by James Easton
pulsar@compuserve.com
Welcome to the second issue of the Pulsar newsletter!
1. The "Rendlesham forest" Affair:
Photographic evidence reaffirms
lighthouse was the source of UFO scares.
2. The "Sturrock Panel" Report:
Science versus the "little green men."
3. Latest "Secret Government Documents" Hoax:
What a tangled World Wide Web we weave.
4. The Iridium satellites.
5. The "Kecksburg" Incident:
Update on Recent Developments.
6. Robert the Bruce,
an unexplained UFO and portends of doom.
New Material of Interest
on the World Wide Web.
Photographic evidence reaffirms lighthouse
was the source of UFO scares.
Science writer Ian Ridpath recently paid a return visit to the location of what was once considered to be the UK's strangest 'UFO' encounter.
Now demonstrably proven to have been a story which featured the profound misidentification of nearby Orford Ness lighthouse, as Ian originally suggested, the documentary evidence which confirmed that fact and substantiated his deductions was published earlier this year and remains on-line at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/
Specifically:
Rendlesham Unraveled
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/rendlshm.htm
Resolving Rendlesham: New Insights and Past Claims Examined
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/rend2.htm
Pulsar Newsletter: Issue No. 1
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/newslet1.htm
Following his clandestine mission, Ian has kindly forwarded a photograph he took on 11 October, "from the edge of the forest near where Col. Halt apparently saw his flashing UFO."
The photograph can be seen at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3310/Ridpath1.jpg
Ian writes, "The field in the foreground is the one they crossed while trying to approach the UFO."
"The farmhouse is evidently the one which Col. Halt thought was on fire."
"If Col. Halt had been too far from the spot I was standing, the lighthouse would not have been directly visible. I confirmed this when I returned at night -- the sweep of the beam was visible above the trees on the horizon, but the direct flash could seen only at or near the spot from which the photo was taken."
This categorically confirms the point I highlighted in detail within "Resolving Rendlesham":
"Halt was asked about the assertion he had been deceived by the Orford Ness lighthouse and replied: 'First, the lighthouse was visible the whole time. It was readily apparent, and it was 30 to 40 degrees off to our right. If you were standing in the forest where we stood, at the supposed landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could see the farmer's house directly in front of us. The lighthouse was 30 to 35 degrees off to the right, and the object was close to the farmer's house and moving from there to the left, through the trees.'"
Here, as never before, Halt provides specific details of the perspective he believed to be accurate. When he states, "If you were standing in the forest where we stood, at the supposed landing site or whatever you want to call it, you could see the farmer's house directly in front of us," that's correct and the Orford Ness lighthouse is in a direct line of sight, east, towards the coast.
However, when he claims, "The lighthouse was 30 to 35 degrees off to the right", that seems to be consequentially incorrect; the Shipwash lightship was "off to the right", the lighthouse was straight ahead, where Halt observed the "unidentified light" to be.
His comment that "the object was close to the farmer's house" again places the light source in the line of sight to Orford Ness lighthouse, whereas he believed the lighthouse to be much further south.
A magnification of Ian's photograph, showing the lighthouse's exact siting in relation to the farmhouse is also on-line at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3310/Ridpath2.jpg
As an unidentified whitish/yellow light and a "flashing red light" were key elements of the Rendlesham Forest "UFO", an issue I wanted to clarify was why the beam from the lighthouse might be perceived as whitish/yellow, with the rotating beacon possibly appearing to be red.
An important consideration is that on the tape of Halt's "live" microcassette recording he states, "there is some type of strange flashing red light ahead", only to be told by one of his men, "Sir, it's yellow!" (or "There, it's yellow!).
As Ian has noted, you don't correct a commanding officer unless you're sure of the facts.
The reason why a lighthouse beam may be perceived to be white, yellow or a combination of both, seems to be straightforward, as explained to me by Ken Trethewey of The Lighthouse Society of Great Britain:
"'White' light is a mixture of all of the primary colors as you know, but it is indeed the case that light from a typical lighthouse tungsten filament bulb is slightly yellow."
"It's just like your light bulb at home. It looks white but if you took a photograph using only the light from a domestic tungsten filament light bulb, it would have a yellow coloration when it was developed. That is why we need to use flash lights which are carefully designed to have a balanced spectrum of color. All light sources have a slightly different balance of spectral characteristics. The design of the optic fulfills two purposes:
1. To gather as much light as possible from the light source (It is said that it is too dark to read a book in the lantern when the light is operating! This is because all the stray light is gathered up and thrown outwards).
