Friday, July 10, 2009

Headline Headaches
















My decision to scan a great quantity of old newspaper and magazine clippings about UFOs, science and the "paranormal" before they crumble into confetti gave me an opportunity to conduct a mini-review of the way editors approach these topics. Without actually reading the articles, we can often determine editor and publisher viewpoints simply by reading the headlines. It was once common for newspapers to employ headline writers, experts in their own right who composed just the right words to attract folks who might plunk down a few coins to read more about the subject at hand as well as --the real bonus -- advertisements inside the publication.






While UFO researchers should be profoundly grateful that so many editors around the world see fit to record for posterity instances of dramatic and truly puzzling UFO activity, we, unfortunately, also bear witness to those who recklessly, foolishly or intentionally help muddy the waters of public opinion about a legitimate scientific mystery.










Headlines, as you can see here, often betray the supposed impartiality and accuracy (UFOs are not just a U.S. phenomenon, for example) that faithful readers anticipate, and skeptics/debunkers are always welcome, no matter their personal levels of ignorance. Why, we might ask, don't newspaper editors offer up similarly absurd headlines when, say, a family of four perishes in a bloody highway accident? Your local newspaper will never print a headline like this:






HEAD OF FAMILY LOSES HIS IN SPECTACULAR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY CRASH.






The thing is, that sort of headline would instantly raise circulation, supported by a curious, if not outraged, public -- and that's why some news editors will never stop appealing to the absurd when printing articles and headlines about UFOs. Annoying but true.

Monday, July 6, 2009

McNamara Dismissed UFOs


Former U.S. Secretary of Defense (under LBJ) Robert S. McNamara died this week. It's worth noting, aside from his problems during the Vietnam conflict, that he was asked about the UFO issue in March of 1966 while testifying during closed congressional sessions on a foreign aid bill. A few weeks later, after the proceedings were declassified, the public learned that McNamara thought there was nothing significant about the UFO subject and that photos of UFOs were "illusions." Well, so he said. One suspects there may have been more than a few military and airline pilots and radar observers who strongly disagree.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Updating the Movie Blog (or) Script Nip


My consistently hollow promise to elaborate on the script for the 1956 movie, "U.F.O." should soon become a promise fulfilled (see link in margin). We'll explore the script's original words and the changes made when production began. Keep watching over there.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Iran on Fire


To the young people of Iran, pursuing a courageous quest for freedom and fair elections:


Some time ago, I posted an official document on this blog concerning a famous Iranian UFO incident, and I would much prefer to confine my words today to the UFO issue. However, since my government has decided to tiptoe with maddening caution (at least publicly) around the situation as many of you fight and die to gain a modicum of something resembling freedom and self-intellect, maybe it's up to little people like me to say a few words in support of your valiant efforts.


Most of you are probably much too young to remember the days when the U.S. and Iran were actually on friendly terms, and during that time when the Shah of Iran ruled, many of your people were also dissatisfied with conditions in your country. Still, as I said, we in the U.S. got along with your government.


While undergoing U.S. Air Force medical training in the sixties, I attended classes and lab sessions with some gracious young Iranian women, visiting in the U.S. as foreign exchange students, and they were always very cordial and curious and so willing to learn about medical subjects. Later, I served at a pilot training base where many Iranian Air Force pilots learned to fly from the best flight teachers in the world -- American military pilots.


It's almost incomprehensible how the relationship between our two countries deteriorated so horribly, though I suppose the fingers of blame can be pointed in several directions. In any case, it has become obvious that you, the youth and future of Iran, want a voice in your country's destiny. Your current rulers certainly haven't demonstrated a concern for much beyond self-serving policies and prophecies. How could you not be upset? How could you not become enraged as you find yourselves denied all to which you feel entitled?


As a United States citizen, I wish you success and victory over those amongst you who are determined to hold you back. Always remember that the people who rule and hover over you with an iron fist today can be gone and -- their worst fear -- become irrelevant tomorrow if you stand together. This will sound awfully trite, but -- the world is watching. Good luck.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Fish That Flew


A very intriguing Oklahoma "fish story" surfaced in early 1966, about 2 1/2 years before my Air Force assignment to medical duties at the large Sheppard AFB Regional Hospital in Wichita Falls, Texas. According to an Associated Press report, 56-year-old Eddie Laxton, an electronics instructor at Sheppard, was driving to work on a typical morning from his home in Temple, Oklahoma on U.S. 70 when his journey was suddenly interrupted by a fish-shaped object blocking the highway.


This surreal incident, engulfed in early morning darkness, became even stranger when Laxton exited his vehicle and approached the silvery object. Seeing what appeared to be a man dressed in military fatigues, Laxton returned to his auto for a camera, but as he did so the mysterious figure entered the craft and it ascended, disappearing in the darkness.


Questioned by the press (the Wichita Falls Record-News took care to assure readers that Laxton was "a calm, stable sort"), the witness insisted the object was not a helicopter because he was familiar with helicopters and the thing he witnessed had no rotors. However, he claimed that it did carry numbers, and though he couldn't see the whole series he believed they began with T141.


The electronics expert (former publisher of the Temple, OK Tribune) decided to remain silent about his encounter -- until Snyder, Oklahoma truck driver C.W. Anderson announced that he, too, had observed the craft , and that he and a fellow trucker had, indeed, seen "several" in the past few months.


Many bizarre UFO-related incidents erupted during the sixties. Was this another? Is the term, "UFO" even involved here, or was this a secret military project? In the early morning Oklahoma darkness, who knows? If a military man attired in fatigues was present, why would the military find it necessary to park the thing on a highway, inconveniencing motorists while also allowing them a gander at a secret aircraft? No rotors, yet it takes off vertically? The AP report mentions nothing of noise or flame, so one might assume the absence of jet engines or conventional propulsion systems. An Oklahoma highway, it seems, wouldn't exactly consist of prime real estate for frivolously landing, taking off and buzzing about with secret test vehicles. Then again -- the witness's account clearly described a figure in "GI fatigues" and a significant portion of a clearly discernible number on the craft.


In the Air Force, of course, I knew pilots who could and would land anywhere, if necessary, Still, if the object looked like a fish and not a bird, one might logically suspect, hmm. . .Navy involvement on an Oklahoma highway? Um. . .


And, remember, the year was 1966. Nowadays, there are so many weird government things flying around that separating legitimate UFO cases from the military what's-its is often a complicated chore, and when one adds deception, deceivers and heightened methods of assuring national security to the mix, well, good luck with that. Ah yes, how we long for the good old cut-and-dried days when a lie was the truth, food wasn't chemically altered and a UFO was a UFO. . .

Friday, June 5, 2009

ABC-TV's Green Injection: A Tale of Two Faces


UFOs? Yes, but let's start here. . .


To varying degrees, I once enjoyed the content broadcast by the three major television networks, especially the news features offered by ABC. But now, the good stuff is so offset by mindless sound bites and dumbed-down "entertainment" nonsense that I can rarely be bothered. If I turn on NBC, I think of endless "green" references, owner General Electric and its quest for profits via windmills and other "green" interests. When I switch to CBS I still curse the network for 1966's debunking feature hosted by Walter Cronkite, "UFO: Friend, Foe or Fantasy," and I will never, ever forgive them for airing that one-sided propaganda clunker. Thank God (or whomever or whatever) for radio, the Internet and any newspaper endowed with balanced reporting.


Nevertheless, I felt a tad curious about ABC's two-hour offering, "Earth 2100," a "news special" that aired June 2. According to TV Guide, this "environmental road map to the 22nd century explores possible effects of climate change, population growth and resource depletion."


Not too many years ago, in my youth, I was a rabid proponent for the environment. I contributed to green organizations and ardently wrote newspaper letters-to-the-editor sometimes unparalleled in my condemnation of various enviro-abominations as we know them. Ultimately, however, I came to realize the futility of supporting so many intended rightings of so many wrongs. In my mind, I simply narrowed everything down to the one and only issue at hand -- human population growth. No brain surgeons needed here, just an acknowledgment of the overwhelmingly obvious three-ton elephant sitting in the living room. Reduce the international human population drastically and everything else will take care of itself, period. In fact, when politicians embrace green ideals, they generally skip over the too-many-of-us issue -- it just isn't helpful for re-election amongst voters who still believe it's either a right or obligation to fornicate their brains out until the nursery bursts. One way or another, global human population will decline in the future. Whether this occurs easily or harshly depends upon us, but I'm betting we'll choose the hard way and the result will rival a horror story, particularly in the Third World, and possibly in the United States if we continue striving to become the Third World by virtue of kindness, unreasonable immigration policies and charity misplaced. We seldom choose wisely.


So -- I tuned in and watched the ABC-TV special, becoming increasingly furious as minutes passed. Why? Was it the encouragement for use of fluorescent light bulbs, the ones containing dangerous levels of mercury manufactured primarily by our Chinese buddies who killed off our pets with poisoned food a few months ago? Perhaps I was steamed because ABC didn't emphasize enough that this was a "possible" scenario of the future, not at all assured. Or maybe it was the fact that "Lucy" and her kin kept making babies in a world so dire that anybody with a supposedly environmentally astute brain would know better than to put even one more child in ecological harm's way. For all her powers of perception about her surroundings and the future, Lucy's insistence upon having a baby instantly stripped her of credibility in my book. Yet, even that couldn't have been the reason for my fury, a degree of anger causing me to nearly shout at the TV like a child frustrated with Barney's PBS antics.


Then it struck me, as vividly as watching a corpse murdered by a mob hit ascending in the Hudson River (not that I ever witnessed such a sight, but it sounds visually and dramatically enticing, doesn't it?). For one thing, where was even one hint of the other side of the issue? I mean, look, at last count there were well over 1,000 international scientists sternly questioning the ins and outs of "global warming" and/or climate change, its causes and our influence upon it, and their numbers are growing. Where are their voices on ABC? Where do they appear on any of the major commercial TV networks? Why did ABC feature primarily professors from Harvard, Berkeley and other outlets where such reasoning might be expected? Why were book authors populating only one side of the tracks featured? Was it necessary to scare the hell out of school kids and others with a highly speculative scenario which often bordered upon fantasy? Futurists as psychics or psychics as futurists, take your pick. Maybe we will all terminate in a planetary catastrophe as postulated eventually, but first I want us to examine all sides, as opposed to becoming a convert via forced media electrophoresis.


Whoa. Then the huge one bowled me over, the very essence of ABC-TV's two-faced approach. I should have picked up on the contrast from the start. Okay, so ABC did two hours on exclusively one side of a very unsettled issue. Yet, think back to that "UFO special" hosted by the late Peter Jennings, the one where debunkers were consulted as the "other side" to explain away every facet of information served up by UFO proponents. Then recall the more recent rehash of Jennings' report band-aided together by ABC news anchor David Muir. Again, the debunkers cloaked as skeptics ran amuck and had their way with the program. After all, ABC wanted to be fair and include a balance to the UFO issue. Where was that balance during this week's green program?


Foul! Time and again, UFO "special" after special , the debunkers are enlisted to kiss away those nasty UFO facts to make the subject appear consistently absurd -- yet, when the ethereal bits and pieces vaguely comprising "global warming" drop upon some producer's desk, a televised one-sided spectacle is whipped up, allowing absolutely no opportunity for the opposing side to participate. Thus, ABC-TV (and it is, by no means, alone in this outrage) clearly wears two faces, and one of them seems destined primarily to treat the UFO subject with ridicule and denial by, indeed, allowing two sides of the issue -- but one side (debunkers) is persistently destined to win out by way of blatantly ridiculous assertions.


