SUN 11 (Sept 1991)

Magazine Overview

This issue of the Skeptics UFO Newsletter, dated September 1991, is published by Philip J. Klass and focuses on critical analysis of UFO claims and research. The cover headline highlights Stanton T. Friedman's assertion of two saucer crashes in New Mexico in 1947, each involving four extraterrestrials, with one survivor, a claim that contradicts the MJ-12 papers, whose authenticity Friedman still supports.

Crashed Saucer Claims and Contradictions

The newsletter previews Friedman's upcoming book, co-authored with Don Berliner, which reportedly presents different narratives from three 'crashed saucer camps.'

• William L. Moore's account, from his 1980 book "The Roswell Incident," describes one saucer crash on the Mac Brazel ranch. However, his witnesses did not report ET bodies. A second-hand report from the deceased Barney Barnett suggested a crash with bodies on the San Augustin Plains, west of Socorro, N.M., over 150 miles from the Brazel ranch. Moore admitted in a 1985 paper that he couldn't find corroborating accounts and it was unclear if Barnett's tale involved the Brazel ranch or the San Augustin Plains.
• Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt, in their book "UFO Crash at Roswell," claim only one saucer crashed, with four alien bodies recovered near the Brazel ranch site. They assert that many witnesses support their version.
• Stanton Friedman's scenario involves two saucers crashing, possibly due to mid-air collision. One disintegrated on the Brazel ranch, while the other flew over 150 miles west to crash on the San Augustin Plains. Friedman accepts the R/S claim of four ET bodies from the Brazel site but adds that three bodies plus one survivor were recovered from the San Augustin site. This is based on a witness, George Anderson, who contacted Friedman and Randle after seeing a TV portrayal of the Roswell incident. Anderson, as a child, reportedly discovered the San Augustin crash with relatives. Friedman finds Anderson's story impressive, but Kevin Randle, who also interviewed him, noted serious flaws.

Friedman's talk at the MUFON conference briefly touched upon the MJ-12 papers, which he strongly endorses. He acknowledged that Anderson's story contradicts the MJ-12 papers, which mention only one saucer and four ET bodies, with no mention of a second saucer or a live ET. Friedman's explanation for this discrepancy is his adage: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The crossfire between these 'crashed saucer camps' is intensifying. At the MUFON conference, a heated argument occurred between Friedman and Schmitt over Anderson's credibility. Friedman complained about receiving only 10% of the royalties from Moore's Roswell book and not receiving adequate acknowledgment for his contribution.

Critiques of UFO Claims and Sources

Friedman was critical of the 1988 TV show "UFO Coverup? Live," which featured Moore and Jaime Shandera, and their alleged "high-level intelligence sources," code-named "Falcon" and "Condor." Friedman dismissed their claims about aliens liking strawberry ice cream and Tibetan music as "the laughing stock of ufology" and lacking evidence. Moore and Shandera reportedly defended Falcon and Condor's appearance.

The strained relations between the Moore/Shandera (M/S) camp and Randle/Schmitt (R/S) worsened with the publication of the new R/S book. The R/S book falsely claims Moore's Roswell book was an update of Frank Scully's 1950 book, which was based on a hoax. The R/S claim that "those in the know rejected the book as one more Scully update."

Jaime Shandera, in the June MUFON UFO Journal, accused R/S of ambiguity in their interviews, suggesting that they interpret statements after the fact, leading to hypothesizing that turns into fact. Shandera cited Col. Thomas DuBose, chief-of-staff to Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey, as an example. R/S quoted DuBose, then 89, saying he never saw the authentic debris, only bogus balloon-borne radar-target debris which Ramey substituted for the media. However, when Shandera showed DuBose photos of the debris, DuBose confirmed they showed the authentic recovered debris.

The newsletter notes that the photos clearly show a crashed balloon-borne radar target, not an ET craft, a point confirmed by a meteorologist whom Ramey brought in. Gen. Ramey publicly stated the debris was a balloon-borne radar target. The newsletter suggests that if Ramey told the truth, there was no crashed saucer, no government coverup, and no market for the R/S book, which would be a disaster for organizations like CUFOS.

