Volume 7		The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL		ISSN 0707-7106
Number 4						Winter, 1996

			Never Too Cold for UFOs

	It all started on November 13, 1995. That's when a Liidli Ke 
elder named Leo Norwegian saw what he thought was the red light of a 
radio tower. It was just after 5 pm, and he and an eight-year-old boy 
were driving from Fort Simpson to a small subdivision outside of town.
	"But we could see the radio tower lights, and this one wasn't 
part of it," Norwegian said.
	They watched as the light remained stationary over the Mackenzie 
River and changed colours from red to blue to white to green and red 
again. After about a minute and a half, the light "sped away faster than 
any aircraft." It was "so fast, it left a trail of brilliant light behind 
it."
	"At first, I thought it might be a plane or a helicopter, but 
then I knew it couldn't be because it went away so fast and because the 
colours of lights changed," he said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
	The UFO flap in the Northwest Territories didn't start then. 
Norwegian only came forward with his sighting after dozens of residents 
of Fort Resolution, NWT, reported seeing strange hovering lights during 
the first weeks of January, 1996.
	I first heard about the Fort Resolution sightings on CBC radio, 
on the program As It Happens. They were interviewing Ewen (sp?) Hunter, 
the mayor of Fort Resolution. The mayor described how literally everyone 
in the community had noticed a bright, stationary light, hanging low 
just above the treetops in the southwestern sky. After a few hours, the 
light would drop lower to the horizon and be lost to sight. While in the 
sky, it flashed various colours and dazzled residents with its display.
	The mayor said that the Department of National Defence had come 
up to investigate and also took a video of the object back to their HQ 
for analysis. The mayor also said that "no one" had come up with an 
explanation for the object.
	I remember listening to this and wondering two things: one, why 
is evryone getting so excited about Venus?; and two, why the heck is DND 
investigating?
	I went to my computer and used some astronomy software to plot out 
the night sky for the Fort Resolution area. It was simple enough to see 
that there were a number of bright objects about where the Fort Res UFO 
had been seen. One easy candidate was Venus, which was bright even in the 
Winnipeg city sky, and about which I had fielded several inquiries. 
However, according to my plot, Venus would be *very* low - perhaps too 
low to be seen that far north at the appropriate times.
	To check this, I contacted Jay Anderson, a meteorologist with 
Environment Canada and a associate of mine from my terms with the Royal 
Astronomical Society of Canada. He verified that Venus was probably the 
culprit, and then told me about an article which had appeared in the 
newspaper that same day, announcing that Venus was the Fort Resolution UFO.
	The inch-high article (Winnipeg Free Press, 30 January 1996), 
was compiled from Canadian Press reports and said simply that astronomers 
had explained the UFO as Venus. This was all well and good, except that I 
received a call from a Toronto TV talk show, wanting me to be on the show 
with Michael Strainic, MUFON's Canadian Director, to discuss the NWT cases.
	Strainic, for one, wasn't buying the Venus explanation. In an 
article in a NWT newspaper (News/North, 29 January 1996):
	"Meanwhile, the Mutual UFO Network, an international 
alien-tracking agency, says it has reason to believe the secret behind 
what everyone is seeing may be more mysterious than expected. Michael 
Strainic, the network's Canadian director, said ... 'We have determined 
that some people have seen a bona fide UFO by definition. But what that 
UFO is, we don't know ... I think what we're seeing here is the beginning 
of something much bigger.'"
	Strainic was then quoted about Canadian UFO activity in 1995 -
that the NWT cases came "on the heels of a British Columbia summer strewn 
with daylight spaceship sightings and UFO abductions. 'We got buried 
alive with this sort of thing last summer, and so far it looks like 
there's going to be more of it in 1996.'" When I called Strainic that 
week to ask for the 1995 Canadian UFO data, he told me the reports 
were unavailable and that he was still waiting to receive cases from 
Canadian MUFON members.
	Strainic was again quoted by the paper: "The things we are 
beginning to hear (about UFO sightings and abductions) are completely off 
