UFOs

The UFO Experience – “Although I Am Only a Child, Please Believe Me”

A gentleman named Jordan Hofer, with whom I’ve had a stimulating exchange of comments in connection with my post “Drawing Dirty Pictures – Philadelphia UFO, January 1974,” tells me he has no objection to my calling attention in a new post to some of the points raised in our conversation.  So that’s just what I’ll do.

Jordan’s a research specialist in anthropology for MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network.  He’s the author of the book Evolutionary Ufology: A New Synthesis, scheduled for publication next year; also a Young Adult novel on a UFO theme, Saucerville, scheduled for this October.

From Jordan Hofer's blog, on "Evolutionary Ufology: A New Synthesis"

From Jordan Hofer's blog, on "Evolutionary Ufology: A New Synthesis"

Jordan writes:  “I taught human evolution at Oregon State University for seven years before the recession hit and my position was cut.  Around that time my best friend of 33 years had a very clear sighting of a large, black, equilateral triangle, with white flashing lights at each apex, fly low and slow over his house, emitting a deep thrumming sound that rattled his windows.  He was astonished, to say the least. The sighting deeply affected him.  He had told fellow coworkers about his sighting and was called a liar to his face. He was in need of a friend who would believe him, take him at his word of what he witnessed.  I was skeptical at first, but my loyalty soon won out (especially after I left the confines of academia) and I joined him in his search for an answer to what he had seen.”

I was deeply moved by Jordan’s story, and I told him so.

“As you may gather,” I wrote in my reply, “I am fairly committed to disbelief in the physical reality of UFOs.  (Except in the banal sense that the planet Venus, mirages, etc. have a physical existence.)  The history of the past 65 years of UFOlogy seems to me to demonstrate this.  Yet we do have stories like your friend’s, which it’s impossible to disbelieve without outraging all that makes us human.”

Several months ago, at a lunch with my old friend Professor Rachel Elior, a scholar of Jewish mysticism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, I expressed the view that people experiencing journeys through the seven heavens of traditional Jewish cosmology, seeing angels, demons and the like, are hallucinating.  A graduate student who was there accused me of “epistemic violence.”  The charge seemed to me nonsensical.  After all, when people report seeing things that we know don’t exist—like those seven heavens—surely they’ve got to be hallucinating, don’t they?  (Unless they’re lying.  And I don’t like calling people liars.)

Especially if we accept the point I gather Oliver Sacks made in his recent book Hallucinations, which I’m sorry to say I still haven’t read–that it’s simply not true what we often think, that having hallucinations is a mark of insanity.

But would I have the courage to maintain this remorseless logic, in the face of someone like Jordan’s friend?

One of the things that makes J. Allen Hynek’s 1972 book The UFO Experience such an affecting human document, is that this broad-minded, warm-hearted scientist seems continually to have struggled with this question.  He quotes the “frank and artless remarks” of children who’ve seen UFOs.  “This is the truth, and there is no hoax implied since that is a serious offense at this school.”  “ … we give you our Scout’s Honor that this is not a hoax or optical illusion.” (Though of course if it were an optical illusion, the three Boy Scouts who saw it presumably wouldn’t have been aware of that.)  “Although I am only a child, please believe me.” (Referring to a sighting, of a cigar-shaped object, made on January 19, 1967; all quotes from p. 14 of Hynek’s book.)

UFOlogist J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986), in his cameo appearance in Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977)

UFOlogist J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986), in his cameo appearance in Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977)

Hynek also tells an awful story of the fate that befell an Ohio deputy sheriff named Dale F. Spaur who, in the early morning hours of April 17, 1966, chased in his patrol car a UFO “big as a house” and so bright “it’d make your eyes water.”  Spaur wasn’t the only person who saw the object, or even who chased it; there were three other witnesses.  Which makes what happened to Spaur all the more appalling.

“This,” Spaur told Air Force investigator Hector Quintanilla, “I have never seen nothing like it before or after or in the wildest far-fetched imagination.  I know you can have an optical illusion or even see something moving or like if you look through a piece of glass or something … I can go along with this.  But nothing this big.  In my wildest dreams I don’t think I could have ever imagined or seen anything like it” (p. 106).

The outcome?

“Subsequently, Spaur was singled out for unbearable ridicule and the pressure of unfavorable publicity.  The combination of events wrecked his home life, estranged him from his wife, and ruined his career and his health.  He is no longer [as of 1972] with the police force, and, it is reported, he subsists by doing odd jobs” (p. 108).

I doubt if Dale Spaur is still alive in 2013, but it’s possible.  I’ve often thought about what I would say to him if he confronted me, and my disbelief in UFOs, with his story.  I know you’re not lying, I would tell him.  (Although, to tell the truth, I don’t really know that.)  And if you were hallucinating it wasn’t because you’re crazy but because the human mind has potentials we hardly begin to suspect, and hallucination is probably one of them.  The bottom line is that I don’t have the slightest idea what you saw or what made you see it.  I don’t think it can be a visitor from outer space, because if it was we’d surely have unequivocal proof of the presence of such visitors by this time, which after all is nearly a half-century after your experience.  And there doesn’t seem to be any urgency in figuring out what you saw, because a half-century later we still don’t know what it was, or what any of the really baffling UFO cases were, and we don’t seem to be any worse off for that ignorance …

Except, of course, for poor Dale Spaur.

How lucky Jordan Hofer’s friend was, to have had a friend like Jordan!

And remember the little boy who saw the cigar-shaped object on January 19, 1967, and begged the gentlemen of the Air Force UFO project to please believe him, even though he was only a child?

There’s postscript to that one, too.

Go to the “Welcome” post on this blog, and sift through the “responses” to it.

And wonder.

by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on  Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+

Trickster Tales – James Moseley, Sherlock Holmes, UFOlogy

I’ve been reading an unusual UFO book.  It came out about six weeks ago, edited by Timothy Green Beckley, whom I’ve known from our teenage UFOlogist days in the mid-1960s.  It’s entitled The Astounding UFO Secrets Of James W. Moseley: A Special Tribute to the Editor of Saucer Smear and the Court Jester of UFOlogy.

Moseley UFO Secrets

"The Astounding UFO Secrets ..." available from Amazon

Jim Moseley died last November, at the age of 81.  Even those of us who didn’t quite approve of him are bound to miss him.  By “us,” I mean those who are caught up in fascination with the bizarre, maddening, intriguing world of UFOs and UFO belief.

Though Moseley at least intermittently claimed to be a UFO believer, the skeptics were particularly fond of him.  Naturally.  He was their “Voltaire of the UFO movement” (Robert Sheaffer): a mouthpiece, wittier and more knowledgeable than they could ever be, of their contempt for the absurdities of the “UFOOlogists.”  The more sober UFO researchers, who saw themselves as pioneers of a scorned and neglected science which didn’t need one more person making fun, were less amused.  The late Richard Hall, responding to the claim that Jim Moseley “has been and remains a Presence in UFOlogy,” shot back:  “Yes, like a steaming turd on the living room carpet. This sort of silly crap explains why you and your idol [Moseley], who constantly treat the whole subject as a joke, might just as well be on the Government payroll for UFO debunkers.”

Among the tributes to Moseley in The Astounding UFO Secrets is an academic-style article by George P. Hansen, entitled “James W. Moseley as Trickster.”  Hansen, a magician and parapsychologist who’s the author of a scholarly book entitled The Trickster and the Paranormal, tries looking at Moseley from an anthropological perspective.  More specifically, using the model of the “Trickster.”

“The trickster,” Hansen writes, is a character type found worldwide in mythology and folklore, and trickster tales must number in the thousands.  The trickster is something of an irrational being.  He–the trickster is typically male–can be seen as a personification of a cluster of abstract qualities that often manifest together.  These include deception, disruption, abnormal sexuality, boundary crossing, taboo breaking, supernatural/paranormal powers, marginality, and outsider-hood.”

Moseley Princeton

The Trickster at Princeton, ca. 1950. From the obituary for James W. Moseley in the Princeton Alumni Weekly, April 3, 2013

Not only is Moseley personally an embodiment of the Trickster.  To anyone who’s known him or followed his madcap activities–his long-running Saucer Smear, his merry pranks and hoaxes (often perpetrated in collaboration with his old buddy Gray Barker)–this is almost self-evident.  But UFOlogy itself is a sort of collective Trickster.  As Trickster, it’s “anti-structural,” and therefore “incompatible with hierarchical institutions. … UFOlogy has never established viable, long-lasting, well-recognized, widely-trusted institutions that study and comment authoritatively on the phenomena. … UFOs generate massive popular interest.  UFO movies have grossed hundred of millions of dollars.  In contrast, the more serious interest by MUFON, CUFOS, and other organizations gains meager support.  Most research is done by individuals and small groups, who operate independently of larger institutions.  This state of affairs illustrates the anti-structural nature of the field.”

