The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL about UFOs

 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)