ParaNet BBS/nicap
From KB42
ParaNet BBS/nicap
| File Name: | nicap.txt |
|---|---|
| Author: | Unknown |
| Date: | Unknown |
| Posting BBS: | Unknown |
| BBS Main Page: | ParaNet Main Page |
| Key Words: | ParaNet, UFO, Ufology |
(2851) Sat 1 May 93 10:34p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Nicap V3n7 - 1/5
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Folks,
I've started to scan in some of the news articles from the NICAP newsletters
that Albert Dobyns was kind enough to send along. These are mostly articles
in the 1965-66 time period. Hope you find them interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the March-April 1966 NICAP newsletter, "The UFO Investigator",
Vol III, No. 7
==================================================================
MARCH - APRIL SIGHTING
CROSS SECTION
Hundreds of sightings throughout the U.S. exhibited the famiiiar
patterns of formation flight, hovering and acceleration, electro-
magnetic effects, landings and near-landings and animal reactions
that have been observed in previous sightings for many years.
Mixed in with scores of impressive sightings were at least
three known hoaxes, two of which were exposed by NICAP in-
vestigators. While these got more publicity than they deserved
they did not overwhelm the genuine sightings, as has happened
in the past.
Numerous false reports resulted from observations of the planet
Venus - unusually bright during part of the flap period - and of
fireballs and other conventional but unusual-looking phenomena.
Among the more unusual patterns which came forth during this
flap were the frequently reported high-pitch or "zinging" sound,
and the rough surface seen on craft, described as "quilted",
"waffled" and "like coral."
The actual flap began in the middle of March, even though an
increase in reports was noted before then; and a high level of
activity can be traced back to mid-1965. Intensive publicity in
all parts of the national press - newspapers, magazines, radio,
television - followed closely on the heels of the Dexter, Mich.,
near-landing case of March 20 and the similar incident at Hillsdale,
Mich., 40 miles away, the next night. Both of these cases were
witnessed by large numbers of persons, including many with
better-than-average credentials.
Other sightings poured in from Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and from
other parts of the country. The press, already primed by the
August,1965, sightings wave and by John Fuller's article in
Look magazine, wasted no time digging into the story. Life carried
several pages of pictures, Time and Newsweek had major stories,
both the major wire services carried several stories per day
for several days, and radio and TV stations kept up a constant
stream of UFO reports.
Many of the reports were of strangely maneuvering lights
in the night skies, but others were among the most detailed in
NICAP's files. There were close-range observations of structured
craft, radar/visual sightings, reports from airline pilots and from
equally reliable witnesses. Among the potentially most signifi-
cant cases of the flap are the following unevaluated reports:
TYPICAL REPORTS
March 22, Key West, Fla. - several lighted discs observed
as they sped overhead, stopped briefly, then sped out of sight,
March 23, Trinidad, Colo. - two shiny oval craft with flat
bottoms, domed tops observed flying just above the ridge of a
mountain in single file.
March 23, Joppa, Ill. - cluster of white lights in an oblong
shape with a bright light in the middle, surrounded by smaller
lights, seen by a dozen persons.
March 24, Holland, Mich. - round glowing red and white object
flew across highway, 150-200 feet up, in front of car.
March 24, New Orleans, La. - lighted oval object sped across
sky, various strange lights maneuvered around; seen by retired
AF Col./pilot and another General Electric employee.
March 24, Cook, Minn. - trapper saw oval craft 60-70 feet
long, 15 feet in diameter with many lighted slots along side, drop
to ground. Large depression found in snow next day.
March 24, Bangor, Me. - large disc-like craft on or near
ground approached stopped car, causing electrical system to fail
and driver to shoot at craft out of fear for his safety. Object
flew away, scorched area found later.
March 25, Toledo, Ohio - large, near round, lighted object
hovered at tree-top level, seen by police.
March 25, Upper Sandusky, Ohio - top-shaped craft hovered
over woods, seen by farmer and wife.
March 26/26, Bad Axe, Mich. - maneuvering bright blue
light seen by three policemen.
March 28, Niles, Mich. - Object with varicolored lights paced
truck, blinked lights in response to truckers blinking lights
then flew away,
March 28, Columbus and Atlanta, Ga. - oblong object seen
by control tower operators at civil and military fields, confirmed
by radar.