2. To disperse that light out from the lighthouse in focused beams that are intended to travel as far as possible across the sea.
There should be no coloration from the glass at all. When light is incident upon glass, three things happen, (a) it is transmitted through the glass (b) it is reflected from the incident surface (c) it is absorbed by the glass as it travels through. A good design maximizes (a). However, there is inevitably some of (b) and (c) and the effects may well be different for different wavelengths of the light. Thus it is theoretically possible for glass to produce a change in the color of the light."
This seems to solve that particular query and I'm grateful to Ken for his assistance.
Observations of a beacon as either red or yellow, perhaps both -- as seems to have been the situation when Col. Halt was "corrected" -- can be illustrated by the graphic image on the Lighthouses 'Round the World web site, at:
http://worldlights.com/world/
Another example of why a lighthouse may be considered to have a yellow/red beacon, can be seen in the following photograph:
http://www.nternet.net/lighthouse/00000127.html
The main point is that in the Rendlesham Forest case, the Orford Ness lighthouse is proven beyond any dispute, from the original witness statements, to have been sufficiently deceptive that a beacon light was followed for some two miles before being recognized as such. This was known all along, though never revealed.
Ian Ridpath remarks, "The fundamental point is that the lighthouse lines up with the farmhouse, just as Col. Halt described for his flashing UFO."
Col. Halt's manifest misidentification of the lighthouse merely adds to the reasons why the Rendlesham case has little, if any, remaining trustworthiness as evidence for nocturnal extraterrestrial visitations.
In view of all that's become clear in this case during the past 12 months and preceding charges of a "cover-up" by the Ministry of Defense (MoD), it's hoped to have a reaction from Gaynor South, the MoD's "UFO spokesperson," in the next newsletter.
Definitely in the next issue: Jenny Randles responds to "Resolving Rendlesham."
The "Sturrock Panel" Report:
Science versus the "little green men."
A scientific discourse on evidence for the existence of ET life was the 'Sturrock Panel' report, released on June 29, 1998 by the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE). The Stanford University press release is archived at:
http://www.jse.com/PR_UFO_98.html
The full report, which continues to provoke controversy, is entitled "Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 -- October 4, 1997." It can be seen on the SSE web site at:
http://www.jse.com/PR_UFO_98.html
The review panel was unique in consisting of several eminent scientists with a multidiscipline in related subjects.
Chaired by Peter Andrew Sturrock, Professor: Physics, Stanford University, the panel members included:
Prof. Von Eshleman, Co-Director: Center for Radar Astronomy Radar Astronomy, Radio Communications, and Space Science, Stanford.
Dr. J. Randy Jokipii, Professor: Theoretical astrophysics and space physics, University of Arizona.
Francois Louange, Managing Director: Fleximage Groupe Aerospatiale, Paris.
Dr. H. Jay Melosh, Professor: Theoretical geophysics and planetary surfaces, University of Arizona.
Prof. Charles Tolbert, Professor and Associate Chair, astronomy, University of Virginia.
According to the press release, the main observations from the study were:
1. The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple, universal answer.
2. Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying them.
3. Studies should concentrate on cases that include as much independent physical evidence as possible.
4. Continuing contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive.
5. Institutional support for research in this area is desirable.
With the intent of clarifying some points and diverse interpretations of the panel's conclusions, I wrote to Prof. Sturrock and several of the panel members.
The news release states, "The study was initiated by Laurance S. Rockefeller and supported financially by the LSR Fund" and Prof. Sturrock explained, "Mr. Rockefeller and I met to discuss the UFO problem. I suggested that a workshop would be a small positive step, and he agreed."
On the question of whether the panel's conclusions were supported by all members, he confirmed:
"The Executive Summary was prepared by the Panel when it met in executive session in November. The panel spent two days in thrashing out its summary that was unanimous."
Asked how the panel members had been selected, Prof. Sturrock clarified:
"They were selected by me."
"Some I knew, and others were recommended to me by scientists in whom I had confidence.
I was looking for scientists who are open minded but tough minded. I did not want anyone gullible, and none of them is gullible."
Far from being gullible, some of the panel members are notably skeptical.
Jim Papike, director of the Institute of Meteoritics at the University of New Mexico, was involved with research into NASA's claims for evidence of primitive life found in the "Mars rock" sample.
