The Swamp Gas Journal

                        The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL

Volume 6, Number 1 (last issue was Volume 5, Number 3)
January, 1992                                    ISSN 0707-7106

                        The Continuing Circle Saga

     By now, it is likely that everyone knows about the
Bower/Chorley hoax admission.  When the story first broke, it was
carried extensively by the media, and it seemed that cerealogy
was doomed.  TV and newspapers here in Canada boldly proclaimed
that "all" the circles in England were explained as the work of
BC.  Suddenly, all media interest in any fortean phenomena was
extinguished; for the most part, this condition still persists
today.
     Of course, things are not as cut-and-dry as they might seem.
As an objectivist, I was immediately suspicious of the BC
claims.  "Skeptics" such as CSICOP members were delighted at the
admissions and didn't bother to consider any problems with the
explanation.  But it should have been intuitive that there was
something wrong with the claims.  A "complete" explanation is
usually never encountered in science, and there are always
loopholes or flaws in the design of "immutable" laws.
     The first problem with the BC story is that the two men
could not have made all of the British circles and agriglyphs.
In addition, there would be no way for them to have made the
circles in other parts of the world.  This problem with the claim
is easily circumvented by noting that BC are only two of the army
of hoaxers who might have been at work.  This might also
explain why characteristics of circles vary somewhat between
sites.
     The next question to be addressed is whether or not BC
really made the circles at all.  This problem is not trivial, and
it seems that it has not been fully resolved.  When the media
first covered the story, BC had been filmed before, during and
after the creation of an agriglyph.  Terence Meaden, Colin
Andrews and Pat Delgado were each shown to make pronouncements of
authenticity at some circle sites, though later explained that
they had been pressured for a quick response by the media at the
time.  But nearly everyone who viewed the single agriglyph made
by BC in front of the cameras agreed that the site was sloppy
and "suspicious".
     Although the numbers of circles claimed made by BC started
out at 1000 or more, the figure has been pared down to a more
reasonable 100 or 200.  Even this figure seems a bit high, but
might be possible, if we allow BC to have a lot of energy and
several years to work on their technique.  On (the National
Geographic's) Explorer TV show in November, other hoaxers were
shown to take considerable planning in order to produce a complex
in complete darkness before the cameras (not done by BC). Even
so, they were seen by a chance witness, and when a cerealogist
was called in for his opinion, it was dubbed a hoax without much
delay.
     The source of the story is a bit of a problem as well.  The
tabloid which initially broke the hoax story had earlier ran
a story that suggested ancient Sumerians were communicating with
humans through the circles.  Investigation by cerealogists
found that the story had been generated through a "public
relations" firm called Maiden Bridge Farm.  MBF was operated by a
husband and wife who had an unlisted telephone number (a bit odd
for a PR firm) and which was disconnected shortly after they
were located by the cerealogists.  It seems that MBF paid some
money to BC to come forward with their claims, contacted the
tabloid to get a reporter's interest, then backed out of the
picture.  This immediately aroused the interest of conspiracy
theorists, who suggested that the MoD or a subversive group had
deliberately set cerealogists up for a fall.  Although a
plausible scenario, there is of course no hard evidence for the
theory.
     The most frustrating thing about the whole affair is that it
should be very easy to settle the arguments about BC's
involvement.  It would appear to be a simple task: get BC to give
accurate descriptions of all the sites for which they were
responsible, including dates, locations, type of crop, etc.  As
far as I have been able to determine through reading the latest
cerealogy journals and letters from my British colleagues, this
has not been done.  The closest that has been accomplished is a
series of verbal, heated debates between BC and agitated
cerealogists in the media.
     However, the damage has been done.  Cerealogists have been
"burned" by some hoaxers, and the media have been warned away
from the phenomenon.  But what will the future bring?

                          The Canadian Connection

     In mid-summer of 1991, Gordon Kijek and the Alberta UFO
Study Group (AUFOSG) were prepared for an upcoming season of UFO
investigations.  Earlier in the year, Gord had asked me to assist
in the formation of the group, and I had sent him some
information about ufology groups and their operation.  In August,
Gord called me to tell me that a circle formation had been
discovered near Lethbridge.  He was unsure of how to investigate
the site, but I gave a few of my ideas and wished him luck.
Gord has seemed to be an able researcher, and I was confident
that he would have the matter under control.  Soon, he called me
about his findings and the news that other sites had been found.
The deluge had started.
     Less than ten sites were reported in Alberta.  One was a
remarkable agriglyph (the first of such in North America) which
received considerable media attention.  Others were single
circles, quadruplets, and triplets.  One site near Okotoks was
judged immediately suspicious by AUFOSG because it appeared that
the centers of the circles had been disturbed; a speculated
method of producing fake circles involves using a stake at the
center of an inscribed circle using a chain to mark the
circumference. 
     It is interesting to note that in 1990, there were circles
reported throughout Western Canada, except in Alberta.  But
in 1991, the only province with circles was Alberta.  None of the
Canadian circles during the previous years had any associated
effects, though in 1991, the Alberta circles were said to cause
headaches, equipment malfunctions and give rise too "eerie"
sensations and noises.  These effects parallel those reported in
England by some cerealogists, and it was curious that they
would be found one year and not the next.  More curious was the
fact that Gord Kijek is prone to migraines, and he experienced
no problems when inside the circles.  He also called me on his
cellular phone from inside a circle, with no malfunctioning!
     Do such effects really occur?  Michael Strainic, reporting
on the investigations of Chad Deetken on his trip to Alberta,
wrote an excellent article for the MUFON Journal which detailed
Deetken's findings.  Deetken has a different research
perspective than that of AUFOSG, including his investigation
style.  For example, in 1990, Deetken visited some circle sites
in Saskatchewan; during his time there, he decided to camp
overnight in a circle.  In the middle of the night, Deetken
reported a "feeling of terror" which overcame him, and he bolted
from the site.  He had earlier documented how the area was
permeated with some sort of "energy".  Not surprisingly, when he
decided to sleep overnight in one of the 1991 Alberta circles, he
experienced "tension" and "dizziness" during the night, as did
his companions.
     Although suggesting that "paranormal effects" were
associated with the Alberta circles, Strainic also noted that
such effects were not often found.  Indeed, compass needles were
said to operate normally, as did recording equipment and cameras
taken to sites.  Strainic noted that anecdotal reports of animal
effects at circles were common, according to Deetken.  But this
was not the case in Manitoba, and such reports were not made to
AUFOSG in the Alberta cases. 
     One interesting series of effects involved microwave ovens
which were said to have malfunctioned, including one which
was said to have turned itself on.  AUFOSG members as well as
Deetken all checked into these reports, though there was
admittedly no confirming evidence of these events.
     So, what happened in Alberta?  There exist two disparate
investigation records of the circle sites.  AUFOSG found
virtually no evidence of "paranormal effects", physiological
effects or equipment malfunctions at sites, but Deetken did. It
is likely that each investigator's inherent biases played
significant roles in the interpretation of data.  Michael
Strainic's fascinating report is of great use to other
researchers in the analyses of crop circle data, because it
parallels the British experience.  In this way, we can better
understand the British situation, and how cerealogy may be
operating in that country.

                              Radioactivity?

     Recently, it has been claimed that several crop circles are
radioactive.  Specifically, it has been reported that soil
samples taken from two British circles and some from recent
American sites have significantly-higher levels of radioactivity
than control samples from the same areas.  Further, this
radioactivity has been traced to higher-than-normal levels of
activity caused by certain rare, radioactive elements such as
Europium, Ytterbium and Rhodium.  If true, than this certainly
speaks for the creation of crop circles by aliens and utterly
invalidates any other theory, including hoaxing.
     The claims are made by Michael Chorost and Marshall Dudley
in a MUFON paper.  Advance notice of their claims is already
in circulation, and many people are very excited about their
findings.  Mike sent me a copy of a draft and called me to
discuss the writeup, in case I had some comments.  As I read the
paper, I had some of my own reservations, but I decided to take
the paper to show two friends who are physicists at the
University of Manitoba.  They were less than impressed, to say
the least. However, I persisted (read: I annoyed them) until they
described exactly what they were doubtful about.
     My own reservations concerned the sampling techniques and
the small amount of data upon which to base a claim.  Also, I
was worried that there had not been any testable theory posed in
advance of finding the data.  The Manitoba physicists found
more problems in the physical attributes.  Very rare radioactive
elements had been discovered through a comparison of peaks on a
readout of an energy spectrum produced by an analysis of the soil
samples.  Such peaks were not present in the control sample
readouts.  Because of the difficulty in producing these
artificial elements, Chorost and Dudley devote much of their
paper to ways in which deuteron (an energetic particle)
bombardment of the soil could create the rare elements.  In the
end, they concluded that this deuteron bombardment was
responsible for the presence of the radioactivity, and that such
a beam may have also have been related to the formation of the
circles themselves, though how and why is unknown.  They actually
don't say that a UFO was responsible, although this could be read
into their report.
     However, the finding of these elements is not only strange,
it is downright impossible (uh-oh, I'm sounding like Donald
Menzel).  The reason is that if a deuteron bombardment did occur,
then many other elements would have been found as well.  For
example, even weak activation of soil by deuterons (or protons,
for that matter) will create Cobalt-56 out of Iron-56.  Since
there is a lot more Iron in soil than Ytterbium, the radioactive
Cobalt would be definitely found.  Since it wasn't, deuteron
bombardment probably did not occur.  An analogy is this: suppose
you went into a someone's room and found a few gold-coloured
coins on the floor.  You could see them as evidence that the
room's occupant was a bank robber, because of the "loot"
scattered about.  But if this were true, where would all the
other types of money be, like dollar bills and bonds?  And what
if the coins turned out to be wrapped chocolate?
     Dudley and Chorost do caution that more intensive research
and more thorough surveys of fields are required for
comparative data.  It may be that the distribution of elements in
the soil just happens to be high in that particular area.
Another source of possible error is in the interpretation of the
energy peaks and the checking of an energy table.  In fact,
using the standard energy table, we found several other elements
that should have been created in the deuteron bombardment, but
were not mentioned.
     Greg Kennedy, a circle researcher from Quebec, found the
claims of radionuclides in crop circle samples to be
unsupported by the data.  If radiation was found, he noted, it
certainly did not come from the "deuteron beam" suggested by the
American cerealogists.  It's possible that some sort of exotic
combination of elements were somehow in the soil samples, but it
was just as possible that the samples were contaminated in some
way.  Greg tested samples of the Alberta circles given to him by
Mike Strainic from Chad Deetken.  No anomalies were found.  He
also has been looking at samples from other Alberta circles which
originated from Gord Kijek.  Now, if there are no radionuclides
in the Alberta samples, it does not necessarily negate the
American results (of the British cases).  It could mean: a) the
Alberta circles are fakes; b) the British circles were hoaxes;
c) a different "beam" created the Alberta circles; d) the testing
was inconsistent; or e) somebody screwed up.  But who?  I
think the only way to resolve this is to get several independent
labs (and I wouldn't hesitate to get Phil Klass involved here)
to test the same samples for comparative analyses.  Along with
this would be a standardization of experimental cerealogy.  And
there are a number of procedures that would probably satisfy most
skeptics.
     What I suggested to Mike was the following experiment.
First, postulate that a deuteron (or proton) bombardment will
cause some observed effects.  Take samples from inside and
outside a circle site.  Test them on the same instrument.  Record
your results.  Next, send the same samples to a different lab
without passing on your data or findings.  While the second lab
is analyzing the samples, recalibrate your instrument.  Obtain a
new set of samples, with a different control sample, and analyze
this new set using the same procedure.  Have the other lab repeat
its steps and test the new set of samples.  Then, you'll have
four sets of data for comparison.  Look specifically for certain
elements.  Cobalt-56 is a standard test element.  Check for
Iron, Magnesium, Sodium, then Lead, Strontium, etc.  If there are
significant differences found (and I would use an alpha of
about 0.05), then you have something that you can point to and
say: "This needs further examination!"
     Sure, it's a long procedure, but remember, what you're
trying to do is prove an external mechanism for the creation of
crop circles, which are already widely assumed to be caused by
hoaxers.  The skeptics have already launched their arguments
against the reality of the crop circle phenomenon; Dennis Stacy
sent me a preprint of an article in the Skeptical Inquirer on
this topic.
     Another reason why so much care needs to be taken is that in
all the history of UGMs (unidentified ground markings),
"saucer nests" and "UFO landing sites", a very, very small number
had any associated radioactivity.  Cerealogists often argue
that crop circles are different from other UGMs, but it should be
obvious that they are really quite similar.  Crop circles are
kinds of UGMs, and the link with UFOs definitely exists.  Bower
and Chorley claim they even got the idea for their artistic
endeavours from the Tully "saucer nests" of the 1960's.  It would
be rather odd for UGMs to suddenly be laced with
radioactivity;  it is more likely that cerealogists are
frenetically searching for evidence to show that crop circles are
unlike other UGMs, and believe that they have found the radiation
as their proof.
     Now, much to my wife's consternation, I do have some
radioactive soil safely stored in a cement container in my house.
It came from the Michalak site, from the "saucer nest" found near
Falcon Lake in 1967.  The area was so radioactive that the
Government closed the area for health concerns at the time.
Nuclear waste dumps were checked, and Michalak went to a nuclear
research establishment for testing.  For many years, it was
widely assumed that the radiation was either due to a clever
"seeding" of the area with radium particles by a hoaxer, or was
actually caused by a spacecraft with a leaky reactor.  However,
recent tests sponsored by UFOROM gave another interpretation:
that the radiation came from natural uranium ore, and the odd
peaks found in the energy spectrum came from byproducts of radon,
a gas. 
     But, of course, things are not quite that simple.  This
latest interpretation requires that researchers at a major
government nuclear research establishment failed to recognise the
peaks as being due to natural uranium and radon.  While this
is possible, one can wonder what other mistakes might have
occurred, and what were their consequences?