March 28/29, Wilmington, Del. - red, white and green flashing
lights seen hovering, gyrating by radio station announcer, others.
March 30, Pecos, Tex. - oblong craft - estimated 85-100
feet long, 25 feet high - reportedly landed near highway, took
off five minutes later.
March 30, Long Island, N.Y. - many reports of oblong glowing
objects hovering, maneuvering, flying out to sea; EM effects on
cars, TV, radios.
April 3, Franklin, N.J, - 50-70 foot saucer-shaped object
with portholes seen hovering above radio transmitter tower by
station owner and wife.
April 3, Los Angeles, Calif. - oblong object with several pairs
of lights seen near International Airport by veteran helicopter
pilot, others.
April 6, Iowa City, Iowa - State, county and city police ob-
served glowing red light, apparently descending about 11:15 p.m. Cedar Rapids
airport reported a UFO on radar at same time.
April 10, Golden,Colo. - County Sheriffs and city police, plus hundreds of
citizens, saw a red glowing ball over the mountains east of the city at night.
"It was definitely something unusual and it wasn't an airplane or helicopter,"
Sheriff Dave Courtney said.
** EOF **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fidonet UFO Moderator (1:123/26.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2852) Sat 1 May 93 10:35p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Nicap V3n7 - 2/5
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the March-April 1966 NICAP newsletter, "The UFO Investigator",
Vol III, No. 7
===================================================================
False AVRO
Answer Repeated
The Avro disc, an experimental "flying saucer" which was
an admitted failure years ago, is once more being publicized by
the Department of Defense (DOD) in an apparent attempt to link
it with UFO reports. On April 4, one day before the House Armed
Services Committee hearings on UFOs, a 1960 photo of the "Avro-
car" was re-released by the Pentagon. In spite of an accompanying
story about its failure to fly, the impression was left with the
casual reader that the Air Force may have developed some secret
disc craft that could account for the recent wave of UFO sightings.
Aside from the fact that a secret device would not be tested
in air lanes, over populated areas, and over foreign countries,
the Avro project was scrapped more than five years ago. For
the benefit of new members and to offset any false impressions
created by the photograph, here are the facts (first reported in
Vol. II, No. 10, December 1963) about a machine now mounted on
a pedestal in front of the Army Transportation Corps School at
Ft. Monroe, Virginia:
The VZ-9V was built by Avro of Canada, financed by the U.S.
Air Force, Army and Navy, Two models were built, neither of
which flew aerodynamically, NASA Technical Note D-1432 (a
detailed study, including wind-tunnel tests) makes it clear the
machine was a failure, seriously underpowered and lacking
stability. The Air Force and Navy pulled out of the project,
and after efforts to salvage it as a Ground Effect Machine (with
flight a few inches above the ground), a negative Army evaluation
report ended the project.
** EOF **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fidonet UFO Moderator (1:123/26.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2853) Sat 1 May 93 10:37p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Nicap V3n7 - 3/5
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the March-April 1966 NICAP newsletter, "The UFO Investigator",
Vol III, No. 7
===================================================================
AN OPEN MIND?
The recent discussion of UFOs on the "Open Mind" TV show
referred to in the previous UFO Investigator, contained this
very pointed and revealing exchange between Saturday Review/
Look writer John Fuller and astronomer Dr. Donald Menzel, who
were debating the Exeter, N.H. case of Sept., 1965:
MENZEL: "It so happens that Mr. Hynek and I are about the
only astronomers who have devoted any time to (UFOs) and
think probably we have maybe devoted too much time to it from
the astronomical standpoint, because I think it has very little
to do with astronomy. It has a lot to do with physiological optics,
meteorological optics, and probably also psychology, but the . .
you keep talking about this distance of a hundred feet (from the
witnesses to the object). This to me does not sound at all well
established . . . .
"
FULLER: "Less than a hundred feet."
MENZEL: "Or even less than a hundred feet. This is only a
conclusion of the observer, and at that distance, looking up, I have
seen observers, many well trained observers who are not hys-
terical to start with, as apparently these two observers were .."
