SUN 28 (July 1994)

Magazine Overview

This issue of Skeptics UFO Newsletter, dated July 1994, is edited by Philip J. Klass and focuses on critical analysis of UFO-related claims and documents. The cover headline highlights "TOP SECRET" and "SECRET" documents from the National Archives suggesting that top USAF intelligence officials were unaware of the Roswell crash details.

"Top Secret" and "Secret" Documents Reveal USAF Ignorance of Roswell

The lead article details a "TOP SECRET" memorandum from October 11, 1948, prepared by Col. Brooke E. Allen for the Chief of the Air Intelligence Division. This memorandum was a response to a July 27, 1948, directive from Maj. Gen. C. P. Cabell, USAF's Director of Intelligence, to study UFO sighting reports. The study involved an exhaustive review of information pertinent to UFOs, soliciting opinions from aeronautical engineers and intelligence specialists. Tentative conclusions stated that observed flying objects were real, but their origin was indiscernible. It was deemed unwise to overlook the possibility of foreign origin (specifically the Soviet Union), with potential reasons including negating U.S. confidence in the atom bomb, photographic reconnaissance, testing U.S. air defenses, or familiarization flights.

The article contrasts this with claims made in the book "The Truth About The UFO Crash At Roswell" by Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt, which alleges that many civilians and military personnel saw the crashed saucer and ET bodies, and that photographers were sent to take pictures. The newsletter points out the irony that a year after the alleged crash, the USAF's Director of Intelligence, with a Top Secret clearance and a "need-to-know," had apparently never seen this evidence.

Further, a "SECRET" memorandum from Maj. Gen. Cabell to the Commanding General of Air Materiel Command, dated November 3, 1948, emphasized the imperative need to determine the origin of these objects for national defense, requesting increased efforts until conclusive evidence was obtained.

Project Mogul and Roswell Debris

Another section investigates the claim that unusual metallic debris from the Roswell crash was sent to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) for analysis. It explores the possibility that scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, might have been consulted. Jennie Zeidman, who worked at Battelle and researched UFO reports for Project Blue Book, found no evidence that Battelle analyzed any Roswell artifacts. She noted that while Battelle was a premier metallurgy research facility, interviews with their scientists yielded no confirmation of such analysis.

The newsletter suggests that the General Accounting Office (GAO), investigating Roswell claims, should pursue Zeidman's idea, as any reports might still be classified "TOP SECRET," inaccessible to those without high-level security clearances.

Critique of Dr. John Mack's Abduction Research

A significant portion of the newsletter is dedicated to a critique of Harvard psychiatrist Dr. John Mack's book, "Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens." An expose in TIME magazine is cited, questioning the credibility of Mack's research and presenting expert and former patient opinions that his work is "shoddy."

The article recounts the case of Donna Bassett, who under regressive hypnosis with Mack, claimed to have been abducted and found President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev aboard a UFO. Mack's reaction, as described, was one of excitement, even to the point of collapsing a bed. Mack's subsequent statements on CNN's "Crossfire" are quoted, where he expressed uncertainty about whether Bassett's story was made up, later contradicting himself.

Reviews from the MUFON UFO Journal and the International UFO Reporter (IUR) are presented. Dennis Stacy, editor of MUFON UFO Journal, reviewed Mack's book in New Scientist, calling it "one of the most credulous books ever written" due to a lack of follow-up investigation and physical corroboration. Jerry Clark, editor of IUR, rejects prosaic explanations and criticizes Mack for demanding a wholesale rejection of the Western scientific worldview based on abduction tales.

Dr. James S. Gordon, a professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, also expressed disappointment in his review of Mack's book. Gordon noted that Mack fails to inform readers about the evolution of abduction accounts, from germ extraction to remembering hybrid babies or believing oneself to be alien. He questioned whether these changes indicate an evolving phenomenon, more alien memory recall, or elaborate fantasies.

Gordon's own interviews with abductees suggested that their understanding and memories might be shaped by those helping them, with Sprinkle's subjects reporting benevolent ETs, while Hopkins' and Jacobs' subjects described malevolent ones.

"Queen-Bee Abductee" Contenders and Other Short Shrift

The newsletter introduces Mary Oscarson as a new contender for the "Queen-Bee Abductee" title, challenging Linda Napolitano. Oscarson claims over 100 abductions since age seven, with an "alien implant" that "twinges" when an experience is imminent. The newsletter notes that this provides an opportunity for Mack to obtain hard evidence, such as video-tape, which he has not pursued.

Oscarson's accounts of ETs materializing, transporting her through walls, and causing pain during alleged ova removal are detailed. Her claim of independent witnesses and audio tapes of abduction experiences is mentioned, though no confirmation or evidence was presented by Mack.

"Short Shrift" sections cover several brief items: a bogus "Son of MJ-12" document with anachronistic typefaces and factual errors; Linda Napolitano's upcoming MUFON speaking engagement; Debbie Jordan's revised abduction tale with differing descriptions of ETs; Kevin Randle's denial of being a government disinformation agent; and a notable commentary from Dr. Jill Tarter of the SETI Institute.

Randle/Schmitt Bite Hand That Fed Them, So Hand Bites Back

This section details a conflict between the Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR) and authors Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt. FUFOR counterattacked criticism from Randle and Schmitt's book by reminding them that FUFOR had funded their early Roswell research. FUFOR questioned Randle's statements about Karl Pflock's investigation, suggesting Randle submit evidence to the GAO.

If The Debris Photographed In Ramey's Office Was Not What Marcel Recovered From The Brazel Ranch, Where Did It Come From?

This article delves into the controversy surrounding the debris photographed in Gen. Ramey's office. While William L. Moore and Jaime Shandera insist it was authentic debris recovered by Major Marcel, Randle/Schmitt argue it was from a balloon-borne radar reflector substituted by Ramey. The article explores the possibility that Warrant Officer Irving Newton was asked to provide such a reflector, but Newton recalls the debris was already present when he arrived. The question remains: if it wasn't Marcel's recovered debris, where did Ramey obtain it?

UFO Researchers, USAF Discover What Really Crashed On Brazel Ranch

This article reveals that independent investigations by UFO researchers Robert G. Todd and Karl Pflock, as well as the USAF, have connected the Roswell crash debris to Project Mogul. Project Mogul was a then-Top Secret U.S. Air Force project using giant, high-flying balloons to detect Soviet nuclear explosions. The USAF's extensive investigation, prompted by a GAO request, also discovered this connection, though their "electronic search" of millions of documents found no mention of the Roswell incident or ET bodies at WPAFB.

Charles Moore, a professor and former participant in Project Mogul, recalled that the debris description, including tape with flowers printed on it, matched materials used in balloon-borne radar reflectors. He believes a cluster of weather balloons launched in June 1947 was responsible for the debris found by Brazel. The article notes that the Randle/Schmitt book briefly mentions the Alamogordo News article and photograph but dismisses the balloon-borne radar reflectors as an explanation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The newsletter consistently adopts a skeptical stance, critically examining UFO claims, documents, and research methodologies. It prioritizes evidence-based analysis, questioning anecdotal accounts and highlighting inconsistencies or lack of corroboration. The editorial stance appears to be that while UFO phenomena may exist, many popular claims, particularly those involving government cover-ups and extraordinary abduction experiences, are not supported by credible evidence and are often based on flawed research or misinterpretations. The newsletter aims to debunk sensationalism and promote a more rational, evidence-driven approach to the UFO subject.