Circle Roundup:  After Granum, Alberta, near the beginning of
September, there were no more Canadian UGMs reported.  In the
United States, there were cases reported in North Dakota, New
York, Kansas, and the noted case near Argonne.  However,
summertime down under has produced a new crop of circles and UFO
reports in Australia.  Reports of "over 100" circles on the
island continent are making headlines as I write these notes.
Here in North America, we wait for springtime to see what might
occur.

From the Mailbag:  Laurence Sokoloff, whom some have likened to
an alien, sends me obscure articles he comes across during his
literary endeavours.  His latest came from Paris Match for 12
Decembre 1991, with the accompanying note: "Chris - This article
is about French scientist Jean-Pierre Petit, who maintains that
startling scientific discoveries have been revealed to him by
aliens from the planet UMMO, located about 15 light-years from
Earth.  His book on the subject, Inquiry into the Aliens Who Are
Already Among Us, has become a best-seller in France.  Of course,
these are people who like Jerry Lewis."  Thanks for the
article, Larry!

                         Snailmail et al

     It would be difficult to list every missive I have received
over the past 6 months, and downright dangerous.  More than
a few people have pored through previous LoCs and WAHFs in
previous issues and complained that I missed their names.  If it
happens, it's an accident, really!  However, let me throw caution
to the wind and comment on a few letters.
     Len Stringfield sent me his latest Status Report VI (thanx,
Len!); it is a very readable survey of current crash-
retrieval stories, ranging from Roswell to Carp to Christian
Page's "alien" photo from Montreal.  Christian, by the way, is
rapidly emerging as one on Canada's finest ufologists, with the
added dimension of contributing UFO info from French Canada
which was generally inaccessible until recently.  Mike Strainic
and Lorne Goldfader in BC have been contributing cases and other
info to my Canadian UFO Survey. Mike's article in MUFON about
Chad Deetken's circle expeditions has already been commented
upon.  John Schuessler has sent me his UFO Potpourri; Bonnie
Wheeler sent along her Cambridge UFO Research Group Newsletter
(honestly, Bonnie, what is your xerox bill?); Bob Girard's
Arcturus Book Service Catalog is worth reading just for his
annotations!
     A special thanks goes out to John Salter, who continues to
document his fascinating experiences and keep his close
friends abreast of the latest (TV makes you look thinner, John!).
MUFON rep Eric Aggen publishes UFO Paradox occasionally, and
it is usually chock full of interesting Lazar or alien tech
stories.  I am proud to say that I am among the non-subscribers
to Saucer Smear, published by James Moseley.  Where else can you
read a running tirade between believers and skeptics, with barely
a hint of sarcasm?  Jim is definitely worthy of his title,
Supreme Commander!  Smear is absolutely essential to any
fortean's reading.
     As for cerealogy, Paul Fuller's Crop Watcher and Pat
Delgado's CPR Newsletter are the two circlezines I receive most
regularly.  Coming from two different "camps", they provide
complementary (and often discordant) views on the British circle
scene.  I would like to note that Jenny Randles has resumed her
exchange of Northern UFO News with SGJ, which was interrupted by
a span of 10 years.  Ah, but that was back in the days of UFOSIS
...
     As I am not a paying member of MUFON, I only get its Journal
intermittently.  However, Walt Andrus and Dennis Stacy have
both been corresponding with me and we have been sending things
back and forth throughout the year.  Dennis sent me a draft of
an anti-cerealogy article from an upcoming Skeptical Inquirer,
and asked me for a few comments and ammunition for his response
to CSICOP.  Oddly, my package to him was returned unopened.  MIB?
CIA? M-O-U-S-E ...
     Eric Herr in San Diego is compiling a list of physical trace
cases that support his magnetic propulsion system theory.
John Musgrave has moved to BC, and has been somewhat quiet of
late.  (How's trix, John?)  What can I say about Paul Cuttle, the
intrepid fortean who keeps Canada Post in business?  I wish I had
the time to track down all the material you find, Paul!
     As an experiment, I have been encouraged to offer the SGJ as
a textfile in the UFO International echo, available on
computer BBs's.  If it doesn't work, I would like to thank the
people who post me or netmail me with info.  Linda Bird in
Arizona has been very helpful in providing info on UGMs down her
way.  And her pix of the "Starthenon" are out of this world!
Dark skies, Linda!  Sheldon Wernikoff, a BBS regular, has
thankfully snailmailed me some stuff to save a lot of typing.
His access and interest in circles is a significant contribution
to the field.  I must thank Harsha Godaveri who got me onto the
BBs's in the first place, and who uploaded my disks until my
feeble system was up and running.  The bad news is, Harsha, I've
contracted three different viruses since being on the BBS's, and
I'm going to give up until it gets a bit safer.  I don't want
to lose another hard drive!
     Michael Chorost has been keeping me abreast of his detailed
work on circles, including his catalogues of cases and his
articles in various journals.  Similarly, another MUFON
contributor, Vince Migliore of California, has sent along his
comments about the circle scene.  I have had many letters from
people along the lines of: "please send me everything you have
about crop circles and/or UFOs".  Sorry, but I don't send more
than three filing cabinets at a time through the mail.
     It is fascinating to receive information from researchers
with differing viewpoints; the "alien technologists", the
"Lear/Cooper" camp, the "nuts-and-bolts" theorists, the "plasma
vortex" theorists, the mystics, the contactees, the debunkers,
etc.  It has always been my philosophy and approach to the field
that the only way to get an adequate understanding of the
phenomena is to examine all (both) sides of the arguments, no
matter how esoteric or stoic.  A pet peeve of mine is the
preponderance of new "experts" who lack any kind of background in
the genre.  Circle researchers who have never studied other
kinds of trace cases are one kind of irritant, as are ufologists
who haven't done their homework and haven't bothered reading
any of the historical literature that would shed light on their
"new" cases.  Until Bower and Chorley mentioned the Tully saucer
nests, many cerealogists had never heard of the case.  Similarly,
"plasma vortex experts" sometimes scratch their heads when
told of Phil Klass' articles in AW&ST, or of Persinger's TST.
Actually, I think one problem is the overwhelming amount of
information that has been published on the subject during the
last forty or fifty years.  Chester Cuthbert, the Canadian expert
on the paranormal, also has one of the largest collections of
science fiction literature.  He told me that when he began
collecting SF, it was possible to get everything published during
the course of a year.  Then, when SF actually became popular
and it went commercial, he couldn't keep up, so he had to
specialize.  One of his "specializations" back then was flying
saucer literature, which sprang out of SF literature.  But by the
late 1950's, saucer literature was blossoming and it started to
become difficult to collect even this small field.  The situation
has progressed to the point where UFOlit is nearly impossible
to collect in its entirety.  A single one of Bob Girard's
catalogs now contains more titles than were ever published a mere
20 years ago! (In the Seventies!)  Even with the help of
compilers like George Eberhart, getting a complete overview of
the UFO or circle field is not easy, and it's not getting any
better.  Vanity presses continue to churn out accounts of contact
with the space brothers;  collecting only Billy Meier material
could send you into the poorhouse in a year!

                           Miscellanea

     A number of interesting books of note have been added to the
UFOROM library, among them:  Angels and Aliens by Keith Thompson
(1991); UFOs Over Canada by John Robert Colombo (1991); The
Algonquin Experiments by James Penman Rae (1978); UFO Report 1992
edited by Timothy Good (1991); and Things That Go Bump in the
Night by Emily Peach (1991).
     Colombo's latest tome is a collection of anecdotal accounts,
all in the first person, of UFO sightings in Canada over two
centuries.  The lack of the investigation reports of the cases
gives it more of a folkloric approach to the subject rather than
an overview such as the earlier UFO Sightings, Landings,
Abductions by Yurko Bondarchuk.  Nevertheless, it
provides a refreshing viewpoint of the witnesses' own
interpretations of their experiences, and is a worthwhile read.
     On a different topic, it looks like the infamous Carp UFO
crash/retrieval is not quite dead.  Len Stringfield included
comments about the matter by Clive Nadin, Christian Page and
myself in his latest Status Report.  I continue to get the latest
ravings from its originator(s), including ramblings about Red
China taking over the world and how the Brotherhood will protect
the Holy Grail and save us from the aliens.  Theaccompanying
photos are mostly blurry, though one shows a guy in a bad
alien mask.  Sad, sad.  We have been able to show that the
packages are mailed from Ottawa/Hull, so the suspicion falls on
UFO buffs in that area.
=================================================================
     A special note to Canadian readers: it's time once again for
the annual Canadian UFO Survey!  Send just your report data to
the address below for inclusion in the yearly case roundup.  And
while you're at it, some of you (Americans included here!) have
not provided details of UGMs and crop circles for the annual
NAICCR report.  Tsk.  They're waiting for you!
     Thanks to all who provide data or otherwise contribute to
the information exchange in ufology, cerealogy or forteana.  You
are the reason progress continues to be made in these fields!
=================================================================
The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL is an irregular ufozine published by:

Ufology Research of Manitoba
P.O. Box 1918
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada   R3C 3R2

Copyright 1991 by Chris A. Rutkowski
================================================================
Volume 6               The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL            ISSN 0707-7106
Number 2               *********************               June 1992

   This issue of SGJ will be devoted to a review of recent articles and
books that I feel are of some significance to ufology and related
subjects.  It is probably impossible to comment on all the published
material, as there are so many ufozines and new books that are
available.  The Arcturus catalogs alone contain many more items than
most researchers or avid readers can ever hope to keep pace with (let
alone afford them!).  And, with materials branching out or crossing
over into other fields, the volume of information is truly
astronomical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SCIENCE NEWS is a weekly international newmagazine which is highly
regarded in the science community. It covers virtually all subjects,
and contributors write authoritatively on everything from global warming
to Alzheimer's disease.  Its cover story for February 1, 1992, was
about a unique interpretation of British crop circle formations by
noted archeaoastronomer Gerald Hawkins.  Basically, Hawkins believes
that whatever intelligence is behind the crop circle mystery, it is
sophisticated enough to create and solve complex problems in geometry.
Hawkins claims that several Euclidean theorems are demonstrated in the
British designs, and that this is more than simple hoaxing.  He asks in
a letter of response in the March 7th issue: "Are the crop-pattern
makers hitting these geometries by blind luck, or are they
communicating at some level of mathematical knowledge?"  He went on:
"It is unlikely that hoaxers could draw these by doodling in the dark".
   The problem is, however, that many people do not agree that the
patterns are complex enough to warrant an "unlikely" label.  This is
further complicated by the recognition that crop circles (or certain
types of UGMs) have been found in fields dating back long before the
1980's, and around the world in addition to the concentrated British
wave around Wiltshire.  Admittedly, some of the formations in England
are very bizarre, such as the one on Alton Prior, with "keys",
"ladders", inscribed rings and other shapes.  There is no question that
even hoaxers would have had to plan these with some effort. But do
these formations necessarily imply an intelligence beyond human
intervention?  We can recall books written about the pyramid of Cheops,
in which authors attempted to show complex knowledge about the universe
through the height, shape and position of the stones.  Skeptics showed
that these works were in error through further research into the
accuracy and measurement of the dimensions, but the attributions linger
on.
   We can therefore cast some doubt on Hawkins' interpretation of the
geometric accuracies of the British formations, despite his reputation.
It would be nice to think that the aliens (or whoever) are
communicating with us through geometric forms, but because so many of
the formations in England are suspected hoaxes, the data to support
such a theory is badly contaminated, and the theory is on very shaky
ground.