This may contain an answer to the question posed by folklore scholar Thomas E. Bullard in his important book The Myth and Mystery of UFOs.  “Why are UFOs at once so popular and so despised?”  That’s the Trickster all over.  Popular.  Yet despised.

And not without reason.  The Trickster is a type best enjoyed from a distance.  Up close, he can be a pain in the butt.  If you have to depend on him and trust his word, you may as well forget about keeping your sanity.  I can sympathize, actually, with Richard Hall’s turd-on-the-living-room-carpet outburst.  As a gravely serious 17-year-old UFOlogist, I pretty much shared those sentiments.  At the Second Congress of Scientific UFOlogists in Cleveland, in June 1965, I presented a “code of ethics” that I recognize, from my 65-year-old perspective, as a slightly veiled denunciation of Moseley and everything he represented.  (Photos and story on my Facebook Timeline for June 26, 1965.)

Yet it struck me, reading Hansen’s article, that one of my all-time heroes was also a Trickster.  I refer to the world-famed “consulting detective” Sherlock Holmes.

Holmes is a paradox: a Trickster devoted to defending the moral order, albeit with some modifications.  (“After all, Watson,” he confides after allowing a confessed jewel thief to escape the law, “I am not retained by the police to supply their deficiencies. … I suppose that I am committing a felony, but it is just possible that I am saving a soul.”)  Yet if you run through Hansen’s checklist for the Trickster, Holmes turns out to have a lot of his features.

Deception.  Holmes is a master of disguise.  This is of course important for solving his cases.  But often he indulges his talents, Moseley-esque, just for the fun of it.  In the 1890 novella “The Sign of Four,” he shows up in his own apartment disguised as an elderly sailor fallen on hard times.  Watson and Scotland Yard detective Athelney Jones sit with him, neither suspecting who their company is.  Until …

“‘I think that you might offer me a cigar too,’ he said.  We both started in our chairs.  There was Holmes sitting close to us with an air of quiet amusement.”

Sherlock Holmes with Dr. Watson, as drawn by Sidney Paget for "The Strand" magazine

Sherlock Holmes with Dr. Watson, as drawn by Sidney Paget for "The Strand" magazine. Holmes's pipe hasn't yet acquired its familiar curvature

(A note on “The Sign of Four”: it’s a jewel of a novella, brilliantly plotted, and developed with wit and suspense.  It’s also grossly racist, and represents cocaine as a truly cool thing to do.  NOT recommended as a Bar Mitzvah present.)

Supernatural/paranormal powers. Holmes wouldn’t call his powers supernatural or paranormal, of course.  Unlike his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, he has no belief in either one.  (Check out “The Adventure of the Devil’s Foot.”)  He describes and then explains his feats as “very simple pieces of reasoning,” or words to that effect.  Yet they come across as pure magic.  “So, Watson,” he announces out of the blue, apparently reading the good doctor’s mind, “you do not propose to invest in South African securities?” In the first chapter of “The Sign of Four,” he peers through his magnifying glass at a watch left behind by Watson’s deceased older brother.  After complaining that the watch has been cleaned, “which robs me of my most suggestive facts,” he casually rattles off the following information about its owner:

“He was a man of untidy habits–very untidy and careless.  He was left with good prospects, but he threw away his chances, lived for some time in poverty with occasional short intervals of prosperity, and finally, taking to drink, he died.  That is all I can gather.”

No wonder Watson at first accuses Holmes of having snooped into his brother’s past, and faking the rest.

Abnormal sexuality. Unless Holmes’s total lack of interest in sex constitutes “abnormal sexuality”–which, come to think of it, it may–I don’t see this feature in the Holmes stories.  But where the “Trickster” classification really fits him is marginality, outsider-hood, boundary crossing. He solves his crimes without the help and often with the active opposition of those he mockingly calls “the accredited representatives of the law.”  To Scotland Yard he’s an airy intellectual, at best a nuisance and at worst a menace–until, as inevitably happens, they realize they’re out of their depths and come begging for his assistance.  As for Holmes–well, he’s prepared to be sporting about them.  (“He is not a bad fellow,” he says of Athelney Jones, “and I should not like to do anything which would injure him professionally.”)  But he takes the official constabulary about as seriously as Jim Moseley took establishment UFOlogists like Richard Hall.  Which is to say, not in the slightest.

Here’s Holmes in action, from chapter 6 of “The Sign of Four.”  Pompous, preening Jones, Scotland Yard dunce, has turned up at a murder scene and is making arrests right and left:

“Ask Mr. Sholto to step this way.–Mr. Sholto, it is my duty to inform you that anything which you may say will be used against you.  I arrest you in the Queen’s name as being concerned in the death of your brother.”

“There, now!  Didn’t I tell you!” cried the poor little man, throwing out his hands and looking from one to the other of us.

“Don’t trouble yourself about it, Mr. Sholto,” said Holmes; “I think that I can engage to clear you of the charge.”

“Don’t promise too much, Mr. Theorist, don’t promise too much!” snapped the detective.  “You may find it a harder matter than you think.”

“Not only will I clear him, Mr. Jones, but I will make you a free present of the name and description of one of the two people who were in this room last night.  His name, I have every reason to believe, is Jonathan Small.  He is a poorly educated man, small, active, with his right leg off, and wearing a wooden stump which is worn away upon the inner side.  His left boot is a coarse, square-toed sole, with an iron band round the heel.  He is a middle-aged man, much sunburned, and has been a convict.  These few indications may be of some assistance to you, coupled with the fact that there is a good deal of skin missing from the palm of his hand.  The other man–”

“Ah! the other man?” asked Athelney Jones in a sneering voice, but impressed none the less, as I could easily see, by the precision of the other’s manner.

“Is a rather curious person,” said Sherlock Holmes, turning upon his heel.  “I hope before very long to be able to introduce you to the pair of them.  A word with you, Watson.”

Masterful.  Brilliant.  It’s no wonder that in my “tween” years, in the late 50s, I was completely mad for Sherlock Holmes.  (Of course, I didn’t know back then that I was a “tween.”  As far as the 1950s were concerned, I was still just a kid.)  He was my ideal, the image of the man I hoped someday I’d be.  Somehow or other I got hold of a pipe that vaguely resembled his.  Sucking on the empty pipe, I sat in a reclining chair and read the old Ellery Queen murder mysteries.  I loved their “Challenge to the Reader” pages, maybe 50 pages before the end.  (“Reader, you now have all the facts …”; you can guess, or rather infer for yourself, who the killer is.)  I always tried out the deductive skills I assumed I’d need in the real world before very long.  I always got it wrong.

A couple of months before my Bar Mitzvah, I read Gray Barker’s They Knew Too Much About Flying Saucers, which offers (on pages 129, 140) a “challenge to the reader” that’s precisely similar to Ellery Queen’s–except that Barker doesn’t claim already to know the solution.  A new world opened.  I put away the pipe, along with other childish things.  I became a UFOlogist.

by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on  Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+

Thoughts about this post?  Encouragement?  Objections?  Leave them among the comments below, or on my Facebook Fan Page, https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator.

“UFO 96″ – The UFO World of 50 Years Ago

"UFO 96," front cover: the UFO world of 1963, depicted by artist Gene Duplantier

"UFO 96," front cover: the UFO world of 1963, depicted by artist Gene Duplantier. Identifications on the back cover, at the bottom of this post. To download the first half of the full PDF of "UFO 96," click on this image; for the second half, click on the image at the bottom

If I wanted to do this properly, I suppose I’d issue an annotated edition.  Something along the lines of Martin Gardner’s The Annotated Alice.

“No joke is funny unless you see the point of it,” Gardner wrote in his introduction to The Annotated Alice, “and sometimes a point has to be explained.  In the case of Alice we are dealing with a very curious, complicated kind of nonsense, written for British readers of another century, and we need to know a great many things that are not part of the text if we wish to capture its full wit and flavor.”  Lewis Carroll’s version of “You are old, Father William,” in chapter 5 of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, is funny no matter how you read it.  But once you know the Robert Southey poem of which it’s a parody–provided by Gardner in his annotations–it’s about the most hilarious thing ever written.