the wall. They almost seem like they're staged events - that something is 
trying to send us a message through a dramatic display. The message may 
already be there for us to decipher, but we may not be mentally able to 
understand just what the message is yet."
	Mike is right about the bizarre nature of UFO reports, of course.
	I wanted more facts about the cases so that I could get a better 
handle on what was happening up there. A new group, the Alberta UFO 
Research Association (AUFORA) also received media attention when it began 
investigating the reports via the telephone. AUFORA director Cory Sine 
was justifiably reserved in his interview. He explained that a star or 
planet could indeed be the culprit, carefully detailing atmospheric 
refraction and how stationary objects can appear to bob, weave and 
scintillate many colours. "What we'll do is collect as much data on the 
sightings as we possibly can. We'll look at all the possibilities and 
we'll forward that information to the witnesses," he said. (News/North, 
22 January 1996)
	One interesting point is that in its AUFORA Update 02.06.96:
The NWT UFO Sightings - Special Report, the sightings are described as:
"an aerial bright light usually visible just above the treeline. The
magnitude of these lights has been described as staring into the
high-beams of a car. The light shifts color between blue, red, green
and white before leaving by accerlerating straight up at an incredible
speed. The sightings usually last for 1 to 6 minutes."
	This is in direct contradiction with the UFOs' characteristics
as described by the mayor of Fort Resolution, who said on the CBC radio
interview that the objects remained visible for several *hours*, not
minutes. Furthermore, only a few sightings had the UFO zip away quickly.
In others, the objects remained in the sky.
	One of the speedier objects was a bright fireball observed on
January 17, 1996, near Hay River. In that case, the object was decribed
as a bright white light leaving a red trail as it descended quickly
over the town. It looked like a "flare" and was "falling apart."
Obvious conclusion: bolide.
	But, I had not seen any actual case reports. Although there had 
been some media attention, I still wasn't sure how many cases were 
involved and if any (besides Norwegian's) were more unusual than a 
stationary light in the sky.
	Blaine Wasylkiw of Yellowknife helped me greatly by posting the 
newspaper articles verbatim and answering other questions via email. His 
website (http://www.ssimicro.com/~ufoinfo) has a great deal of 
information, including an interview with P.J. Harston, a newspaper 
reporter who wrote many of the UFO articles in the NWT.
	Harston claimed that Mike Strainic had told him that there had 
been 140 UFO sightings in Canada in 1994, and more than 500 in 1995. 
Harston must have heard wrong, because Strainic told me that he 
had no such numbers or data to give me.
	Harston related that "a scientist who is linked with [MUFON] saw 
the [UFO] .. and he doesn't know what the hell it is!" Also, Harston said 
that he was told "there's no record of a star or a planet being in that 
section" of the sky. This was odd, because both Venus *and* Saturn are in 
the SW sky, as well as many bright stars, of course. This was especially odd
because "they've checked with observatories ... nobody has a record of a 
renegade star or planet or anything being in that part of the sky."
	In the AUFORA report, they note that: "The military has ruled
out the possibility of a planet, such as Venus, as being the cause of
the lights because of the swift departure of the UFOs." (The AUFORA
report can be found at URL: http://ume.med.ucalgary.ca/aufora/nwt)
	In Harston's opinion, MUFON's most logical explanation was that 
"it could be the American military testing out some new gadget - which 
[MUFON says] has happened before and wouldn't necessarily be uncommon."
	Still, I wanted some factual information about the sightings. So, 
I called Harston myself - and got a somewhat different picture of the NWT 
affair.
	Harston told me that he had been deluged with calls from around 
North America, from media and self-styled UFO investigators. Indeed, the 
day I called him, I had myself received a call from a UFO buff in Akron, 
Ohio, who wanted information about the NWT cases. I was glad he agreed 
to talk with me. After all, I could have been another "UFO nut."
	(No smart remarks from the peanut gallery, please!)
	Harston explained how the NWT flap had unfolded. First, a few 
people had seen the singular stationary object near Fort Resolution, and 