   Speaking of shaky ground, the latest issue of GEO-MONITOR (published
by Vince Migliore) [May 1992] has an interesting discussion about the
possibility that the April earthquakes in California were predicted by
some amateur seismic researchers.  One person monitoring 10.2 kHz said
he had heard "thumping sounds" a few days before a quake hit
California.  Others monitoring various frequencies also thought a quake
was coming.  Some earthquake "sensitives" who get migraines or heart
pain also seemed to predict the quakes.  Interestingly, the counting of
lost pet ads in newspapers is now losing favour among some researchers,
because the statistical tests used to verify any changes are too
rigourous to discriminate between small random variations and any real
effects. GEO-MONITOR has previously reviewed UFO reports as earthquake
precursors, and some interesting correlations have been reported.  But
out of the hundreds of seismic events listed every month, there are few
with associated luminous phenomena.  This is clearly at odds with the
Tectonic Strain Theory of UFOs advocated by Michael Persinger, John
Derr and others.

   Persinger is still publishing reams of material about TST effects on
UFOs and other paranormal phenomena.  One of the most recent is:
"Geophysical Variables and Behavior: LXVII. Quieter Annual Geomagnetic
Activity and Larger Effect Size for Experimental Psi (ESP) Studies Over
Six Decades", in PERCEPTUAL & MOTOR SKILLS, 1991, 73, 1219-1223.  Yes,
that's right, the 67th installment of the TST exposition, as of 1991.
In this article, Persinger and co-author R. Berger claim that they
found strong correlations between decreases in geomagnetic activity and
positive experimental ESP effects.  The ESP experiments were those
reported by the Rhine group in 1940, compiled during the 1800's and
early 1900's.  Persinger and Berger found that by introducing a LAG of
one year (thus allowing for a delay between the experiments and the
publication of the results), the strong correlation was produced.  They
therefore concluded that geophysical effects influence psychic ability.
It is interesting to note that they made no mention of the possibility
that the experiments or reports were in error. They conclude: "The
relationship between [geophysical effects] and this form of psi
phenomenon has been present for at least 100 years."  Support for this
contention?  Well, according to the list of references, many previously
published articles - by Michael Persinger.

   For those of you on the INTERNET or BITNET, the sci.skeptics
newsgroup recently carried a discussion about the TST and the crop
circle plasma vortices.  The Arizona Skeptics, represented by James
Lippard, recently published an article about John Derr's claims that
UFOs are miniature earthquake lights.  Lippard obtained further info
about the TST mess, and published some fairly damning comments in
another issue.  Robert Sheaffer, "Skepticus Maximus", as he calls
himself, was also interested in the TST debate. He stated that he had a
run-in with Persinger some time ago, with predictable results.  After
several more exchanges, yours truly was invited to contribute to an
article for the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER on the subject of the TST.  As some
readers will know, Phil Klass had asked me to compile a definitive
article about the TST for SI, but I had not yet had the opportunity to
do so.  Sheaffer therefore compiled information about the TST into a
"News and Views" article for SI, which will be published soon.

   On the topic of the Skeptical Inquirer, a fascinating article
critical of CSICOP has been published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH, Volume 86, January 1992.  Titled:
"CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview", author George Hansen really
socks it to CSICOP, cleverly uncovering some skeletons in their
closets and inadequacies in their approach to paranormal phenomena.
The lengthy article (available as an offprint from Arcturus Book
Service) discusses the formation of CSICOP, its makeup, belief systems
and also profiles some of its prominent members.  Hansen's conclusions?
From the abstract:
"Initially, CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon
         after its beginning it adopted a more popular approach that
         fostered a more broadly-based social movement ... a
         disproportionate number of magicians are involved, ...
         dominated by men, and many members hold religious views that
         are antagonistic to the paranormal.  Despite the name of the
         organization, actual research is a very low priority of the
         Committee.  In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing
         research itself.  CSICOP's highest priority has been to
         influence the media ..."
Basically, Hansen concludes that CSICOP is just as biased AGAINST the
reality of paranormal phenomena as "believers" are biased IN FAVOUR of
such phenomena.  He noted how moderates such as Truzzi and Rawlins
(who conducted a study on astrology with POSITIVE results) were ejected or
otherwise parted ways with CSICOP.  The CSICOP executive was found by
Hansen to be composed mostly of non-scientists with firm convictions
against the reality of paranormal phenomena (to the extreme position of
publicly proclaiming belief in such phenomena "dangerous"). 
   Hansen's most curious finding was that although CSICOP members often
point out that moneymaking ventures (such as book publishing) by
paranormal proponents are an obvious indication of incincerity, the
CSICOP executive itself appears to have a vested interest in publishing
companies disseminating anti-paranormal material.  Obviously, though,
the amount of material published by pro-paranormal factions far
outweighs the contrary, so the analogy may not be the best. 
   Perhaps the most unsettling of Hansen's findings is the lack of
research conducted by CSICOP, despite its published Mandate.  This is
probably most true now, with the legal battles and infighting
proceeding because of the Randi/Geller debates.  (This is most telling
through the insistence of CSICOP "affiliates" that they in no way
represent the parent group, and vice versa!)
   Hansen presents a decidely unkind look at CSICOP, but rather than
employing the flames used in INTERNET arguments, he uses quotes from
CSICOP members' own published comments to show their weaknesses. (Dare
I suggest that some of these quotes might be out of context?)
Paranormal researchers and CSICOP members alike are encouraged to seek
out a copy of Hansen's article, as constructive criticism can only
strengthen one's perception of a polarized debate.

   On a similar note, the editorial by Jerry Clark in the March/April
1992 issue of IUR also raises some disconcerting problems about CSICOP.
Jerry points out that in its "Manual for Local, Regional and National
Groups", 17 pages are devoted to "Handling the Media", whereas only 3
are given to "Scientific Investigations".  Jerry's editorial is much
less polite than Hansen's review, but this might be expected.  However,
even Jerry cautions that "not everyone ought to be tarred with the same
broad brush".  He goes on: "I have friends in CSICOP, individuals I
respect and whose views and insight I listen to respectfully even when
I disagree with them; I might add that we often agree, too.  [My]
remarks here are directed to CSICOP's leaders, who with some exceptions
have distinguished themselves chiefly by their arrogance, bombast, and
extremism."  It is interesting that such an editorial is carried in
IUR, because one criticism by both Clark and Hansen is that CSICOP
tends not to recognise reasonable paranormal research outside its own
dominion.  A case in point is the attempt by IUR to present opposing
views on the Gulf Breeze affair; two recent issues carried definitely
PRO articles about the Gulf Breeze UFOs (including one by Bruce
Maccabee) and also decidedly NEGATIVE articles about GB.  This is a
good example of how rational discussion should be conducted and evolve
in the UFO/paranormal/Fortean community.

   The same issue of IUR with Jerry's editorial also contains an
article I co-authored with John Timmerman of CUFOS.  John and I visited
Langenburg, Saskatchewan, with Jeff Harland (of UFOROM) last year, and
we had an opportunity to interview Edwin Fuhr.  Fuhr was the witness to
a remarkable CE2 in 1974, in which he came upon five bowl-shaped,
spinning objects as he was swathing rape.  When the objects departed,
they left behind circular swirled patches in the grass, remarkably
similar to the crop circles that have been found in England during the
past decade. We argue that crop circles are an ongoing, worldwide
phenomenon, and did not begin in the 1980's in England.  Furthermore,
it is unlikely that the case could be attributed to a plasma vortex.
This case is one of many which involve an observation of an apparently
solid, disc-shaped object which leaves behind a depression in the
vegetation.  These types of cases are clearly at odds with the two or
three dozen cases of eyewitness observations of rotating wind vortices
creating circles in English countrysides.  The latter are used by
vortex theorists to support their views, whereas the former are used by
some ETH theorists to bolster belief in aliens as circle creators.  Our
study of the Langenburg case shows how an investigation of a major CE2
can lead to differing interpretations and raises many questions about
witnesses' testimony and physical evidence.

   This is no more evident than in the CROP CIRCLE BULLETIN of CPR
Australia, a new branch of Colin Andrews' group.  Its first issue,
published in February 1992, reviews Andrews' visit down under and the
subsequent fallout.  Only days after Andrews' much-publicised visit in
December, 1991, crop circles were found amid a wave of UFO reports.
Issue #2 (May, 1992) breathlessly recounts Andrews' visit to Tasmania
in April, with packed houses of believers listening to his exposition
of how contact is occurring through the circles.  Circle formations, of
course, represent "ideas, qualities and functions", rather than actual
text, and the Hungerford (England) pictogram is thus translated into
the name: Ra, meaning "Sun".  As the BULLETIN's editor says herself:
"Language and words are a low-density form of communication and can be
used very successfully to mislead and control."  This is most revealing
in that the rest of the issue goes on at great length to expound upon
how crop circles are indications or messages from a higher intelligence
urging humanity to "WAKE UP and then be 'tuned in'". 
   The BULLETIN also contained some interesting discussion about the
crop circles which were found in New Zealand recently.  On February 1,
1992, the first one was found in Canterbury.  It was 20 metres in
diameter, with a concentric track about 10cm in width. Another was
found within a few days.  However, two young men named Hanrahan and
Harrison broke the story through the local newspaper that they had made
the formations with a T-shaped board (Bower and Chorley's nephews?).
What is most curious is that the Australian CCCS is not accepting the
hoaxers' claim.  The circles were destroyed before any member could
investigate.  Skeptics would invoke Occam's Razor and contend that the
hoaxers were, in fact, the culprits.  In this case, I would tend to
agree;  Bower and Chorley were suspect in England because of a number
of circumstances, including the vast numbers of circles found, and the
history of circles in the area.  In New Zealand, only two circles were
found after the publicity following Andrews' visit to Oceania, and
hoaxers came forward immediately.  It is LIKELY that they were indeed
responsible.  (However, any TRUE skeptic reading this would doubt my
conclusion, and point out flaws in my reasoning!)

   Incidentally, in addition to the sporadic reports of new circle
formations in England in 1992 (why isn't anyone disseminating
information from Britain this year?), North America has had a few cases
this year as well.  The first report came from Rosemary Ellen Guiley,
of the American branch of Andrews' group, who told me that a formation
identical with one last year was found at the exact same site near
Jonesboro, Georgia, in April.  However, inquiries with MUFON personnel
in that state have not been able to confirm the discovery.  In
addition, Rosemary (and another NAICCR correspondent) said that UFO
activity in New Hampshire had associated UGMs.  Again, I have been
unable to confirm this.
   I HAVE been able to confirm a new "space cookie" type of UGM,
investigated by Gord Kijek of the Alberta UFO Study Group.  It was
found on May 6th in a grassy field not far from Edmonton.  The UGM is a very
strange-looking formation and is EXACTLY six metres in diameter.  It
varies in depth from 5 to 31 cm, and stands out clearly in the
photographs which Gord has provided to NAICCR.  Although my first
thought was that it was a sinkhole, the terrain is supposedly not
conducive to such features, and besides, it would be unlikely that it
would be perfectly circular if that was the case.  Grass is growing
both in and out of the circle, and the shear is quite evident.
Hoaxers? Maybe, though I'm not sure how this could have been produced
without heavy machinery leaving tracks.  Oh, yes.  The UGM is in a
field owned by an RCMP officer. 

   The JOURNAL OF METEOROLOGY, vol.17, #165 (January, 1992), carried an
article written Dennis Stacy of MUFON but obviously endorsed by Terence
Meaden.  The article was titled "Soviet Ice Circle Reported", and was
submitted as yet more evidence that many classic UFO cases could be
"luminous, electrically-charged spinning vortices and the subsequent
formation of physical ground traces".  On January 7, 1990, a strange
object was observed by an ice fisherman near the town of Marefa.  He
saw a "saucer", a top-shaped object with a spire, 75 metres in diameter
and 5-6 metres thick.  From the account:
  "The object appeared to be resting on, or hovering just
slightly above, the surface of a small frozen bay.  Its spire
         and base were described as greyish-blue in color, the middle
         or main body as orange or rose-colored: 'something like the
         color of the clouds in the sky at sunset'.  The base was
         pulsating 'as if some balls (of light?) were rolling around
         there'."
After 10 minutes, the object rose about 30 metres, hovered, then moved
away to the east and was lost to view.  Where it had hovered were
several circular rings, the largest of which was 20.7 metres in
diameter and one metre wide. It had the appearance of a "giant milling
machine cutter".  At the time of its discovery, the ice was said to be
too thin to support a human, making the hoax explanation very
difficult. 
   Whereas most ufologists would interpret the case as a classic CE2
caused by a alien craft, Stacy (and apparently Meaden) propose that the
case is consistent with "many phenomenological correspondences with
some purported plasma-vortex effects", and "the colors themselves are
those that might be easily associated with a luminous atmospheric
phenomenon, including, presumably, the plasma-vortex".  This
interpretation of an apparently solid object as a plasma vortex has
become the norm for cerealogists wishing to find support for the vortex
theory of circle creation.  This attitude has naturally upset the
'nuts-and-bolts' UFO proponents, who find the plasma explanation as
unpalatable as Klass' ball lightning explanations of the 1960's.
Basically, the debate is this: which is easier to believe - that we are
being visited by extraterrestrials, or that a mysterious and
incomprehensible atmospheric phenomenon previous unknown to science is
being witnessed by thousands of people each year (and makes elaborate
ground formations almost exclusively in southern England)?