"We concluded in our paper that our measurements give no evidence for life," declared Papike and his colleagues. For further details see:
http://augustachronicle.com/headlines/080996/mars_doubts.html
The unanimity of the panel's summation was confirmed by Prof. Von Eshleman, who told me:
"I do not know specifically why I was invited to join the panel and act as co-chair of the scientific review panel, but I have known Peter Sturrock as a fellow professor at Stanford University for many years. I have had no previous sustained exposure to his interest in UFOs and his Journal of Scientific Exploration, however. My own research involves the use of planetary spacecraft to study the atmospheres of the other planets of our solar system.Addressing the same questions, Francois Louange expanded:
The news release heading fairly states the panel conclusions and our findings were unanimously agreed upon.
"I expressed most of my personal conclusions in the form of several appendices to the report."
"When Peter Sturrock chose the UFO investigators, he contacted Jean-Jacques Velasco for obvious reasons. He asked him for names of possible scientific contributors, and Velasco gave him the names of the two Frenchmen of the scientific panel. As far as I am concerned, I have collaborated with GEPAN and SEPRA for about 20 years, as their expert on two topics: analysis of photos and design of surveillance/detection systems.All correspondents were asked one specific question:
"The panel was composed of scientists, a majority of which were rather new and clearly skeptical on the subject. It has been Peter's merit to maintain the whole group together throughout the many months we spent, and to reach statements that constitute a common denominator for all participants. The cases chosen by UFO specialists were not necessarily the best possible ones (this could be a long debate...) but nobody could consider that a reasonable proof of violation of laws of Physics or even stranger explanations came out at Pocantico although enough elements were there to raise some scientific interest.
"The text as it was published was agreed upon by all participants, so far as I am aware.
"I was a bit different from the majority of the scientific panel in so far that I have spent many years trying to understand the UFO problem and to set up official projects on this topic, in particular at a European level. I was therefore not surprised at all by the strangeness of presented information and my deep conviction is that certain cases contain elements that do not fit in the frame of conventional explanations.
"I can even tell you that the first discussions of the scientific panel were so tense, due to the healthy skepticism of most scientists, that I thought the whole thing was going to collapse, with slammed doors..."
"The subject of 'UFOs' incorporates many absurd elements which are detrimental to the topic being recognized as meriting serious, scientific attention. Can that really, ever be resolved?"
"Possibly, by focusing on physical evidence," said Prof. Sturrock.
Prof. Von Eshleman considered there was a basis for some optimism, replying, "The extremes of the UFO reports and the adamant ridicule by much of the scientific community represent (sic) irreconcilable stands. However, I believe that there is a middle ground where it is possible to conclude something sensible about the subject, and that this could possibly represent progress."
On the question of ever resolving the matter, Francois Louange believed, "No, but this should not stop (sic) from working."
"My belief is that if things were at last taken care of in an official civil environment (as it happens in France), most of the 'noise' could be avoided. This applies in particular to the search of testimonies, which proves far more exploitable through official channels which the lunatics do not dare call, as opposed to press and TV..."
In a subsequent discussion with Francois Louange, I asked if he might definitively clarify the panel's thoughts, as the press release summarizes:
"Further analysis of the evidence presented to the panel is unlikely to shed added light on the causes underlying the reports, the scientists said. Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved. But new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed, could yield useful information and advance our understanding of the UFO problem, the panel said."
Did this mean the workshop had determined there was no value in further studying the "best evidence" they had been shown and that the focus should only be on new data, "scientifically acquired" per their recommendation?
Francois offered his views:
"The panel stated that no progress was to be expected from further analysis of the cases presented in Pocantico, and I share this point of view. It does not necessarily mean that all pre-existing data are to be discarded : most of the panel's members know very little or nothing about other cases than those presented there.My personal appreciation to the panel members who responded, especially to Francois for such a detailed commentary.
"The main point raised by the panel is that an active effort should be undertaken in order to gather new physical evidence through adequate instruments, even simple (wide angle cameras or video-cameras...). Faster reaction should be obtained thanks to a dedicated structure, so as to collect fresh undistorted testimonies and/or recordings. If you take the example of Hessdalen, a significant effort has obviously been done, but methods and operational procedures lack rigor and professionalism: with a very limited effort, scientists could implement the necessary complements in order to be in a position to obtain exploitable data on lights, associated spectra....