had mentioned it to others in the town. Soon, everyone else had seen it, 
too, as word spread.
	Among the witnesses were a group of Northern Rangers - members of 
the Army reserves who "were given a rugged rifle and half a dozen rounds" 
to patrol the north against enemy attack. It's a bit outdated, but that's 
how he described their original function. Anyway, they had seen the 
object, too, and took the witnesses' statements. Since the NRC and DND 
don't officially investigate UFO sightings, one can only wonder where 
these reports are going. Harston didn't think they had shot the video, 
but they had looked at it. (AUFORA says it was a Ranger who took the
video.)
	"But you really can't tell anything from it," he said. "It's only 
a light, bobbing and moving around on the screen, and you can't tell if 
it's the light that's moving or if it's the camera."
	Harston said that when news of the original Fort Res reports 
spread, CBC Yellowknife did a story and it was then big news across the 
North. People in widely-separated areas began reporting their sightings 
to media reps - and the mayor of Fort Resolution. He seemed to be the 
authority figure whose testimony seemed beyond reproach.
	It was about this time that Leo Norwegian came forward with his 
story. Even though it was viewed as a confirmation of the Fort Res 
sightings, it was much earlier and his UFO behaved much differently from 
the original Fort Res UFOs.
	Sightings poured in from Trout Lake, Yellowknife and other NWT 
towns, and even Fort Chippewa, Alberta. Harston noted that all the 
reports seemed to come from about the same latitude.
	On Friday, January 26, 1996, a Toronto TV talk show focussed on 
the NWT cases. Among the guests were the mayor of Fort Res, a Canadian 
Press reporter who had done a story on UFOs in Canada, another media type 
who had "immersed" himself in the Canadian UFO subculture, and Michael 
Strainic. The mayor related how he had received reports from trappers who 
said that the UFO now had been following their snowmobiles. Some, he 
claimed, had told him that occasionally the UFO would hover directly over 
their machines, cutting out the engines, which would start mysteriously 
again after the UFO had moved out of sight.
	But even Harston pointed out to me that these were all just 
rumours, and that no one had actually investigated the engine-stopping 
reports. He also noted that in -30C weather, snowmobiles were pretty 
finicky machines at the best of times. Trappers often were stranded by 
dead machines, UFOs or not.
	Harston also elaborated on the "investigations" by DND. It seems 
there is a new commander in Yellowknife, named Colonel LeBlanc. Since 
he's new, he took the opportunity to "check into" the sighting reports as 
a way to meet others in the community, so he took a plane across the lake 
to Fort Resolution. LeBlanc's public relations liaison is a 
Captain Gray, who arranged several interviews with reporters and witnesses.
	The word is, though, that LeBlanc openly talks about "world 
change" and "major upheavals" in the context of the UFO sightings. 
Harston said LeBlanc was "less skeptical than I am," and that he told 
people that contact with aliens was "the next step in the evolution of 
the planet." One can certainly wonder what approach he is taking in the 
evaluation of the UFO reports.
	In other words, the NWT sightings seem much less mysterious and 
less substantiated than has been advertised. At this point, there are 
no case reports for researchers to review. It is unfortunate that the 
area is so distant from experienced UFO investigators. Without access to 
the DND investigation reports, we have only unverified claims of UFO 
types more complex than simple nocturnal lights, which may or may not be 
ascribed to astronomical objects as explanations. Accurate descriptions 
of altitude, direction, times and dates are still elusive. *Someone* 
might have this information, but it is so far unavailable.
	AUFORA has been the most helpful and productive of any UFO
researchers on the case, publishing its excellent report. It contains a
lot of data and case information that is helping serious researchers
evaluate the incidents. For a new UFO group on the scene, they are
doing a very good job and showing good cooperation with other
researchers. Good for them!
	Still, we're left with an interesting set of UFO sightings. We
still need more data to evaluate them, perhaps by obtaining the Rangers' 
or DND case files. Until such time, the NWT flap remains curious, but 
not monumental.

