Ground Saucer Watch Bulletin - 1982 12 - December

Magazine Overview

The GSW News Bulletin, December 1982 issue, published by Ground Saucer Watch ('Civilian Aerial Phenomena Research Organization') in Phoenix, Arizona. The bulletin is determined by the Editor and Staff, and opinions of contributors do not necessarily represent the official judgment of GSW. It allows quotes up to 300 words with credit, and requires written permission for longer quotes.

Articles and Content

Directly Speaking

By William H. Spaulding, Director.

Spaulding notes that 1982 ended without the projected influx of saucer reports, but historical patterns suggest a cyclic increase approximately every five years, with a potential surge in 1983. He discusses preparations for this potential 'flap,' including new field investigation manuals and quick-strike teams. The article questions the cause of these cyclic regularities, noting that while political and social factors are sometimes associated, they are rarely substantiated. Spaulding suggests that media coverage and even popular movies like 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' or 'ET' have a limited psychological effect as stimuli, but do not logically explain mass reporting. He posits that intelligence agencies might use misinformation or direct interface to create parallelism with media reporting, citing the 1952 flap and potential government involvement leading to CIA leadership of investigations. The author laments the difficulty in distinguishing 'real' data from rumors and unprovable cases.

Spaulding also links some UFO events to government testing, mentioning U.S. Army tests of the Pershing 2 missile in late October 1982, fired from McGregor range near El Paso, TX, with high-trajectory paths to White Sands Missile Range. He suggests these tests, if observed, could be misinterpreted as flying saucers. Similar tests are planned from Mountain Home AFB in Idaho.

The Politics of Saucer Researching

By William H. Spaulding.

This article draws a parallel between U.S. political structures and the divisions within flying saucer research. It identifies five major theories of saucer origin supported by a diversified group of investigators, theorists, scientists, and hobbyists. The author argues that the emotionalism surrounding these theories leads to non-logic and disarray.

The article defines categories of saucer belief systems:

• The Far Left: Believes saucers are related to psychic or mystical experiences, ESP, monster cases, multiple dimensions, and paranormal phenomena. This group often relies on unsubstantiated data and unreliable witnesses.
• Moderate Position (slightly left): Believes saucers are real and likely extraterrestrial spacecraft. They feel additional research is needed and that the U.S. Government is withholding information. This group was more prominent in earlier years when ETH gained popularity.
• Moderate Position (slightly right): Views saucers as unexplainable phenomena requiring vigorous scientific research. Scientists in this group are often non-committal due to lack of funding. Contributions include soil evaluations, photographic interpretation, statistical data analysis, and critiques of hypnosis and polygraph use.
• The New Wave - Right Wing Thinking: Proposes that saucers are a ruse created by U.S. intelligence agencies as a cover for weapon and psychological testing. Observed phenomena include illegal rocket firings, remotely piloted vehicles, ECM, stealth development, germ/nerve gas experiments, and psychological testing.
• The Far Right - Conservatives: Believes all reports are hoaxes and misinterpretations, with over ninety percent falling into this category. They consider further research pointless, citing previous government studies. This viewpoint is gaining traction, and the movement is seen as susceptible to forceful skeptics.

A table illustrates these categories with typical figures: Adamski (Far Left), Keyhoe (Moderate Left), Hynek (Moderate), Spaulding (New Wave), and Klass (Conservative).

The article then reviews basic saucer facts and their interpretation within these categories:

1. Cover-up: Some believe in a massive government cover-up, while others state there is no cover-up, and some suggest data is manipulated to create a belief system.
2. Crashed Saucers or Landings: Theories range from saucers being confiscated by the government, landing briefly and escaping, never landing, to government experiments gone wrong being misidentified.
3. Reports: Views range from all reports being hoaxes, to representing extraterrestrial visitations, government testing, or a mix of explanations from interdimensional to religious.
4. Origins: Proposed origins include outer space, U.S. Government/superpower governments, non-existence, another dimension, unknown phenomena, or a minor conspiracy.

The bulletin concludes that the political flavor of each category is proportionate to its belief system, making the study of UFOs confusing due to diversification and infighting.

Why Flying Saucers?

By Kenneth E. Firestone.

This article is listed in the table of contents but its content is not provided in the scanned pages.