William Moore, in his publication "Focus," sharply criticized Gerald Anderson, Friedman's star witness, pointing out numerous flaws in his story. Moore claimed Friedman had "mixed feelings" about Anderson's credibility, but Friedman strongly endorsed Anderson at MUFON. The newsletter implies Friedman's motivation for publishing a new book is ego and hoped-for royalties.

MJ-12 Papers Deemed Hoaxes

Jerry Clark, editor of International UFO Reporter (IUR), characterized the MJ-12 papers and Ed Walters' Gulf Breeze UFO photos as "hoaxes." Clark stated that there is no "Majestic 12" and never was. CUFOS and Clark are credited for this stance, with other CUFOS officials and Mark Rodeghier having previously concluded the Walters photos were a hoax. MUFON's director, Walt Andrus, however, continues to characterize the Walters case as important.

Clark speculated that the MJ-12 document might be a disinformation operation by military intelligence, possibly from the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) at Kirtland Air Force Base. He also suggested it could be a ufologist's scheme to gauge a response from a real cover-up group. The newsletter suggests that former Sgt. Richard C. Doty, known for concocting hoax UFO documents, might be responsible.

Clark failed to mention that CSICOP and IUR had characterized the MJ-12 papers as counterfeit in August 1987. CUFOS and Friedman promptly defended the MJ-12 authenticity. The newsletter notes that additional reasons for this assessment were documented in a series of articles in the "Skeptical Inquirer." The Winter 1990 issue of SI revealed that Harry Truman's signature on an authentic letter to Dr. Vannevar Bush was "suspiciously alike" the signature on an MJ-12 document, suggesting a "Xerox counterfeit." The same issue of IUR featured an article by Ted R. Spickler demonstrating the MJ-12 Truman signature was a photocopy counterfeit, concluding that while skeptics might have won the MJ-12 battle, they were losing the Roswell war.

The Fund for UFO Research paid Stanton Friedman $16,000 for an investigation into the MJ-12 papers, and his report concluded they were genuine based on a scientific screening. The newsletter sarcastically questions if this is like Gerald Anderson's crashed-saucer tale.

UFO-Abduction Theories Challenged

Dr. Michael D. Swords, a biology specialist, challenged the premise of Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs' UFO-abduction theories, which suggest cross-breeding as a purpose. Swords, with a Masters in biochemistry and Ph.D. in history of science and technology, argued that despite humans and apes being 99% genetically identical, they cannot cross-breed. He noted that his talk would "make two friends very unhappy."

Swords offered alternative explanations for abduction tales, including "ET-induced shield images or ET-staged pseudo-events" for psychological reasons, or ETs studying human minds and emotional responses. He dismissed the idea that abduction tales are products of fantasy-prone or psychologically disturbed Earthlings.

David M. Jacobs, in his MUFON conference paper "What Can We Believe in Abduction Accounts?", acknowledged that hypnosis is not a direct path to truth. He cited Dr. Martin T. Orne, a clinical specialist, who noted that without independent verification, it's impossible to determine if a memory is real or a confabulation (unconsciously invented memory). Orne also warned that hypnotized subjects can willfully lie.

Jacobs believes he can now begin to separate reality from imagination based on over 300 abduction investigations. His criteria include:

1. ET Appearance: If the subject's description of ET appearance deviates significantly from the norm (short, large head, bald, large eyes), the account is considered fantasy. However, Jacobs cautioned against rejecting accounts solely based on initial descriptions, as interpretation can be influenced by the subject's position (e.g., thinking they are standing when lying on a table).
2. ET Communications: If the subject's account of ET communications deviates significantly from the norm (e.g., "You're going to be O.K.," "We're not going to hurt you"), the account is suspect. Jacobs stated that reassuring communication is typical and reflects reality. He noted that communications are often telepathic, with some abductees hearing complete sentences and others receiving impressions they vocalize. He warned that longer, more complicated communications must be treated with extreme caution unless they fit the norm.
3. Interpreting Alien Motivations: Jacobs found that aliens generally behave logically and clinically, but their motivations are often unclear. He noted a rare instance of amusement demonstrated by aliens. Confabulation occurs when the questioner asks the abductee why aliens are performing procedures. Abductees often describe being subjected to machines, which hum, whir, or are silent. Jacobs is not bothered by the variety of machine positions and sounds, considering "I don't know" an acceptable answer to the machine's function. However, if the subject claims the machine is taking X-rays, he urges extreme caution.