FULLER; "I think you should not say that. I don't think you
should say that. You are making an absolutely unfounded and un-
substantiated statement. You said these two observers ..."
(comment by moderator) "Well, in defense of the two policemen
and the three other people who saw it that night, I think that is
an indefensible statement to make without talking to them."
MENZEL: "Will you please let me finish?'
FULLER; "Yes."
MENZEL: "I would like to finish and say that it is impossible
for anyone, you or the most qualified observer, to estimate dis-
tances looking straight up beyond a hundred - at the order of
a hundred feet. Now, one observer says that it was a hundred
feet and the other said 9,000 feet.
FULLER: "Sir, you did not check that, I did. He did not say
9,000 feet."
MENZEL: "Didn't it hover in front of the trees?"
FULLER: "It came up from behind the trees and then came
over the trees.'
MENZEL: "Was it in front of a background which would es-
tablish its distance? If it's in the sky, you can't establish it."
FULLER: "No. It was behind at first, and then it moved and
it almost touched the rooftops." (comments by Dr. Hynek and the
moderator who asked Dr. Menzel why he referred to the witnesses
as hysterical.)
MENZEL: "It was certainly clear from the whole picture that
the man was frightened - frightened to death and he became
hysterical."
FULLER: "Which man?"
MENZEL: "The original man who saw the ..."
FULLER: "What was his name?"
MENZEL: "I'm sorry,I don't know his name."
FULLER: "How old was he?"
MENZEL: "I was referring to the question of hallucination
of a camera, and then you start giving me an inquisition. Now,
will you shut up?"
** EOF **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fidonet UFO Moderator (1:123/26.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2854) Sat 1 May 93 10:38p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Nicap V3n7 - 4/5
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the March-April 1966 NICAP newsletter, "The UFO Investigator",
Vol. III, No. 7
================================================================
NASA Silent on "Bogey"
Attempts by NICAP to learn more about the "bogey" (unidentified
object) reported by Gemini 7 astronauts last December have been
met with silence.
On the second GT-7 orbit, Astronaut Frank Borman radioed
that they were observing a "bogey at 10 o'clock high." Accord-
ing to Howard Gibbon, News Manager at the Manned Spacecraft
Center, the Capsule Communicator asked if they meant the Gemini
booster or "an actual sighting." The answer confirmed the sight-
ing of an unknown object; the Gemini booster could be seen sepa-
rately "tumbling against the sun."
For some unexplained reason, none of the newsmen at the Gemini
7 press conference asked about the UFO report-at least not on
the record.
Later, Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine speculated
that the "bogey" was the transtage of a USAF/Martin Titan 3C
launched in October. But a NICAP analysis, based on orbital data,
rules this out. The minimum separation of the Gemini 7 and the
transtage was about 255 miles. The size of the transtage is about
10 feet by 15 feet. Seeing it 255 miles away would be like a Wash-
ington observer's seeing a panel truck in New York City.
NICAP is continuing to ask NASA for any undisclosed facts.
Meantime, a letter from Astronaut McDivitt, about the unknown
object he photographed during the Gemini 4 flight, may be of inter-
est. (Letter sent to NICAP member James Dusen, Batavia, N.Y.)
"Dear Jim:
Thanks for your nice letter. I'm sorry I can't tell you
exactly what I saw during the flight of Gemini 4. I don't know what
it was and so far no one else does either. I thought that it looked
like the upper stage of a booster but I really couldn't tell. I'm
afraid we will never know what it was.
"Best wishes:
Sincerely,
James A. McDivitt,
Lt. Colonel, USAF,
NASA Astronaut. "
** EOF **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fidonet UFO Moderator (1:123/26.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2855) Sat 1 May 93 10:39p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Nicap V3n7 - 5/5
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the March-April 1966 issue of the NICAP newsletter, "The UFO
Investigator". Vol III, No 7
===================================================================
NEW SECRECY EVIDENCE
New proof that UFO information is withheld by various Gov-
ernment agencies, following AF instructions, has been obtained
by Larry W. Bryant, one of NICAP's members actively campaign-
ing against the censorship. Items included are:
1. An Army refusal to release a Ft. Monroe report on UFOs.
Col. Rex R. Sage, Office of Legislative Liaison, at the Pentagon
explained the refusal to Sen. Harry F. Byrd, to whom Bryant had
appealed: "the originator [Ft. Monroe HQ] is responsible for
determining whether or not the information must be protected
in the public interest...the information should be given to only
those who have a need-to-know due to their duties. Therefore,
until the requestor (Mr. Bryant) has established an acceptable
basis for a need-to-know, it is believed the desired information
should be withheld."