Anyway, during its bleak glance to the future, there is one thing that ABC neglected to show -- the increasing frivolity, stupidity and irrelevance of commercial television programming as the years go by. If we make it to 2100, I suspect that programs such as "The View" will be little more than freak shows hosted by puppets. Some things never change.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

UFOs Under the Stethoscope


The most perplexing essence of the UFO phenomenon might be its tendency to leave behind evidence, but not proof. How is that even possible? Remove momentarily the stories of crashed disc retrievals, true or not, and that's what we're left with in the vast majority of wow-look-at-this cases -- evidence, all kinds of it, but not definitive, irrefutable physical proof that would impress a majority of courtroom judges. So, there are a few of us, and then there's "it," or "them," somehow sharing the same time and space, at least briefly -- but most dramatic encounters seem strangely set apart from the usual concept of reality and real-time experiences. Evidence, but no proof of identity. Is that how it shall always be? Photos, films, videos, audio, radar returns, disabled electrical components, crippled missile defense systems, pilot encounters, missing pilots, landing marks, metered traces of this and fragments of that, abductions indicative of missing time via hypnosis and polygraph testing. Evidence, but no proof. How to interpret and comprehend the apparently incomprehensible? That's a fair question.


This is what I was thinking about recently when taking a quick mental walk through decades of newspaper clippings relating to UFOs, trying not to blame certain newspaper editors for their reactions when "good" UFO cases began to clutter up the conventional newsroom. However, gosh-darn it, there was a pattern. The better the UFO case, the more some editors rushed to headline the debunkers, everybody from the late Phil Klass (whom, for years, received FAR more attention than he deserved whilst denying UFO mysteries) to the local recipe stargazer or astronomer who would gladly make sense of everything by throwing out any plausible "explanation" weakly capable of sticking to the wall. Funny how that works with some news editors but not others. If somebody's murdered, the editor wants his reporters to find out how the crime was accomplished and what weapon was used. But if somebody reports a UFO, the editorial process generally seems to drift off and make a beeline journey to the nearest debunker who can explain everything in comforting rational terms as quickly as possible without so much as a glance toward the witnesses or the story's fabric. The evidence. All the news that's fit to print, but this weird UFO stuff just isn't part of the people's news.


Yet, it's not always like that. When I visited the old NICAP offices in Washington, D.C. back in 1965 as a teenager, upon my departure assistant director Richard Hall (see link) sent me away with a few current national magazines containing articles about UFOs. A famous UFO "flap" was very much in progress around the country at that time, and numerous periodicals churned out a relentless flow of "flying saucer" articles.


To my surprise, one of them was a publication called Medical Tribune, "the only independent medical newspaper in the U.S." Backed and advised by some very prominent members of the medical community, the July 17-18, 1965 edition actually featured a brief but exceptionally well-written piece about UFOs. While one's immediate expectation for such a publication might be an article slamming UFOs as nonsense and UFO proponents as mental cases in search of medical therapy, this clearly was not the case. Indeed, the organization NICAP (see link in margin) received serious attention, and UFO researchers Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallee were afforded thoughtful attention, along with recent UFO cases.


Actually, as a result of some amazing UFO activity in the sixties, a number of prominent journals and magazines offered readers a treasure trove of interesting articles (of course, many others did not) about the UFO phenomenon, and it's a shame that the trend failed to continue in such depth among popular publications of the current day. How many medical journals or newspapers would dare feature a credible, "pro" article regarding UFOs today?

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Before News Crumbles to Dust











Printer and journalist John Peter Zenger surely thought the printing press would forever be the information organ of choice and necessity back in his time, but I wonder if he ever contemplated the future limitations of any words put to paper.
For instance, take newspaper clippings. Better yet, take my newspaper clippings. They only go back to the early sixties, stored securely in plastic bags -- yet, the oldest have become annoyingly yellowed, brittle and flaky. And there are so many. If removed from the bags and stacked flat on the floor, they would easily surpass two feet in height. The earliest clippings date back to 1964, literally a year dominated in UFO lore by the Socorro, New Mexico landed object and occupants reportedly witnessed by patrolman Lonnie Zamora.

Researchers in the UFO area (please don't, ever, refer to us as "UFO experts," truly a meaningless and silly term used primarily by the media, worthy only to be shunned by those who take their work seriously) were often encouraged over the years to donate their life's collection of valuable historical news clippings to this organization or that. The jewel in all of this is the fact that individual researchers' collections also tend to contain local and regional stories that national archives wouldn't even know about. Trouble is, some of the organizations themselves tend to go belly up, and storage for those left to clean up the mess is tough, if not impossible.

Enter the computer and scanner. I just finished a months-long chore of putting hundreds of old LP records and 45s into digital format, and I scanned as much album information as I could manage. The project achieved far more success than anticipated, but if I never again have the need to convert vinyl to digital in an overwhelmingly boring process, that's fine with me. But now, the news clipping dilemma. As surely as the sun will rise tomorrow and influence climate change far more than anything Al Gore can summon up in a speech, my old clippings are disintegrating like vampires into dust.

So the "fun" has begun, I'm off and running with this newest computer project, and I hate every minute of it. Newspaper articles have to fit properly for the scan, and if some columns extend too far they must be cut or moved to another page or resized in some manner. Folded clippings decades old have no desire to sacrifice now-permanent creases in order to look pretty and usable for the scanner, thus the daily battle is on as I try everything except ironing them into flaming newsprint.

Someday, I'll take the digital sum total and donate the neatly performed scans to libraries, historical associations and universities, if they'll have them. This is important stuff. History, at the very least, and evidence of science yet unknown, at the very most.

I think. . .I think I'll reference some of the older things in this blog now and then. I can't reproduce actual scans of clippings here because of copyrights and permission I have tried to obtain and was firmly denied -- but I can discuss them. We'll see where this goes.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Will It Be Gold Fusion?


Is cold as good as gold? If (if. . .if. . .if. . .) the science defined in last Sunday's "60 Minutes" (CBS-TV) program holds true, cold fusion is real and endowed with immense potential for "free" energy. Unfortunately, the two scientists originally credited with a successful cold fusion experiment years ago were vilified by fellow scientists who found the chore unreproducible, but renewed laboratory conquests accomplished by others may transform them into heroes for our time -- and their detractors into irrelevant wisps of hypocrisy and huffy pomposity.


There also might be a lesson in all of this for members of the scientific community who continue to deny the UFO phenomenon and either condemn or obstruct further research by their fellows. In the meantime, may I suggest:


Cold infusion: The process by which numerous scientific minds coagulate into an icy aggregate of doubt following the introduction of an unwelcome thought.


Hypothesopreposterous: The description of a theory held beneath contempt by the proper scientific community because. . .um. . .because, after all, they are the proper scientific community and they can't be bothered to explore things that simply cannot or must not be.


Bonehead: Bonehead.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Whale of a Tale in Walesville?


Was a UFO directly or indirectly responsible for the crash of an F-94 fighter jet in Walesville, NY in July of 1954 -- a crash resulting in the deaths of several people? Did the pilot and his radar observer bail out just prior to the ditching because a UFO somehow caused intense heat in the cockpit? Could another UFO have been present, but uninvolved with the main incident?


Maybe the details aren't quite what UFO literature has echoed and reaffirmed for the last 55 years, at least according to the evidence as outlined by researcher Kevin Randle. As a New York resident, I've often quoted the Walesville incident recorded in books by Donald Keyhoe and others in the past myself, but Randle's fresh look at the evidence and time line reminds us that one can never be too cautious, particularly when older cases are involved.


Still, Randle does encounter disagreement on his blog, as questions are raised by at least one reader. Whatever one's opinion, Kevin Randle's blog entry entitled, "Walesville UFO Jet Chase" is worth your time (see the link to his site in the margin).

Friday, March 13, 2009

Return to Newfield



The Newfield and Ithaca, NY areas played a major role in one of my earliest blog entries. You may recall that, as a teenage UFO researcher in the mid-sixties, I not only became aware of alleged UFO activity in those areas, but was also contacted by and remained in touch with an Air Force intelligence officer who came to town and maintained (in my opinion) a peculiar interest in both the sightings and some apparently dishonest civilian "investigators." Things became even stranger when representatives of the Colorado University UFO study apparently snuck into town, hoping, unsuccessfully it seems, to stay out of the publicity spotlight. When all was said and done, I was left with few answers and enduring confusion.

In the years since, from time to time I learned of other Newfield/Ithaca mid-sixties UFO activity, and I know there are other stories out there yet to be told, though most will never surface merely because of time's passage. I don't know what to think, previously or now.
A few days ago, however, I received a very interesting personal account of some unusual occurrences involving a man named Mark, who was then a teenager in 1960s/1970s Newfield, and he kindly allows me now to share his experiences with you below. If UFO events are involved here, the experiences seem almost peripheral to everything else -- nevertheless, as we have seen time and again, the literature is not unfamiliar with accounts of UFO sightings which seem related to other phenomena. What does it all mean? Again, I don't know. As the title of a song by The Moody Blues suggested years ago, "Isn't Life Strange?" Mark's account (I seem to hear from a lot of people named Mark. . .), intact except for a minor edit I made here and there, is as follows, and I thank him profoundly for sharing a little more of Newfield's strange history with us than we previously knew:


"I was born in 1963 in Ithaca, NY. My father was VP for a large national insurance company, and was a retired restaurateur who operated several Home Dairy Co Cafeterias in Rochester and Olean, NY in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. My mother was a cook and bookkeeper for the family restaurant during those years and was a homemaker when I was born. We lived on Ridgecrest Road in Ithaca when I was born. At six months of age my parents, my sister Pam and sister Susan and my brother Bob moved into a new home at 1005 Hector Street with my mother’s mother, Mama Ruthie. This house was, according to my sisters, 'haunted,' and my father believed that a construction worker was either badly injured or died at the site when the house was being built, but I never researched his claim – although Dad did know the contractor, so there must be a grain of truth in that story (Dad was pretty much pragmatic in his views).

"We lived there from 1963 until 1968, when my father lost his construction business investments and we lost our home. My folks purchased a large old farmhouse on Route 13 (3087 Elmira Road), close to the Tompkins County line in Ponie Hollow, a hamlet of Newfield, NY. My sisters, in the meantime, had married and moved out on their own by 1967. My brother was 10 years older then myself – he and my grandmother and parents moved into the old farmhouse in the early spring of 1968.

"My first experience with the 'unusual,' that I can remember, was at a very young age, about four or five years old. I could 'hear' what others were going to say before they spoke and would tell them; it was like a game to me, I thought it was fun. My mother was not sure what to make of it and my father said others were just playing along…in preschool I was teased because I made other kids cry – not intending to, it really upset me and I thought I was doing something wrong, so I kept these 'incidents' to myself. I also could see 'things' that others could not see, and used vocabulary I was unfamiliar with, and thought it was 'funny' – as I don’t think I understood what was going on. And I still am not certain I ever will.

"There were photos taken at Christmas in the mid-60s where there are colored streamers all over the photos of me, and they appeared on the negatives as well, although others taken at the same time were fine…my mother has looked for these for years and cannot find them… as of yet – but I am certain they are among her things. When we moved into our home in Newfield I thought it was 'noisy' and I kept seeing people that appeared like hazy images, and they talked to me, but their mouths never moved. I learned things from them, like in the barn a man died and he did not like kids, so I should not go in there alone. Also would tell me things like when my mom would pull up to the house, etc. I don’t recall now what these spirits or ghosts were saying, and I don’t think I fully understood at the time it was occurring, either – I just knew these things and associated them with the images I’d see. My grandmother would later tell me that she would 'test' me and tell me things from her childhood and mix the story up, and I would tell her that it didn’t happen that way, and would tell her in detail what happened.