The stapled-together UFO 96, offered here (un-annotated) as a two-part PDF file–click here for part 1, click here for part 2–was published in 1963, evidently by Gray Barker and using the resources of his “Saucerian Press.”  The influence of Barker’s close friend James W. Moseley, departed from this world last November, is evident throughout.  I’m embarrassed to say I can’t remember how I got hold of my copy.  I don’t think UFO 96 was ever sold commercially.  I don’t know how many copies were made, or how many still exist.  A search at http://www.worldcat.org/ turns up nothing.  A Google search for “ufo 96″ finds only an MP3  of that name, distributed in 2008 by El Cosmo Group on an album entitled “Maha Lakshmi Dreams.”

UFO 96 was distributed, rather, among the cognoscenti; and although I was never really one of those, I did rub shoulders with them at the First Congress of Scientific UFOlogists in Cleveland, Ohio, in June 1964, and at the Second Congress a year later.  (Described on the timeline of my Facebook Fan Page for June 20, 1964, June 24 and 26, 1965.)   If I had to guess, I’d say my copy was given to me at some middle-of-the-night bull session of the 1965 Congress.  I believe I was told at the time why it was called UFO 96.  Some inside joke, which I’ve now completely forgotten and doubt if there’s any way to reconstruct.

When Gardner published The Annotated Alice in 1960, 95 and 89 years had passed since the original publication of Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, respectively.  UFO 96 isn’t quite that old–a mere half-century.  Yet the UFO world it reflects and satirizes sometimes feels almost as remote as Victorian England was from Gardner’s readers.  UFO abductions, and the Roswell crash, are entirely absent.  (Abductions didn’t enter the cultural awareness until 1966, Roswell nearly 15 years later.)  Of the gallery of notables represented on its cover–in brilliant caricature by Gene Duplantier, perhaps UFOlogy’s most gifted artist–very few are still with us.

Jim Moseley and the beautiful Sandy, to whom he was briefly married, are at the center of the tableau, to the right of the Little Green Man.  Gray Barker stands just behind them.  At the lower right Orthon of Venus, one of the space people who shared their celestial wisdom with “contactee” George Adamski, holds a picture signed With Love, GA.  At the lower left Gabriel Green of the Amalgamated Flying Saucer Clubs of America (AFSCA), who ran in 1960 for the Presidency of the United States, wears a button saying GG for Pres.! (According to Jerome Clark’s UFO Encyclopedia, volume 2, “Green dropped out of the race before the election, but two years later, when he ran on a left-wing peace ticket for U.S. Senate, endorsed by no less than Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, he received a remarkable 171,000 votes.”)  And of course Alfred E. Neuman, standing just beneath Moseley’s chin, is immortal.

I don’t believe Green ran again for President in 1964.  But the last piece in UFO 96, entitled “A Moment With … the U.S. Air Force,” imagines what might have happened if he had.  “On November 5, 1964, the two major U.S. political parties experienced their greatest upset in history.  Gabriel Pink, running on the independent UFO Ticket, was elected President, along with his running mate, George Von Hassle.” (George Van Tassel was another of the 1950s “contactees.”)  There follows a “Fact Sheet” issued by the Air Force’s Project Blue Book, as reorganized under the UFO administration with the promised “improvements in investigative techniques.”

Unfortunately a page is missing from my copy of UFO 96, so I can’t provide the details of “Case Number One.”  (“CONCLUSION: The object was probably a scout ship from Venus.”)  But enough remains of the post-1964 “Fact Sheet” to convey its drift.  I imagine the younger people who read it will get enough of the joke to be at least mildly amused.  But for us oldsters, who remember the solemn “Fact Sheets” issued by the 1960s Project Blue Book–with their  incantatory reassurance, that if sufficient data were available the 2% “unknown” sightings could be explained away like the other 98%–it’s roll-on-the-floor split-your-sides-laughing hilarious.

Same for one of the early entries, The U.F.O. Instigator published by NIGHTCAP, “The National Integrated, Ghastly, Horrifying Theories Concerning Astral Phenomena.”  (Takeoff on The U.F.O. Investigator of NICAP, National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena–the largest, most respected, and stuffiest UFO organization of the early 60s.)  You really have to have known the original to appreciate the parody.  Take the lead article, “WHAT WE DO HERE AT NIGHTCAP HQR.,” a takeoff on the articles of this genre–usually linked to appeals for money–that were a staple of The U.F.O. Investigator:

“Some members think of NIGHTCAP merely as a saucer magazine office.  Others believe that the Fight for Congressional Hearings [on UFOs; NICAP's perennial obsession] take most of our time.  Some think we are in it only for the money and point to the fancy home of the Director as an excuse for not donating.  To give a more accurate picture, here is a partial list of the work done by our three full-time staff members, one part-time helper, and spies from SAUCER NEWS, who volunteer to work, pretending they are not stealing information …”

You see, SAUCER NEWS was Moseley’s publication (precursor to the later SAUCER SMEAR); and Moseley was the particular bete noire of NICAP, whose irascible assistant director Richard Hall–also now deceased–was long afterward to compare Moseley’s presence in UFOlogy to “a steaming turd on the living room carpet”

That’s as far as I can get with The Annotated UFO 96.  I’m still rolling on the floor.

by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on  Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+

"UFO 96," back cover

"UFO96," back cover: in case you didn't recognize them ... To download the second half of the full PDF of "UFO 96," click on this image; for the first half, click on the image at the top of this post

“Outtakes of a UFO Investigator” – UFO Abductions Become Part of Us

There are some “banner years” in UFO history.  1966 was one of them.

It was a threshold year, leading from the classic UFOlogy of the 1950s and early 1960s to something new, which has left its mark on our culture to this day.

March, 1966: a rash of UFO sightings in Dexter and Hillsdale, Michigan.  Air Force UFO expert J. Allen Hynek explained the mysterious lights as “swamp gas”–and was hooted down for it all over the country.  Congressman (later President) Gerald Ford and others demanded an investigation.  And so the University of Colorado UFO Project of 1966-68, better known as the “Condon Committee,” came to be.

The Condon Committee’s conclusion: UFOs are hot air.  Taking a hint, the Air Force dismantled in 1969 its 17-year-old “Project Blue Book.”  End of an era.  Almost since UFOs were first spotted in American skies in 1947, there’d been an official Air Force project charged with investigating them, more often debunking them.  Now the Air Force had left the UFO business for good.

Look Magazine, October 4, 1966.  Elizabeth Taylor.  Aboard a Flying Saucer.

Look Magazine, October 4, 1966. Was it Elizabeth Taylor who made this issue an unprecedented best-seller? Or "Aboard a Flying Saucer"?

Meanwhile astronomer Hynek himself came out of the closet–not as a UFO believer, exactly, but as an open-minded scientist who argued that witnesses to the extraordinary should not be dismissed with a horse-laugh.  It was Hynek who, among other things, devised the UFOlogical taxonomy of “close encounters” of the first, second, and third kinds–an achievement that won him a cameo role in a 1977 movie by Steven Spielberg, the name of which I surely don’t need to mention.  (But I do, in the caption to the picture below and to the left.)

This was the small stuff.

The real UFO action of 1966 happened not in the sky but in the publishing world.  In its issues of October 4 and 18, Look magazine ran a two-part series entitled “Aboard a Flying Saucer,” by John G. Fuller.  The Look articles, excerpted from Fuller’s 1966 book The Interrupted Journey, told the story of a New Hampshire couple named Betty and Barney Hill.

Five years earlier the Hills, returning from a vacation in Canada, had been stopped on the road in the middle of the night and taken aboard a UFO.  There they underwent bizarre medical or pseudo-medical procedures, and afterward were made to forget what they’d endured.  Only under hypnotic regression, in a psychiatrist’s office, did their memories return–and Barney became so terrified that the psychiatrist was afraid he’d throw himself out the window.

In other words, UFO abduction.

UFO abductions have become so familiar that we forget that until 1966 no one ever heard of them.  It was Fuller’s book, and still more his Look articles, that brought them to the national consciousness.  I recall reading that the October 4 and 18 issues of Look outsold all issues before or since–and somehow I doubt if the cover picture of Elizabeth Taylor was entirely responsible.

Not that the UFO abductees–for Betty and Barney had hundreds, perhaps thousands, of successors–were the first humans to be taken aboard UFOs.  The 1950s were the golden age of the “contactees,” who claimed to have met the UFO people.  Your average contactee might be given rides on flying saucers, taken on visits to Venus and other planets, lectured by golden-haired “space brothers” about how we humans must abandon our wicked warlike ways. From time to time there might even be an interplanetary fling, like that of contactee Truman Bethurum with a gorgeous 500-year-old brunette, Aura Rhanes from the planet Clarion.  (Mrs. Bethurum, filing for divorce, supposedly named Aura Rhanes as co-respondent.)