   Bill Chalker sent along info (through Paranet) about the central
coast of New South Wales (again in Australia) having a major flap of
UFOs in April and May of this year.  Besides the Toukley reports on
April 28th, there seem to have been a several other cases reported and
a great deal of media coverage.  But a local  resident announced to the
media that he was responsible for many of the reports.  It seems he was
trailing a "luminescent kit apparatus" on a 500-metre-long line while
riding his bike in the area.  Ufologists in the region are reportedly
debating whether or not this explanation is viable.

   Someone posted a huge wad of articles and letters concerning the
Gulf Breeze affair, in the alt.aliens INTERNET newsgroup (I think it
was Don Allen).  It contained (among other things): eyewitness acounts
by newspaper reporters, articles by Donald Ware and Duane Cook, letters
and articles by Bob Oechsler, photographic studies by Bruce Maccabee, a
letter by Bruce basically telling GB's mayor he doesn't know what he's
talking about, a summary by John Hicks, comments from Ed Walters in his
own defense, and Rex and Carol Salisberry's reasons why they disagree
with MUFON's support of the case.  The information complements the IUR
articles mentioned earlier, and show how complicated the GB affair has
become.  Some people are now firmly convinced that flares and balloons
caused the most recent UFOs there, and that Ed faked all his photos
with a little help from his friends.  Others (notably MUFON reps) argue
that Ed's photos are impossible to fake and that flares or balloons
cannot explain the reports from the nightly skywatches.  A recent
addendum to the case is that a physician from Louisiana who has been
investigating the GB reports with some associates has succeeded in
communicating with the recent UFOs, getting responses from flashing car
lights and telepathically giving instructions to the UFOs.
   I think it's about time that an expedition of objective
investigators was made to the Pensacola sites.  Even if Bob Sheaffer
and Phil Klass were along, it might throw a towel on the nightly UFO
contacts so that a better assessment of the reports could be made.
This all sounds suspiciously like the Niagara-on-the-Lake skywatches
(which I understand are still going on), which found hundreds of UFOs
each night flying over Lake Ontario.  Investigators with CUFORN and the
former Project SUM had plotted UFO flight paths and had determined
through triangulation that the UFOs were flying in and out of an
underwater base near Toronto.  Whatever happened to Project SUM,
anyway?

   Back to crop circles.  Mike Chorost kindly sent me a copy of a
RESEARCH REPORT (#3) by W.C. Levengood, who has analysed crop circle
samples to show they are significantly different from unaffected sites.
"Unusual Growth Responses in Crop Circle Seedlings" discusses how seeds
from crop circles grew at different rates than control seeds.  In
addition, under a magnifying glass, seeds from circle sites were
"grossly malformed" compared with control seeds.  Levengood claims that
"circle seedlings at the six-day point were at a significantly higher
growth (p < 0.05)".  The data was presented in the form of a graph
which showed the circle seedlings at 9cm versus the 7cm control
seedlings.  Levengood suggests that the average seedling heights were
therefore significantly different, though we cannot see this easily
from the graph, and details of the growing conditions are not given.
He also gives data on the "Vancouver" circles (actually from the
Alberta sites) and the Medina, NY, case, with similar results.  He
concludes that "plant growth from crop circle seeds indicates the
presence of complex energy mechanisms within the formations".
   Although Levengood's report is very interesting, others will be less
convinced of the significance of the results.  What would be needed to
convince the skeptics, I think, would be two or three independent labs
conducting the identical growing experiments and then comparing the
results.  From a paranormal point of view, perhaps it could be argued
that Levengood might have subconsciously "willed" the circle seedlings
to grow differently.

   Jenny Randles has sent along copies of the NORTHERN UFO NEWS, the
most recent few of which have contained defenses of her views on the
Rendlesham UFO case.  NUFON also defends the vortex theory quite
heartedly, though it also offers pointed commentary on the circle
scene, including the crop circle radioactivity fiasco.  NUFON also
includes summaries of recent British UFO cases (remember THOSE things?)
in each issue, contributed by members of BUFORA, MUFORA, SPI and
essentially all other imaginable acronyms.
   The CROP WATCHER, a British circlezine edited by Paul Fuller, is
also a good read.  Being a statistician, Paul's article describing the
details of the radioactivity found/not-found at circle sites was
particularly insightful to those of us still trying to figure out what
a Chi-square is.  Issue #10 (March/April) of CW contained a summary of
Andrew Hewitt's Survey of the 1990 British crop circles.  FINALLY!
   Hewitt used the CERES database (supplied by Terence Meaden) to
catalogue about 670 separate circles.  The full CERES database is now
said to have over 2200 circle events listed, but for simplicity, only
the 1990 data was selected.  Curiously, Hewitt used variables radically
different from those used by NAICCR in its reports.  Probably because
of the source of the data, variables were selected that were
particularly relevant to the plasma vortex theory.  Hewitt considered
the variables: Geographic Distribution; Altitude Above Sea Level;
Aspect; Gradient; Geology; Distance From Hills; Generalised Gradient
and Pattern Type.  In addition, each circle had a map location, a date
found, the name of the discoverer and a brief description of the
formation. 
   Hewitt's results were interpreted to show that the vortex theory is
consistent with the data.  For example, the variables of Aspect and
Gradient concerned the positioning of circles on hills in southern
England.  Most of the circles were on the northeast side of hills, and
"thus wind vortices forming on lee slopes in Southern England would
tend to create crop circles on the North-Eastern side of hills".  This
observation was supported by statistical tests.  Other variables such
as the Altitude did not seem to have much meaning as data, and merely
reflected the geographical distribution in Britain.
   But in North America, winds are much more variable, and such
analyses would have less meaning.  Furthermore, North America has much
fewer UGM cases to use as data.  Many circles in Manitoba were on
perfectly flat terrain, without any noticeable gradient, and rather
than negate the vortex theory, it has been reported that Meaden has
come up with several reasons why circles could form on flat terrain as
well.  (This begs the question of whether or not Hewitt's
Gradient/Aspect data were meaningful.)
   NAICCR also tabulated UGM data such as circle diameter, ring width,
eccentricity and crop type.  The disparity of variables between the
North American and British analyses shows how the two cerealogies differ
just as the ufologies. Hewitt's study is a fascinating and much-needed
contribution to cerealogy, and is hopefully only the first of many
quantitative research efforts from the British groups.  NAICCR will
attempt to include some of Hewitt's variables in its future Reports,
and it is hoped that British cerealogists will include more dimensional
analyses in their future studies.  Only through an increased effort to
exchange and standardize cerealogy data can progress be made. (Just
like what is needed in ufology!)  Good work, Andy!

   More circles:  A review of cerealogy research was published in UFO,
an Italian ufozine affiliated with Centro Intaliano Studi Ufologici, in
its Spring 1992 issue.  We were surprised to find that the NAICCR 1990
Report was summarized and translated into Italian as an example of
worldwide cerealogy research.  Grazie!
   Vance Tiede, of another American cerealogy group, sent me a printout
of circle data he compiled.  There are about 80 cases in his North
American Circle Log, and each one has a pageful of data.  Vance has
chosen (along with Rosemary Guiley, I would assume) to use even more
variables such as Latitude, Longitude, Local Newspaper Address,
Legislature Representatives, Local Agricultural Agent, State Senate
Agricultural Committee Chairman, and allowances for audio anomalies,
dowsing effects, photos, and the names of local military bases and
power stations.  One of Vance's ideas is to lobby politicians for
support in investigations of crop circles, hence the listing of ag reps
and house reps.  The co-ordinates are useful to those supporting, for
example, Richard Hoagland's energy grid theory.

   The most recent NATIONAL SIGHTING YEARBOOK (1990), by Paul
Ferrughelli in New Jersey, is another excellent statistical study,
using data on 954 American UFO reports during the period 1986-1990.
Among Paul's findings: in 1990, numbers of reports peaked in January,
April and October (UFOROM found that Canadian reports peaked in January,
April and August); the hourly distribution peaked at 9:00 PM and had a
trough around 10:00 AM (in exact accordance with UFOROM's studies); and
a slight indication of Keel's "Wednesday phenomenon". 
   The 1990 YEARBOOK is well laid out, and includes several additional
analyses such as monthly multi-year analyses, shape breakdowns, an
analysis specifically of "deltoid" objects, historical comparisons of
1947 versus recent data, and another look at the apparent influence of
media coverage upon UFO reporting.  As for this last effect, some of us
might remember Strentz' classic PhD thesis on this subject many years
ago, which found a very strong correlation.  Ferrughelli found that
"television program coverage on UFOs does NOT (his emphasis) cause a
direct increase in UFO sightings" and that there was "no relationship
between the 2 sets of data". 
   The data for these analyses came from MUFON, and it is good to see
that MUFON UFO reports ARE sometimes available for use in studies by
researchers.

   Ferrughelli used Hynek's classification of UFO data in his analyses,
as has UFOROM in its own previous reports.  However, in Jacques
Vallee's recent books, he has offered a new classification system, and
I think his new taxonomy is a very viable one.  Vallee proposes a 4x5
array of UFO report types, based upon Hynek's classifications, but
expanding them to provide a more detailed listing of anomalies,
including "FA (Fly-by)", "MA (Maneuver)" and CE1 to CE5.  In addition,
he suggests a SVP "Credibility" rating, which is a three-digit code
involving Source reliability, site Visit and Possible explanations. 
(I call it the "S'Il Vous Plait" rating.) Vallee's coding system is a
constructive reappraisal of the problem of UFO report classification.
It may not be perfect (for example, there is no way to specify a
nocturnal light versus a daylight disc, as far as I can tell), but it
does allow for fine-tuning of the data.  The Vallee classifications are
detailed in his book CONFRONTATIONS, but also in his UFO CHRONICLES OF
THE SOVIET UNION, Ballantine Books, NY, 1992, pp. 196-200.

   Possibly the most significant new UFO book this season has been
Volume Two of Jerome Clark's UFO ENCYCLOPEDIA (1992) [Official title:
EMERGENCE OF A PHENOMENON: UFOs FROM THE BEGINNING THROUGH 1959]. 
Despite is high price ($85 Amer?), it should be read by both
armchair UFO buffs as well as experienced researchers.  Jerry has done
a phenomenal job in compiling information about UFOs and related events
covering the period up to 1959.  There are entries on noted
personalities, major cases, disputed photographs and the contactee
movement.  Drawing from a variety of sources, Jerry has produced a very
readable, informative work that stands alone or in complement to the
first volume. Because of its weight, it's more difficult than most
books to read in the bathtub, but it is worthwhile going through the
entire tome.  Readers are guaranteed to learn details of cases about
which they were unaware. 
   Although the book has a definitely "pro" standpoint, Jerry is wise
to include reactions and explanations of major UFO cases by debunkers
such as Philip Klass and Donald Menzel.  In Clark's telling of the
tales, he points out major boners and silly comments by debunkers AS
WELL AS overboard proponents, although the former group won't be thrilled
by the portrayals.  Mind you, selective quotations out of context have
been used by both sides ...
   My only real complaint is the unneven distribution of material.
Biographies of figures like Aime Michel and Isabel Davis are given only
a few paragraphs, but some contactees' bios are many pages in length.
Some sections, such as those on UFO reports before 1959, seem
interminable, even though the case information is interesting in
itself.  The inclusion of a long, long entry on Australian UFOs (one of
the few outside contributions, by Bill Chalker) is valuable because
many European and American ufologists are likely unaware of much of the
activity in Oz.  But there would be a case to be made for similar
sections about India, Africa, Russia, etc., in addition to the
Australian info.
   Otherwise, the UFO ENCYCLOPEDIA is an excellent reference work, and
should be added to any library of Fortean material.  Readers new to the
field should peruse the book to get a "proper schooling" in the subject
before making any outlandish claims (and to get correct background
information for their own writings).  Clark has included extensive
references with each entry, as well as a condensed index.  Volume Three
is anxiously awaited, and Jerry tells me there is a possibility of a
mass-market compendium in the future.  Good work, Jer!