"She said she had a great aunt, Auntie Shelton, who was a wealthy secretary who worked for some time for the senior J.P. Morgan in NY City and lived on Madison Avenue for years. She was a collector of ancient and antique objects, and was very interested in metaphysics – she would read tea leaves and read cards for Wall Street business contacts for the Morgan firm, and for the senior Morgan himself. She told me that intuitiveness ran in the family, and that I was special.

"She was always very supportive of me, and was also my first piano teacher when I was six years old. At the age of four I began to play piano, and by the age of six I was picking out pieces by ear. By twelve I was playing by memory and also by ear…I would 'compose' most of the music all of the time…I heard it in my head – like a radio, but in perfect pitch, and not like regular 'music,' but much more beautiful, like many choirs composed of beautiful sounds; I still have this ability and play regularly.

"The most significant instance was a 'dream' I had, more like a vision…I viewed myself and my family traveling to NY City to see my sister Susan, and her family, about 1972, and I saw us leaving on a sunny morning, and that a storm would come out of nowhere, and the rain would force Dad to get off the Thruway and we would go to a gas station and then drive down an alley where he would park, near a restaurant that backed onto the alley, and there would be a large woman behind a long bar as we entered the restaurant, and she’d be the only one in the place when we got there. I later told my mother in detail…she listened and told me to forget about it and go play. According to her, it was later that summer we took a trip to NY City to see my sister and family, and this vision I had occurred in detail exactly like I had described…I also narrated what would happen along the way, to my father’s dislike…it made him very uneasy…this was only one of many instances I experienced as a child and young boy.

"I loved to hike in the local woods and explore the two local creeks, one was a gorge behind our home…and also liked to explore around the old foundations of homes that were long ago abandoned in the 1800s…I collected old bottles and artifacts like arrowheads…animals such as deer and rabbits, and squirrels and once a raccoon, and birds as well, would come to me and let me pet them or touch them…I loved the outdoors more then anything. I also would see the 'tree people' as I called them. They were tall human-like figures that were like shadows and blended into the trees and foliage as I walked in the forest, I knew they were not harmful, and sort of watched over the forest and animals…and me. There were other nature 'spirits' that I familiarized myself with.

"In about 1969 or 1970 my father would invite friends from church and work out to the house to watch the evening and night 'lights' in the sky…these small brilliant lights usually began with one light in the sky, and then two to three would appear and were a bright white or sometimes were orange/red in color…he could not explain it, and neighbors just ignored it mostly…he never could figure that out, but said most were probably not educated in flight or flying, and that he was once a pilot for the Army Air Force in WWII and then for Curtis-Wright as a test pilot following the war. He had friends out to see these lights to try to figure them out. No one ever did.

"Then one evening my brother and I were in the driveway, I was riding my bike and had stopped to see what he was looking at over the hill in front of our home…then all of the sudden this ball of light came toward us very rapidly He later said he thought it was a ball of lightning, but as it came overhead it slowed down nearly to a stop and there was no heat, or sound – but it left over our heads so fast we did not see until it was over the back hill – instantly over the back hill (in the back of the house), and it grew in brightness and size and disappeared over the hill…near one of the old foundations I used to explore.
"My brother was more shaken then myself, and went and got my father’s .22 rifle and we hiked up the hill in the middle of the night, but we did not see or hear anything unusual, other then darkness and a quietness that seemed to fill the woods; we did not venture into the valley between the hills where a creek ran beyond the old dirt road.

"Many times we heard strange sounds at night on the roof, and one night we heard what sounded like our cat - at first - walking on the old tin roof over the kitchen. We were in my brother’s bedroom which had two windows that faced the back yard and hill, and was above the tin roof. It got so loud it scared us, and my brother went to the window to see, and there was nothing there…we could not account for the loud and menacing thuds on the roof… we would also see lights in the field behind the house at night, like search lights from the sky, but they appeared out of nowhere…this was all before 1973.
"Then, about 1975, when I was 12, I would drive my mother’s old Plymouth around the perimeter of the back field – to the consternation of the farmer who owned it. One late evening, about a half-hour after dark in the summer, the car stalled in the very back of the field at the foot of the middle hill (as we called it)…I could not start the car, and was afraid my dad would get mad at me for driving the car past dark…I remember like yesterday – in between cranks, I noticed that it was dead silent outside, and that was something I had seldom experienced before that. I looked up through the windshield, and could see what looked like a bunch of small lights in the night sky…I opened the door and got out and looked up and it took and minute to focus, and then I saw the outline of a huge aircraft of some kind, it was slightly lighter then the night sky, but was dark and had a shimmer to it, and literally took up the entire sky over me and the hill as far as I could see…there were all these lights of different sizes and colors inside this thing, and I could make out images, but they were very shadow-like, and then I started feeling a tingling feeling, like goose-bumps all over myself…then my hair felt like it was standing on end…I ran home as fast as I could…and kept saying to myself in silence, 'I want to go home, please let me get home…'

"I ran into the house and grabbed my mom and got her to go outside, onto the back porch …it was gone, but she remarked about the silence and stillness in the air, and just about the same time she said the fields came alive with the sound of crickets and then a wind came up and then died down fairly quick…she walked out to the car with me and it started right up…she rode home with me…I never drove the car around the perimeter after that.

"My father took a position in Los Angeles in the late spring of 1977, and called home to tell my mother that she was to put the house up for sale, and pack up…we had to be in Los Angeles by September. My father flew home in late August to sign the papers for the 'new' owners – the descendent of the man who built the house about 1830 was the fellow who bought the place. The house had an artesian spring that ran through the basement from the side of one of the stone walls down to the floor and across about ½ the floor to a hole in the floor that was no larger than a half-dollar…my father had a friend from Cornell come and look at it in about 1969 or 1970 and he said it was nothing to be worried about as far as stability, especially since the house had been there for so long…but he ascertained it was about 40-50 feet deep and then opened up to a large underground aquifer of some kind.

"We had many experiences in that house with cupboards being emptied of contents at night. Usually our folks blamed it on us as playing a joke…not so. And only once did we hear noise coming from the kitchen while we were upstairs – we could hear and see through the register in the floor, so we looked down to see if we could see anything, but couldn’t -- and by the time we got downstairs all the cupboards had their doors opened, even the ones down low.

"After Dad finalized the sale, he was talking to our neighbor, an elderly man about 75 who was like a grandpa to me for many years. He told Dad that his uncle or great-uncle had been killed in the barn…the story went something like…the fellow was in the hayloft and had sent down the rope with the hay hook and his brother downstairs yelled to take it up and the hook slipped and went right through his neck and into his head and killed him…he died in the barn…as a kid he hated to go into the barn as everyone thought it was haunted! I was so surprised, as this old man never told me anything about the barn, just that he was not too fond of it…that was all he ever said to me…and I never told anyone about my experience regarding the barn years before, and my general dislike of the place.

"Years ago, after we moved to California, my mother gave me a magazine – I have it someplace -- that reports on a sighting or crash near where we lived in Newfield, and the local “witch,” 'Pud' was her name, apparently had an experience with the incident…my mother kept it because they knew her from before the time when I was born, and according to Mother, 'Pud' left her husband and family and moved to the country and ran a tavern which I think was called the Seabring Inn at the time…my folks knew her before the divorce, etc. 'Pud' even wrote columns for the Newfield News for a time in the 1970s – I remember seeing them, as my mom would read them, usually they were about gardening and such things.

"California was a culture shock to a 14-year-old, but I adjusted…and pursued my music and artistic interests, as well as receiving a bachelor of science degree eventually. I am now retired and live with my wife, who is a nurse and instructor at a local college, and three of our five children, my elderly mother -- and my sister, Pam who lost her husband last January – five cats, two dogs, two birds, a snake called Hiss and a gecko! I am currently working on a book project and composing music for the piano, and doing some local performances/benefits. I collect books and have restored two collector cars from the 1950s."

Friday, March 6, 2009

"Here's A Strange"



Famed radio commentator Paul Harvey died a few days ago at age 90. I'm not sure it would have been a surprise, had he signed off earlier at age 80, 70, 50 or 32 1/2. Did the late Coral Lorenzen not warn me after her husband Jim's death that when a spouse dies the other often follows soon thereafter (as did she)? Harvey's wife passed on last year, so Coral's advice waxed impeccable.
Paul Harvey turned out his folksy radio news shtick for decades. Those daily nationally broadcast sessions offered his faithful audience a thumbnail of current events, from the serious to the silly. Some of his material exuded the odor of absurd tabloid stuff, probably intended to keep us listening, while other items were obviously reported solely because he wished to add his personal editorial comments. Harvey transported to our current day the voice and inflections of radio's golden era, a time never to be heard again, served up with a cacophony of bad news, good news, funny news and just news news. One thinks of Walter Winchell and Jimmy Fiddler and Hedda Hopper and a bevy of other radio voices preceding them whose familiar talents built the radio broadcast industry word by word, tear by tear, laugh by laugh.
Yes, Harvey also pitched some questionables over the years, and his familiar commercials for eyesight enhancements and health supplements irritated some in the medical field (for instance, Dr. Dean Edell, "America's doctor" of the radio, who occasionally refers to Paul Harvey sarcastically as "Dr. Harvey"), but hawking such products seems always to have been the norm for national radio broadcasts, especially back in the early days of radio soaps.
I wouldn't be gushing so about Paul Harvey, were it not for his ability to at least report about the weird things, the borderline probability of seemingly wild improbables. One can just imagine the hush settling momentarily over his national audience, every time he turned an adjective into a noun and alerted his listeners of something different with three little words out of place enough to give us a little chill: "Here's a strange."
Often, that "strange" involved a UFO sighting, and long after the radio days of Frank Edwards and Long John Nebel, Paul Harvey remained as a national daytime radio voice to bother with such matters, considered too obscure, crazy or beneath them by other daylight radio hosts with a long reach.
By now, some of you surely believe that the only UFO incident I care about is the alleged Hickson-Parker abduction. This is not true, but the incident does matter in the flow of things. Paul Harvey and his people recognized its importance, too, because soon after Natalie Chambers of the Associated Press revealed to the world a few years ago the names of new witnesses who quite possibly watched the large UFO swoop down where the two men were fishing, Paul Harvey repeated the story.
On a Friday broadcast, he tipped listeners off, inviting them back the next day for his Saturday session, and when Saturday's 15-minute broadcast hit the nation he spent much of it recounting the Hickson-Parker saga, discussing its new former Navy witness who came forward with even more names of those who watched an absolutely bizarre craft cruising low in the sky, descending near the Pascagoula River at the same approximate time as the abduction.
Harvey told the story, plain and direct, conjuring no laugh factor because there was no laugh factor. Like the title of Paul Harvey's other popular national radio show, the Hickson-Parker update was indeed "the rest of the story," and we hope that the additional credibility and attention paper-clipped to Chambers' report by Harvey endures, along with his broadcast legacy.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Terror From the Skies! Conglomerate Radio Airwaves on the Attack! (Part Two)



WSYR's (Syracuse) talk show host Jim Reith doesn't care what listeners think of him, as long as they keep listening. Those are his words, not mine. It's all entertainment, newsy tidbits and discussion -- playtime with additives, in essence. But WSYR and Clear Channel Communications need that precious audience to stay tuned in, to be mesmerized by the cavalcade of profitable commercials creeping in often enough to fracture and fragment whatever few minutes of interesting content may turn up on the JR show. Guests and callers can't be rushed off fast enough so those valuable breaks can be inserted into the show.