            O, C.D.B., I C...U F O s @ M.I.T. !

[This is a release from the engimatic BUFO Calvin, who puts out an
irregular ezine about fortean things, mostly UFO-related. Full credit
to him for the following book review.]

Well, my concerns about CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE FOURTH KIND by C.D.B. 
Bryan were unfounded.  It was really quite a good book, an excellent 
introduction to the subject of UFOs and abductions.  Mr. Bryan writes as 
a =reporter=, not a commentator.  He attended the alien abduction 
conference at M.I.T.  Rather than constantly tell you what he thought
about it, he tries to present his impressions of it. This may, in fact, 
be a doomed school of journalism, but it is one I rather enjoy. You see, 
ever since they passed the law about five years ago that talk show hosts 
had to be cartoon characters, I've found =reporting= quite a bit more scarce.
	The book is a great way to look at the issue without having to 
buy into an agenda. After the conference, Bryan went on to interview both 
abductees and researchers (including both Mack and Boylan). The last
chapter is given over to speculating, but not in an aggressive way.
	I've found it funny that some people in the press seem to be
genuinely angry that Bryan didn't take a position. Oh, well, I should 
get used to it: even meteorologists are expected to tell you whether 
it's good weather or not, as opposed to just what it is.

		LoC (Letter of Comment) about the last SGJ

From: (name deleted) 
Subject: Re: Latest issue of the Swamp Gas Journal

I believe the UFO abductions can be explained by 2 things.

1. Those abducted have been given a powerful chemical hypnosis drug called
   Burandanga or Scopalamine, a derivative of the Nightshade family.
2. The abductors were dressed like UFO people.

Now my only problem is motive. The motive is complex but may include the 
following:
1. Testing these drugs on people.
2. Manipulation of people by giving them post-hypnotic suggestions.
3. Punishment of these people for their political beliefs.
4. Possible implantation of locater devices or something similar so these
   people can be subjects of energy directed audio-gram mindcontrol 
   technology.
5. All of the above done for the purpose of making money and obtaining power

			In Defense (?) of Sagan

Dean Philip Kanipe, that paragon of ufology, sent me the following
exchange between UFO fan Brian Zeiler and the slightly-skeptical John
Stepkowski. It's not *exactly* a defense of Carl Sagan, or is it?

From: Dean Phillip Kawipe <dpk@acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Re: PARADE Sagan Article Disinfo (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Stepkowski <legion@werple.net.au> [with permission]

 * Brian Zeiler writes:
>>     Did you read the December 3 article by Mr. Sagan titled
>>"What's the Evidence?"  What a masterpiece of disinformation!  
>>He not only ignored all the scientific evidence found at the
>>sites of some crop circles but he also did his best to
>>cast a "fringite" pallor over the whole UFO question and those
>>who seek answers.
 >>Why is he misleading us like this? 
 > He's a modern-day Menzel.
 