************************************************************************

Other Titbits:

   As this issue of SGJ goes to press, there are a few bizarre
developments in the works.  The NBC TV program UNSOLVED MYSTERIES is
FINALLY going to produce a segment about the noted Falcon Lake CE2.
NBC has been corresponding with me and others involved in the case for
about three years, and has at last set a production schedule.  I will
be flown to the shoot to be interviewed in June, along with the
Michalak family and Ed Barker.  This would be the equivalent of Bill
Moore and Kevin Randle, or Stanton Friedman and Jenny Randles, working
together in harmony on a UFO project.  However, since I believe that
the airing of a segment on the Michalak case might jog someone's memory
and help in uncovering details (or even SOLVE!) the case, I have no
qualms about working with others with whom I do not agree. 
   For those of you who do not know about the case, in 1967, Stefan
Michalak had a CE2 experience while prospecting in eastern Manitoba.
One of two saucer-shaped craft landed near him, and he was burned by
its exhaust; radioactive soil and unusual silver fragments were later
found at the site.  Apparently the special effects for the TV show will
be quite spectacular, involving "stunt men" and "pyrotechnics".  I
would assume that it will be broadcast this fall.

   Roy Bauer will be featured on an upcoming CBC NEWSMAGAZINE segment
in June.  Roy was followed by a film crew as he travelled to Kenosee,
Saskatchewan, where some people were experiencing poltergeist
activity.  A renovated dance hall and bar was being subjected to spooky
hauntings, including loud noises, malfunctioning equipment and one
instance of a wind which rushed out of a sealed room when a door was
opened.  Roy is one of Canada's only "specter ejecters"; his business
card reads: "Specter Paranormal Investigations" and "Specialist in
Ghosts, Hauntings and Poltergeists".
   Roy's thorough report describes the happenings in some detail, such
as the following:
        "Little things began happening ... Things would disappear and
then reappear days or weeks later, such as a box of cash register tapes
and juice containers ... One employee witnessed hearing the cooler door
in the kitchen close when no one was around.  What became almost
routine were the switching on and off of the cabaret lights.  As part
of the regular closing procedure, either [names deleted] would make
sure all of the lights were off before they went to sleep.  On many
occasions, when they went back downstairs, the lights would be on
again.  On one occasion, the dishwasher in the cabaret switched itself
on for a few seconds, then off again.  Footsteps were heard at various
times [when no one aws around] ... Once when [name deleted] reached for
a light switch in the dark, he felt something touch his arm ...
        "[the owners] were awakened by loud banging that seemed to come
from the cabaret below ... 'loud as a car crash' ... it caused some
dishes to break ... there was no sign of entry.  No sooner were they
back in bed than the banging started up again.
   Police were called in on several occasions, but there were never any
signs of indtruders.  " ... the straw that broke the camels back was
during one of the nights when they heard a loud, deep male moaning
which lasted about 10 seconds ..."
   There were rumours that a church nearby the hall was haunted by the
ghost of a priest who had hanged himself.  A local urban legend was
that the church glowed at night, cars would not start near it, and
driving by the church "at the wrong time" might get you killed.  Roy
and the CBC crew put most of these tales to rest (the church was
painted a bright white, and because of its isolation and placement, you
could in fact see it far into dusk).  But as for the other effects ...

   A special hello goes out to Jim Moseley of SAUCER SMEAR, who has
been replaced by an entity named OSIEAU because of death threats from
some of his non-subscribers.  Jim was always a bit of an odd bird,
anyway.  It is not true that the editor of SGJ will be replaced by a
similar entity named PAMPLEMOUSSE.

************************************************************************

Letters and Correspondence:

I simply cannot thank all my correspondents enough for their letters,
newsclippings and zines.  What's more, I can't even name you all!  But,
poring through my "IN" basket, here are some of you:

Clive Nadin - thanks for the NRC cases! We're sorry to see you, Clare
and Holly head back home to Britain, but we wish you health, luck and
happiness!  Don't forget to write!  Don't let those vortices get you!

John Hicks - thanks for moderating the FIDONET UFO echo.

Gord Kijek - North America's best investigator!

Christian Page - Merci bien, mon ami!

Chris Davis - for all his help in setting up my computer stuff! 

And the following (in no order whatsoever!):  Philip Imbrogno, Robert
Sheaffer, Robert Girard, Vince Migliore, Jerry Clark, Mark Rodeghier,
John Timmerman, Sheldon Wernikoff, Michael Corbin, Mike Chorost, Jenny
Randles (keep your chin up, it makes a better target!), Paul Fuller,
Vance Tiede, Steve Bernheisel, John Cole, Ralph Noyes, Triana Chapman,
Bonnie Wheeler, Lorne Goldfader, Mike Strainic, Rosemary Ellen Guiley,
Paul ("Xerox") Cuttle, Gene Duplantier, Hilary Evans, John Robert
Colombo, James Lippard, Gordon Phinn, Jeff Harland, Gary Lanham, Harsha
Godavari, Stanton Friedman, Walt Andrus, Jim Moseley, Roy Bauer and
Grant Cameron.  If I've left somebody out, I'm SORRY!

************************************************************************

The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL is a ufozine published irregularly by:

                         Ufology Research of Manitoba
                         Box 1918
                         Winnipeg, Manitoba
                         Canada   R3C 3R2

and is copyright (c) 1992 by Chris A. Rutkowski

This issue is also available on an experimental basis on INTERNET by
e-mail to:  rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca

The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL is free with limited distribution, but is
available primarily through zine exchanges, regularly contributing
Fortean info, or by providing two (2) International Postal Reply
Coupons in lieu of a subscription (to cover postage).

*************************************************************************

The following gives SGJ readers an inkling of the type of material
which appears in the INTERNET newsgroup alt.alien.visitors:

From alt.alien.visitors Mon Jun  8 10:53:05 1992
From: tseifert@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tim Seifert)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Mysterious crop circles
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

What is the recent status of the investigations into crop circles?  What
are the latest explanations?  Vortex?  Space ships?  EM ?

[a simple question, from an obviously uninformed reader]

From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Mysterious crop circles
Date: 8 Jun 92 04:15:28 GMT

In article <1992Jun5.182806.3668@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>, tseifert@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
(Tim Seifert) writes:
>
> What is the recent status of the investigations into crop circles?  What
> are the latest explanations?  Vortex?  Space ships?  EM ?

   Heck, no. Just people having fun with those who believe in mysterious
crop circles. By the way, I'm heading home to Finland this summer, and
the farmers have pretty nice crop fields in my home town. So don't
be surprised if pictures of mysterious crop fields in Finland should
pop up by end-July.
--
                                              Cheers, Kent

[ ... unfortunately answered by a smart-aleck]

From: davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Hard Copy shows NASA UFO video
Date: 6 Jun 92 18:26:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 34

The syndicated TV infotainment show Hard Copy showed a NASA videotape
beamed live from the Space Shuttle Discovery depicting a UFO flying
above the earth.  The video appears to be black and white; the UFO is
just a speck of light.  However, the light suddenly makes a right-angle
turn and speeds off into space at what appears to be high speed (it
actually seems to fly on a trajectory away from the camera, but seems to
go at high speed because it becomes quite dim and disappears as it is
moving a short distance on the screen).  A second or two after the UFO
appears to speed off, an object shoots up at right angles to the earth,
somewhat near the position of the UFO a second or two earlier.  Don
Ecker of UFO magazine theorizes that the UFO was making an evasive
maneuver to avoid being shot at.

NASA claims the object is a piece of ice made from waste water dumped by
the shuttle on a previous orbit.  They have no comment about the
apparent shot coming from earth, or the apparent right-angle turn of the
UFO.

Whatever it is, it's very intriguing.  It's very hard for me to believe
it was a piece of ice.  I would like to know much more, like what part
of earth the UFO and shot were over, and if there were any UFO
encounters in that area on that date.  I would also like to know what
the astronauts on board the shuttle thought of the incident when it
happened, and I would like to hear all radio transmissions made by them
before and after the incident.

Any comments on the video?

[I did not see this, but Gord Mathews and Roy Bauer did, and they said
it was a VERY fascinating film.  I would imagine that we'll be hearing
much more about this in the coming months!  However, I would tend to be
sympathetic with the following cautious reply:]

From: rhys@cs.uq.oz.au (Rhys Weatherley)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Hard Copy shows NASA UFO video
Date: 7 Jun 92 00:45:38 GMT
Lines: 25

In <12711@borg.cs.unc.edu> davidson@monet.cs.unc.edu (Drew Davidson) writes:

>NASA claims the object is a piece of ice made from waste water dumped by
>the shuttle on a previous orbit.  They have no comment about the
>apparent shot coming from earth, or the apparent right-angle turn of the
>UFO.

It could be an ET-UFO, but it could also be totally Earthly in origin.
Considering that in modern warfare if the enemy can take out your spy sats and
other space-based military hardware, you are at a distinct disadvantage, what
this incident suggests to me is a test of some advanced military hardware to
see if it could avoid being "taken out".

It would also explain why the shuttle cameras were focused on this particular
hunk of "uninteresting ice" at the time. :-)

Just my opinion - it could be something else entirely - I haven't actually
seen the video in question.

Cheers,

Rhys.
--
Rhys Weatherley, University of Queensland, Australia.
rhys@cs.uq.oz.au  "I'm a FAQ nut - what's your problem?"

***************************************************************************

   Finally, a few last words about crop circles and UFO miscellany.
Gordon Phinn called to pass on info from John Paddington that about 20
formations have been found in Britain in 1992, so far (as of June 8).
Among the oddest is a triangle with inscribed circles (probably in reply
to Hawkins' fifth theorem challenge).  What is most significant about
this information is that the circles have still not gone away, despite
a plethora of hoaxers, contests and admissions.  Is this evidence of
the vortex theory at work?
   Ralph Noyes has kindly passed on the CCCS's first step towards
compiling their own catalogue of circles.  It covers only the Wiltshire
area, and each entry lists the discovery date, geographical location,
ordnance survey reference numbers and a sketch of the formation.
Between 9 June and 22 August 1991, there are 38 formations listed.
Most are multiple circles connected by corridors, and many are the
"Ra" "mouth" feature described earlier.
   And - a plug for the 1991 Canadian UFO Report Survey, which is
nearly complete.  This year, I had to wait much longer than usual to
receive reports from all the usual contributors, but the annual review
of Canadian UFO activity is finally in the works.  Roughly, I can say
there were about the same number of UFOs reported as in previous years,
with similar distributions of types, locations and categories.
Thanks to all who contributed!

   Cosmic salutations. 
Volume 6               The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL            ISSN 0707-7106
Number 3               *********************            November 1992

   This is the second issue of the SGJ which will be available in both
online and hardcopy format.  The response to the last issue was
overwhelming, to say the least.  It seems that there is a need for an
electronic version of this zine, so from now on, as long as is
feasible, the SGJ will be available via email.  However, photos or
graphics pages will not be included in the electronic version; they
will be available in hardcopy only.  (No, I do NOT want to hear about
.gif and .pif files!)

               UFOs, LITs, LATERs, BOLs and WYSIWYG

   With regard to those pesky flying things, a recent story in TIME
magazine (August 31, 1992, p.44) reported that: "UFO sightings are
down, and the saucer spotters are getting skeptical.  What on earth is
going on?"
   This was most interesting, especially to ufologists who tabulate UFO
activity.  The UFOROM Canadian UFO Survey, for example, found that
numbers of UFO reports increased during the past two years.  Similarly,
Paul Ferrughelli's annual report on American cases also found an
increase.  What HAS decreased is the media's interest in carrying
stories about UFOs.  This is not suprising, since the ridicule curtain
(as named by Allen Hynek) is still in effect.  Furthermore, the vocal
efforts of CSICOP and independent skeptics' groups (that have
absolutely NOTHING to do with CSICOP, obviously) have caused many
editors to think twice before doing an article on paranormal
phenomena. An article by Don Berliner in a recent issue of IUR (Vol.17,
#5, Sept/Oct 1992, pp. 16-18), titled "Why the Press Acts That Way",
enumerates the various reasons why ufology is not taken seriously by
the media. 
    The TIME article went on to describe a UFO investigator named
Philip Mantle as one of "a new breed of UFOlogists who do not
believe that UFOs come from outer space."  Where has TIME been all
these years?  They interview New Agers wearing pyramid hats, and
then interview Philip Klass, and they think they have a complete
overview of ufology!
   In terms of sighting numbers, Ferrughelli's latest National Sighting
Yearbook 1991 (60 Allen Drive, Wayne, NJ 07470) lists the
following totals: 1987 - 170; 1988 - 291; 1989 - 268; 1990 - 194;
and 1991 - 201.  Report numbers dropped slightly in the early '90's,
but numbers are still above the 1987 figure.  In Canada, UFOROM's
annual survey actually records many more cases per capita than the USA,
and numbers hover steadily around 175 cases per year.  Where's the drop
in numbers that TIME describes?
   The article points to the Belgium wave, where 2000 sightings were
recorded in 1991, but there have been only 50 in 1992 so far.  In
Britain, the article cites a similar number this year, compared to
hundreds per year in the 1980's.  But any ufologist worth his or her
salt would have been able to explain the mechanics of flaps and waves,
not to mention historical trends.  So, the TIME article is not only
wrong, it's not even well-researched.