(My most hated favorites, incidentally, are commercials utilizing ringing phones or screams in the background -- brainless, effortless advertising ploys which obviously serve to keep one's attention and annoyance level high. Nothing reveals lazy marketing or a sponsor who disrespects its audience more than commercials infested with ringing phones or other sound pollution. Products able to stand on their own merits require minimal sound-effect enhancement. As I write this paragraph prior to Valentine's Day, I'm witness to a simple, non-offensive Clear Channel network commercial selling "the one product guaranteed to get women to take their clothes off," and I'm pondering, well, it must be itching powder, but I am wrong. It's mail-order pajamas. At least they weren't selling their product with phony phone rings.)

Reith himself, in all fairness, is exceptional in many ways. He's a good interviewer, politically and historically astute, and his technical Navy background easily portrays high intelligence. He generally treats his guests pleasantly, and good-naturedly takes to task people and issues raising his interest, and is firm both when necessary and unnecessary. He loves his family, works his back off for the community and provides so much assistance to local charities that one truly wonders how they would survive without his involvement. He enjoys a loyal following.

Unfortunately, there's still that smarmy debunking thing. A golden rule of debunking dictates that if one can't confront or argue away the evidence, the next step is to attack the messenger. Therefore, when Jim Reith responds by childishly calling me names instead of confronting UFO evidence, he fits nicely into tried-and-true expectations. Why else would he take off on me, a total stranger whose only wish was to inform him?

Additionally, I suspect that Reith's profound religious views prohibit him from wandering too far outside the box of religious doctrine, so I may have been the subject of his venom based primarily upon faith. He regularly professes his Catholic lifestyle, so it's not as if I'm unfairly dragging something out here that doesn't apply. Listeners are often fed a diet of guests motivated by religion-based activities, so I presume the faithful are a predominantly sought-out audience. Nevertheless, the fact that the Vatican's own chief astronomer recently opened the door a bit further by stating that extraterrestrial life -- aliens -- may actually exist throughout the universe should cause him to question his views. Then, of course, there are Church officials such as Monsignor C. Balducci, with close Vatican ties, who has expressed some very intriguing views about the UFO issue.

Also, when Reith proudly invokes the name of an infamous "skeptic," such as The Amazing Randi on his program, I raise an eyebrow because his familiarity with "Amazing's" uncomplimentary comments about organized religion is obviously lacking. I know it's Reith's program, but if one's religious doctrine prevents a panoramic view of the issues, then a real disservice is done to inquiring commercial radio listeners, should information be excluded based solely upon a radio host's intellectual or dogmatic hissy-fit. Or maybe in being so critical I'm just losing my Reith-ligion.

One might also find Reith's profound dislike of psychics interesting, if not almost slapstick in its effects. He routinely condemns psychics (again, his religious values probably enter into this -- though, I must say, if one believes that Jesus rose from the dead, then it appears almost anything goes!) and many of them certainly deserve his brickbats. You must understand, he absolutely refuses to invite these despised psychics on his show, though his colleagues did so in the past and, for better or worse, achieved phenomenal listener interest (Note: Curiously, there may have been a furor caused by local religious leaders, sponsors and/or management hoping to avoid The Pit, because WSYR-AM hasn't featured a psychic in recent times, and keep in mind that religious beliefs routinely control a lot of hearts, minds, decisions and spending in Central NY).

Imagine the comedy induced, then, from a situation that occurred when Reith went on vacation some time back, and one of his guest hosts that week was local WSTM-TV (not owned by Clear Channel) news anchor Kevin Schenk. Schenk temporarily took the reins and invited a popular psychic on the show to take calls and tell listeners their futures. As expected, the radio audience went wild, and I suspect the phone lines to Reith's studio were jammed to the hilt. After all, say what you will, but a lot of folks love their psychics.

When Reith returned from vacation, he sounded calm, yet incredulous, about the psychic affair tainting his show. It was as if he wanted to soak the entire studio phone system in bleach or something caustic to obliterate the stench of psychic advice. How dare anybody invite psychic filth into his time slot?

But there's more. Reith, who tries diligently to line up a succession of -- suitable -- guest hosts when he goes away, experienced yet another embarrassment while he and the family slipped away for a few days of relaxation. One of his guest hosts was Stephanie Miner, a member of Syracuse city government, accompanied by a colleague. This time, however, Reith might have been better off with a psychic on the show, for Ms. Miner took the opportunity over several hours to make numerous unkind and humorously dismissive comments about Reith himself, effectively enraging him upon his return. Reith must have been furious. You could tell, not only because he harped upon the incident for days of broadcasts thereafter, but also because -- even to this day -- he frequently throws out little barbs and digs about her. Whether his on-air criticisms seem on the mark or not, you just know that he harbors a grudge because she brilliantly skewered him on his own show while he was absent from his post. Hmm. . .maybe now he knows what it feels like, though she didn't resort or lower herself to the juvenile name-calling behavior that Reith prefers in my case.

But now, like something from a TV sitcom script, there are further developments. It seems that Ms. Miner intends to run for mayor of Syracuse. This not entirely unexpected event causes Reith to remind his listeners he has submitted over 50 requests for Ms. Miner to guest on his show, and this would be since the infamous hosting gig which he no longer (wisely) references whatsoever, yet she refuses. My question would be, why in the world would she make herself available to JR? Why would she have a need to experience his barbs in person, having effectively dealt with him previously while dominating his own microphone? If elected mayor, perhaps she will present Reith with the key -- not to, but out of the city, though he, somewhat with tongue in cheek, suggests he'll move away anyway if she is elected.

Although the Schenk and Miner-hosted shows are arguably the most memorable of the Reith series to date, to be fair I should mention that the program's occasional encounters with celebrity can provide a rare moment of interest. Last year, singer Robert Goulet visited Syracuse to perform at a benefit, and he stopped by the studio. Goulet, blessed with the best first name in the world and famous both for his performance in Broadway's Camelot with Richard Burton and Julie Andrews, and for his rendition of the song, Old Cape Cod, performed a great service for radio disc jockeys across the nation in 1965 when his booming hit single, Summer Sounds, saw release. No longer did AM radio need to rely upon such seasonal favorites as the Jamies' fifties hit, Summertime, Summertime, or Connie Francis' Vacation to kick off the summer season every year. Goulet, gracious and bright, a shining star and icon for a fading golden musical era, shared a few valuable minutes with Reith and his listeners but, tragically, became gravely ill a few days after departing Syracuse and died.

Now and then, Jim Reith reminds his audience that the program is called "The Jim Reith Show," and, as he recently pointed out, his is a talk show and not a call-in show. I presume that answering phone calls is rather a favor to the caller, not an obligation, so I really don't know why callers even bother, particularly knowing that they have to go through his producer to be screened before having their say (I'll say one thing for Art Bell, he didn't rely on call screeners). And make no mistake, JR always has the last word, whether the caller is allowed five seconds or two minutes on the air, and whether the caller is as dumb as a box of woofers and tweeters, or smarter than the host (people wishing to argue a point often find themselves quickly abolished from the phone connection). After all, whose show is it?

Everything I remember about ingredients that made talk radio fun in Central New York once upon a time has been surgically extracted for the Reith show. Frankly, newer listeners of local talk radio don't know what they're missing. The only person who might find the show thoroughly enjoyable might be President Obama because, if little else, this program is certainly "shovel-ready." Why do I continue to listen in when I can? Because I have faith -- faith in the teeny-tiny possibility that one day, indeed, I'll turn the radio on and find the Reith show gone, a victim of audience ratings, replaced by the melodious sounds of cows belching, cats meowing or dogs barking (my personal preference would be ducks quacking). And many amongst the contemporary, though hardly discriminating, audience will continue listening and loving every moment, blissfully unaware of the program changes.

My most recent non-phone call encounter with Reith's show occurred last May. While he pursued a rant about how people should discuss issues and not resort to name-calling, I e-mailed him, reminding him that name-calling was exactly the approach he took with me in 2006. Predictably, he took off on me over the airwaves with his ridiculing stance and referenced the parts of my e-mail that suited him. He has a talent, you see. You may ask, by calling Reith a debunker am I not name-calling? Yes I am, because he is a debunker, and an obvious one at that, at least when it comes down to the UFO issue. To debunk something generally means to expose a sham or falsehood, but as a succession of people who "explain away" various things based solely upon their lack of knowledge surface more and more, the word "debunker" carries an alternate definition of its own. During that particular show, incidentally, he blurted over the airwaves, as if in a snit, that if I didn't like him mentioning me on the radio, he would nevermore, and this declaration was followed by the sounds of, presumably, my e-mail printout being crumpled up and thrown away. So, the barn door was thus locked -- but I, the obedient horse, the designated consummate whack job with an ethical stance, remained outside of the barn, freezing in the cold chill of icy broadcast airwaves.

As I write this in February of 2009, Reith has begun lecturing his audience about the rarity of civility, particularly bemoaning an incident in which his producer just took a call from a woman who referred to JR twice as an "MF." (ask any military drill instructor what that means, if you don't know). Shocking! Maybe he would have felt infinitely more civil about things, had she called him a WJ, an NB or a WN.

Every few days, Jim Reith still manages to throw in a comment about "aliens," and equates the subject with ghosts, Bigfoot and -- psychics. Just last July, WSYR was running commercials for "California Psychics," even as Reith periodically condemned psychics on his show. Then, one afternoon, when I almost fell out of my chair in astonishment, a paid-for "California Psychics" commercial landed squarely, point-blank, center stage upon a local -- not network-fed -- advertising minute of "The Jim Reith Show" itself, barely two days after his last psychic-driven negative comment. Priceless!

And then I understood everything, as clear as a bell chiming spine-chillingly in the midnight hour, and I could almost see a copy of the book, Animal Farm, held high by the non-existent ghost of George Orwell, not standing in the afternoon mist, unable to mouth the words because appearing before me as a ghost would have been impossible, so I was forced to read the ghostly lips invisible before me: "All psychics are created equal, except some psychics -- the ones who pay the bills on the Reith show and go without criticism by name -- are created more equal than others." And then I wondered how many of his listeners who could least afford it had rushed off to dial up those affable West Coast psychics right there and then, maybe sacrificing milk for a baby -- or, worse, forgetting to take a baby out of the car on a hot July day, or absent-mindedly leaving an infant alone in the yard, certain to be devoured by hungry coyotes -- in order to purchase and relish a few minutes of psychic California consultation, audio-intravenously pushed on the Reith show.

The only occasions when Reith elicits anything resembling an audible chuckle from me occur when he vows a willingness to spend a night in an alleged haunted house -- if he can bring a shotgun along to obliterate anything making strange noises in the darkness. That's funny stuff! But, my advice? Leave the shotgun behind. Next time psychics advertise on the show --"and, after all, why wouldn't they?" to quote a favorite question posed by Reith in a variety of circumstances -- Reith should just invite one to the haunted house, and let that psychic sleuth locate and make friends with the ghost(s) on his behalf. Depending upon whom becomes the next mayor of Syracuse, Reith might just find relocation to a haunted house outside of the city limits preferable. Yes, he may have to put up with a little ectoplasm and incoherent moaning in the night, but so what? Worse things have been known to materialize from the ethers. I should know, I've heard them on the radio.