But the abduction stories were something new, scarier, more essentially alien.  Also more convincingly true.  There’s little doubt that most if not all the contactees were charlatans, playing on people’s gullibility for their own profit.  Whereas some at least of the  abductees, starting with Betty and Barney, were evoking something genuine and terrifying from within themselves–something that normally had strong sexual overtones, dark and grisly, compared to which Bethurum’s affair with Aura Rhanes was strictly PG.  (And one more distinction: the contactees were almost all men, the abductees predominantly women.)

Astronomer J. Allen Hynek, appearing (as himself?) in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"

Astronomer J. Allen Hynek, appearing (as himself?) in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"

So what does all this have to do with Outtakes of a UFO Investigator, the third chapter of which I’m making available for download from this page?

This:  When I initially wrote Journal of a UFO Investigator, my goal was to weave the personal odyssey of Danny Shapiro into the not-quite-world-wide web of the UFO myth.  I kept this goal as I trimmed the manuscript, from its original 1500 pages to the 304 pages that it ran in the Viking Press hardback edition.  But I had to trim the tapestry, as it were.  I kept, as background to Danny’s adventures, some of the prominent features of the 1950s UFO scene: the Three Men in Black, the Philadelphia experiment.  (Or, as we used to call it, the “Allende mystery.”)  But the chapters in which Danny participated in the UFO world’s transformation in the middle 60s–these ended up on the cutting room floor.

Here they are back, in this and the next few chapters of Outtakes of a UFO Investigator.

In Chapter 3, which you can download by clicking here or on the picture below, Danny gets his first hint of the Hills’ uncanny experience from a man who’s learned about it from the author of the Look articles.  He defends his investigation of the marks left on the ground by a landed UFO–a “close encounter of the second kind,” in Hynek’s terminology–near the town of Scofield, New Jersey.

(“Scofield,” though fictional, is based on an actual incident in Glassboro, NJ, the date of which I shifted in Chapter 2 of the Outtakes from September 1964 to April 1965.  You can read the true story on the timeline of my Facebook Fan Page, https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator, for September 12, 1964.)

And Danny tries to answer the question of what Ezekiel saw, when “Ezekiel saw the wheel.”  Unfortunately he doesn’t get very far, before he’s overcome by the spirits he’s drunk as part of his initiation into the “Nationwide UFO Consortium,” whose conference he’s traveled to New York City to attend.

In other words, our teenage “UFO investigator” has sallied forth from his suburban Pennsylvania home to become part of the UFO world of the mid-1960s.  If by some chance you also were part of that world, you may recognize some of it.

Enjoy!  And let me know what you think, here or at my Fan Page.

Click on the picture to download chapter 3 of "Outtakes of a UFO Investigator" (PDF). Cover art by Rose Shalom Halperin.

Click on the picture to download chapter 3 of "Outtakes of a UFO Investigator" (PDF). Cover art by Rose Shalom Halperin.

Click here to read Chapter 1 of Outtakes of a UFO InvestigatorClick here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.

Click here to read Chapter 2 of Outtakes of a UFO InvestigatorClick here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.

Click here to read Chapter 4 of Outtakes of a UFO InvestigatorClick here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.

Would you like to have these Outtakes as podcasts–free of charge?  Let me know!  I’ll see what I can do to provide them.
by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on  Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+

“Outtakes of a UFO Investigator” – Danny Takes Flight

It’s time.

Five of my writer friends have read the manuscript of The Color of Electrum, sequel to Journal of a UFO Investigator.  They’ve given me their comments.  Another friend, a firefighter, has also read it, looking for errors of fact or plausibility.  He’s done me a great favor–given that The Color of Electrum is a thriller that turns on the theme of fire, in which Danny Shapiro is caught in the sights of a murderous arsonist.

So it’s time for me to start in on the final draft. The one I’ll send my agent in the next couple of months.

The process has gotten me to thinking, about the many, many drafts Journal of a UFO Investigator went through before it reached its final form.  In this and future posts, which I’ll schedule for the first week of each of the next several months, I’d like to share with you some recollections of that long and often painful process of editing, trimming, and rewriting.  I’ll also share, in the form of free downloads, some of the episodes that got cut from the novel.

Let’s make a new book out of these episodes–a book that I don’t think that will ever be published, at least in the conventional way.  A book, nonetheless, that I think will be fun to read.

Call it, maybe, Outtakes of a UFO Investigator?

Says the invaluable Wikipedia:  “An outtake is any take of a movie or a television program that is removed or otherwise not used in the final cut.  Some of these takes are humorous mistakes made in the process of filming (commonly known to American audiences as bloopers).  Multiple takes of each shot are always taken, for safety. Due to this, the number of outtakes a film has will always vastly outnumber the takes included in the edited, finished product.”  And so it was with my novel.

A lot of what I cut, in the course of Journal‘s 14-year process of evolution, really was the equivalent of a blooper.  But there were also a lot of stories that I think were really good, stories about Danny Shapiro’s real life as a teen-age “UFO investigator,” which had to go when the focus of the book shifted–as it needed to–to what was going on inside Danny during his UFOlogist days in the early and middle 1960s.  Most of these “outtake” stories were slightly adapted versions of things I really did, or that really happened to me, when I was a teen UFOlogist.

Like the time when I was 15 years old, director of the “New Jersey Association on Aerial Phenomena.”  And I, and my father with me, really did take flight …

Outtakes of a UFO Investigator by David Halperin

Click on the picture to download "Outtakes of a UFO Investigator" (PDF). Cover art by Rose Shalom Halperin.

Did you enjoy this episode of Outtakes of a UFO Investigator?  Either way–tell me about it!  Post a comment here or on my Facebook Fan Page,
https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
.

Click here to read Chapter 2 of Outtakes of a UFO Investigator. Click here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.   

Click here to read Chapter 3 of Outtakes of a UFO InvestigatorClick here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.

Click here to read Chapter 4 of Outtakes of a UFO InvestigatorClick here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.

by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on  Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+

The Philadelphia Experiment – Carlos Allende, Happy at Last

Review of Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment Unraveled, by P.J. Dowers.  Pandora’s Press, 2012.  Available from TheBookPatch.com, $15.95.

Hoax is an odd title for a book so committed to the reality of the Philadelphia Experiment–invisibility, teleportation, and all.  This is a rather odd book in general, and at times maddening.  Yet it’s a book that leaves a good taste after it’s finished, it’s so plainly honest and heartfelt.  Written by a woman who befriended Carl Allen in his last years, it’s less about the Experiment than about its creator, the strange and lonely nomad who’s found a kind of immortality as “Carlos Allende,” the author of the “Allende letters.” Its fundamental message:  There was more to this old man than met the eye! It deserves to be read, not for its farfetched conjectures about what that “more” was, but for its passionate advocacy of this real and essential truth.

Carl Allen a.k.a. Carlos Allende, in the early fall of 1993--several months before his death

Carl Allen a.k.a. Carlos Allende, in the early fall of 1993--several months before his death

First, the author.  Her name is not, as the book claims, Phyllis Dowers.  That is evidently a pseudonym, used (I would imagine) out of fear that powerful and sinister agencies will take revenge on her for having written it.  It seems to me certain she’s identical with the “Phyllis,” with a very different surname, who in September 1995 wrote a postcard to David Houchin, curator of the Gray Barker Collection in Clarksburg, West Virginia, informing him of Allende’s death and announcing her intent to write a book In Defense of Carlos.  This is plainly the book she’s now published.  I wish she had kept her original title.  It conveys far better than Hoax what the book is about.

She speaks about herself only incidentally, in bits and pieces.  We learn she’s a long-divorced mother of eight, two boys and six girls; two of her daughters have worked at the Centennial Health Care Center in Greeley, Colorado, where Allende spent the last eight years of his life.  She’s far from wealthy, and burdened with a special tragedy: two of her children died within two months of each other, at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003.  One of these was her son Ray, to whose memory the book is dedicated, and whose remembered conversations with her on the subject of Carlos and the Experiment fill many of its pages.