"My personal conviction is that we have to proceed along with priorities. If the means are given to work professionally, there is still an interest in re-visiting several of the existing cases and the related evidence, either on a case by case basis (e.g. photographic documents), or from a statistical point of view. But the choice (good or bad) of the cases presented in Pocantico was such that effectively little would have to be expected from new studies of those cases, of which many are already pretty old."
In a later development,
the perceived harmony and agreed conclusions of the "Sturrock Panel" suddenly seemed to be at odds with statements which Dr. Melosh was making.
Dr. Melosh had not responded to my original contact with the panel members and the first indication that he may hold alternative views was from an interview for the BBC World Service radio program "A Question of Science," broadcast on October 4, 1998.
Featuring opinions and comments from a number of scientists including Dr. Richard Wiseman, Prof. John Durant and Dr. Susan Blackmore, together with contributions from others, such as Jane Watkins, editor of Fortean Times, the program debated the "Sturrock Panel" report.
A transcript was published by a "radio ham" in Croatia -- the BBC World Service broadcasts on shortwave to Europe -- and this was his report:
- BBC reporter Graham Easton presents a short review of the Peter Sturrock statement from end of June, 1998. Peter stated that science can find new things and it can learn from UFO reports. The investigation of the panel was supported by Mr. Rockefeller. World Wide media broadcast the news in June when astronomer Peter Sturrock said that UFOs are serious thing.
- BBC plays a clip recorded in June where Peter says that we must investigate the psychological part of UFO claims together with physical evidence.
- After that BBC plays recorded interview with Dr. J. Melosh from The Lunar and Planetary Laboratory in Arizona. He is a meteor expert. He says that he was invited, along with others, to the meeting where the panel presented the best evidence of UFOs. But Melosh says that the panel wasn't independent because they have connections with UFO community. He said that it was clear that they are not clean.
- Graham speaks about Peter Sturrock again. He says that Sturrock is President of The Society for Scientific Exploration. Other members of panel are convinced in theories of remote viewing, cold fusion, reincarnation and warp drive -- they are Star Trek scientists.
- But then BBC again plays recorded statement from Peter Sturrock where he says that UFO phenomenon was ignored and ridiculed in the past. He says that in the past, a few hundred years ago, people were convinced that meteors -- "rocks from the sky" and ball of lighting were a joke. But today we know that they are real. So we could maybe learn something from UFOs in the future although we don't know what that is for now.
- BBC plays continuation of the recorded interview with Dr. Melosh. He says that the so called "evidence" from scientific panel is not so convincing and it is unscientific. There is no hard evidence or fragments from UFOs which could change our mind. Melosh states that he will not devote his time any more to UFO subject. [End]
I asked the BBC World Service if either a recording or verbatim transcript of the program were available. They replied that, unfortunately, neither had been retained.
I also wrote to Dr. Melosh asking if he would verify the report and possible clarify his overall views before publication of this newsletter. Despite an extensive interval to allow a reply, none has been forthcoming.
More information about the BBC World Service, its world-wide radio frequencies and 24 hour Real Audio broadcasts can be located at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/
One account of the panel's findings, proclaimed the headline, "No evidence of ET: Panel calls for more scientific UFO research."
It read, "Sorry, X-filers. A panel of scientists has reviewed the physical evidence associated with UFO reports for the first time in nearly 30 years, and found nothing to convince them that Earth is being visited by alien astronauts. Nor did the panel find credible evidence that known natural laws are being violated."
This was the opening summary of the "Stanford On-Line Report," written by David Salisbury, who also penned the June 29, 1998 Stanford University press release on behalf of the SSE. The full "Stanford On-Line Report" can be read at:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/july1/ufostudy71.html
The American Reporter voiced an opinion from within with the scientifically grounded Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project:
"Seth Shostak, a spokesman for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute in Mountain View, California, which operates the world's most sophisticated radio-wave listening antenna but does not investigate UFO sightings, told the American Reporter the report by the panel of scientists was "like motherhood and apple pie. Who could be against research?"
Shostak said, however, he saw nothing in the report which could be considered new evidence that would cause a rush by scientists to get involved. "Much of it is rehash," said Shostak. "I think if there were something new, the scientific community would get interested."
"If there are aliens out there," he said, "chances are they will be found by our listening to radio signals... It is not as easy to move around out there as the movies make it appear."