Terror From the Skies! Conglomerate Radio Airwaves on the Attack! (Part One)















It's always something. Usually it's dust bunnies under the bed or rancid food in the refrigerator, if not vice versa, but there is another rather encrusted matter attached to the faint taste of sour grapes I failed to clean up before 2008 ended. I think I remembered the importance of addressing this one day while listening to the musical nostalgia of some old Alberta Hunter, Barry Manilow and Cannibal Corpse.
Pick any town in the USA, and radio stations are broadcasting words or musc right now, a deceivingly intimate process intended on the surface for your ears only. They're always there when you need them, and always available when you don't. They're your friends, your time-fillers, your educators, your guilty pleasures, or perhaps mere curiosities. Or maybe they just make you as mad as hell. However you interpret their offerings, they must first sell themselves to you and gain your attention and trust before almost hypnotically easing you into buying their sponsors' products. In the jungle, I believe it's called going in for the kill. Decades ago, as now, that's the way of the broadcast industry. In the future, as a significant percentage of "radio" goes digital or takes up residence on the Internet, and giant broadcast towers blanketing the countryside come crashing down, devoured by the sad rust of obsolescence, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of international listening choices will become as commonplace as mosquitos on a damp August night. Well, if Yellowstone doesn't blow before the next Ice Age arrives, but that's another story. . .and pardon me for leaving out global warming, a vastly inadequate designation for controversial and frequently unpredictable manifestations whose proponents apparently worked a little sleight of hand and now call climate change in order to satisfy every half-baked, ever-changing theory -- and, still, the list of ignored international scientists opposing global warming's causes and/or "facts" continues to grow (I merely want the evidence on all sides reviewed fairly, via the mind and not the heart).

What follows are my own thoughts about contemporary broadcast imagery and the future, some conjured out of little, while others hold more substance. It's how I see it. In a roundabout way this concerns freedoms, ecology and consequence, and in a more specific manner highlights power and UFO debunkers -- yes, debunkers, not skeptics. Skeptics have room to consider more pieces of whatever they're skeptical about, while debunkers' minds are full-up like a fleabag hotel, unable and unwilling to accept even one more irritating walk-in thought. Funny thing, though, debunkers often think of themselves as skeptics. Could be that debunkers even exist on your local broadcast airwaves.

A cautionary note: In no way is this a call for the FCC or any government agency to silence or impede local or national talk radio. I feel that an abundance of broadcast alternatives exist to assure the airing of every point of view, and the day when government gains even more control over airwave content will be the day we need to reaffirm our faith in the First Amendment. Beware always the politics of intervention, and keep close watch on special interests tugging at the heels of Congress and the FCC -- whether the focus is broadcasting or the Internet.
An additional observation: With unemployment soaring in the United States, surely it hasn't been lost upon politicians that many more listeners have tuned in to talk radio at all levels because they have time on their hands, and they now receive information previously unknown to them. Those in government who actually believe a reincarnation of the "Fairness Doctrine" under a pretty new name or approach will soar high enough to clear or even bend the First Amendment just a tad need a reality check.

Today's focus hovers over Central New York and the Syracuse area. Syracuse, as you may know, is nationally noted mostlly for snow, ice, cold and associated misery. Central NY, whose residents have fled in droves over the years in search of warmer climates and employment opportunities, nevertheless clings to anything worth boasting about. For instance, family members related to the famous Baldwin brothers reside here. The four Baldwin brothers, all veteran TV and motion picture performers, are named Alec, William, Daniel and Stephen, even when listed alphabetically. I think Adam Baldwin is the best actor of the lot, but. . .hmm. . .wait a minute. . .one, two, three, four. . .well, looks like he isn't one of the brothers after all because there should only be four. Sorry about that. Moving right along. . .
So, once upon a time the broadcast conglomerate known as Clear Channel Communications breezed into Syracuse, NY and bought up the two strongest-signal AM radio stations in town (WSYR and WHEN), and then gobbled up and/or created another, what was it, four FM stations? Maybe not quite in that order, I don't know. For good measure, they also bought the local ABC television affiliate (since sold), WIXT. But CCC wanted everybody to know who was king of media mountain, so they changed the call letters of WIXT to WSYR-TV, thus providing the TV station the same identity as proud and historic WSYR radio, one of the two AM stations purchased (WSYR had also once been the call letters of Syracuse's original NBC-TV affiliate, until changed in later years to WSTM-TV). None of this was particularly unusual, for Clear Channel has a reputation of moving from community to community and buying up as much broadcast real estate as it can get, in much the same way that corporate funeral entities go into communities, purchasing local funeral homes in order to revitalize the dead and make them profitable. Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio, don't you know?

Once established and placed under local control, the Clear Channel network wasted no time in attempting – successfully – to capture and maintain audience attention. How could they not? In possession of such a large chunk of Central New York airwaves, CCC could simply have broadcast the sounds of dogs barking or cows belching 24 hours a day, still claiming a substantial listener pool. This is not to denigrate the obvious talent of their on-air personalities, many of whom have worked in local broadcasting for years, but the point is that when so many radio channels blast forth under the auspices of CCC it’s hard to ignore them. In a nation of “sheeple,” I’m betting that the mere sounds of flies buzzing 24/7 would enthrall and inspire throngs of listeners. “Hey Josh,” fictional listener Bart might say to his friend in a fictional situation, while making endless adjustments to constantly changing technological gimmicks stuck in his ears, “have you heard the new programming on WHEN? It’s so un-be-LEEV-able! They're playing nothing but the sounds of ping-pong balls bouncing around all day and all night -- and it’s great on the pod!” By the way, fictional Bart and Josh would soon meet their demise, mercifully, because with Bart's sound-blasting ear buds stuffed in his auditory canals, as Josh texts away on a portable device, each oblivious to his surroundings, they wouldn’t notice the gang of murderous thugs sneaking up on them as they cross a Syracuse street. But I digress. . .

Well, anyway, the thing about Clear Channel Syracuse is its remarkable ability to grow public relations tentacles, like some weird Hydra whose multiple heads reach into every aspect of Central NY life. This friendly, neighborly approach in recent years has helped them become enthusiastically involved as cheerleaders for and with local educational institutions, developers, sports and entertainment ventures, corporations, businesses and public servants. There’s nothing illegal about any of this, mind you, and it's actually a brilliantly strategic maneuver, but to me it’s just creepy and disturbing that a conglomerate broadcast institution affiliate can enter into such close kissy-kissy relationships with local non-broadcast entities to, literally, help engineer changes and the face of a community. It's rather a dilemma for me, because I would almost live and die for First Amendment rights displayed to the max. (and in no way do I wish to see a return of the "Fairness Doctrine," truly a weapon of evil) -- yet, there are times when I wonder if broadcast antennae should be covered with some kind of protective latex devices to deter the seepage of unintended or undue corporate influence, purposefully or accidentally mixed with the anticipated glamour and power of the spoken word.

I know, I know, it’s all in the public interest, keeping that broadcast license spotless as everybody’s good neighbor -- in the line of good-deed doers, as referenced by the Wizard of Oz when he couldn’t pronounce the word, philanthropists. So some interests love Clear Channel and its detractors don’t. Big deal, who cares?. But who owns Central NY now, and what relationships actually dictate its future? These are matters for others with the wisdom and authority to contemplate as the dice are tossed, while anonymous puppet masters equipped with strings aplenty make the scene.

Green, greener, greenest. CCC Syracuse, like other companies, is now heavily into the "green" movement, that fashionable reach into a future where sources of energy and lifestyles shall rise anew in communities reborn. Many were writing about the "greenhouse effect" and touting alternative environmental science decades ago, but here comes CCC Syracuse and a host of other corporate shape-shifters, charging like bulls in a windmill shop, striving to appear as something brand new, trumpeting The New Green and embracing the businesses flaunting it. Strangely, my mind wanders for a moment to visions of garden slugs, emerging in the dark and damp, leaving a shiny trail of something worthy of a second look on every surface traversed as they venture forth. Really, what could be more natural and representative of The New Green than the common slug?.
There's nary an opposing green word, however, as developers and homebuilders advertise their wares on radio and TV and in newspapers to do what they must -- pave over and obliterate the truly green things. Computerized house after paved driveway after computerized house divided by blacktop streets aplenty. Decimated little by little, because it's not merely the city of Syracuse in developers' gun sights, are the forests, the fields, the farms and meadows of Central New York, in order to accommodate both the throngs and thugs amongst newcomers sought out by developers, politicians and their buddies, the "movers and shakers."

Growing up in Central New York, I was so fortunate to live near forests and farms, to experience an abundance of wildlife and real things of green. However, in later years development took off and the rare and refreshing places I once knew began to disappear, acre by acre. Mini-wetland areas, too small under state guidelines to be saved, yet nevertheless home to turtles more than a foot long and varieties of other animal life, were simply drained and bulldozed by the developers -- after all, if you drain the water, the wetland dilemma goes away like a bad headache for these folks.

What is it that we've always heard following the words, "that's progress?" Typically, "development is good for the tax base." True enough, in New York the tax base has always led a darned good life, until recently, and progress, well, that's what cancer does, it progresses. It oft seems that those who wish the best for their children are the ones who hold the power to accomplish the most damage for them in the long run, and legislative bodies incapable of the realization that some places should and must be left undisturbed are environmentally toxic in their own right because they just don't get it. Anything for job creation, anything for profit, nothing for the far distant future.

Few of the born-again-green probably realize the profound importance of those precious childhood occasions when elderly relatives or neighbors remarked, oh, how I wish you could have been here when I was your age -- the air smelled fresher, the blue sky was brighter, wild flowers were everywhere, the food tasted wonderful and you could walk for miles without seeing another person. We did not heed the obvious warnings. All we hear is that billions more people will be born on the planet and we have to prepare for them, but scarce indeed are the allegedly green voices suggesting that maybe we need to find a way, while still able, to find the least painful way to avoid billions more. The more who come, the less green there will be, and once economies improve we'll do what we always do -- attack and further trash our environment in a wild celebratory atmosphere, thrilled by a party atmosphere until we're even bigger, poised for a larger social crash. But that's progress. That's business. That's the color of agenda-green in the crayon box -- maybe the same box of crayons used to color your area.

Also on the way is the crime, pollution newly defined, and the tendency to make every place like every other place. Inexplicably, social refurbishing will likely be accomplished via more technological green than natural green, with children and adults therefore destined to romp in computerized madness and parks lacking the vitality of mystery and the unexplored, parks created badly out of what nature originally intended in its own green way. Meanwhile, few will regard the disappearance of wildlife that, oddly, can't conform to living without habitat.
Green, green, green it all up in a very special way to encourage even more human misery disguised as comfort, couch potato-esque activities of daily living and overpopulation. As a bonus, we may anticipate an increased proliferation of the most common-senseless, cheerless, genetically and environmentally impaired, clueless, neurotic, psychotic, dangerous and medicated -- if not merely defeated and lethargic -- human offspring imaginable. Should a community boast to the world an availability of a plentiful or "endless" supply of clean water and other natural resources? Not smart, not smart, just dangerous. In the long run, much will be about as ecologically green as artificial turf because nine out of 10 people attending a wake prefer the hue of a painted corpse. Make it real by making it unreal. Mold on the orange. Cancer on the lung. Unrestricted growth. That's progress. Too big to fail? No, just too big. One almost requires the implementation of a local chamber pot of commerce to accommodate whatever bad comes attached to the good things.

On a national and international level, maybe it's time to find a way to grow, but to become smaller simultaneously -- an idiotic contradiction in terms, but a world full of currently unemployed and unoccupied geniuses could surely go right to work on the concept. Well, that's my green environmental statement, and maybe some of this applies where you live, too.

(WARNING! WARNING! It occurs to me that my writings rave on like the Unabomber's manifesto, but in a more disjointed manner -- however, not to worry, society, the only explosives technology I knew about in military hospitals where I worked was explosive diarrhea, something that probably can't be effectively weaponized -- at least, not in the short term.)