                           THE CIRCLE GAME

   Let's talk circles.  For years now, I've been commenting upon the
suspicious similarities between crop circles and classic UFO physical
traces.  I've pointed out that flattened areas of crushed vegetation
have been found WITHOUT associated UFO activity throughout recorded
history.  In Canada, classic UGM cases include Langenburg in 1974 and
Rossburn in 1977, both predating the British wave.  And even Doug and
Dave admitted getting their ideas to make their hoaxes from the Tully
saucer nests in Australia back in 1967.
   Furthermore, I have said all along that the vast majority of crop
circles are likely hoaxes.  My own investigations and research, as well
as consultation with others in this field, suggested that the Meaden
vortex theory was not tenable, nor were theories concerning mating
hedgehogs, lightning and whatever.  My observations were that, although
it is difficult to PROVE a particular site is a hoax, the likelihood of
this being so is very strong.
   In recent issues of circle- and ufozines, some people seem to have
arrived at similar conclusions.  In particular, a recent article in the
AFU (Sweden) Newsletter (No.36, Jan-Dec.1991) by Clas Svahn echoes many
comments that are quietly circulating among cerealogists fearful of
exposing the Emperor's new clothes.  Svahn has visited the British
circle sites several times over the past few years, and his
observations are very interesting.  He says:
   "MONEY has become the number one concern for many of the
circle 'researchers'. Selling dubious books, postcards and other circle
paraphernalia tend to be more important than investigating the real
phenomenon (hopefully, there is one).
   "It is not very reassuring to note that speculations and wishful
thinking are taking more and more space in books and magazines dealing
with the crop circles.  Instead, one would like to see more soberness
and objectivity from the different groups involved."
   In a review of recent books, Svahn notes that all authors:
"treat the phenomenon as if it was 100 percent genuine. Of course, they
acknowledge the Bower and Chorley 'intermezzo', but [none] seem to
realize that today there is no way to distinguish between 'real'
circles and hoaxes ... While the research is getting out of hand, the
researchers become more and more like New Age phophets ..."
   Svahn's article includes personal observations of circle sites, and
commentaries about the actions of specific cerealogists.  His most
poignant comment is emphasized in the original: "Most researchers tend
to hold on to their pet theories without taking others' criticisms
seriously.  During my visits to England - and from the few reports I
have investigated here in Sweden - I HAVE BECOME MORE AND MORE
DISAPPOINTED AND UNCERTAIN OF THERE BEING A REAL PHENOMENON BEHIND THE
CIRCLES."
   Is he alone in his opinions?  Definitely not.  In a major British
circlezine, the CROP WATCHER, editor Paul Fuller has a few biting
comments about the current state of cerealogy.  In CW #12 (July/Aug
1992), Paul writes:
  "Even the paranormally-inclined cerealogists have admitted that 1992
produced fakes galore, with few prepared to stick their necks out and
claim that a single [NB!] British circle qualified as 'genuine'.  In
some ways, this restrained response could be construed as an
over-reaction to last summer's hoax revelations, but in reality the
awful truth has dawned on cerealogists everywhere - that most modern
crop circles really are man-made hoaxes and that if there ever was a
'genuine' phenomenon in the first place it has now been utterly swamped
by a smokescreen of wishful thinking and media-inspired mythology.  Sad
words indeed but a fact which most researchers now seem to be accepting
with some reluctance."
   Paul notes that "leading cerealogists accept that they have
lost the crop circle battle and that it is time to flee the sinking
ship."  He observes that some prominent cerealogists are emigrating to
the USA, possibly for this reason.  In fact, as obvious on a recent TV
episode of Sightings, Colin Andrews is now based in Connecticut.
As for the remaining "meteorologically-caused" circles, Terence Meaden,
that theory's main proponent has now stated that: "Anything other than
a simple circle is definitely a hoax", and he has now restricted the
number of 'genuine circles' to "fewer than a dozen a year".  Paul
further notes: "It remains to be seen whether Meaden's meteorological
theory can survive such trauma."
   Later in the issue, there appears a map of England, showing the
locations of "Known Crop Circle (Groups of) Hoaxes".  I can't reproduce
it here, but to give readers a flavour for what's on it, the
editor notes that "there are so many known hoaxers that we couldn't
squeeze them all in!"  Good old Doug and Dave, who got all the
publicity, are on there wih their small number of formations.
  In North America, arch-skeptic Rob Day has publicly admitted he was
responsible for some of the recent crop circles in Alberta.  A farmhand
who had used a garden tractor to make a UGM was caught by Roy Bauer and
Grant Cameron here in Manitoba.  At least one set of hoaxers has
admitted to making some circles in the American Midwest.  Given the
proliferation of hoaxes and the obvious contamination of crop
circle/UGM data, cerealogists had better take more care to ensure their
investigations are truly objective and unbiased.
  Obviously, though, this caution is not confined to cerealogy.  In no
less a controversial subject as crash/retrievals, Barry Greenwood
defends his publication JUST CAUSE in Number 33 (Sept.1992) of that
zine: 
   "Recently, we have received comments from several pro-UFO
readers questioning the relevancy and value of what we have published
in the last couple of years.  We have apparently not been pro-ET enough
... We could very likely double our subscription rolls by reporting
titillating stories of underground alien bases, of simple verbal
accounts claiming knowledge of UFO technology, of what has become so
very trendy now - alien/human SEX!  Actually, it would not be enough to
report such information - we would have to advocate it on a soapbox.
Then, we would likely be invited onto numerous media programs to give
the public what it craves - sensation.
   "As one UFO pundit told us recently, printing sensible information
is not the road to fame and fortune.  Trying to be balanced and careful
seem to be undesireable traits to some.  So be it.  We exist to inform,
not to put on a Wild-West show."
   Howdy, pardners.  Are you cowpokes listening?
   Perhaps the most significant issue here is that all the comments
reprinted here are from zines that are ostensibly "pro" as opposed to
"skeptical" in the CSICOP sense.  Despite repeated claims that ufology
and cerealogy are running rampant without any peer review, there has
always been a great deal of constructive and rational discussion within
the Fortean community. It isn't as common as "Wild-West" shows, but it
IS out there.  I have always advocated an open and non-confrontational
approach to discussions in the fields of so-called "pseudoscience".
Very often, "balanced" forums or debates between skeptics and
"believers" degrade into arguments on semantics or the nature of
science.  Innocent viewers/listeners/observers who are desperate for
understandable information about UFOs only get more confused and
turn back to traditional sources of information - the tabloid media.
  Throughout my 15 years of involvement in Fortean research, I have
always tried to encourage discussion between the two camps of
"believers" and "skeptics".  Usually, I've failed.  Normally,
"believers" consider me to be a skeptic, while ardent skeptics think my
fence-sitting makes me an irrationalist.  I often comment that sitting
on the fence can be very painful, not only from the pickets, but also
because you get things thrown at you from both sides.  The trouble is
that, in my opinion, one cannot be truly impartial and objective unless
meaningful dialogue is shared between opposing parties, and such
dialogue should be solicited or precipitated whenever possible.
   I find it amazing that I am one of a few ufologists who reads the
Skeptical Inquirer, and I am also one of the few skeptics who reads IUR
and the MUFON Journal.  Conferences are a sore point, too.
I received an invitation to the second Las Vegas UFO Conference,
featuring talks by Wendelle Stevens, Jaime Shandera and Stanton
Friedman.  At a cost of about $500 (CDN), I couldn't attend.
CSICOP conferences are similar in format; both factions usually feature
presentations of "the converted preaching to the converted".  The two
groups meet with cross-purposes, and no useful dialogue talks place.
But can you imagine a joint CSICOP/MUFON meeting?  I can't, either.
   If such a meeting were to take place, it would likely degenerate
into a shouting match, and possibly a barroom brawl.  The situation
would be similar to a radio debate for which I was invited to be the
spokesman for the "pro" side of UFOs, crop circles, etc.  My opponent
was a member of a regional skeptics' group (which had ABSOLUTELY
nothing to do with CSICOP, of course).  I was astounded at the vigour
with which I was verbally attacked.  I was taken aback when my opponent
read from a transcript of a previous interview I had given, in order to
show how irrationalists such as myself contradict ourselves at every
opportunity.  After listening intently, I pointed out that nothing in
my statement was contradictory, and he grudgingly agreed, having been
caught in his own trap.  After all, I sometimes never contradict
myself in the course of a discussion.
   The unfortunate part of the "debate" was that because there was a
constant stream of offensive and defensive verbiage flowing, only three
telephone calls from listeners were taken.  Even the radio host
admitted that he was completely confused by the semantic arguments.
Listeners were wanting to get good information about sensational
subjects, but were completely turned off by the presentation. 
   How did I advocate the "pro" side?  I didn't, deliberately.  I had
explained that I represented UFOROM and had been investigating UFOs and
related phenomena for about 15 years.  At no time did I claim that the
aliens were here, raping our Streibers and stealing our children.  I
spoke from experience, describing facts without any deliberate
interpretation.  On crop circles, my opponent insisted they were all
caused by hoaxers.  I pointed out that that was a definite possibility,
but we had only caught one hoaxer in Canada in three years.
Furthermore, there still exists a possibility that winds can make SOME
crop circles.  I may not think much of Meaden's theory, but many
scientists (defined variously) think it may have some merit.  My opponent
insisted that these were trivial arguments, and that his view was
completely correct.  The skeptical view is that since hoaxers are the
most PROBABLE explanation, then that is the CORRECT explanation.  My
caution is that there are so many categories and kinds of UGMs, a
blanket statement of any kind is improper.  There ARE cases which are
caused by hedgehogs, just as some are caused by hoaxers.

                            ABDUCTIONS?

   A similar hassle would be created for an all-sides meeting to
discuss UFO abductions.  In one corner would be skeptics such as Robert
Sheaffer and Philip Klass (author of "UFO Abductions - A Dangerous
Game").  In the other corner would be researchers such as John Mack,
David Gotlib and, of course, Budd Hopkins.  Both sides would need to
put their dukes up.  The skeptical standpoint is that abductions do not
take place, and the experiences are little more than dreams or
hallucinations fueled by the popular media.  The "pro" UFO standpoint,
which is the one adopted by most UFO buffs and proclaimed at UFO
conferences, is that the aliens are abducting us for nefarious or
possibly benevolent reasons.  But Mack and Gotlib are clinicians who
are engaged in the treatment and counseling of individuals who appear
to have had traumatic experiences that are represented by images of
aliens.  Thousands of such cases DO exist; this is not the issue.  WHY
people are reporting the experiences is the real issue.  Imagination
fueled by tabloid tales?  Certainly some cases are, but even if this is
so, there is still the problem of determining why such cases are
multiplying.  What is the mechanism responsible?  Why would people
unconsciously generate such experiences and hold to them so intensely?
There is no other comparable experience in the history of psychology or
sociology that has grabbed such a foothold in the public mind.  So, the
problem is NOT to determine if aliens are abducting humans, but rather
to determine WHY the cases exist at all, and to understand the
psychological/sociological mechanisms behind the stories, IF there is
no physical or paraphysical cause.

                               BOO!