As careful as the scientific panel was to offer a balanced picture of its findings, there is a danger, Shostak said, that it could encourage those "people who think the government has some little green men boxed up in some closet." The full article can be seen at:
http://www.american-reporter.com/843/7.html
The dilemma which contemporary UFOlogists perhaps face is that many of them do believe the U.S. government is hiding little grey aliens, whether dissected in pickle jars, suspended in "floatation tanks" a la Independence Day (which drew heavily on current UFO lore), or alive n' kickin'.
Not only does the "Roswell" doctrine still pervade, to many it remains a foundation on which their perception of UFOs and any scientific methodology is built.
And is it also something of a dilemma to the Society for Scientific Exploration.
Kent Jeffrey is an airline pilot who, like many others, was seduced by the apparent credibility of evidence for a UFO crash at Roswell, maybe even "alien bodies" and a diabolical cover-up.
He was instrumental in establishing the "Roswell Initiative" in May 1994 and the resulting "Roswell Declaration," a petition calling for a release of all government information relating to the Roswell case.
Kent then came to realize that when the existing evidence was thoroughly examined, much of it was specious, bogus and contradictory. In a landmark article, "Roswell: Anatomy of a Myth," he also set out what had become clear from historical government documents, formerly classified:
"For me, the beginning of the end for the Roswell UFO case came last spring, when I first saw one of a number of previously classified military documents dealing with unidentified flying objects. The 289-page document was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in March 1996 in response to a FOIA request by researcher William LaParl. It contained the minutes of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Conference at the Pentagon on March 17 and 18, 1948. Buried in the document was is a very interesting statement by a Colonel Howard McCoy which referred to a number of unpublished UFO reports. The last sentence of McCoy's statement, however, is devastating to the Roswell case.He concluded, "In essence, the 1947 Roswell case has turned out to be a red herring, diverting time and resources away from research into the real UFO phenomenon. Despite overwhelming facts to the contrary, there are those, however, who will fight to keep the myth alive at all cost. Roswell is a sacred cow for some, and a cash cow for others". Kent's full article can be read at:
[...]
"I can't even tell you how much we would give to have one of those crash in an area so that we could recover whatever they are."
http://www.roswell.org/
The largest representative body of UFOlogists in the U.S. is the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and Kent's article was published in its entirety by the MUFON Journal.
As the contents were not exactly popular with many MUFON members and, forbiddingly, the organization's hierarchy, the outcry against such "sacrilege" was followed by the "resignation" of Dennis Stacy, the Journal's editor.
Dennis Stacy had long been regarded as a rational "helm at the wheel," in addition to being an exceptional editor and writer. It was no surprise to some observers that there followed public criticism of the Journal's subsequent decline.
One of the foremost "rebuttals" to Kent Jeffrey's article came not from the MUFON Journal, it appeared in the SSE's Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE). As their press release announced:
"Stanford, CA, April 6, 1998 -- The 'Roswell Declaration' was formulated in 1994 as a public petition to the government. After summarizing the claim that an extraterrestrial craft crashed near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, it concludes by requesting that the President issue an Executive Order declassifying any government information that might exist concerning UFO's, regardless of whether positive or negative on the topic. It also requests a termination of any security oaths that might still be prohibiting individuals from openly discussing information they, or the government, might have."
One of the prime movers behind this initiative was Kent Jeffrey, an airline pilot by profession. He worked with other key members of the three primary UFO groups (Hynek Center for UFO Studies [CUFOS], the Mutual UFO Network and the Fund for UFO Research) to bring this about.
It was thus a surprise and a newsworthy event when Jeffrey published an article in the MUFON Journal last year concluding that his investigations no longer supported the claim of a crashed saucer at Roswell.
With Jeffrey's approval and with the permission of MUFON, the Journal of Scientific Exploration obtained permission to reprint the article and to invite two experts in UFO studies to critique it. The Jeffrey article and articles by Prof. Michael Swords, Western Michigan University, and Dr. Robert Wood, a retired research director for McDonnell Douglas, appear in the current issue of the Journal (Vol. 12, No. 1, March).
Wood argues that Jeffrey fails to consider alternative interpretations of the same facts.
"An example would be the interviews with three colonels retired from the Air Force who all say that the Air Force did not have a covert program. The author simply accepts this as fact without seriously considering the possibilities that one of them lied or that none of them knew about it."
Presumably this suggestion of a retired Air Force Colonel lying, reaffirms the SSE and the JSE were comfortable with the critique of Kent's findings and scientific feasibility of a Roswell cover-up.