Returning specifically to CCC Syracuse, there's something else besides cheerleading and greenification that they do well,. and that's hosting events to raise money for abused children and women, a truly compassionate activity. It is, as well, an enviable broadcast license renewal-enhancing virtue. Rather puzzling, nevertheless, is the obvious absence of likewise compassionate fund-raisers for agencies that could provide education and devices to help stop the flow of unwanted and eventually abused and abusive children and adults.
I wonder sometimes if certain occasions are all about some unseen, omnipresent organized religion component left over from tainted centuries past, still insistent upon encouraging the barefoot to stay pregnant and the endlessly multiplying to go forth -- or, in more currently fashionable terms, to champion every fertile woman's right or obligation to produce a litter of eight with the aid of fertility doctors now ripe for justifying their actions. I'm just saying. By the way, anybody notice the classic switcheroo reported in the news about new public contempt for fertility doctors (since the litter of eight electrified the media), of anger comparable to what some feel for abortion physicians? (March 2009 Update: New projections indicate that world population will double in 10 years, and at least a million people a year will attempt entry into the United States as a result of overpopulation and horrible living conditions -- yet, we sit on our hands and pray -- literally, for some -- for unlimited global childbirth.)

As 2008 ended, statistics reflected an increase in Syracuse murder rates. Surely, murder victims would have been far better off and alive, had their executioners never had an opportunity to establish roots in the uncaring womb. Still, if Big Radio in Central NY can't bring itself to support a woman's right to tend her own internal garden privately in conjunction with her doctor's guidance, at least it should be willing to vocally encourage research into 10, 25 or 50 brand new safe, easy and effective methods of birth control, thus catering to all listeners who enjoy or endure airwaves supposedly licensed in the public interest.

The Last Child in the Woods (by Richard Louv), a cautionary book warning of social ills as the truly natural resources disappear, artificial green notwithstanding, may not be a factor in the world of green aspirations for Central NY, nor may it blend well with the long-term goal of importing many more people into the area, consequently requiring substantially more human breed-room communities. Yet, Clear Channel Syracuse, a champion of growth, probably has God on its side because some efforts are obviously so interwoven with religious institutions. Interdenominational messages wend their way through every broadcast day on WSYR. Saturday Night Live's "Church Lady" might say, isn't that special? Yes, it is. With God on its side, a conglomerate can snake its way to the accomplishment of pretty much any self-stated goal couched in the interest of a community.

A few years ago, Clear Channel Syracuse decided to create an afternoon talk show of sorts on WSYR-AM, intended to occupy the important “drive time” hours when people depart work and school, offering a vehicle for easy and informative listening while taking the opportunity to pack commercials into all available crevices in between the blah-blah-blah minutes like sardines in a can. Chosen – or maybe he asked for it, I just don’t know – as the host was long-time Syracuse news reporter and WSYR employee Jim Reith, and he began broadcasting his Monday-through-Friday program, “The Jim Reith Show.” I hasten to mention his name especially because he often states how he loves the publicity, and he seems amazed and gratified when folks spell or pronounce his name correctly (it sounds like wreath). Something he was not happy about, though, particularly in the early years of his program, was allowing the public to see his face, and by his own admission and actions he took measures to remain facially anonymous. I suppose that was a wise move, considering the way he snipes at strangers while hiding behind the microphone, and there were times when I wondered whether he might have worn a paper bag over his head in public like "The Unknown Comic" of TV's old Gong Show.

He also appears to delight in informing admiring listeners (largely, the same ones who phone over and over again, every week) that he’s "an award-winning journalist." I’ve no idea how he accomplished this laudable feat. Perhaps it involved an on-the-spot breaking news story about a cat rescued from a tree, or chasing an ambulance containing some politician whose nose was bitten clean off while kissing a baby during an election campaign, that sort of thing. But who cares? On Reith's show, to paraphrase Sherlock, Katie, Ken, John or somebody named Holmes, "It's entertainment, my dear Watson, entertainment."

(Incidentally, should you wish to check out one of my truly favorite award-winning journalists, don't hesitate to click on the link to Billy Cox's Blog de Void (see top of link list). Cox works with Southwestern Florida's Herald Tribune and his affiliated blog keeps us reliably current with the UFO issue on a regular basis. Check in frequently.)

There arise occasions when Reith brags about crushing the competition and hosting the most widely heard afternoon radio talk show in Syracuse. Of course, the truth is that he has no competition – Big Daddy CCC bought WSYR, conveniently obliterating any possibility of competition, and there simply is no mightier local signal on the Syracuse AM dial, other than “sister station” WHEN. In essence, there’s no way anybody from a lower-power broadcast company could possibly compete equally on AM radio, day or night, but Reith’s “I’m number one” chest-beater is always a knee-slapper to hear. Indeed, a star was born, and the birthing process was apparently as complex as growing a Chia Pet.

So you, reading this, certainly wonder by now – what has any of this to do with UFOs? The basic answer is that it has little to do with UFOs and much to do with UFO debunking, the debunker and the power. The ability to tell you and sell you.
Mr. Reith does not believe that "aliens" exist. He will say that UFOs exist, however, he tends to feel there is a rational explanation for UFOs. But, as we said, aliens do not exist. Nor do ghosts or Bigfoot, in his opinion. Frankly, I don’t know much about ghosts or Bigfoot. My primary interest has always been UFOs.

On numerous and ongoing occasions, radio star Reith dismisses the UFO controversy with self-assured misinformation and ridicule, and now and then I have tried to supplement his pathetic lack of knowledge with facts. In 2006 I sent him a message to delineate some truth about the UFO issue (see my recent entry entitled, "The Extraordinary Witness" for details on that specific UFO case). By coincidence, The Post-Standard (Syracuse) had also printed my newspaper letter to the editor concerning the state of local broadcasting in general during that week during the summer, and it was in this time frame that he took the opportunity to attack me personally on one show in my absence (I have never been a guest on his show, do not call in, anticipate no invitation, and in light of the recent past would sooner attempt to hatch dinosaur eggs with a flashlight beam or even attend my own funeral than suffer the show's very existence in person). By that time WSYR was broadcasting not only locally, but on the Web as well, so my name and reputation received a good dose of his commentary periodically during the (then) three-hour show.

On several occasions over three hours, in reference to my UFO research, he referred to me -- by name -- as a “nut bird,” a “wingnut” and a “whack job.” There were other things said, among them a suggestion that there had been something wrong with me for years – though on a recent show, where he again made light of my comments sent in an e-mail, he flat-out stated with respect to that assertion, “That’s a lie.”

I disagree and, in fact, in an angry letter to his general manager the next day complained that he spent considerable time attempting to portray me as a mental case. I have an immensely dark sense of humor, but what verbal executioner Jim was doing to me on that show had nothing to do with fun and, it appears, everything to do with destroying one’s reputation via the microphone which most broadcast professionals cherish and use responsibly. At least, there was a time.

A main reason for writing him was to emphasize the importance of such UFO-related incidents as the alleged Charles Hickson-Calvin Parker abduction and examination on the shores of the Pascagoula River in Mississippi in the seventies.. But on the Reith show I became mere fodder. Hickson and Parker were deeply disturbed and affected by their experience, as noted by law enforcement personnel and scientists involved in the case -- but I'm a "whack job." Both men passed polygraph testing -- but I'm a "nut bird." The sheriff secretly recorded the fear in their conversation while the two thought they were alone in a room at the sheriff's office, just hours after their claimed encounter with strange entities -- but I'm a "wingnut." Years later, a former Navy man came forward to reveal that he and two fellow Navy crewmen and others on a highway may well have seen the bizarre airliner-size UFO descend from the sky near Hickson and Parker's location that evening -- but there's something peculiar about me for even daring to entertain evidence.

In my outrage, I really did expect an apology, either from the charming host himself or from the general manager to whom I wrote the letter. However, I assumed too much, forgetting that an apology actually requires somebody's regret to begin with, and so there was no response. There apparently exists a paucity of gonads at Clear Channel Syracuse, excepting when the microphone is turned on, though I'm sure CCC's legal defense sector is suitably equipped for instances where trouble or controversy rears its head.

As for Reith, I don’t know. Poor thing, maybe he sometimes fancies himself another Morton Downey, Jr. or perhaps a Joe Pyne of radio shows past, but he can’t quite pull it off. He periodically references national talk show host Michael Savage as brilliant but “insane" or "crazy,” an assertion which I truly believe he should be forced to prove in court, and again I have to wonder where Jim Reith acquired his doctorate in psychology or psychiatry, because he does enjoy throwing out such labels.

In the 1960s and seventies I was invited as a guest on almost every Central NY TV and radio show, always treated with kindness and interest. Only one time was I “blind-sided,” and that occurred when a radio talk show host surprised me by sneaking a UFO-debunking astronomer into our discussion, but even then we all acted responsibly like adults. My treatment in absence by Reith, however, was most curious, but not surprising, and I bring all of this to your attention to demonstrate a major reason why the UFO issue consistently reposes in the corner, jilted like a lover with herpes. Members of the media frequently prefer to get a laugh about UFOs and facts don’t matter. If you associate yourself with the subject, the press will often turn on you and treat you as expendable fodder for whatever absurd piece they write, report about or put on video. Indeed, I have also encountered members of the press eager but forbidden by management to do any serious reporting about UFOs, so the worm turns in more than one direction, you see. Maybe things are, unfortunately, the same with respect to your own media representatives.

Would debunkers such as Reith bother to check my blogs (particularly the movie blog -- see link), containing scans of personal letters from former military and government people involved in the official UFO investigation – people who believe there may be “aliens?” I doubt it. If former Air Force chief UFO consultant and professional astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek, or atmospheric physicist Dr. James McDonald -- both proponents of intelligence behind the UFO enigma --were still alive, would Reith be calling them up for their views? I doubt that. Shouldn't "an award-winning journalist" maintain an interest in examining the facts? I guess not.

Media debunkers remind me of an anecdote related by Dr. Hynek, regarding a symposium of professional astronomers, all gathered in an auditorium for an evening session. Suddenly, somebody came running in to announce to one and all that a possible UFO was being observed right outside. Not a single astronomer, recounted Hynek, would even bother to go outside and look, as they laughed and remained seated.

During one program, a few months after he condemned me in so many words, Reith interviewed Coast-to-Coast AM show host George Noory. Noory, like Reith, is a Navy veteran, and his views on UFOs, conspiracies and strange topics in general appear far more over the top than mine. Nevertheless, Reith’s interview with Noory was friendly, engaging and at no time did he refer to Noory as a whack job or nut bird. In Reith’s view, I guess it all depends upon who you are, and your level of celebrity.

In recent years, the Reith show expanded, in my judgement, from three barely tolerable to four acoustically excruciating hours in an obvious attempt to please and gain advertisers. In the process, callers usually do not speak directly one-on-one with guests as they did several years ago, and each call is screened, assuring that spontaneity seldom graces this predominantly anesthetizing program. A sense of humor, except for what passes as his own, is sorely lacking on this show whose host firmly keeps a decisive thumb over concepts of content and freshness. Reith does, however, feature a “snack of the day," usually consisting of food dutifully delivered to the studio by local restaurants evidently desperate for a plug on the show. The “snack of the day” is often followed or preceded by what might be termed the “hack of the day,” sometimes several of them – that is, certain guests, or members of the plain old locally wishy-washy, who appear on this frequently listless program so many times that their overdone appearances, overexposed reputations and, in my view, repeatedly microphone-kissed butts have likely become a real yawn for listeners who, nevertheless, stay tuned like zombies. If somebody ever invents euthanasia-by-radio, it will likely premiere on this program, if it hasn't already.

