflin/Santa Ana, CA (1965), Melbourne, Australia (1966), and Sedona, AZ/Ghormley (1967), among others.

The Directors Speak: UFO Symposiums; Something Gained, Something Lost

This section discusses GSW's participation in two major UFO symposiums: the 'secret' CUFUS meeting and the annual MUFON session. GSW's Western Director presented technical papers on computer enhancement of UFO pictorial evidence. The article reflects on the interactions with researchers and organization leaders, particularly Dr. Hynek's CUFUS meeting, which aimed to unite serious investigators. However, the methodology for selecting attendees is questioned, and the bulletin notes the subjective nature of some individuals in the UFO community.

GSW expresses concern over the perceived oversight of some of its own members and consultants in these select gatherings. The article emphasizes that the true value of the CUFOS meeting lay not in attendance but in what transpired. It critiques the diverse range of speakers, from scientists to paraphysical supporters, and highlights the need for a common goal and central leadership in ufology. The Center for UFO Studies, under Dr. Hynek, is seen as a missed opportunity for providing this leadership, with many researchers working in different directions without a unified purpose.

The bulletin suggests that a golden opportunity was missed by CUFOS to lead the scientific movement in ufology. The MUFON Symposium is rated as good and informative, though it notes some ill-feeling between the Director of CUFOS and the past editor of Skylook magazine. Accusations against Dr. Hynek included operating an undeclared 'clearing house,' lack of communication, and indecisiveness on UFU cases. The article calls for open discussion to find solutions and acknowledges that a utopian, totally united front in ufology may not be achievable.

Despite the confusion and distrust, the authors believe that with a common, united plan, objective data can be gathered to solve the UFO phenomenon. They suggest that a combination of CUFUS, MUFON, GSW, and individual investigators can lead to rational conclusions, urging a re-evaluation of original values if positive steps are not taken.

A footnote mentions that a paper on 'The Trent Photographs - Revisited' was presented at the CUFOS Symposium, and copies are available from the Center for UFU Studies.

Field Investigators Beware

This section warns field investigators about the increased reward money offered by tabloids like the National Enquirer for UFO proof and 'best' UFO stories. GSW anticipates a surge in hoaxed abduction cases, faked UFO pictures, and exaggerated stories driven by the monetary incentives. Investigators are urged to remain open-minded yet objective and to watch for such possibilities, emphasizing the importance of keeping common goals in mind.

Announcements

GSW is soliciting participation from its members in two information/research projects: collecting data on UFO pictures and UFO incidents reported over bodies of water. Inquiries about UFO pictures should be directed to the Director of the Western Division, while information on ocean/UFO reports should go to Roberta Bull. Data on water incidents will be forwarded to Tom Benson for research and made available to GSW membership.

Formats and Publications

The bulletin provides a simple format for reporting UFO pictures and incidents over water, including date/time, location, witness data, and type of sighting. It also recommends 'UFOLOGY Magazine' as a publication for serious researchers.

Travis Walton Incident

The Travis Walton hoaxed UFO incident is discussed, noting its extensive media coverage. GSW expresses interest in hearing from its membership regarding the exposé of this incident and mentions that further information from Phil Klass is available. A special GSW Fall Issue will report on the proposed Walton/Rogers re-polygraphic test.

Mike Rogers and His Turkey Springs Forest Service Contract

This investigative report details a Forest Service contract awarded to Mike Rogers for thinning work in the Turkey Springs area. The contract, initially for 1,277 acres at $27.40 per acre, was later reduced in area but not in time. Rogers fell significantly behind schedule, with only 32% of the work completed when 92% of the contract time had expired. Despite a letter from contracting officer Maurice Marchbanks warning of potential termination, Rogers did not reply in writing but later explained his delays during a visit. Marchbanks granted an 84-day extension and invoked liquidated damages.

An inspection report from Tom Hents indicated that by October 1975, only 15 acres of fuel-break were completed, and 80% of the time-extension had passed with only 31% of the work done during the extension. The report highlights that Rogers was earning significantly less per day than he was paying his crew, suggesting he was losing money. Rogers wrote to Marchbanks on October 20, 1975, admitting uncertainty about finishing on time due to difficulties in keeping a full crew and low morale.

It is revealed that nearly nine months later, on July 12, 1976, Marchbanks learned the true reason for Rogers' performance issues: Rogers had taken on two additional contracts after winning the Turkey Springs contract. This information came to light through an investigation into the Travis Walton UFO case. The report includes a transcript of a conversation between the investigator and Rogers, where Rogers explains his situation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical importance of objective scientific methodology in UFO research, the challenges posed by subjective biases and organizational disunity within the ufology community, and the need for rigorous investigation and data collection. GSW advocates for a more unified and scientifically grounded approach to understanding UFO phenomena, distinguishing between genuine cases and hoaxes, and warns against monetary incentives that may lead to fabricated evidence. The editorial stance is one of advocating for a more serious, evidence-based, and collaborative approach to ufology.

This document is an article from "The UFO Investigator," dated July 20, 1976, authored by Philip J. Klass. It details the circumstances surrounding a Forest Service timber contract held by Mike Rogers at Turkey Springs, which was ultimately defaulted. The article explores Rogers' claims that a UFO incident on November 5, 1975, prevented him from completing the job, and investigates the financial and contractual aspects of the situation, as well as a related alleged UFO encounter involving a crew member, Travis Walton.

Rogers' Forest Service Contract and Subcontracts

The article begins by discussing Rogers' other contracting jobs, including a "lopping" subcontract with Western Pine Co. and another with an unnamed Forest Service prime contractor. Rogers stated he worked on his Turkey Springs contract for "two weeks on, two weeks off," suggesting he was not dedicating his full time to it. He believed the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) Hents, who inspected the Western Pine timber operation, would have known about his other work, but suspected Marchbanks, the primary contractor, did not.