There’s a particularly poignant passage in the seventh chapter.  At her final meeting with Allende, in the fall of 1993–he died on March 5, 1994–Phyllis tells him she wants to tell his story.  “I want it told too, Phyllis,” he answers.  “I want it told like I tell it, not with everything all garbled up. … You’ll have to wait, but write it down so you don’t forget.” She needs to wait, he says, because certain people, including her and Ray, could be hurt.  He’s earlier told her to wait until after his death, fifteen or twenty years; and at the end of the chapter, after they’ve said their goodbyes, she tells Ray: “Well, Son … I’m fifty-seven years old.  I may not be here in twenty years.  You may have to write that book.” But twenty years later Phyllis was still around to write the book.  It was Ray who was dead.

The Carlos Allende who appears on Phyllis’s pages is a different man from the one I knew through my researches in the Gray Barker Collection, which I’ve blogged about here extensively (and summarized in my essay on the Philadelphia Experiment for The Revealer).  Gone is the solitary, embittered wanderer, pouring out his deprivation and rage in one futile letter after another.  Instead we meet, in June of 1991 at the Centennial Health Care Center, a man in his sixties who looks more like 90, yet who’s charming enough “to melt the rivets right off a female’s jeans” (p. 15).  A genial raconteur, he captivates Phyllis with his reminiscences of Albert Einstein, who taught him physics in a dizzying week and a half of evening tutorial sessions (“He was fun to be around, a real character“), and his tales of burying the invisible corpse of an invisible sailor.  (Named David; I suspect here the influence of the “Philadelphia Experiment” movie.)  “That was all the burial I could give that pioneer of star travel, just the beauty of the park for his grave.  I knew the dogs would smell him, and tear and eat his flesh, but there wasn’t anything I could do about that” (p. 47).

What a crock! is Phyllis’s initial response.  But soon she’s fallen under the old man’s spell.  “You’re kind of a scamp, aren’t you?” she tells him, giggling (p. 37).  Meanwhile her son Ray becomes so fascinated with Allende that he follows him in his car to see where he’s going–not unnoticed by Carlos, who weaves this into a story of his persecution by mysterious agencies.  “‘Keep these for me, Amigo.’  Carlos slipped the envelope from under his arm and handed it to Ray as they seated themselves with their food.  ‘Lest my copies be stolen,’ he added to Ray’s raised eyebrows.  ‘Someone’s been tailing me.’” (p. 59).

Food.  (On this occasion at a Western Sizzlin’, where Ray has taken him to lunch.)  When I last spotted Carlos in the files of the Gray Barker Collection, he was chronically malnourished, “starving … except in summer when food is easily stolen.”  Not anymore.  The chief relic of his years of hunger is his inability to control himself in the presence of mashed potatoes.  “Lilly [Phyllis's daughter, a nurse's aide at Centennial] remembered how he’d dig into a mound of mashed potatoes and shove huge forkfuls into his mouth.  ‘He couldn’t get enough potatoes.  He was not quite the gentleman then,’ she laughed.  Oh, but how he could flatter the ladies; he loved blond hair, he told Lilly, and asked her to marry him” (p. 205).

The turning point obviously comes in the summer of 1986, when Allende arrives in Greeley and takes up residence at the Centennial.  (“The girls here spoil me,” he remarks to Phyllis, as an aide brings him a refreshing drink on a warm day.)  This is the point at which the flood of letters from him in the Barker Collection entirely dries up, presumably as an effect of Barker’s death at the end of 1984.  On August 22, 1986, The News of Colorado Centennial Country runs a huge feature article on him, under headlines like Mystery man offers death bed statement and Allende trained by Einstein on invisibility theory.  A sequel, the week after, is headlined Allende was Colonel in Polish Home Army.

Both articles are written by one Jim Frazier, and are reproduced, though in print so tiny you need a magnifying glass to read them, at the end of Phyllis’s book.  (The first has also been made available on the Web by Robert Goerman.)  Allende, despite the opening headline, is plainly not on his deathbed.  “Carlos said that he feels comfortable in Greeley, as we visited some of his favorite sites.  These are his friends.  People wave and smile at the bright-minded, colorful old man.  He talks to strangers, too; winks at college girls, and flirts with beautiful women.  Anyone who has met Carlos seems to remember the friendly, disheveled, out-going man.  He speaks in various accents and languages.  His Spanish is refined and intelligent.  Few people know that Carlos Allende–legally born Carl Allen in Kensington [sic], Pennsylvania, is a mystery to readers and authors all over the world.”

So Carlos is happy at last–well fed, a center of at least modest attention, with plenty of women to “spoil” him and feel their jeans melting in his presence.  The gypsy’s wanderings are over; he lives comfortably at Centennial for his eight remaining years.  The question inevitably arises: who is paying for all this?  Not Carlos himself.  Frazier describes him as “nearly penniless,” writes how Carlos puts a touch on him for $10 to mail out copies of a book.  (About himself?)  It doesn’t seem to occur to Phyllis to wonder about this, although she’s in an excellent position to find the answer, given her daughters’ connections with Centennial.  So we are obliged to guess.

And indeed the answer seems obvious: his two surviving brothers, whose names are given in his obituary as David and Richard.  (Greeley Tribune, March 8, 1994, reproduced at the end of the book, and on the Web from Robert Goerman’s collection.)  Phyllis describes how they show up in Greeley after Carlos’s death to collect his belongings, but vanish before his funeral.  This seems at first sight rather callous.  It’s possible, though, to read it as an act of love.  The last thing David and Richard want is to be put on the spot with questions about their deceased brother, the answers to which are bound to explode the mystery-man legend that gave Carlos’s life its meaning.  Their silence, and therefore their absence, is their parting gift to him.

Here’s what I imagine.  Sometime early in 1986, starving, sick and desperate, Carlos appeals to his brothers for help.  They come to an agreement with him.  They won’t send him any money; it’ll disappear, and he’ll be as bad off as ever.  Rather, they’ll find a nursing home and pay his expenses there for the rest of his life.  His end of the bargain is simply: stay put!

And so it happened; and the best years of Carlos Allende’s life began.

After his death, Phyllis and Ray have plenty of time to speculate on who their friend really was.  The theory they come up with is a doozy.  When he wasn’t reminiscing about physics lessons with Einstein and bar-stool conversations with invisible sailors–one of which, by the way, inspired “a lady journalist” who was there to write the Broadway hit Harvey (p. 46)–Carlos confided to Phyllis that he’d spent a night talking with Morris K. Jessup, a year or so after Jessup had supposedly committed suicide (p. 67).  How was this possible?  Because Jessup had managed to turn the tables on a Communist agent who’d been sent to kill him, and the dead man was not Jessup at all, but “the Communist.”

Carlos Allende, probably during his visit to Clarksburg in 1977 (from the Gray Barker Collection, Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library)

Carlos Allende, probably during his visit to Clarksburg in 1977 (from the Gray Barker Collection, Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library)

Phyllis and Ray now take this a step further.  “The Communist”–whose motives for wanting to kill Jessup are never explained–was the real Carl Allen alias Carlos Allende.  And the man they knew as Carlos Allende–was really M.K. Jessup!  Jessup, on that fateful night in Coral Gables, had traded identities and identification papers with his would-be assassin.  (This is the “hoax” of the title–Allende claiming to be Allende, when he in fact was Jessup.)  At last Phyllis can understand why, when she first met Carlos, he looked like he was 90.  Born in 1900, Morris Jessup in fact was 90!

Phyllis’s evidence for this wild notion seems sparse to non-existent, although it’s a little hard to tell, since it’s not presented sequentially but in a series of long conversations between her and Ray.  These have the feel of one of those college dorm bull sessions where, at three in the morning and everyone’s eyes bugging out with lack of sleep, a reinforcement loop takes hold and you’re all calling out “Yeah … yeah … YEAH!!!” to the most preposterous suggestions.  It would be possible to wish that Phyllis had at least tried to present her ideas in the form of a coherent argument.  But this would be to miss the point.  Her book is as much a memorial to Ray as it is to Carlos, a testament to the warmth and enthusiasm she once shared with her tragically lost son.  She wrote it exactly the way she needed to.

It’s inevitable, then, that the book will leave behind it a trail of minor mysteries.  One of these is why both Phyllis and Ray seem to have stayed out of touch with their friend during the last winter of his life.  Phyllis visits him early in the fall of 1993; it’s at that meeting, it would seem, that she took the photo of him that she used as the cover of her book.  “‘Well, what do you know,’ he said with a big smile as he turned back to me.  ‘This is really a nice day isn’t it?  It won’t be long till the roses will be gone from those bushes, and the leaves will turn colors and fall, then we will have snow’” (p. 75).  Something in his voice makes Phyllis’s throat tighten; months later, learning of his death, she remembers that he didn’t mention the coming of spring, and wonders if he knew he wouldn’t be around for it.  That’s the last time Phyllis ever sees him.  But the following week Ray takes Carlos to a park for a fast-food picnic, and spreads a quilt for them “in a sun-dappled patch of grass” (p. 76).