Without local and occasional out-of-town guests, including the odd celebrity, or during significant lapses where there are no callers, Reith and his current producer often end up chattering back and forth to one another about something on the Internet, rock music, movie stars, sports or other important issues -- anything to keep compliant listeners at hand for sponsor engagement in a town top-heavy with athletics, the sports-adoring media, and jocks honored simply for their testosterone and estrogen levels, a concerning inability to speak proper English in numerous cases, and a peculiar tendency of the most illustrious among them to sometimes violate laws, as an infestation of cheering fans who exist primarily to admire gender-neutral jockstraps over brains worship one and all. I don't wish to seem crass (wait, scratch that. . .), but around these parts it's frequently and uncomfortably the game, the whole game and nothing but the game. The awe-inspired drooling threshold is quite high amongst rabid sports fans, and one suspects the fluids would fill a lake. I trust that none of this will be interpreted as criticism.

Oh yes, the Reith show does mysteriously draw ratings, but how could one hope for something more when there is nothing more? How can one miss or long for something never experienced? If radio shows were mice, this might be the one to make you say, yikes, look what the cat dragged in.
The king of Syracuse talk radio has a style, though lately he, enigmatically, has begun to mellow a bit. Yet, last winter WSYR initiated a comment phone line in the tradition of other stations around the country, a number one could call to record a comment about station programming. What listeners didn’t expect, however, was that Reith took the first two or three recordings of the crop, played them on his show and publicly ridiculed the people who took the time to record their sincere comments. This fiasco didn’t last long and I’ve heard no more on WSYR radio about this wonderful audience "opportunity" to comment. I guess it's little wonder that WSYR occasionally runs an apparently sarcastic disclaimer when advertising the Reith show, "apologizing" in advance for anything the host might say during his program.

What more can be said? A little. Next time. In the meantime, if you haven't read my much earlier multi-part entry about The Les Crane Show, which appeared on late-night ABC-TV in the sixties, please take a few minutes to read about UFO debunking on a much larger scale. I posted four chapters in May of 2007 and the series is entitled, "The TV Show Destroyed by UFOs." For your convenience, the on-site Google search engine at the top of the page will locate it for you.

Monday, January 12, 2009

When Art Imitates Life


Those rare occasions pop up when I wonder if I should try my hand at reviewing movies. Unfortunately, the only movie I could probably review would be "U.F.O." After that, my cinematic analysis abilities would quickly deteriorate and the world would be a worse place because of my attempts, so I'll leave movie critiques and TV show history to those who do what they do very well. That brings me to Canadian writer Mark Phillips.

In 2002, I received an e-mail from Mark, who was in the process of researching a lengthy piece he would write for the magazine, TV Zone. His project concerned the old British TV series, "UFO," a fictional sci-fi serial which had nothing whatsoever to do with the 1956 documentary movie you've read about here.

In 1973 I had written a letter, published in TV Guide, very critical of the TV show, and though my letter's existence had been long forgotten in the cobwebs of my mind, here it was, almost 30 years later, and Mr. Phillips not only had retrieved this antiquity during his research, but managed to locate me as well for a few comments to add to his excellent article, eventually printed in issue no. 154 of TV Zone (2002).

During our initial e-mailing, Mark and I also realized we were both fans of the old U.S. TV show, The Invaders, starring Roy Thinnes. For my part, I was always intrigued especially because Thinnes' character ("David Vincent"), though fictional, reflected a very significant part of real UFO history -- the representation of a UFO witness who couldn't get an uncaring and/or unwilling public and various officials to hear his warnings or pleas for help and understanding. The TV series traveled a rocky road before its ultimate cancellation, but remember -- this was a program whose theme of man vs. ignorance about UFOs appeared long before the movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which was all about what we might call the two-ton elephant in the living room that nobody wants us to see or even know about.

Mark Phillips continued researching The Invaders and I'm happy to report that his comprehensive article and super visuals appear in the new issue of Starlog for March, 2009 (no. 373). His piece is entitled "Secrets of 'The Invaders,'" and the issue's cover is shown here.

Of considerable interest to me is a passage where Phillips quotes an Invaders associate who notes that the series failed with viewers over age 50 because, "The show scared the hell out of them." Hmm. Maybe it's true, if adults can't deal with TV tube fantasy, maybe some circles felt that we really can't handle the truth about UFOs, either. Did the U.S. government take a tip from The Invaders in keeping UFO evidence under the public radar?

Major Dewey J. Fournet - An Historical Footnote



A brief and illuminating e-mail about the late Dewey J. Fournet, Jr., arrived a few days ago. In the early 1950s Air Force Major Fournet monitored the government's UFO investigation and became convinced of the UFO issue's importance to science and national security. His letters to me from the 1970s are posted in my blog concerning the 1956 movie, "U.F.O." and I've mentioned him on occasion in my regular UFO-related blog, and of course his name is legend concurrently with Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt and Albert M. Chop in UFO research history.

With Ms. Bergeron's permission, I have excerpted the significant portions of her note below. I'm pleased to add this important little anecdote to UFO research history, and we should all hope that one day soon our current government officials will honor and heed the words of those preceding them who realized that discovering more about UFOs may be vital:

"My name is Kim Bergeron, and I’m the godchild/niece of Dewey Fournet, Jr. (my mother’s brother). I’ve recently purchased the UFO movie in which, I understand, my uncle was portrayed. . .

"One of my fondest memories of my uncle was a conversation we had when he knew he had precious little time left on this earth — for the first time ever, I asked him point blank if he believed that U.F.O.’s may really exist.

"He looked me right in the eyes, smiled coyly, and responded, 'I have no doubt.'

"I only wish now I’d asked him that question many years earlier, so he could have shared more stories from his many years of investigating such."

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

UFOs at the Planetarium











You probably know by now that one of my major annoyances related to publicized UFO sightings is the well-established fact that members of the press usually fall over themselves to locate some local professional or amateur astronomer who can tidily explain the whole thing via a nicely contrived package deceptively resembling science. Or, to be more specific, the chosen "expert" stands there before the cameras and microphones, having conducted no investigation whatsoever, and assures one and all that a meteor or a flare or the moon or Venus or a cloud or an airplane or a satellite or illuminated cow flatulence or any conventional explanation that comes to mind is responsible for the incident. Then, more often than not, heavily sedated with words of authority, the ladies and gentlemen of the press hurry away to prepare for News at Eleven, fully willing to report a lie as the truth -- often encouraged by their editors, who have neither the time nor patience to entertain "saucer" stories as anything more than a momentary amusement to keep viewers tuned in. How I long for investigative reporting the way it once existed, especially in those things currently on life support called newspapers. It's no wonder that a few months ago I entitled one of my blog entries, "When Journalists Roamed the Earth."






So today I'm plowing back through history. At some point after patrolman Lonnie Zamora's famous 1964 observation of a UFO and small entities in the New Mexico desert, and sometime after thousands of people in several western and mid-western U.S.states reported UFOs in 1965 -- subsequently "explained" by the experts as bright stars which, it turned out, were only visible from the other side of the earth at that time -- and not long after the Michigan "swamp gas" (more accurately marsh gas, per Wendy Connors' research) UFO reports of 1966, a little recording history was made: A record album (LP) about UFOs enjoyed a release.






Oh yes, there had been other UFO-related LPs in the sixties, the best-known of them being former Mutual radio network broadcaster Frank Edwards' narration from his best-selling book, Flying Saucers: Serious Business, and that was released in 1966. In fact, while the UFO subject was still hot property in 1966, another famous broadcaster-of-the-strange-and-unknown, Long John Nebel, likewise released an LP entitled, The Flying Saucer Story, containing excerpts of his radio interviews with Edwards, Major Donald E. Keyhoe (USMC, ret.) and, for something totally different, with famous contactees whose wild tales about trips to other planets aboard flying saucers served only to distort the truth about real UFO incidents. More LPs about UFOs followed in the seventies.






But in 1967 there came about another LP, the audiologic horse of a different color. From California's Morrison Planetarium, prepared and cooked up via an entirely non-traditional science recipe, the public was offered an LP entitled The UFOs. Labeled as planetarium lecture series no. 3, lecturer Hubert J. Bernhard narrated for the LP a lengthy history of UFO observations from biblical times to the present. However, the most impressive and perhaps incredible aspect of Bernhard's presentation was the unencumbered possibility that UFO evidence may represent extraterrestrial spacecraft! Trust me, in the vast majority of cases your local astronomer won't be offering a lecture of this nature. Nowhere near!





Bernard offered no excuses, apologies or hesitation as he walked through history with references to UFO incidents all the way. In fact, as you can see in one of the visuals posted today, the record album even displays a photo showing three Canadian airline pilots who experienced an interesting UFO encounter. Other scans here will give you an idea of what was featured on the front and reverse sides of the album jacket.





The UFOs is an immensely scarce album, and I would love to believe that all remaining copies were snapped up by skeptical astronomers forced to rethink their positions on the UFO issue. However, the fact that something of this astonishing nature ever saw the light of day, after miraculously given birth by planetarium authorities, is almost beyond belief by today's disturbing standards of professionally sanctioned scientific ignorance in various pockets of society.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Where From Art Thou?


It's always a good idea to include a caveat about the identity and source of UFOs, UAOs, USOs or whatever one's personal designation.


When we use terms such as aliens, entities, occupants, extraterrestrial, outer space or any words alluding to the source of the mystery, it can cheapen us. Yet, all we have is words, so we really must use them carefully. It isn't easy. We possess boatloads of conjecture, but pathetically little knowledge of what constitutes the UFO and everything associated with its apparently multifaceted identity or identities.


When we ascribe our own opinions about UFOs to a hypothesis in search of substantiation, but claim we "know" the truth, the skeptics cringe and the debunkers howl in ecstasy. Yet, again, we're limited by the words available to us, and when it comes down to describing or attempting to delineate the remarkable aspects of the UFO phenomenon we often find ourselves obligated to the semantics available to us -- a paltry choice, actually. Honestly, I'm no less guilty myself when attempting to put words to or a face on the UFO.


As we count down to the end of 2008 and a world in economic shambles -- or just plain old shambles -- we all hope for a more secure and definable 2009. Well, don't count on that. But we in the USA will have a new government in power, so that's something -- as long as some of its members don't exemplify the soon-to-be ex-governor of Illinois and his cronies, and others who have absolutely no connection to the folks they supposedly represent.


Readers, I thank you for your support and e-mails over the past couple of years. I confess that pretty much all of the good stuff from my remaining files has been scanned and posted, so I hope you've read the earliest blog entries and worked forward. At this point, I only blog when I feel I've something to say. Why waste the readers' time with endless blah, blah, blah intended merely to inflate my own ego if my mind is a blank?


However, even when I'm not posting, you have at your fingertips some great links for access to the best information about UFOs. Considering all the nonsense out there, I'm gratified to have the opportunity to direct you to UFO evidence, not clown shows.


I really should update my blog (see link) on the 1956 movie, "U.F.O." That might be a project for spring. My Air Force blog (see link) is essentially completed and will remain online. That leaves the blog (see link) intended as a tribute to my deceased Pekingese, and I may take that down in 2009 -- though I was amazed at the interest shown by animal lovers who somehow discovered the page. In a world filled with hostility, cruelty and more humans than should ever have been born, it's always a comfort to find people who understand that we share this planet with other life. Good luck with that, by the way.


A new Congress is coming to Washington. Please take the opportunity to write your senators and House representatives to insist that Congress take a renewed look at the UFO mystery and consider a new scientific study. With the economy in chaos, I admit that the chances aren't high, but my feeling is that we have an opportunity to propel scientific knowledge beyond current thresholds, and if we ever needed to make that leap, the time is now. We also must insist that the U.S. government release all files and visuals concerning the subject.