2. A statement by Chief of Police L. H. Nicholson, Hampton
Va. (Hampton includes Langley AFB in its city limits,) "We have
a confidential military procedure which we follow in reporting
such objects (UFOs) to the Military Authorities, and we are not
at liberty to divulge this information otherwise.'
3. A statement by Brig. Gen. Rollin L. Tilton, USA, Ret.,
Hampton Coordinator of Civil Defense, that Civil Defense is re-
quired to report UFO information to the AF, by AF Reg. 200-2.
(AFR 200-2 prohibits the release of information on unexplained
UFOs by other than AF Headquarters.)
Similar persistent campaigns by individual members, in line
with NICAP policies, have brought added confirmation that:
A. The AF public statements implying that UFO sightings are un-
important, that the investigation is practically finished, are con-
trary to facts. B. Official suppression of UFO information has
increased, despite denials of censorship.
We hope eventually to list all members who have performed
special services for NICAP. We are very grateful for this val-
uable assistance.
** EOF **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fidonet UFO Moderator (1:123/26.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8955) Sun 30 May 93 5:22p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Nicap V3n12 - 1/3
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Excerpted from the March-April, 1967 NICAP newsletter, "The U.F.O.
Investigator" Vol 3, #12 **
======================================================================
McDONALD PRODS PRESS, SCORES AF INCOMPETENCE
"UFOs are not a nonsense problem," said atmospheric physicist Dr. James E.
McDonald, Professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of
Arizona, in a vigorous 20-minute talk on April 22 before a group of newspaper
editors attending the 1967 annual meeting of the ASNE (American Society of
Newspaper Editors) in Washington, D.C. McDonald urged that public ridicule of
the subject and of UFO witnesses should stop, described the extraterrestrial
theory as "the least unsatisfactory hypothesis for explaining the UFO evidence
now available," and traced the debunking program of the USAF to the CIA-
Robertson Panel report of 1953.
The meeting, a well-attended panel discussion, was arranged by ASNE Program
Chairman Newbold Noyes, editor of the Washington Evening Star; moderator was
John Quincy Mahaffey, editor of the Texarkana Gazette & News. The four
panelists spoke without questioning or interruption.
William C, Powell, a veteran pilot (formerly with the Dutch airline KLM) led
off by describing his close-up daylight sighting of a domed red-and-white disc
in May 1966, while flying a light plane near Willow Grove Naval Air Station in
Pennsylvania. His passenger on that flight, also present, confirmed his
description.
Major Hector Quintanilla, head of Project Blue Book, then read a statement
repeating the customary Air Force claims: that press releases and Blue Book
reports have kept the press adequately informed; that the USAF is not
withholding information; that there is no evidence in UFO reports of any
superior technology; that the staff of Blue Book, though small, makes use of
many other government scientific facilities for its investigations.
"Balderdash" was the description by Dr. McDonald, who followed Maj.
Quintanilla, of Air Force claims that its investigation of UFOs has been honest
and careful. His own intensive investigation, which he has been carrying on for
12 months, has turned up no evidence that the Air Force has ever used its best
scientists or facilities for UFO investigation. Instead, he said, the project
had such a low priority and the debunking regulations were so clear that ever
since 1953 project officers with little or no scientific competence had been
explaining away most reports without investigation.
In the CIA-Robertson Panel report of 1953 (See The U.F.O. Investigator, Vol.
III, No. 10) the CIA requested a debunking program on UFOs "to stop
intelligence channels from becoming clogged." As a result of this program,
McDonald said, the significance of serious UFO reports had been obscured and
they had never received scientific attention. Eventually the Air Force "fell
victim to its own propaganda" and came to view UFOs as merely a public
relations problem. Frequent turnover in Blue Book personnel, meanwhile, meant
that no one on the project had a continuous view of the problem, which is now
one of "enormous dimensions."