Speculation vs. Science: Who's Right-Who's Wrong

By Kenneth E. Firestone.

This article is listed in the table of contents but its content is not provided in the scanned pages.

Holiday Greetings

A brief message from the GSW staff wishing readers a happy holiday season and a prosperous new year, noting that their efforts help bring them closer to understanding the UFO phenomenon.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the cyclical nature of UFO sightings, the diverse and often politically charged theories attempting to explain them, and the potential role of government activities and media influence. The editorial stance, as presented by William H. Spaulding, is one of critical analysis, attempting to dissect the various viewpoints within ufology and questioning the substantiation of claims. There is a clear emphasis on differentiating between scientific research and speculative or belief-driven interpretations. The publication also highlights the challenges of misinformation and the difficulty in discerning factual data from rumor and theory within the field of UFO research. The bulletin itself appears to lean towards a more analytical and perhaps skeptical approach, as evidenced by the categorization of viewpoints and the discussion of government testing as a potential source of misidentification.

This issue of the GSW News Bulletin, published three times annually (April, August, and December), features regular sections like "Directly Speaking" by William H. Spaulding, organization news, a Map of Sightings, and articles relating to UFOlogy. The bulletin is available via subscription.

Are Flying Saucers Manufactured by the United States Government? A Close Look at the Pros & Cons

This central article explores the hypothesis that the United States government, or another technologically advanced power, has built flying saucer-type vehicles. For believers, this would substantiate the existence of disc-like objects, allowing them to adjust their extraterrestrial hypothesis rather than abandon it. Skeptics would have to admit they were wrong about some reports being mere misinterpretations or hoaxes, though they could still highlight the absurdity of those who promoted outerspace visitations.

The article posits that if this hypothesis were true, the scientific community, which previously dismissed the phenomenon, might become interested. Classified researchers could re-evaluate older cases. However, a significant portion of the saucer field might argue that a government-built saucer would only account for a small fraction of reports, failing to explain phenomena like vanishing objects or contact incidents.

To validate the potential of an American-built disc machine, the article considers two logical elements for manufacturing a secret craft: a super-secret underground base with extensive manufacturing capabilities, or a combination of airframe and engine manufacturers working under secret contracts. The former requires absolute secrecy and a covert workforce, while the latter faces challenges with employee exposure and potential leaks to the public and media.

Maintaining secrecy could be enhanced if the machines were built outside the U.S., with Australia suggested as a possible location due to recent influxes of saucer reports there. The article acknowledges that building a saucer sounds appealing and could explain some unexplained aerial events, but also notes significant negative points against this possibility.

Fundamental facts pertinent to the theory include the lack of data substantiating U.S. government saucer production, the small percentile of reports defying conventional explanation, the need for expertise from leading manufacturers, and the difficulty of covering up such a development for long. The article questions the purpose of spending millions on R&D for a saucer not used commercially or for warfare. It also notes that the U.S. government uses private facilities like McDonald Douglas for manufacturing but has its own design and testing facilities. Recent claims from purported ex-military officials about seeing U.S.-built saucers are mentioned, but like crashed saucer incidents, much of their reports lack substantiation.

The article dismisses the idea of a massive government cover-up, stating that the mathematical probability of keeping such a secret is nil. It suggests that a "small force of conspirators theory" is more plausible if the U.S. were building high-technology craft, but even this is unlikely. Instead, it proposes that numerous secret programs, such as remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs) and stealth airfoils, have been misinterpreted and collectively form the basis for many UFO sightings. The article concludes that while the government may not be testing flying saucers, it is likely designing disc-shaped craft for the future.

Speculation vs Science: Who's Right - Who's Wrong

This section, authored by Kenneth Firestone, addresses the conflict between public speculation and the scientific community regarding UFOs. The lack of 'positive' evidence is attributed to this ongoing battle. The author notes a decrease in saucer interest after the Air Force's Project Blue Book ended, suggesting the Air Force's proclamation that flying saucers were not real contributed to public apathy. The writer acknowledges that speculation became a natural step when authorities offered only negative comments.

Firestone questions why government agencies took so long to arrive at "zero results" in their investigations. He poses whether the government used scientists to investigate something that officially didn't exist to appease the public, or if people were used to maintain a fictitious mystery. The author argues that if any significant scientific gain had been made, the data would have been seen by now. He points out that for 35 years, the conclusion has been that saucers pose no threat to national security, yet the identity of the phenomenon remains unknown despite America's advanced technology.