“Carlos learned back on one elbow and plucked a blade of grass.  Sticking it between his teeth, he looked up at the patches of blue sky peeping between the tree leaves. … ‘That sure is beautiful.’

“He chewed the sliver of grass, tossed it, and reached for another.

“‘You know,’ he said, ‘I used to like to chew grass like this when I was a kid back on the farm.  My dad had cattle and hogs, and he used to tease me about eating grass like a cow.  Of course, I didn’t really eat it, you know.’

“‘You know’ was a favorite expression of Carlos’s.  Ray thought of when he, himself, was eleven and got into the habit of saying ‘you know,’ and had to smile at how I had hounded him and teased him until he finally gave it up.

“Some children played not far away on the little duck, and the car–the small riding toys …. Now, Carlos watched the kids and smiled.  He and Roy dozed a bit, speaking little, just enjoying the balmy day and the companionship of a friend.

“‘I could go to sleep right here,’ Carlos said, shaking his head.  ‘But I’d better be getting back and take my medicine.’

“Ray helped Carlos to his feet and drove him back to Centennial.  It was naptime.  It didn’t cross Ray’s mind that day that he’d never see Carlos again.”

For the tenderness of this reminiscence alone, “P. J. Dowers’” book is worth its price.

by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on  Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+

Drawing Dirty Pictures – Philadelphia UFO, January 1974

A little boy goes into a psychologist’s office.  The psychologist gives him an inkblot test, telling him “These are some pictures I’ve drawn.  What do you see in them?”
What the little boy sees is sex.  Sexual organs.  Couples engaged in sex acts.  In picture after picture.
After the fifth or sixth picture, the psychologist bursts out:  “Young man, you’ve got a problem!”
“Why me?” the boy demands.  “You’re the one who’s drawing all these dirty pictures!”
Joke from my junior high school (as middle school used to be called)

So is it me?  Or the picture?

"Tim's" drawing of the Byberry UFO

"Tim's" drawing of the Byberry UFO

To the right you’ll see a witness sketch of a UFO, observed over Philadelphia in January of 1974.  What that UFO looks like to me …  Do you see it too?  (But to be fair, I’ve already suggested to you the direction my thoughts are going.  You can’t be unbiased now.)

Is it my own dirty mind that’s putting it there?  (Sorry, sexy mind; such things aren’t dirty anymore, as they were back in junior high.)  Or is it really in the drawing, a clue to what that UFO really was?

By which I mean, what it meant to the man who saw it.

I’ll give you the facts–as old E.J. Ruppelt said in his classic Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.  You decide.

For these facts, I depend on an article by Matthew Graeber entitled, “The Cat and Mice Game,” in the November-December 2009 issue (Vol. 1, no. 4) of the journal SUNlite.  I’ll summarize Graeber’s piece and give some quotations from it.  But I’d encourage  you to consult the article itself, available on the Web.  (Go to http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite1_4.pdf and scroll down to page 20.)

The date: night of January 15, 1974. The location: a field on the grounds of the Philadelphia State Hospital at Byberry.  This psychiatric hospital, with its grisly history of patient abuse and neglect, no longer exists.  It was closed in 1990, demolished in 2006 (Wikipedia).  At the beginning of the 60s, the name of the place was proverbial to those of us who grew up in its vicinity.  “Aaaah, they oughta send you to Byberry!” we used to taunt each other on the school bus.  Does the sighting’s taking place near Byberry have some significance?  (And I don’t mean the significance it would have in some predictable, stupid joke about “loonies” seeing UFOs.)

The initial observer was a 23-year-old auto mechanic who wouldn’t allow his name to be used.  Graeber calls him “Tim.”  Later Tim was joined by his 22-year-old wife “Sarah” and her parents, whom he’d called from a pay phone.  While the sighting was going on he also phoned Graeber, who set forth into the wintry night and futilely circled the area in his car, looking for Tim and his in-laws.  Graeber was in the right place, he later discovered.  But he never saw the witnesses, and never saw the UFO.

The UFO was a low-flying object, carrying lights though apparently not itself luminous.  It flew slowly, noiselessly, at times hovering in the air.  Sometimes it seemed close enough to touch the branches of the trees.  Tim told Graeber’s wife, over the phone, that “the UFO was actually approaching his family as they were parked, and when he would turn his auto’s headlights on, the object would retreat back into the darkness.  There were also times when the UFO would playfully blink back at the auto’s headlights as if in response.” As if it had some special connection with Tim and his in-laws; as if it were a part of them that had appeared to them in the sky.

Wait a minute! I can hear you saying.  There wasn’t any UFO!  This was obviously a nasty prank at Graeber’s expense (you say), to send him on a wild-goose chase into the frigid, snowy night.  In his article, Graeber offers cogent reasons for thinking this isn’t so.  Whatever was or wasn’t flying around the skies over Byberry, it certainly seems that Tim and Sarah and her parents–all of whom Graeber was able to interview the next day–were honestly convinced they’d seen something they weren’t able to explain.

The four witnesses sketched for Graeber what they’d seen.  And here comes the really strange part.  Tim’s drawing was so different from the others’ as to seem like he’d seen an entirely different object.

The illustration on p. 23 of Graeber’s article is based on their sketches.  “Tim’s UFO was a cylindrical object while his wife and her parents were certain it was a double convex disc-shaped object”–like two soup bowls fastened together at the rims, with a Saturn-like ring around it and a bulb-like protuberance at its top.  (In other words, a pretty conventional flying saucer.)  “To compound the discrepancy, their UFOs lighting placement and coloring didn’t match Tim’s UFO either.  Additionally, Sarah and her parents were positive the UFO had a revolving rim, while Tim’s UFO hadn’t such a pronounced feature.

“When I brought this discrepancy to the attention of the group they seemed to be genuinely surprised and dismayed about the whole thing.  Tim simply couldn’t believe they thought the UFO looked as they had sketched it.  While Stan shook his head in disbelief at what his son-in-law thought the object looked like.

“I had never encountered such a vast difference in a simultaneously observed multi-witnessed event.  It seemed to me that if the incident were a hoax, the hoaxers probably would have been able to tell the same story about what the object supposedly looked like.  One would think that would be one of the first things they would discuss and agree upon.  Yet, here it was in black and white, three of four observers sketching a double-convex disk with a dome and revolving rim, and the fourth witness saying it was a cylindrical craft.  Yet, all had observed the same UFO at relatively close range (50 yards being the closest estimate) with the aid of two automobile’s high-beam headlights.”

As Graeber interviews the family, he gradually gets to know them better.  It comes out that Sarah is pregnant.  It comes out that she and Tim live with her parents.  It comes out that she and Tim aren’t exactly married.

Think back to the mid-70s, if you’re old enough to remember them.  Among wide and growing segments of our population, it was accepted as natural and appropriate for unmarried couples to sleep together, live together.  (A big change from ten years earlier; the sexual revolution came in between.)  Unlike today, it wasn’t accepted for unmarried couples to have children.  You made sure to use birth control.  When that failed, there were big decisions to be made.  Fast.  Under pressure.

Now think of Tim and Sarah.  Contraception has failed them.  It’s no great leap to imagine that this failure has pitted Tim on the one side, against Sarah and her parents on the other, over what Tim ought to do about it.  In the sky, Tim sees a mirror of his own life crisis.

Look at his drawing; ignore the labels; tell me what you see.

What I see is a penis detumescing, shooting out sperm, sheathed in a condom that’s ruptured precisely where it needs to stay intact.  This is Tim’s UFO.  Sarah and her parents, mirroring their (assumed) three-against-one conflict, agree it was something entirely different.

So what did these people see in the sky?  (And why didn’t Graeber, driving around the same area, see anything like it?)  More important–by what psychic mechanism did the mundane, agonizing, grinding tension of an unwanted pregnancy come to be translated into celestial vision, seen by four people at the same time though not in the same way?

And why at Byberry?  Does this reflect Tim’s perception that his life had turned insane?  That the home he had to share with his girlfriend’s parents, and the painful conflict that could never be quite escaped, was a kind of madhouse?  I can’t answer these questions.  But if you’ll grant that I’m seeing in Tim’s drawing what’s really there, and that it’s an uncanny reflection of his real-life situation, then we have no choice but to ask them.