Dr. Wood's involvement with 'Roswell' goes back many years, the December 1994 issue of the Roswell Initiative's "Roswell Update," confirming:
"The founders of the Initiative proudly present support of a very special kind. It is a letter of Robert Wood, Ph.D., which was originally dedicated to all members of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE). In this letter Dr. Wood encouraged the members of the SSE to sign the Roswell-Declaration. The letter now is part of the material which is distributed with the Declaration. The SSE is an organization of more than 400 highly qualified scientists.
Dr. Wood is physicist, member of the board of directors of the SSE and recently retired from his occupation at McDonnell Douglas Corporation."
In June 1994, the USAF released its comprehensive "Report of Air Force Research Regarding the 'Roswell Incident.'" The report can be seen at:
http://www.af.mil/lib/roswell.html
As a result, many of those who previously believed the incident may have involved a crashed ET spacecraft, came to accept that a solid, factual case had been presented to conclude the explanation was perfectly mundane and terrestrial.
Debris from the 1947 Top Secret "Mogul" balloon project, seemed to explain the cause of the wreckage found in either June or July 1947 (the exact date is uncertain), by a local rancher.
When the tales of Glenn Dennis, local mortician and pivotal claimant of "alien bodies," were then found to be factually challenged and untenable, even to his former supporters, a significant barrier to the "Mogul" explanation was removed.
It also demolished a central pillar of the "Roswell enigma" and when that fell, the premise that "ET crashed here," especially on top of the evidence which did support the Air Force's "Mogul" balloon rationale, was no longer sustainable to many UFOlogists who, like Kent Jeffrey, saw the perspective change as the picture became clearer.
Prof. Michael Swords, who was invited to offer the aforementioned critique, was also one of the UFO investigators asked to present evidence before the Sturrock Panel. He is a senior figure within the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) and CUFOS proudly announce on their web site:
Several scientists associated with the Center for UFO Studies participated in the meeting. Dr. Mark Rodeghier, CUFOS scientific director, and Dr. Michael Swords, former editor of the Journal of UFO Studies, presented data to the panel. Dr. Richard Haines, CUFOS Scientific Board member, also presented UFO evidence to the panel. In addition, Dr. David Pritchard from MIT, and also a Scientific Board member, acted as a moderator at the workshop. This strong representation of CUFOS at the meeting underscores the leading role played by CUFOS in scientific investigation of the UFO phenomenon.
Further details can be found at:
http://www.cufos.org/currentevents_sturrock.html
CUFOS are entitled to be pleased that these senior figures were judged to have related experience and doubtless also seen to represent the more "scientific" edge of UFOlogy, irrespective of whether that judgment was made by CUFOS themselves, Prof. Sturrock, or whomever.
Nevertheless, CUFOS publish the International UFO Reporter (IUR), which frequently headlines leading articles continuing to be supportive of the claim that "Roswell" involved the sinister cover up of something far more incredible than an itinerant Mogul balloon.
As Dennis Stacy recently commented to Jerome Clark, the IUR's editor, in response to Clark's statement that Roswell is best left to "benign neglect":
"Benign neglect begins at home. But the last issue of IUR that I'm aware of (Summer, 1998) not only has Roswell on the cover (again), but devotes the first two articles of the issue to the subject, a total of nine pages (cover included) out of a 32-page issue.
The previous issue (Winter, 97-98) featured another lead article on Roswell, this one running to five pages.
The issue before that (Fall, 1997) again had Roswell on the cover and two articles inside running to another nine pages.
None of these recent articles were the least bit critical of Roswell so far as I could ascertain -- indeed, the opposite -- so where is the stalemate as far as IUR is concerned?"
It is of course the prerogative of CUFOS or anyone to view Roswell as worthy of continuing positive appraisal as the possible, if not probable, crash of an ET vehicle, replete with crew.
This does however carry an inference that the U.S. government, at least, has kept this a secret for 50 years.
Given the above noted focus and sustained confidence in Roswell, it might have been anticipated that the CUFOS representatives would select Roswell as one of the "best cases" to set before the Sturrock Panel, if not the most convincing UFO case of all time.
Furthermore, the SSE would surely be at ease with the Sturrock Panel deliberating a case they had effectively supported in their own scientific Journal.
Yet, Roswell wasn't chosen at all.
Perhaps there was that concern about being seen to encourage "people who think the government has some little green men boxed up in some closet."
If, however, the people representing UFOlogy are the same ones who champion the "little grey people" cause in the first place and the SSE are evidently not adverse to the possibility either, how is this juxtaposition reconciled?