   Fear-mongering.  That's what discussions about cattle mutilations
and satanism are said to be.  I was accused of being a fear-mongerer
for simply describing a meeting I had attended. 
   Now, I really didn't want to get into this argument in the SGJ, but
it's relevant to this discussion.  In the course of my investigations
into Fortean phenomena, I have been asked to look into a few mute cases
here in Manitoba.  None were extremely interesting.  One carcass I
examined near Teulon in 1977 was badly picked over by the time I got to
the scene, and I never did get a chance to see the others.  I have
spoken to various veterinarians, and opinion seemed to vary.  At the
time, I heard a number of bizarre anecdotes, including one about a
perfectly square patch of hide removed from a carcass found in Alberta
in the 1970's.
   Jerry Clark of CUFOS recently wrote a relevant editorial for IUR
which related his views on mutes.  He pointed out that the
link between UFOs and mutes was virtually non-existent, somewhat
contradicting Linda Howe's stance.  (Stigmatist Tom Adams also supports
the UFO link).  A popular book by Daniel Kagan, titled Mute Evidence, is
often recommended by debunkers.  Kagan spent some time talking with a
number of vets and government officials, and came to the conclusion
that mutes were a non-issue.  Mute proponents, however, have pointed
out that Kagan's credentials and expertise are somewhat dubious,
implying he was not a credible authority and his conclusions were
unjustified.
   In the mid-1970's, mute cases were popping up everywhere.  Tommy Roy
Blann (does anybody know where he is these days?) even prepared a
confidential report for RCMP in Alberta, in which he provided them with
background information for their investigations into Canadian cases.
Tommy was pro-UFO, and the RCMP at the time were seriously considering
the possibility that satanic cults were involved.  In 1992, more mutes
were reported in Alberta, but this time, newspaper accounts have the
RCMP denying any satanic links. 
   Recently, I had been invited to contact individuals in the employ of
both civic and provincial family services, because of my involvement in
local UFO cases.  It seems that these individuals have encountered, in
their opinions, clear cases of ritual or satanic abuse in the course of
their work.  They had heard of the alleged connection between child
abuse and UFO abductions, and wanted my opinion.  They explained that
they had encountered "many cases" of ritual abuse, but that it was very
difficult to gather enough evidence that would be accepable in a court
of law.  That is why, they suggested, debunkers' arguments that there
has never been any proof of ritual abuse or satanic cult activity are
technically correct, yet clinically false.
   The problem is that, by strict definitions of proof and
falsifiability employed by debunkers in their analyses of unusual
phenomena, sociological and psychological phenomena sometimes fall
outside the definitions.  It has been pointed out by other writers that
Freudian psychology and stock market analyses both fail in tests of
"scientific" definitions because they rely a great deal upon
interpretation and subjective opinions on the part of researchers in
those fields.  So, in terms of "rigourous" proof, cases of ritual abuse
may be factual according to social workers and criminologists, but are
spurious and unsubstantiated to scientific objectivists.
   The day after I met with the individuals from family services and
the social agencies, I was involved in a public debate on UFOs and
related matters.  Hence, when I was asked if satanic cults had anything
to do with cattle mutilations, I replied that there might
be some connection.  I was immediately branded a "fearmonger" by my
opponent, who obviously had never discussed the matter with social
workers and who probably would never do so.  In no way was I trying to
scare the audience with gruesome tales of satanists killing cattle and
drinking blood; I only replied to the question with information I had
received the day before.  It is quite true that many social caseworkers
believe that ritual abuse exists in our society.  Indeed, my cynical
nature makes me fairly certain that "sick" people with an affinity for
such activity live in our midst.
   The complexity of the issue is best described in a new book by David
K. Sakheim and Susan E. Devine, titled: Out of Darkness - Exploring
Satanism and Ritual Abuse (Lexington [MacMillan], 1992).  Sakheim and
Devine present a survey of various views on the subject, written by
social workers, police, psychologists and victims.  This is about as
balanced of a work as I have ever seen.  The various authors caution
that the sensationalist version of rampant satanism is clearly fiction,
but note that there is some evidence that ritualistic acts do occur in
our society.  The problem of finding "conclusive proof" is a major
concern, and obviously parallels ufology in this regard.  In fact, UFO
abductions are mentioned several times in the the book, in the context
of evidence for alleged child abuse and screen memories.  Perhaps the
most revealing chapter is about dealing with "nihilists" - those who
deny that such phenomena exist at all.  Indeed, the infamous SKEPTICAL
INQUIRER article on the non-existence of satanism is examined and
refuted.
   Another complication is the creation of a new skeptical group,
called the False Memory Syndrome Association (3508 Market St., Suite
128, Philadelphia, PA 19104).  The executive director of the group, Dr.
Pamela Freyd, is sending reams of information to social workers
involved in abuse cases, in an effort to stop proliferation of the
acceptance of "remembered memories" such as child abuse, ritual abuse
and, yes, UFO abductions.  Freyd points out that in many cases where an
adult "remembers" early abuse, investigation shows that no such events
had ever occurred.  Cynical case workers are quick to point out that
the FMS group includes many people who have had work published by
Prometheus Books, and are therefore CSICOP debunkers at heart.
However, the FMS group's warnings should be heeded.  The lesson is
there, too, for researchers involved with UFO abductions. 
   If debunkers wish to get into long diatribes with ritual abuse
investigators, arguing about the existence of cultists, let them do so.
It is beyond the abilities of most UFO/mute/trace investigators to
properly deal with this subject.  Rationally, it would seem that
ufologists should remain apprised of the subject, but refer incidents
to more appropriately-trained individuals.  This material is clearly
out of the league of most UFO buffs, and should stay there.

                          INSOLUBLE MISERIES

   By now, many of you will have seen my appearance as a "U.F.O.
Researcher" on the Unsolved Mysteries segment aired on November 4th,
1992.  The segment concerned the strange story of Stefan Michalak, who
claimed he was injured by an encounter with a saucer-shaped craft in
May, 1967.
   Long ignored by most ufologists, the case may very well be one of
the best on record. According to his story, Michalak was doing some amateur
prospecting near the resort town of Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada,
examining the many rock outcroppings for signs of quartz.  The area is
part of the Canadian Shield, quite rugged and covered with evergreens.
Numerous lakes and swamps exist there, and the forests are protected by
Federal and Provincial programs. 
   Around noon, Michalak heard the sounds of agitated geese on a pond
below his perch on a rocky plateau.  He looked up to see two red
cigar-shaped objects flying slowly through the sky.  One descended
toward him, and appeared to land about 150 feet away in a clearing.
After it landed, it appeared to change colour from red to orange to
silver, as it "cooled down".  It was now a classic flying saucer, about
35-40 feet in diameter, with a dome on its upper surface.  The other
object in the sky flew away.
   Over the next hour, Michalak observed the object from a hiding spot
behind a large rock formation.  He sketched the object and puzzled over
its nature.  He couldn't see any markings on the side, and he didn't
believe in "little green men" at the time.  He concluded it was an
experimental American aircraft which had landed for repairs.  His
theory seemed correct when he heard some high-pitched voices coming
from the craft.  A door opened in its side, and brilliant purple lights
flooded out of the portal.
   He decided to sarcastically ask the Americans if they needed help
fixing their ship, so he cautiously walked toward the vehicle and
shouted his offer for assistance.  The voices ceased abruptly.  Edging
closer, he reached the side of the craft and poked his head into the
opening.  He noticed that its walls were about eight inches thick, and
had a honeycombed appearance.  Inside the ship, he could see what he
described as a myriad of small flashing lights, like those on a
computer panel.  Stepping back, he found that when he touched the side
of the craft with his rubberized work glove, the glove had melted from
intense heat.
   Suddenly, the door closed and the craft rotated counterclockwise.
In front of him was some sort of "exhaust" grille.  A blast of hot gas
shot out of the grille, striking him in the chest and knocking him on
his back.  His shirt was set on fire, and he struggled to remove it.
The craft quickly ascended and flew out of sight.
   As the Unsolved Mysteries segment showed, a dazed Michalak staggered
back to civilization with his fantastic story.  The story of the
investigation is itself a fantastic tale.  Michalak was
beleaguered by reporters, UFO buffs, loonies and other characters all
wanting the REAL story or to give him their own advice on how to deal
with the aliens. 
   Much has been published about the Michalak case, some of it
inaccurate and contrived.  An excellent series of articles had appeared
in Canadian UFO Report in the late 1960's and early 1970's, but it did
not receive much attention outside of Canada.  After I had
reopened the case files in the late 1970's, I wrote a series of
articles about it for FLYING SAUCER REVIEW, whose editors were
astounded that a full report on the case had never seen international
print before.  Yet, I have found the Michalak case recounted in various
versions in many books and zines, often repeating claims of radiation
sickness and alien death rays.
   I had re-opened the case because the original team of investigators
had broken up, and the case files were unavailable.  I re-interviewed
Michalak and his family, and tracked down several hundred pages of
government documents about the case.  Dr. Berthold Schwarz was
invaluable in his assistance in tracking down much of the information,
especially the medical reports.
   The case had been investigated by the RCMP, RCAF, USAF and Edward
Condon's Colorado UFO Project (which listed it as "Case 22":
unexplained).  The incident had been debated several times in the
Canadian House of Commons because the public wanted to know what the
government had learned about the injury to a Canadian citizen.  An
official announcement was made that the files would never be made
public because of a danger to "the public interest".
   This, of course, fueled the belief that the craft had been an alien
spaceship.  The government was obviously covering up the affair, and
the whole thing smacked of conspiracy.  It didn't help when a UFO buff
asked the Mayo Clinic for Michalak's medical records, and the response
was that Michalak had never been there.  Of course, Michalak had the
bills to prove his stay there had been real.
   Another often-repeated story is that Michalak had some sort of
radiation sickness or had radiation burns.  This isn't supported by the
medical reports.  If the pattern of burns on his abdomen was caused by
radiation, he would have had many other symptoms of this.  The pattern
was considered by dermatologists to have been caused by chemicals, more
like an actual exhaust such as Michalak had described.  Another story
in circulation (particularly in the four-volume set of UFO books by
Yves Naud) is that Michalak was suffereing from impurities in his
blood, brought on by the UFO's radiative effects.  Again, this is not
supported by the medical evidence.  In fact, it is often repeated that
Michalak lost a great deal of weight and that his lymphocyte count was
reduced, more symptoms of radiation poisoning.  The trouble is that
Michalak had not been to a doctor for many months before his experience,
and there were no records of his pre-experience weight or blood count
available for comparison.  Michalak believed that he had lost weight
the same way we all think we might have lost weight - he guessed and
looked at his own bathroom scale.  Considering he had severe nausea and
vomiting, this wouldn't be too unusual.  As a matter of fact, this is
more evidence in support of his having ingested a chemical mixture of
gases.
   Still, we're left with a curious case.  Physiological and physical
effects, an unchanging story over 25 years, and yet there are no
definite answers to what happened to Michalak at Falcon Lake in 1967.
If it was a hoax (and psychological testing suggests that Michalak
didn't do it), then it is certainly one of the best on record.  Why
would a hoaxer physically harm himself and put up with 25 years of
ridicule by making up a saucer story?  Publicity?  No.  The Michalaks
shy away from publicity.  Money?  No.  The Michalaks haven't made a
bankroll from the experience, as some might claim.  Notoriety?  No.  In
fact, the Michalaks have threatened to take action against some people
mentioning the case in public because they just want to be left alone.

             ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND IN THE CIRCLE GAME

   As mentioned earlier, Paul Fuller's recent editorial in the CROP
WATCHER included a very cynical survey of British cereaology, pointing
out that the "experts" were backpedalling on how many of their "real"
formations had been created by hoaxers.  During the preparation of this
issue of the SGJ, another issue of the CROP WATCHER was received, with
even more goodies. 
   Issue 13 of the CROP WATCHER (3 Selbourne Court, Tavistock Close,
ROMSEY, Hampshire  SO51 7TY) includes another editorial in which Paul
shows that vortex theorists now tend to believe that Doug and Dave were
responsible for most of the early British circles during 1978 and 1991,
as they had claimed.  Furthermore, Doug and Dave are publishing a book
about their hoaxing career, which will show in no uncertain terms how
silly the crop circle "experts" have been.  Paul laments:

"Sadly, our attempts to uncover the truth simply met with insults and
riducule by some of the other people who have since made six-figure
sums of money by promoting themselves and Doug and Daves' hoaxes ... It
is sad to see [ufology and cereaology] desecrated by a small group of
stubborn, deceitful people who refused to listen to BUFORA's findings
and who instead went out of their way to suppress evidence for more
mundane explanations ... UFOlogy's name will be dragged through the mud
yet again because these stupid, egotistical idiots decided that it
didn't really matter what created the circles as long as they were the
researchers most closely associated with the phenomenon by the public."

And those are his kinder remarks.  A few pages later, Paul reviews Pat
Delgado's latest crop circle book: CROP CIRCLES - CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE?.
In his review, Paul notes instance after instance of Delgado's
hyping of a formation as "real", when it had been shown to be a hoax by
other researchers.  Even the non-existence of the infamous Highland,
Kansas, formation in 1991, (claimed by Linda Howe to have been covered
up by the military), and long since shown to have never existed, is
ignored by Delgado, who apparently includes it as a "real" site.
   In short, the issue is chock full of revelations about crop circle
hoaxing, while at the same time Paul lauds the meteorological vortex
hypothesis.  [Sorry, Paul, I don't see the evidence for vortex-created
circles to be any more solid than the evidence for alien-created
circles.]  But the commentary and discussion of cerealogists caught
with their pants down makes the zine a must-read.  Ufologists and
cerealogists should pay heed to this zine in order to get accurate info
on what is really occurring in the field (pun).  And debunkers - get
this zine because it deals with the issue and does your work for you
much better than the minimal and trivial coverage in the SKEPTICAL
INQUIRER.
   Further note:  Paul notes that BUFORA was the lone voice in the
wilderness, warning cerealogists not to get carried away with the
circle scene in the late 1980's.  UFOROM had advocated a rational
approach to this, too, as soon as the hype started up.  But who listens
to us Canadians, anyway?