“Generally speaking,” Graeber writes, “UFO witnesses would be cooperative with our investigators … but, when the subject of psychology came up many terminated their participation.  I think they felt their personal life was not part of a random encounter with a UFO, and to imply it might have been was often felt to be an insult of some kind.”

Or, they knew unconsciously that the encounter wasn’t “random.”  That a psychological inquiry would turn up something they preferred not to face.

At first, Graeber says, Sarah and Tim agreed to answer his psychological questions.  But then Tim changed his mind.  This about-face, and his insistence on strict anonymity, suggest there was something about the sighting Tim was deeply ashamed of–that he, and perhaps his in-laws too, wanted to communicate yet keep hidden.

Conveying yet concealing … that’s the function of the UFO.

Graeber writes:  “I have taken the position the UFO experience is the observer’s encounter with the unknown [a reciprocal encounter--recall how the UFO responded to the witnesses--DJH]–and it really doesn’t matter what the researchers (Pro or Con) think of the experience–it’s much more a matter of how that sudden, shocking and unsuspected encounter was perceived by the witnesses– How it may have affected them on both conscious and subconscious levels of their being (e.g., how the experience impacted their model of the real world and their place within it).”

And the other way around.

by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on  Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+

Kennedy Assassination, “NJAAP Bulletin”

Thanksgiving, 1963.  The saddest Thanksgiving in recent memory.  It fell on November 28, the week after the nation had sobbed together as we saw our handsome, beloved young President Kennedy laid to rest.

(Actually, Kennedy wasn’t particularly beloved back then.  Lots of people detested him.  But in the wake of his assassination we mostly forgot about that.)

The Sunday before Thanksgiving, millions–my family among them–had watched horrified as the murderer was himself murdered, live before the TV cameras.  And we wondered just what in hell was happening to this country.

My own UFO mag: NJAAP Bulletin, November 1963

My own UFO mag: NJAAP Bulletin, November 1963

I wondered; I grieved.  Then I went back to my typewriter, to continue preparing for the event that for me made that week super-special.

This was the appearance of the NJAAP Bulletin, the official publication of the New Jersey Association on Aerial Phenomena, the scientific research society of which I’d become Director the preceding summer when my predecessor had gone off to college.  I was still in eleventh grade, so I figured I had two years of directorship before I did the same.  “Volume II, Number 2″ appears on the Bulletin‘s masthead.  But it was the first issue published during my administration, and I’d written it all.

I’d also typed up the mimeograph stencils (remember those? and the way they smelled?).  I’d drawn onto the stencils the diagrams accompanying my “Special Article” on the mysterious craters that had been popping up in Great Britain, and the map of England, Scotland, and Wales onto which I’d plotted those craters.  And one night, I’d guess the Monday before Thanksgiving, my aunt let me into the office where she worked and we ran off on the mimeograph machine copies of the Bulletin, to be sent to the entire NJAAP membership.

It probably didn’t take too long.  NJAAP had a total of about 25 members.

The next day after school I collated and stapled the Bulletins, folded them, wrote the addresses on the backs.  I mailed them out on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving–49 years ago today–and settled back, tired but content with my achievement, to enjoy the sorrow-darkened holiday as best I could.

Click on NJAAP Bulletin, and you can read the whole issue.  I’ll quote only the headlines:

UFO’S SEEN OVER PHILADELPHIA, DETECTED ON TWO SEPARATE RADARSCOPES
Cover-up of Reports”

EDITORIAL”

ORTHOTENIC CORRECTIONS”

PUBLICATION OF NICAP REPORT ‘ASSURED’”

‘BONFIRE’-LIKE OBJECT SIGHTED OVER PHILADELPHIA”

Special Article: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECENT CRATER ‘EPIDEMIC’ IN GREAT BRITAIN”

FAMED AUTHOR, NATURALIST JOINS NJAAP PANEL”

(This last referring to Ivan T. Sanderson.)

And at the bottom of page 8, a single sad sentence:  “NJAAP joins the nation in mourning the tragic and untimely death of President John F. Kennedy.

JFK burial, Arlington National Cemetery

JFK burial, Arlington National Cemetery

It’s kind of funny.  I’d convinced myself that the world was on the brink of some unimaginable transformation.  The UFOs, I thought, were probably hostile; we UFOlogists were the true scientists and prophets of our age, trying to alert the mocking throng and the bigoted intellectual establishment to the scary things zooming around our skies.  Any day, any week, they’d land, reveal themselves, and very likely set about the conquest of Earth.   So my friends and I believed, or at least told ourselves we believed.

Yet in truth UFOlogy was a cozy cocoon.  Inside it, I felt secure.  I knew the rules; I was in control.  Then along came this assassination and tore open my little shelter, let in a blast of reality.  Of times that were a-changing–that would continue to change, as the 1960s played themselves out–and mostly for the worse.

It wasn’t fair.  UFOs should have protected me.  How could a thing like this happen?  Yet it had.

With the nation, I mourned.  Then I went back to my bedroom and my typewriter and my UFOs, where it was safe.

At least for the time being.

“Journal of a UFO Investigator” is rooted in my experience as a teenage UFOlogist in the early 1960s.  You can check out memories and photographs from that time on my Facebook Fan Page, http://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator.

Sadat in Israel – Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind

We now show uncorrelated targets approaching from the north-northwest …”
–”Close Encounters of the Third Kind”

In reality, it was more like the southwest from which the alien craft made its approach.  But otherwise, the climactic scene in the Spielberg movie–the one where the UFOs make a series of passes over the lighted runway, before the giant chandelier-disk glides to a landing–felt exactly like what I’d watched on TV the year before.  Not a late-night science-fiction movie.  The live news from Israel.

This is what I remember of that dizzy, near-messianic time 35 years ago:

Anwar Sadat of Egypt, between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and President Ephraim Katzir: November 19, 1977

Anwar Sadat of Egypt, between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and President Ephraim Katzir: November 19, 1977

My girlfriend at the time had told me, maybe a week before the event:  Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin had invited Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to come to Israel and address the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament.  Sadat had said yes.

My reaction:  “Impossible.”

I’d spent most of the years 1973-75 in Israel, writing my Ph.D. dissertation.  Two months after I arrived, Sadat and Syria’s Hafez Assad (father of the current dictator) together threw the region into war, by attacking Israel on Yom Kippur 1973.  In the traumatic years that followed, Sadat gave what I thought was convincing evidence that the Egyptians had no interest in peace, but only in destroying Israel.

Why, the Egyptians wouldn’t even make eye contact, figuratively and even literally, with Israelis!  In those days, a televised debate between Israelis and Egyptians had to be filmed with separate cameras, to spare the Egyptians the indignity of sitting at the same table as their enemies.  And she wanted me to believe that Anwar Sadat was coming to Israel to address the Knesset!??!!

But she was right.  Sadat had announced something like:  “Do the Israelis want to know what we [the Egyptians] want?  I will go straight to their Knesset and tell them!”  And Begin had said:  Please do.  And Sadat had said:  All right, I will.

I still didn’t think it was going to happen.  Surely the aim was to trick Israel, soften it up for a surprise attack as on that dreadful October day four years earlier.

Saturday afternoon, November 19, 1977.  In the Middle East, already evening.  We sat together before the TV, watching to see what would happen.  A landing field in Ben-Gurion airport–empty, deserted.  Only a red carpet stretched out, leading to a vacant runway.

The time scheduled for Sadat’s arrival came and went.  Nothing.

Then–all this is my memory, but indulge me–a news correspondent excitedly reporting a light in the darkened sky, to the southwest.  Maybe a star?  No.  It was moving.  Approaching.

It felt like only a few minutes before the landing.  The alien object glided onto the runway before the TV cameras, slowing, then stopping.  (See photo above.)  On its side it bore the writing, in Arabic and English: ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT.

It might as well have announced its origin from Jupiter, or Zeta Reticuli.

The rear door of the plane hung over the end of the red carpet.  Somebody must have wheeled an airport ramp up to the door–I don’t remember that detail.  It opened.  For a few moments I could see only blackness within.

I half-expected–though I knew by now this was crazy–that they’d come out with submachine guns, shooting.  I must have been thinking of the opening of the Martian cylinder in H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds.

Instead Sadat came out, smiling, waving.  As much at ease as if he’d been in his living room.

A 21-gun salute went off.  An Israeli military band struck up the Egyptian national anthem.  (I read afterward that they’d had a rough time learning, in a few days, a tune they never thought they’d need to play.)  Sadat walked up and down the ranks of the Israeli honor guard, inspecting the polish of their buttons.  I assume he found it satisfactory.