On July 12, 1976, Rogers drove to Springerville to inform Marchbanks about his situation before the author could call. Rogers had played a tape recording of his July 11 conversation with the author for Marchbanks. Marchbanks stated he was unaware of Rogers' subcontract with Western Pine but had learned that another group in the Springerville office followed such timber contracts. He also mentioned that he might have missed the second subcontract discussed on the tape due to flaws and interruptions, adding that the matter was "not too interesting to me."

Marchbanks expressed his view that if Rogers had other contracts, he "didn't play exactly fair" and that the Forest Service contract should have had priority. He noted that Rogers knew his obligations and risks, including reprocurement if terminated for default.

The UFO Incident and Contract Completion Claims

Rogers did no further work after the alleged UFO incident on November 5, 1975. As of that date, he had completed only 115 acres out of a total of 353 acres under his contract, which had been extended. Rogers claimed he could have finished the remaining 238 acres within two or three weeks if not for the UFO incident. He explained that he had "beefed up" his crew to seven or eight men and was moving at a rate of about 15 acres per day. The author contrasts this with a COR report from October 16, 1975, which indicated Rogers had completed only 15 acres in a two-week period.

Rogers described his Turkey Springs contract as "the best contract I ever had," citing the highest per-acre price and good profit margins. He paid his "cutters" $6.00 per hour. Marchbanks doubted that contractors could make much profit at this pay rate on $25/acre jobs, suggesting that Rogers' claim of profitability was questionable.

Financial Strain and the Role of Retention Funds

If the contract was as profitable as Rogers claimed, his earnings from it and his two other subcontracts should have provided sufficient funds to carry him through the winter, when work in the woods is impossible due to snow. Rogers, with 10 years of experience, would know that snow typically arrives in November and lasts until April.

However, within weeks of the UFO incident, Rogers was reportedly using food stamps to survive. He explained that the money he had made on the contract was tied up in the 10% retention, which he intended to use for winter expenses. He stated that if the UFO incident hadn't occurred, he would have finished the job in two to three weeks and received over $3,000 in retention funds, which would have seen him through the winter. He received his 10% retention, approximately $2,638, in early February after a new contractor was selected.

Doubts About Rogers' Claims

The author expresses strong doubt that Rogers could have completed the remaining 238 acres in two or three weeks, even with an increased crew. He points to Rogers' own October 20, 1975, letter admitting problems with "green men" and "poor morale." Furthermore, an early snow could have ended any hope of finishing the job and collecting the much-needed retention funds.

Rogers stated he would not have needed to invent a UFO story to get out of the contract, as he could have simply approached the contracting officer to discuss his financial difficulties. Marchbanks confirmed that Rogers could have sought an arrangement or faced default.

However, Rogers had a previous default on his record from an earlier contract. He admitted to being "slow" on many jobs but maintained a good reputation by always doing a "very good job." A second outright default would have negatively impacted his chances of securing future Forest Service jobs, especially if the true reason for the default became known. The author suggests that framing the situation as an "Act of God" might have softened the impact of a second default.

Travis Walton and the UFO Incident

On October 20, 1975, the same day Rogers wrote to Marchbanks about his problems, NBC-TV aired a special on the Betty and Barney Hill "UFO abduction" incident. Coincidentally, Travis Walton, a member of Rogers' crew, had a keen interest in UFOs and had expressed a desire to ride in one. He reportedly told his mother not to worry if he were abducted, as he would return safely.

Allegedly, less than three weeks after Rogers wrote to Marchbanks, Walton returned without injury, except for a puncture-like mark on his elbow, following his encounter with a UFO. Rogers, in a tape-recorded interview on November 8, 1975, described the event: "When I seen this flash...I saw him [Travis]...he was in the air when I saw him and he came and hit the ground, and he stiffened like a board...which hurt him I'm sure. It looked like an explosion had gone off in front of him, like the thing [UFO] had caused some kind of explosion...it blew him back 10 feet."

The article notes that due to Walton's interest in UFOs, it's possible he was aware of the "National Enquirer's" $5-10,000 prize for the best UFO incident of the year, though this cannot be confirmed.

Contract Termination and New Opportunities

Marchbanks terminated Rogers' contract for default in November. After a new contractor bid $24.00/acre, Rogers was paid his full 10% retention of $2,638. The new contractor for Turkey Springs did not begin work until April 26, 1976, and took nearly six weeks to complete the remaining 238 acres by June 6, 1976.

On July 18, 1976, Marchbanks informed the author that his office had given Rogers a new contract to test an innovative thinning operation idea. Rogers proposed a mechanical method that he claimed would be cheaper, neater, and more effective than using chainsaws. A 33-acre area, described as the biggest and hardest-to-thin in the forest, was selected for this test, with Rogers to be paid $75.00 per acre.

Marchbanks expressed optimism that Rogers' innovative approach might help him overcome past problems with slowness and prevent another default. The article concludes by noting that Rogers' job opportunities at the Springerville Forest Service office were not negatively impacted by the Turkey Springs default, which is fortunate as he has "four mouths to feed."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this article are the intersection of UFO phenomena with mundane events, contractual obligations, and financial pressures. The author, Philip J. Klass, maintains a skeptical stance towards UFO claims, particularly when they are used to explain away personal or professional failures. He meticulously examines Rogers' account, contrasting it with official reports, past performance, and logical inconsistencies. The editorial stance appears to be that while UFOs are a subject of interest, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and explanations involving UFOs should be scrutinized, especially when they serve to excuse defaults or financial difficulties. The article suggests that Rogers' UFO story might have been a convenient narrative to explain his inability to complete the contract, possibly to mitigate the impact of a second default on his record.