The last panel speaker was Dr. Donald H. Menzel, recently retired Director of
Harvard College Observatory, who elaborated on his well-known position that
UFOs are not a serious problem for scientific investigation. Human beings are
often and easily fooled, even airline pilots and scientists. Radar reports can
be attributed to various atmospheric effects. But lay observers unfamiliar with
optical deceptions contribute most of the reports, he said. To his long list
of man-made and natural objects, astronomical bodies and meteorological
phenomena which are observed and misinterpreted as UFOs, Dr. Menzel added some
new items, such as spots before the eyes, reflections in eye-glasses, and
after-images caused by looking at the sun or an electric light bulb. He
criticized the USAF questionnaire on UFOs for failing to elicit information
about these observational errors, and said he is currently trying to help the
Air Force redesign this "amateurish" document. He also said it was time for the
Air Force to "wrap up the UFOs" - that is, to stop studying them.
Neither Dr. Menzel nor Maj. Quintanilla made any reference to pilot Powell's
sighting, and after the panelists had spoken there was time for only three or
four questions before the next ASNE program, none of which brought out either
facts or fireworks. Available to the editors, however, was an impressive 28-
page paper prepared by Dr. McDonald, in which he amplified many of the points
he could mention only briefly in his talk.
Strongly urging the mobilization of scientific talent and public action, Dr.
McDonald said, "In those Blue Book files have lain hundreds of cases that
received no adequate scientific review, that have often been explained away in
such a ridiculous manner that even amateur astronomers or untrained citizens
have publicly complained over the absurdity of the official explanations ...I
truly doubt that Air Force personnel at Wright- Patterson AFB and the Pentagon
can have any notion of the bitterness they have created among persons who have
been made the butt of ridicule by these 'debunking' policies that trace back so
clearly to the 1953 decisions."
Dr. McDonald devotes about two pages of his paper to specific criticisms of Dr.
Menzel's analyses of UFO cases. "...Menzel rides roughshod over elementary
optical considerations governing such things as mirages and light reflections,"
he states. Also, "...examples of loose reasoning, failure to check the relevant
weather data, and casual neglect of key features of the reports could be
cited."
The Arizona scientist said that the University of Colorado project, though a
good start, has "very limited manpower resources ...this problem warrants far
more scientific attention than their program is currently able to provide."
Calling for Congressional hearings to probe into the background of the UFO
mystery, Dr. McDonald said the study should be taken out of military hands and
turned over to a science-oriented agency such as NASA. NICAP, he said, has been
doing a far better job than the Air Force, even on a slender budget.
"There is, in my present opinion, no sensible alternative to the utterly
shocking hypothesis that the UFOs are extraterrestrial probes from somewhere
else," he concluded.
** End **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fido Net UFO Moderator * (1:123/26.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8956) Sun 30 May 93 5:21p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Nicap V3n12 - 2/3
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Excerpted from the March-April, 1967 NICAP newsletter, "The U.F.O.
Investigator" Vol 3, #12 **
=====================================================================
SCIENTIFIC DEBATE GROWS
Scientific controversy over UFOs has reached a peak never before attained.
Increasingly in 1967, scientists are discussing the problem among themselves,
acknowledging the existence of the extraterrestrial theory, and debating the
pros and cons in scientific forums. This has brought a long-overdue
respectability to the subject, allowing it to be treated as an important
scientific problem rather than science fiction fantasy.
Perhaps the most prominent scientist to make a positive pronouncement recently
is Professor Paul Santorini, Greece's top scientist and former pupil and life-
long friend of the late Albert Einstein. Santorini, who worked on the atomic
bomb and the Nike missiles and helped design radar, told the Greek
Astronautical Society in Athens February 24 that a "world blanket of secrecy"
surrounded UFO reports. Convinced since 1947 that UFOs were real, the professor
said that the Greek Army sent a team of engineers along with him to investigate
UFOs believed to have been Russian missiles in the skies over Greece in that
same year. "We soon established they were not missiles," the scientist
remarked. "But before we could do any more, the Army, after conferring with
officials from the Pentagon in Washington ordered the investigation stopped."