The article presents two philosophies for the lack of substantial evidence on flying saucers:
A) There isn't strong supportive evidence because most reports are hoaxes or misidentified conventional objects. Researching saucers further yields little knowledge.
B) There is a basic problem in the UFO field where evidence is prioritized over resolving reports, with some researchers chasing stardom.

Firestone reflects on the early sixties as the beginning of popular saucer theorizing, with pro- and anti-UFO groups clashing. He likens the controversy to religion, where fanatics are never wrong and skeptics attack beliefs. He questions why researchers haven't worked in unity, suggesting that belief systems inherently create controversy.

While acknowledging the experiences of those who have seen flying saucers, the author states that no one can claim their origin. Scientists have theorized about extraterrestrial life and the technology required, but lack substantial evidence. The pro-saucer researcher offers an opinion based on belief, while the anti-ufologist seeks to debunk. Dedicated 'debunkers' aim to accumulate factual data without taking sides.

The author concludes that neither the speculative nor the scientific side has presented evidence to change thinking on flying saucers, and the debates continue.

Why Flying Saucers?

Kenneth Firestone further explores the origins of the flying saucer phenomenon. He uses the example of a Pershing missile that malfunctioned and crashed in Creede, Colorado, in 1964, suggesting that witnesses might have mistaken such an event for a flying saucer. The article posits that misinterpretations of conventional and non-conventional aerial configurations, dating back to the 1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting, have generated numerous saucer reports.

Causes for these misinterpretations include the observer's frantic psychological state, inadequate knowledge of observational techniques, and the eager acceptance of the basic saucer belief system. The media's exploitation of the term "flying saucers" after the Arnold sighting conditioned the public to report objects as saucer-shaped.

The article suggests that the failure of the Air Force's attempt to build and fly a flying saucer may have contributed to a decrease in public interest. It questions whether the government considered using the flying saucer as an airfoil or deliberately induced failure in its program to create apathy. The saucer's shape is described as a poor design for outer space due to limited space, contrasting with a square shape which would offer more area for components.

The author notes that for some, the saucer has become a deity, while others believe they pose a threat. He concludes that the term "flying saucers" will persist, and the question of their origin – whether from space, psychological manifestation, or media hype – remains. A recent study indicates that a high percentage of UFO reports occur near military bases or test installations, suggesting that extraterrestrials may not be the cause.

Title: GSW Bulletin
Issue Date: Unknown
Publisher: GSW
Document Type: Magazine Issue

Content Summary

The article posits a rational alternative to the mystery of UFO sightings: misinterpretation of known terrestrial objects, specifically advanced airfoils being tested at military facilities. The author suggests that the press, through sensational UFO stories often sourced from tabloids like the National Enquirer, may have inadvertently provided a shield for the government to hide their clandestine testing.

The proliferation of varied flying saucer beliefs has led to a "mass of entangled confusion" within the UFO community. The writer expresses a personal view that there is too much "disillusion and assumption" in some saucer beliefs to easily discern the truth, likening the entire matter to a puzzle. A hopeful outlook is presented, suggesting that once the "psychology of ufology is unraveled," progress may be made in uncovering the truth about flying saucers.

Next Generation Confusion Aircraft (NGCA)

The bulletin introduces the concept of the NGCA (Next Generation Confusion Aircraft), also referred to as 'Sabrebat.' This is described as advancing the next stage of manned airfoil configurations, with leading aerospace companies developing a radical swept-wing geometry possessing stealth potential. The article anticipates that test and operational flights of such advanced aircraft will most likely result in misinterpretations of "unusual aerial phenomena."

Future issues of the GSW Bulletin are promised to detail government Research and Development (R&D) programs, both past and present, that have accounted for many of the "presently-rated unknown saucer reports."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this excerpt are the potential for misidentification of advanced military aircraft as UFOs, the role of sensationalist media in perpetuating UFO myths, and the complexity and confusion surrounding the study of ufology. The editorial stance appears to be skeptical of conventional UFO narratives, favoring a more grounded, scientific, and psychological approach to understanding these phenomena, while also acknowledging the existence of classified government aerospace projects that could be mistaken for extraterrestrial activity.