Just for a moment, Brian, kick off those Nikes, try on a pair of Gucci 
loafers, and step into Sagan's shoes...
	You're asked to write an article highlighting all the _scientific_
evidence for a "genuine crop circle" phenomenon.  
	So where do you start?
	You look in _Nature_.  Anything in there about "polyembryony", 
"scroll wave theory", "cellular anomalies"?  Nope.  How about _Science_?  
No, nothing there.  _Scientific American_?  Nope.  _Reader's Digest_?  Uh-uh.
You try the _JSE_.  A-ha!  An article by Levengood and Burke!  But it's
about their claims that they found meteoric iron in a "crop circle".  You
know they've refused to allow their sample to be independently tested,
and you know that Levengood believes that "double-blind testing" is for
amateurs and hasn't had any of his findings independently evaluated.
You're a little worried about using him as a source.  You look elsewhere.
	You try the UFO literature.  Lots of articles by Colin Andrews, and 
as you read them you note how Andrews has changed his claims over the years.
You go from his first book, _Circular Evidence_, where his standard of
proof was to claim that crop circles were genuine because "no humans could 
make formations like these," to his own Winter '94 CPR Newsletter where 
he conceded that humans really _could_ make such formations after all, 
and that his expert plant wizard, Dr.  Levengood, had even
"authenticated" _proven man-made_ formations.  Man-made formations? 
Hmm... you decide to look into the claims of Doug and Dave.
	After a thorough check of newspapers, books, magazines and television
transcripts, you fail to find a _single_ quote from either Doug or Dave
that they were responsibe for _all_ the formations ever made.  You note
that the CC press make this claim all the time in an attempt to "debunk"
the idea that "crop circles" are made by humans, but they never provide
any evidence by way of a direct quote that D&D actually said this.
	Another thing you notice in the CC literature is that the various 
circle groups have many "enemies".  The constantly attack _circle-makers_ 
like Rob and John and Rod and UBI and Pam and Julian and Paul and...  What?!
You mean there are _lots_ of known circle-makers?!  You're surprised
because you've only ever heard people attacking D&D!  You had no idea
there was a veritable community of circle-makers out there.  Gee, just
like the world-wide armies of graffiti artists who spend an incredible
amount of time and energy spray-painting subways, trains, pavements and
buildings.  Why do they do it?  Why spend so much time and money doing
something so pointless?  You conclude that people do some weird things in
their spare time...
	Don't human circle-makers damage the crops and leave tell-tale 
signs that the experts can easily detect?  You re-read Colin Andrews' 
Winter '94 CPR Newsletter and find that no, (embarrassingly), lots of 
human-made formations have been authenticated by "experts", some even on 
camera!  So humans can make formations without severely damaging crops...
	How about the _size_ of the formations?  They must take _days_ to
produce, right?  Well, no... You view the "Crop Circle Communique II"
video and see D&D making a 65 ft component of the '92 East Meon formation
in less than 12 minutes.  When D&D tell you it only took a couple of
hours (including time for a break of coffee and ham rolls), to make some
of their biggest creations, it's hard to argue with them.  You also
wonder how long it would take a group of three of four much younger
circle-makers to produce some of their "field art".
	Ah!  What about the _numbers_ of "crop circles"?!  There must be
thousands and thousands of them, right?  Wrong...  You do a little
reading and discover that until the 92-93 season, CC groups counted
individual "events" within a formation as one complete "circle".  So a
typical "quintuplet" would be counted as 5 separate circles rather than
as one formation.  You realize that this sort of counting would inflate
the numbers _very_ quickly...
	Wasn't there a big scientific research project known as 'Argus'?  
Yes, there was.  So you read up on it.  Maybe you even find a breathless 
press release from the CCCS announcing - prematurely - that the first Argus
project had found short-lived radioactive isotopes in a formation!  Wow!
That's more like it!  How could a couple of guys making formations with
planks and garden rollers produce exotic isotopes?!  You read many, many
articles, all claiming these radioactive traces were found, but you're
struck by the fact that these claims are never elaborated upon.  Where's
the backgound analysis of these "traces"?  Why hasn't this finding been
written up in the literature?  You're puzzled by this case of the
disappearing isotopes...  You vow to look for more details later, but in
the meantime, you find the results of the _second_ Argus project!  No
doubt this will contain all the "juicy" details of the amazing isotope
discovery!
	After wading through over a hundred pages of solid and impressive
information about fungal growths that blacken crops, and speculation
about possible future areas of investigation, you get to the summary:

   SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
   Project Argus has not, at this writing, found the "smoking gun"
   clearly showing that some crop circles are not the product of
   human activity.  
   
	Huh?  What about the radiation, the claims of deuteron beams and 
exotic isotopes found during the first Argus project?  Weren't they found 
during the second Argus project, too?  You read a little further...
  
   B.   No evidence of anomalous radioactive traces in any of the
   tested formations.
  
	Hmmm....
 	You find an article by Michael Chorost (of Argus) in the MUFON 
UFO Journal #304, where he writes about the second Argus project:

   Indications that there might be such effects in the
   form of short-lived radioactive residues in the soil and
   significant changes to the crops had turned up late in
   1991, thanks largely to the dedicated work of Marshall Dudley
   and Dr. W.C. Levengood.  Slenderly based though these
   indications were, it was a scientific imperative to follow them
   up on as large a scale as could be managed, using better
   equipment and a more exhaustive methodology.