A Close Encounter of the Fifth Kind, so far unknown to UFOlogy.  This is a meeting, accompanied by verbal communication, between hostile aliens with a view to bridging their differences and understanding each other as fellow-citizens of the universe.  It’s a category I just invented.  (I call it “Fifth Kind” because the Fourth Kind is already used for UFO abductions.  Which are a very different matter.)

The next day–Sunday, November 20–Sadat spoke to the Knesset in Jerusalem.  Again, I watched it on TV.  He began his address, Bismillahi ‘r-rahmani ‘r-raheem, “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” the formula with which nearly every chapter of the Qur’an opens.  (Sadat was a devout Muslim.)  It was no problem that he spoke in Arabic.  Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language of Israel.

I watched as he spoke, as Begin delivered a speech in response.  I remember one thing that each of them said.

Sadat:  “You cannot be happy, while you are making others unhappy.”  He was referring to the Palestinians.  Israel wanted peace and recognition from the Arabs, and Sadat had come to offer it.  Did not one group of Arabs under Israeli occupation, the Palestinians, deserve the same thing?

Begin:  “History teaches that war is not inevitable, but peace is inevitable.”

Peace inevitable?  Then tell me, please–what’s going on in Gaza, 35 years after the splendid hopefulness of that day?  Why are the bombs falling?  Why are children dying?

Why did the promise die?

Maybe let’s blame Begin and his government.  They applauded Sadat but didn’t really hear him.  They were too busy calculating to listen.  They thought they could have their cake and eat it too–get a peace treaty with Egypt, and still keep control of the West Bank and the essentially rightless people for whom that was home.  They were right.  They could, and did.  But it all turned to bitterness, choked on blood.  And the hatred between Jews and Arabs is, if anything, worse than it was in 1977.

Maybe blame the Palestinian leaders.  They could have responded to Sadat’s cue, delivered their own calls for peace and justice and freedom, appealed to the hearts and minds and consciences of the Israeli people.  Instead they threw a prolonged hissy fit over Sadat’s “betrayal.”  On Christmas Day 1977, as the Egyptian-Israeli peace conference in Ismailia, Egypt, was getting under way, a Palestinian spokesman delivered his own version of seasonal peace and goodwill.  Jesus Christ, he said, “was the first Palestinian fighter killed by the Jews.”  (New York Times, 12/26/77, p. 14.)

And maybe blame a little bit Sadat himself.  It was the same Sadat who four years earlier had picked the holiest day of the Jewish calendar for a surprise attack on the Jewish state.  When the first ecstatic rush of the Close Encounter had faded, people remembered that.  Abusing what’s holy to other people is the worst kind of karma.  It comes around sooner or later to bite you in the behind.

Sadat was gunned down on October 6, 1981, eight years to the day after his armies attacked on that terrible Yom Kippur.  A few days after his death I saw a political cartoon in a US newspaper.  People wander, baffled, through what appears to be a trackless, featureless desert landscape.  They’re saying:  “We want to follow in his footsteps–but where are they?”

The joke was that they’re in the middle of a gigantic footprint, so enormous they can’t even see it.

The Dream That Was: Begin and Sadat.  Photo from http://www.davka.org/2011/09/11/cold-peace/

The Dream That Was: Begin and Sadat. Photo from http://www.davka.org/2011/09/11/cold-peace/

His successor, Hosni Mubarak, was–well, let’s be polite and say he wasn’t quite of Sadat’s stature.

But then who, in the Middle East, has been?  Nobody I can think of.  Not even Yitzhak Rabin (also assassinated), whom I respect for the same reason I respect Sadat.  He looked the unwanted Other straight in the eye and was ready to talk.

And the Palestinians are still under military occupation, 45 years and with no end in sight.  And Israeli parents have continued to recite the Kaddish–the Jewish prayer for the dead–over their soldier sons, and over those innocents blown to pieces by terrorist bombs.

It’s the first day of school, fellas,” a scientist in “Close Encounters” tells his awestruck colleagues, as they struggle to understand the musical communications emitted by the UFO.

Too bad that’s where we seem to be permanently stuck.

You might be interested in my earlier posts on Israel.  Click on “Israel” among the categories on the left of the screen.

And keep up with future posts at
http://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator

UFOs and Apparitions – “They Weren’t There, But I Saw Them”

“I know they weren’t really there,” the lady told me.  “But I did see them.”

She was talking about the UFO aliens she saw standing outside her home when she was a child, looking out through her bedroom windows.  She’s a charming person, in her fifties although she looks much younger.  I met her a couple of months ago, and she told me her story.

I believe both parts of her statement.  No, the UFO beings weren’t really there.  But yes, she did really see them.

Morton Schatzman, "The Story of Ruth"

Morton Schatzman, "The Story of Ruth"

Our conversation prompted me to reread a book I’d first read almost 30 years ago, Morton Schatzman’s The Story of Ruth (Putnam, 1980).

Schatzman, an American psychotherapist practicing in London, tells the story of a 25-year-old woman from the US who came to him in desperation.  She was being persecuted by her father, a dreadful man who’d brutally raped her as a little girl.  Only her father was still, physically, on the far side of the Atlantic.

What she was seeing was an apparition of her father, a being who looked and sounded and even felt so real that when he passed between Ruth and some object–let’s say, a portion of the far wall of the room she was in–he blocked it from her sight.  As if she not only hallucinated his shape, but also the absence from her vision of whatever was behind the spot where that shape passed.

It’s an amazing tale.  Not least remarkable are the parts where Schatzman, ever the dogged experimenter, tests over and over whether anyone else ever sees Ruth’s apparitions.  (Because after a while she’s able to conjure up her apparitions, of her father and other people, in his office and elsewhere.)  Mostly the results are negative; no surprise.  But there are a few tantalizing clues that in certain circumstances Ruth’s visions can be shared, at least in part, by others.  This may have implications for multiply witnessed UFO sightings.

As her therapy progresses, Ruth doesn’t lose her apparitions.  She learns to control them, make them come and go at her will.  To produce friendlier ones than her malevolent father.

Her husband Paul, for example.

Once when Paul is out of town and she’s feeling lonely, “I started making an apparition of Paul.  When it appeared, it was nude and looked just like him.  Neither of us said anything.  I was lying on one side of the bed, and he lay down on the other beside me …

I won’t repeat what follows.  Suffice it to say that the apparition feels to Ruth absolutely real, solid, tangible.  And male.

Under Schatzman’s guidance, Ruth gradually comes to see herself not as a half-insane victim of paranormal harassment, but as possessor of an extraordinary talent.

Extraordinary.  Not unique.

Julian Jaynes, whose mind-blowing 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind I’m now reading for the first time, speaks of a young biologist’s wife who told him after one of his lectures “that almost every morning as she made the beds and did the housework, she had long, informative and pleasant conversations with the voice of her dead grandmother in which the grandmother’s voice was actually heard.  This came as something of a shock to her alarmed husband, for she had never previously mentioned it, since ‘hearing voices’ is generally supposed to be a sign of insanity.

Those labeled insane often do have hallucinations.  Which is a bad thing.  Or not?

At a suspicion of hallucinations, distressed psychotics are given some kind of chemotherapy such as Thorazine, which specifically eliminates hallucinations.  This procedure is at least questionable, and may be done not for the patient, but for the hospital which wishes to eliminate this rival control over the patient.  But it has never been shown that hallucinating patients are more intractable than others.  Indeed, as judged by other patients, hallucinating schizophrenics are more friendly, less defensive, more likable, and have more positive expectancies toward others in the hospital than nonhallucinating patients.  And it is possible that even when the effect is apparently negative, hallucinated voices may be helpful to the healing process” (Jaynes, pp. 86-88).

Like Ruth’s visions.

Rereading Schatzman’s book in a cheap paperback edition (Zebra Books, 1981), I was disappointed not to find the passage that had most stuck in my mind from the hardcover.  Did some editor eliminate it?  Or did I hallucinate it?

In a footnote, perhaps, Schatzman quoted from Hamlet, Act III, Scene 4.  Hamlet, in his mother’s bedroom, sees his dead father and hears his commands.  To his mother he says:

Do you see nothing there?

The queen replies:

Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.”

And Schatzman–if my memory is correct–asked:  “How did she know, I wonder, that ‘all that is I see’?”

Excellent question.

Think about it, the next time you look out your window and don’t see UFO aliens on your lawn.

by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on  Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+