Jacobs cited an example of a subject regressed 30 times who initially recalled being abducted at age 6 and taken before a "Council" of ETs. Later regressions revealed this event had evaporated and was unconsciously invented.

Jacobs noted that many abductees also claim to be "Channelers" and often migrate to New Age groups. He suggested that a hypnotic trance can be similar to a Channeled Mode, allowing abduction questions to be filled in by channeled information.

Jacobs is preparing to detail a new factor in his forthcoming book, "Secret Life: the Structure and Meaning of UFO Abductions." He states that "aliens will purposely place images in people's minds for specific mental procedures that they are administering." These images, which can be of death, destruction, mundane scenes, or geometric shapes, are selected for a reason and have importance. They are often drawn from the abductee's own imagination.

The newsletter speculates that Jacobs' new hypothesis might be an attempt to rationalize the tales of sexual procedures told by many abductees, given the biological impossibility of cross-breeding. It questions whether Hopkins will admit his hypothesis is flawed and if Jacobs will become the new leading figure in the "UFO-abduction Movement."

Whitley Strieber's Departure from UFology

Whitley Strieber announced that the Spring 1991 issue of his "Communion Letter" would be the last. He explained that he is not a UFO researcher and does not wish to endure the media attack associated with the field, calling UFO-logists "cruelest, nastiest and craziest people." He believes abduction reports are not real but artifacts of hypnosis and cultural conditioning.

Strieber views the scientific community's refusal to address the UFO issue as "daft" and believes the press and UFO community hinder progress. He criticizes the media for portraying him as a self-proclaimed alien abductee, despite his book "Communion" making such claims.

Strieber's current assessment is that UFOs are not alien encounters but a "deeper and more subtle business." He suggests that images are purposefully placed in people's minds for specific mental procedures, and that these images are selected for a reason and have importance. He also posits that "visitors" may be from the future, from within us, or from another world.

Randle "Forgets" Moore/Berlitz Book

During a TV appearance to promote his new book, "The UFO Crash At Roswell," Kevin Randle reportedly denied knowledge of an earlier book on the specific incident, despite William Moore and Don Berlitz's 1980 book "The Roswell Incident." Randle stated his investigation started from the beginning and found 300 witnesses. The newsletter points out that there were only three first-hand witnesses and that Capt. Sheridan Cavitt, who denies the crashed saucer claims, is not reported by Randle/Schmitt until late in their book.

Friedman Praises TV Show Format on UFOs

Stanton Friedman told his MUFON audience that the TV media is becoming more reasonable in its treatment of UFOs, no longer feeling obliged to include "Noisy Negativists" for balance. He noted the absence of skeptics on recent NBC-TV and CBS-TV shows dealing with UFOs, and the large viewership for "Unsolved Mysteries" program on the New Mexico crash without negative input.

Friedman seems to believe that even brief exposure to skeptical views might negatively influence the audience, especially younger viewers.

C.B. Scott Jones, formerly the "paranormal specialist" for Sen. Claiborne Pell, made his UFO speaking debut at the MUFON conference. Jones, a MUFON consultant since 1989, agreed with Richard Hall that UFOlogists must "separate out the crackpot stuff and present convincing evidence" to interest Congress. However, Jones admitted it's difficult to agree on what constitutes "convincing evidence." He believes the U.S. Government has "failed to openly share with the American public or the U.S. Congress any knowledge it has about contact with extraterrestrial intelligence."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of the Skeptics UFO Newsletter, edited by Philip J. Klass, consistently adopts a skeptical stance towards UFO claims, particularly those involving crashes, alleged government coverups, and abduction phenomena. Klass critically examines the evidence, highlights inconsistencies in witness testimony and researcher accounts, and questions the methodologies and motivations of prominent UFOlogists like Stanton Friedman, Budd Hopkins, and David Jacobs. The newsletter emphasizes the importance of scientific scrutiny and evidence-based reasoning, often contrasting these with what it perceives as the uncritical acceptance of extraordinary claims within the UFO community. The editorial stance is one of rigorous investigation and debunking, aiming to expose what it views as hoaxes, confabulations, and flawed interpretations of phenomena. The publication also critiques the media's portrayal of UFO topics and the scientific community's engagement with the subject.