If you celebrate Christmas, have a merry Christmas. If you're into the New Year's party thing, go bonkers. Make the most of your special moments, because next year at this time . . . who knows?

Monday, December 1, 2008

The Extraordinary Witness


Second thoughts. We all have them. First impressions can be invaluable, but those gnawing doubts after the fact, well. . .


As recently as last week, I suggested that learning more about UFOs might conceivably provide us with a monumental insight into numerous areas of science. Truly, I do believe that. However, despite myself I could be wrong. Seriously wrong, deadly in error. What if? What if the new Congress did hold more hearings about the UFO issue? What if the old Congress had conducted multiple hearings in secrecy about the enigma?


And what if a careful examination of the facts forced leaders on the Hill to realize that, yes, the UFO phenomenon is real, there's intelligence involved and. . .and. . .no matter how frightening the implications, there's not a darned thing this or any other country can do about it? Would Congress or the military ever admit that "somebody" enters and leaves our existence at will, doing whatever it or they want? As we've painfully learned in recent weeks, we're often in no position to know what's on the minds in Congress, but I think anybody even casually familiar with UFO history realizes that, uh huh, UFOs actually do seem to come and go with prejudice.

Perhaps Congress could get away with publicly interviewing a few people who claim close encounters or even car trouble in the presence of strange lights swooping out of the sky. Congressional committee members could routinely say thank you for your testimony and have a nice day and we'll look into this, blah, blah, blah.


Yet -- there's another potential for Congress to deal with, something to make them sit up and listen and to be concerned about and maybe a little more than afraid: The extraordinary witness. The extraordinary witnesses.

First off, I don't know her, but shouldn't a Pulitzer be awarded to Natalie Chambers? After all, it was she who wrote an article for the Associated Press back in October of 2001 about one new witness -- and apparently more -- who quite possibly watched the descent and landing of the actual UFO involved in the alleged abduction and examination of fishermen Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker on the shores of the Pascagoula River in 1973. Frankly, I've encountered my share of news reporters over the years whose editors won't -- yes, won't -- let them mention UFOs for a variety of reasons (generally because of ignorance, not conspiracies), so this time around I was stunned.

Chambers' report is not new to this writer, for I've mentioned it on previous occasions. But I find this an opportune time for rehash because, yes, a new Congress will soon take its place in Washington, and, by George, Chambers' article might be just the place to start as we strive for a new UFO investigation. Make no mistake: At some level(s) the U.S. government couldn't possibly NOT be concerned about ufological intrusions into our lives -- and, that said, now we need to get Congress into the arena in order to get the public and scientific community involved. This is monumental stuff, and we want the truth.

When I joined the membership of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP-- see link) in 1964, the organization remained hot on the trail of every reliable UFO report it encountered, perfectly content that UFOs were probably vehicles from outer space under intelligent control in our atmosphere. However, in those early years there was absolutely no room for credible thought in those instances when witnesses reported somebody inside the things making an exit. UFOs, yes, maybe remotely controlled. But alien entities? Well, let's see the evidence for that...NICAP never denied the possibility, but the proof was essential.

That all changed, however, once the Barney and Betty Hill story went credibly public and Marjorie Fish unveiled the "Hill star map," showing, apparently with an uncomfortable degree of precision, where the Hill UFO occupants may have originated from-- based upon a star map Betty Hill recalled seeing, while under hypnosis later on. At last, the time had come when NICAP was forced to reconsider the occupant reports, and years later when an alarming artist's depiction of the 1961 Hill UFO "aliens" received top billing in the pages of NICAP's journal, The UFO Investigator, jaws dropped and history was made.

When impressive UFO activity began appearing in waves during the mid-sixties and into the early seventies, UFO occupant reports joined the mix. The integrity of some reports could easily be dismissed, but nobody was prepared for the Pascagoula, Mississippi incident of October 11, 1973. Barney and Betty Hill's 1961 UFO experience didn't surface publicly for years because of a "missing time" aspect which only materialized after extensive hypnotic recall administered by psychiatrist Dr. Benjamin Simon. However, within hours after Hickson and Parker's alleged abduction the two were brought to the local sheriff's office, where, gripped by fear and apprehension, they told their story of a strange object that appeared while they were fishing. Bizarre, almost robot-like entities proceeded to take the men inside, where they were reportedly physically examined before being released.

You can read all about the Pascagoula (otherwise known as the Hickson-Parker) incident at NICAP.org, via the on-site search engine, so there's no need for me to recount the whole affair when others have done so in far more detail. For me, the Pascagoula case was just one more incredible event possibly related to the UFO phenomenon, but years later something happened that impressed me even more -- and it was all due to Natalie Chambers' article. It could have been 50 words or 150,000 words, as far as I'm concerned, but if the information is true, it's one of the most important newspaper articles ever written.

Charles Hickson, Calvin Parker, the UFO and its strange occupants were not alone on that October, 1973 evening, Chambers wrote 28 years later. There were witnesses, and not only the witnesses we're already familiar with who claimed to have seen lights in the sky that night. Add to the credibility mix a U.S. Navy chief petty officer, long retired by 2001, and two of his crew mates. Mike Cataldo of Florida not only told his story to Chambers, but openly offered the names of his crew mates, both of whom he had lost track of by then: Ted Peralta and Mack Hanna.

While on active duty, Cataldo and his friends were driving on U.S. 90, on their way to Ocean Springs. Peralta was driving, Hanna sat in front and Cataldo sat in back. Quoting from Chamber's AP article:

"We saw a very strange object in the horizon going from northwest across Highway 90. It was going pretty fast. It went down into a wood area and into the marsh. It hovered over the treeline, I guess, maybe a minute. We actually pulled off the road and watched it. We said, 'My God, what is that,' Cataldo said."

According to Cataldo, the thing looked like a large tambourine with lights flashing on it, the size of an airliner. They soon had a second sighting before reaching their destination.
The next day, Cataldo made an official report to the executive officer on his submarine and also notified Keesler Air Force Base. Keesler never called back and Cataldo's executive officer and other crew members "thought we were just lunatics, just whacked out."

Hickson and Parker were deeply affected by their experience and, as Charles Hickson told Chambers about his younger fishing companion, "He's not the same man as before. It just ruined him."

Cataldo states he tried years later to locate his two former shipmates, but was unsuccessful.


Well, I know who can find them: Congress. Faced with the enormous implications of the Pascagoula incident -- that our airspace and ground space have been invaded at will by a source unknown, a source that abducted and had its way with two U.S. citizens -- Congress has every reason to act, to demand the truth. Congress must do now what it failed to do previously: Call Cataldo in for his expert testimony as a former Naval officer, and locate Hanna and Peralta for theirs, each of the three apparently a man of integrity during his affiliation with the U.S. Navy -- each, every one, an extraordinary witness.

The fly in the ointment is Congress itself. What can ultimately be said if you bring these men in and they collectively tell a story pointing to our hopelessness in handling the UFO issue? Congress would be far more at ease bringing in witnesses who attest to "The Miracle at Fatima" because they could ascribe that to a religious experience and leave that subject hanging in the air for interpretation by a variety of sources. But the Pascagoula case? It wasn't a miracle and there were no religious overtones. Clearly, it was horrible, spectacular and potentially well-witnessed from the adjoining highway.

And let's not forget the audio tape. When Hickson and Parker were questioned at the sheriff's office just hours after their encounter, a hidden tape recorder caught the men's conversation while the sheriff left them alone for a few minutes. The recording, since released publicly, wasn't in very good shape, but thanks to the technological efforts of researcher Wendy Connors who achieved remarkable clarity over the original audio, the two frightened men are heard to be clearly upset, with Parker almost in a panic. Sheriff Glenn Ryder, who questioned the men that night, even admitted (again quoting from Chambers' article), "Calvin Parker was just hysterical. He was having fits. I took them in a patrol car to the sheriff's office."

Reasons why the UFO issue craves sobriety and congressional exploration are reflected adequately enough by the Pascagoula incident, in my opinion. Can we learn a great deal by unleashing our best scientists on the UFO mystery? I continue to believe so.


In any case, to keep the implications of this profound enigma from the public or to ignore its very existence, as Congress as a whole seems more than willing to do, is just wrong, dangerously wrong. This government must take UFO incidents seriously, and Congress, publicly, must respect and listen intently to the extraordinary witness. There are so many of them out there.

Monday, November 24, 2008

New Folder


Please excuse my blatant lack of inspiration for a blog entry title today. When I accessed a folder for today's writing, up popped the familiar yellow icon labeled New Folder, and I said to myself, well, why not use that? After all, with a new President taking the U.S. reins in January, all manner of things will reset, only to become reborn in new folders driven by political pressure.


There isn't much of a rant here today. You're probably more worried about the economy, the country, the world or the holidays than UFOs right now. Besides, science recently discovered that our brains actually shrink during the cold months, so I'm pretty sure mine's about half-size this week, thanks to winter's dramatic preview here in the frosty Northeastern United States.

Incidentally, November 9 marked the 43rd anniversary of "The Great Northeastern Power Blackout," a massive electrical anomaly that Congress took very seriously -- even to the point of listening to the late atmospheric physicist Dr. James E. McDonald as he espoused his concerns about a disturbing array of UFO reports accompanying the blackout. If not for the absence of Klaatu, Gort, Michael Rennie or Keanu Reeves, one might easily have thought the movie, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" came true. The sixties hosted enough UFO-related power interruptions, nonetheless. Of course, publicly, the 1965 incident has been explained to the satisfaction of many -- easy enough to do when you ignore the rest of the evidence or find ways to tame the strangeness factor into something recognizable. At any rate, McDonald's comments before Congress are easily located on the Internet via your favorite search engine and the right key words.


Speaking of Congress, there is one more assertion I'll throw in today. As a group, they recently and most aptly demonstrated more panic than leadership when the economy went bonkers. Here in New York State, our elected officials in Albany haven't fared much better, as each political party and the usual organized suspects attempt to demonize one another amidst a financial crisis poised to drive even more people out of this overtaxed state -- all while officials endlessly and voraciously fight for political turf like dung beetles on the hunt.


But back to Congress. Think back on those oh-so-few occasions when the UFO issue attained a modicum of exploration there, only to be either quickly forgotten or -- in the worst of all worlds -- awarded a hatchet job by Dr. Edward U. Condon and the boys over at the University of Colorado.


Okay, I've been a very small voice and rider on the UFO merry-go-round for more than 40 years --and, remember, my brain is currently half its normal summer size -- but I still contend that, for all the weirdness and currently incomprehensible aspects of the UFO phenomenon, there's something about it that's integral to our own place in the universe, and science needs to get serious about sorting out the truth from the absurd: Learn about the UFO, and we may learn about us. Learn about the UFO, and we may discover new forms of energy lurking far beyond mortal imagination. Learn about the UFO, and we might find out where we're headed as a species.


If all of that seems unreasonable or impossible, we need only point in the direction of Congress, where feats of the pathetic and incredible appear to be taking center stage almost daily as the economic nosedive continues. These, after all, are the watchdogs responsible for oversight, and if they couldn't even deal with the blazing financial calamity streaking menacingly across their field of vision, can we expect congressional interest in the UFO subject's importance? Then again (sigh. . .), we can always hope that January brings a vastly different Congress to town, much as we hope that Santa's undies don't get snagged on a jagged fragment as he descends the chimney on that special December's night.


(Next time: Let us stretch the realm of possibility and assume an occasion in the near future when Congress takes another look at the UFO mystery. Obviously, there exist some very interesting airline cases and other quality incidents deserving scrutiny. But I have my own idea of whom Congress should call for questioning, and it involves a case I've mentioned several times in this blog. The circumstances haunt me and I can't ignore the implications. More later.)