                         UBI EST DATUM?

   Despite pleas for information about North American circles in 1992,
NAICCR has  not received much case data from researchers.  The NAICCR
preliminary reports have been posted several times, but very little
information from other researchers has been received.  For those who
have sent me data: thank you, your contributions are gratefully
credited.  Despite rumours that some cerealogy "experts" are becoming
more and more "proprietary", we hope that information exchange will be
ongiong, unlike the British experience.
   Since I have been receiving a number of requests, here is the latest
NAICCR preliminary list of rumoured or known North American UGMs and
crop circles.
=======================================================================

          1992 North American UGM List, November 1992

920426    Jonesboro, Georgia
-  a "formation" of crop circles, "exactly" like those found in
1991 in the same location, was discovered. No other data given.
Source: Rosemary Ellen Guiley; Vance Tiede

9204??           , New Hampshire
-  UGMs were found following a small local flap of UFO reports.
Source: Rosemary Ellen Guiley; Vance Tiede

920506    near Edmonton, Alberta
-  a "space cookie" UGM was discovered in a meadow.  It is a
perfect circle, 6 metres in diameter. Its depth varies from 5 cm
to 31 cm.  Grass is growing straight up both inside and outside
the circle.  No tracks were found leading to the area.  The UGM
is not a sinkhole.  Source: Gordon Kijek

920525    Limerick, Pennsylvania
-  at least 12 "matted down" areas were found in a wheatfield north of
Philadelphia.  Three were circles about five feet in diameter, arranged
in a triangle.  One feature was "T-shaped".  Soil samples taken by a UFO
investigator "showed no irregularities".  Geiger counter readings were
also normal.  Although a hoax was suspected by the UFO investigator,
the owner of the field believes that the UGMs were caused by lodging,
wind and fertilizer damage, and that "It happens every year".
Source: Steve Bernheisel on FIDONET; UFO Newsclipping Service #275

920627    Raeford, North Carolina
-  a circle of flattened grass was found in a hay field following
a CE2 UFO sighting.  A loud noise, "like a freight train", was
heard, and two witnesses ran to look out their front door.  A
object "the size of a swimming pool", "like orange windows lla
around it", was in a field about 300 feet away from their house.
When they went to call other witnesses, the object disappeared.
Source: Patrick Kirol on FIDONET

9206??               , Massachusetts
-  a small area of flattened cattails was found in a marsh close
to a major highway and reported as a crop circle.
Source: Tom Randolph on DEC COM via INTERNET

920701    St. Adolphe, Manitoba
-  nine "horseshoe-shaped" patches of flattened grass were found
on either side of a brook in a Winnipeg suburb. Because of recent
storms and heavy rainfall, lodging was thought to be the cause.
Source: Guy Westcott; NAICCR

920705    Hobbema, Alberta
-  two ovals of flattened barley were found in a field after
unusual lights were observed descending to the ground.  The
largest UGM has a major axis of 47 feet.  The crop is pushed away
uniformly from the centers of the patches, but the centers are
"clumped", like breaking waves.  Barley inside the circles is
"white", and devoid of colour.  It was later suggested that the areas
were due to spilled seeds and fertilizer, combined with lodging.
Source: Gord Kijek

920715    St. Adolphe, Manitoba
-  a field beside a highway was discovered to have numerous patches of
flattened crop, in irregular patterns.  The formations were discovered
by the same person who found case 920701.  Investigation by NAICCR and
interviews with the owner of the field established that the crop had
been laid down by strong winds and heavy rain.  The person who
discovered the formations was convinced that aliens created the
flattened patches.  Source: NAICCR

920721    Friedensruh, Manitoba
-  a farmer found a triangular area of flattened/swirled grass which
was surrounded by an electric fence.  The dimensions were 31x27x17
feet.  Local residents could not explain the phenomenon.  However,
NAICCR investigators found evidence that animals had trampled the site.
Source: NAICCR

920799    Pilot Peak, California
-  according to the Phoenix Project, a number of "landing zones" were
discovered near the site of an alleged underground alien base.  Visits
to the site by independent invesyigators have found only patches of
grass trampled by deer and other animals.  Two "landing zones" were
claimed.  Source: John Pickens on INTERNET via Paranet

920799    Miniota, Manitoba
-  it was reported that a crop circle was discovered in a field of
oats.  The circle is perfectly round and 32 feet in diameter.  The oats
are flattened and swirled in a clockwise fashion.  The center of the
circle is devoid of vegetation.  Source: NAICCR

920801    Strathclair, Manitoba
-  a circle of flattened wheat was discovered in a field southwest of
Strathclair.  It was 28 feet in diameter.  The wheat was flattened and
swirled in a counterclockwise fashion.  Source: NAICCR

920808    Strathclair, Manitoba
- a flattened area of wheat in the shape of the symbol for Mars (a
circle with an attached arrow pointing away from it) was discovered in
a field southwest of Strathclair.  The main circle was 28 feet in
diameter, with no detectable eccentricity.  The wheat was flattened
counterclockwise.  In the arrow, the wheat was flattened away from the
circle.  The arrow pointed on a bearing of 260 degrees. Source: NAICCR

920815    Ipswich, Manitoba
-  a flattened area of wheat in the shape of the symbol for Mars was
discovered just east of Ipswich.  The main circle was elliptical, with
axes 26 and 24.5 feet.  The wheat was flattened counterclockwise.  The
arrow pointed on a bearing of 65 degrees.  A UFO was seen hovering over
the site the night before the UGM was discovered.  Source: NAICCR

920815    Strathclair, Manitoba
-  a flattened area of wheat was found near other crop circle UGMs.  It
was roughly 20 feet in diameter.  Wheat was laid down in random clumps.
Examination suggested the area was caused by lodging.  Source: NAICCR

920815    Strathclair, Manitoba
-  a flattened area of wheat in the shape of the symbol for Mars was
discovered west of Strathclair.  The main circle was 24 feet in
diameter.  The wheat was flattened in a counterclockwise fashion.  The
arrow pointed on a bearing of 120 degrees.  Source: NAICCR

920815    Estevan, Saskatchewan
-  two circles were found, sharing a tangent.  Each diameter was 12
feet.  A small path led from the tangent to a very small circle, within
which was a "squashed porcupine". Source: Chad Deetken

920815    Kyle, Saskatchewan
-  a flattened ring was found, 12 feet in diameter with a core of
standing wheat, 3.5 feet in diameter.  In the center were "porcupine
droppings".  Source: Chad Deetken

920817    Brandon, Manitoba
-  a television station received an anonymous call that a crop circle
had been found on the property of the Brandon airport. Explained easily
as a parachuting target.  Source: CKX-TV; Jeff Harland; NAICCR 

920825    Guy, Alberta
-  fifteen circular marks were found in a field near Peace River,
Alberta.  Investigated by Gord Kijek of AUFOSG.  Source: AUFOSG

920820    Milestone, Saskatchewan
-  a triplet of crop circles, touching each other in a line, were
discovered in a wheat field.  The dimensions of the affected area were
63x22 feet.  All were swirled counterclockwise.  A "squashed porcupine"
was found inside the formation.  Investigated by Chad Deetken.

9208??    Champagne, Illinois
-  crop formations were found. No other info.  Source: NACCCS

920???          , Iowa
-  a number of "ice circles" were reported discovered.  Investigated by
Davina Riska?  No other data.  Source: Rosemary Ellen Guiley, NACCCS

920???    Troy, Illinois
-  circles were reported found in cattails.  Discovered by Peter
(Darren?) Bistrom (?).  Reported to MUFON (?).  Investigated at least
two months after their discovery by George Wingfield.
Source:  Rosemary Ellen Guiley, NACCCS

920923    Albertville, Saskatchewan
-  a circle with a ring was discovered in an oat field. The ring was 35
feet in diameter, and the circle was about 16 feet in diameter.  It was
swirled counterclockwise, but the ceter of the swirl was off-center.
The ring had a varying width of 15 to 27 inches.  Source: Chad Deetken

920924    Albertville, Saskatchewan
-  a second circle with a ring was discovered in a wheatfield.  Ring
diameter: 22 feet; circle: 13 feet.  Ring width: 8 inches.  All were
swirled counterclockwise.  Source:  Chad Deetken

920923    Melita, Manitoba
-  two circles were found in a wheat field, only a few feet apart.
Reported to NAICCR.  Investigated by Jeff Harland.

920930?   Orillia, Ontario
-  one large oval patch of flattened corn was found in a field near
Orillia.  The area was 75 by 100 feet, on the south slope of a
south-facing hill, only about 100 feet from a major highway.  The corn
was flattened and swirled in a counterclockwise direction.
Reported to NAICCR.  Source: Colin McKim.

921002    Nipawin, Saskatchewan
-  three circles were found in a wheatfield, spaced irregularly.  All
had diameters of about 8 feet and were swirled counterclockwise.
Source: Chad Deetken
=====================================================================

Are there others?  Let us know.

Zines received:  IUR (International UFO Reporter), Vol. 17, #4,5
ARCTURUS BOOK CATALOG (1442 Port St. Lucie Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL
34952), 1992, #10,11; GEO-MONITOR (Vince Migliore, 65 Washington St.,
Suite 400, Santa Clara, CA 95050), Vol. 2, #9,10,11; WINNICENTRICS
(RASC Winnipeg Centre, 110 St. Paul's College, 930 Dysart Rd, University
of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M6), V. 50, #5,6; AFU
NEWSLETTER (Box 11027, S-600 11 Norrkoping, Sweden), 1991; JUST CAUSE
(Fawcett, Box 218, Coventry, CT 06238); MUFON JOURNAL (103 Oldtowne
Road, Seguin TX 87155-4099), #293,294; UFO PARADOX (Eric Aggen, Jr.,
Box 12245, Parkville MO 64152; CROP WATCHER (Paul Fuller), #12,13;
ORBITER (Box 652, Reading, MA 01867), #36; and a slough of others,
including Jenny Randles' NORTHERN UFO NEWS, Jim Moseley's SAUCER SMEAR
and HORIZON.  Sorry, I don't have other addresses handy.

WaHF:  Leanne Boyd, Paul Fuller, Mike Strainic, Christian Page, Angela
Mather, Peter Warren, Bob Girard, Chuck Muschweck (why, I don't know),
Bill Bell, Pat Vince, Shannon McGinn, Melissa Craig, Steve Canada, Paul
(the mad photocopyist) Cuttle [thx for all the stuff!], Linda Howe (or
at least her form letter), Eric Herr (no, Eric, I don't have info on
those cases you inquired about), Matteo Leone, Mary Ann Martini (the
Pavarotti tapes were great! Thx!), Gord (best and most underrated
ufologist in North America) Kijek, Mac Davidson (who wants to become a
ufologist when he grows up), Vince Migliore, Greg Kennedy, France
St-Laurent, Darren Hartigan, Janet Bord (UFO pix galore), Gary (best
underrated Fortean writer in Britain) Lanham, Ed Wilson (yes, Ed, I
will speak at the WoldCon in 1994), Lorne Goldfader (master of the fax
machine), and Mrs. Victor Wilson.  I want to make a special effort to
emphasize that my review in the last SGJ of Jerry Clark's UFO
Encyclopedia was meant to be very positive, and not negative as some
had interpreted. An especially big hello to virtual correspondents
Pamela Thompson and dAvid tHacker.  Thanks also are due to Roy Bauer,
Grant Cameron, Greg Kennedy, Vladimir Simosko - and Myra!  If I have
left anyone out, I'm sorry!  I can only dig through my "IN" basket
just SO far!
 
Best "classic" letter received:

"Gentlemen:
We are on the verge of organizing the Philippines' first UFO Watch, an
organization that will dedicate its knowledge and interest in ufology.
In this respect, would you know the equipment used in tracking down
incoming and landings as well as being able to pinpoint the presence of
an alien ship?
Also, can we represent your organization in the Philippines?
We hope to hear from you soonest possible.
Sincerely,
Hernan Ramirez de Cartagena"

======================================================================

The Swamp Gas Journal is copyright (c) 1992 by Chris A. Rutkowski.
Mail correspondence to:  Box 1918, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada  R3C 3R2
Email correspondence to:  rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
The Swamp Gas Journal, UFOROM and NAICCR are not affiliated with the
University of Manitoba, and don't represent its ideas, opinions, etc.
(Standard disclaimer)