In an article entitled "The Scientist and the UFO" (BioScience; January 1967),
Mars-life expert Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, of Utah State University, states that
"since shortly after the beginning of recorded history, but particularly during
the past two decades, many people have reported...phenomena...that...far
surpass the current human technology." Dr. Salisbury urges that scientific
investigation teams stand by to immediately investigate new outbreaks of
sightings.
According to a UPI story dated January 21, Dr. D. H. Bragg, associate professor
of education of Drake University, wrote in the Iowa State Education
Association's official publication that "there is a strong possibility that the
flying saucer controversy is about to enter the classroom as a....problem of
major implications in our world."
In an address to the Academic Honors Convocation, published in the March 1967
issue of "The Griffith Observer" (Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles), Dr. John
A. Russell of the University of Southern California described the changes in
cosmological theory that have taken place at an ever-increasing tempo since
Copernicus challenged Ptolemy's geocentric theory which had reigned
unquestioned for 1700 years. Dr. Russell, Associate Dean of Natural Sciences
and Mathematics, said all these changes had one thing in common: each
diminished man's importance by making him a more insignificant part of a vaster
universe.
Soon, he said, we maybe called upon to accept another change on the same
frontier, far more drastic and unwelcome. We may have to acknowledge the
existence elsewhere in the universe of intelligent beings who are
technologically far superior to man. Our reaction to such a discovery, Dr.
Russell says, "may be more pronounced."
Dr. Russell's prediction of resistance to the idea of extraterrestrial
intelligence has recently been fulfilled by a negative voice in the UFO
controversy. Nobel prize winner Sir John Eccles, head of Chicago's American
Medical Association Biochemical Research Institute, stated in March that
extraterrestrial spaceships are an impossibility because "earth is the only
place where intelligent life exists" and this puts "our planet on top of
everything in the universe." Even the development of our own life and science
he termed "a fantastic improbability."
Another scientific theorist whose assumptions cause him to rule out any
possibility that UFOs might be extraterrestrial is Phillip Klass of Aviation
Week magazine, who remains firmly convinced that UFOs can be explained almost
entirely in terms of plasmas (ionized gasses) moving randomly through our near
atmosphere. He does not, however, argue that the gasses emanate from swamps.
** End **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fido Net UFO Moderator * (1:123/26.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8957) Sun 30 May 93 5:21p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Nicap V3n12 - 3/3
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Excerpted from the March-April, 1967 NICAP newsletter, "The U.F.O.
Investigator" Vol 3, #12 **
=====================================================================
UFO OVER NASA STATION
A UFO that caused electro-magnetic (E-M) effects was seen hovering over the
Plum Brook Station of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
at Sandusky, Ohio, on at least two different occasions in January and February.
The first sighting took place at approximately 6:45 p.m., January 30. Mr. and
Mrs. Reinhardt N. Ausmus were traveling north on Route 99 when they spotted an
unusually bright light in the sky. Stopping their car, they watched the
silently hovering UFO for several minutes before the light was suddenly
extinguished.
Ausmus is a member of the Early Birds, an organization of World War I flyers.
The second encounter occurred at 3:42 a.m., February 10 and was checked out by
NICAP member Earl Neff. Constable Gary Butler, of the Erie County Sheriff's
Department, was on routine patrol duty in the Plum Brook Station area when he
saw "a bluish, bright colored disc...in a southwesterly direction..."
"I observed the object in a stationary position approximately a mile and a
half, maybe two miles away, " Constable Butler said in a tape-recorded
interview.
The object then "began to decline towards the ground" and "disappeared behind
a group of trees." The witness radioed the sighting into his station, but
experienced some radio interference.
"I had to repeat my transmission two or three times because the deputy at the
station could not understand," Butler stated. "Also, there were two
officers...who saw a...bright, light object in the sky which they observed for
several minutes."
** End **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fido Net UFO Moderator * (1:123/26.1)
r three times because the deputy at the station could not understand," Butler stated. "Also, there were two officers...who saw a...bright, light object in the sky which they observed for several minutes."
- End **
--- FMail 0.94
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fido Net UFO Moderator * (1:123/26.1)