	"Indications that there _might_ be such effects ...  were 
_slenderly based_"?  And these "effects" were not substantiated in the 
second, more "exhaustive" research project?!  You scratch your head and 
wonder why people keep bringing up such long-discredited claims, 
especially since the CC field is awash with scientific evidence, or so 
it's claimed...
	You ask several people in the CC research community about this and 
they tell you that the initial claims of radiation traces were _withdrawn_ 
by the Argus team.  So despite being led a merry dance by the CC
publications, there has been, and remains, no independently verified
evidence of "anomalous" radiation in "crop circles".
	But what about famous cases like Trans-en-Provence?  Didn't that 
"crop circle" provide scientists with some fascinating and unusual findings?
Yes, it did.  But as you read up on Trans-en-Provence you note that it was 
a "ground trace" case of the sort you'll often find in the UFO literature. 
The formation itself was a very plain-looking ring, which definitely 
didn't fit the profile of the more exotic "pictograms". Fancy and complex 
"crop circles" are more "photogenic" than trace cases like 
Trans-en-Provence, but you find they have no pedigree when it comes to
authenticated anomalous findings.
	You've heard about "mysterious" cellular changes in crop circle 
samples. You might have even seen close-ups of amazing "crystalline" 
changes found in crop circle samples on TV shows like "Beyond 2000".  
Ah!  This could be something...  But then you learn that these "samples" 
were actually processed at HSC labs using alchemical techniques dating 
back hundreds of years, and previously used only to analyse human blood.  
The reason for the "crystalline" changes is that at HSC they mashed the 
crop samples in a big food blender, reduced the sample to an anhydrous 
mass, and then doused it with liquid starches.  When the starch dried it 
left a crystal coating which was then "analysed" for its "shape".  This 
is known as "spagyrical" analysis, and Colin Andrews used these slides at his
lectures for a couple of years _without_ telling his audience that they
were looking at _processed_ crop samples, and not samples taken straight
from the field!  Naturally, even though these pictures look pretty
impressive, you can't use them.
	But what about cellular changes in crops?  You call Dr John Graham 
and learn that plants subjected to mechanical stress produce precisely the
sort of cellular "stretching" that is found in crop circles.  The
cellular changes are artifacts of the crop being pushed over and
attempting to return to the upright position.  What about the "swollen
nodes"?  Aren't these evidence of mysterious forces at work?  No, the
nodes swell as they attempt to return the crop to the vertical.  Nothing
more.
	You've seen pictures of military helicopters flying over "crop 
circles". Hmmm...  Could this be evidence of some secret military 
interest in "crop circles"?  You call the Land Army HQ and demand an 
answer!  You're informed that, contrary to the claims of certain "crop 
circle" researchers, military helicopters have always been active in the 
"heart" of what has become "crop circle" country.  This area is known as 
LFA 1A and extends from Salisbury Plain, to Devizes, the M4 and the A34, 
and has been a designated low-flying zone for U.K.  and NATO helicopters 
for over 20 years, long before the modern "crop circle" phenomenon ever 
arrived.
	What do you do next?  You comb the 'Net.  You read the _Swamp Gas 
Journal_ and North American Institute for Crop Circle Research database 
and find ... no reported radiation or magnetic anomalies.  You do, 
however, find lots of other "interesting" articles about how crop circles 
are doorways into other dimensional realities, how they're made by aliens 
as a warning to humans to eat less fatty foods, etc., but you note that 
these claims are based solely on subjective assessments of crop circle 
geometry.  One person looks at a formation and sees a greeting from the 
Earth Spirits, another will look at the same formation and see lots of 
lines and circles...  You need something a little more substantial, so... 
	You call up a crop circle research group!  You ask them how their
scientific studies in "crop circles" are going.  They tell you their
Chairman wants to hold hands with you and channel his "space friend" so
that he can ask the "non-human" circle-makers why they're making them.
Great...  Some other people will tell you about anomalous experiences
with mobile phones, seeing lights in the sky, their tape recorder not
working, and so on.  Interesting, you say, but what about this "knock-
'em-dead, Take-That! you-Evil-Skeptics" scientific evidence that "crop
circles" could not be made by humans?  You wait...  They tell you, that,
um, they don't actually, er, have any such evidence _yet_, but they're
confident they will have, er ...  one day.  You thank them politely and
hang up.
	You've still got that article to write, but you don't have a single 
piece of _scientific_ evidence for the non-human causation of "crop circles".
You're going to have to present the "data" that is available, because,
well, what else can you do?  The proponents of non-human causation simply
have not presented any independently verifiable evidence for their claims. 
They'll tell you it's coming, but so is Christmas, and in the meantime, 
you've got that article to turn in.  So you write it based on the 
_available (lack of) evidence_.  And what happens?  You get hammered
for "debunking".
 
 > What Sagan spews MUST be true, right?

	Not necessarily, but based on what we've seen quoted from the 
article, he has accurately reflected the current state of Cereology - a 
lot of wishful thinking and no hard evidence. - John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++====
			Alien Shrapnel

	A really hot topic in UFOdom these days is the analyses of
alien "implants." The theory is that the aliens are somehow keeping
track of their victims by inserting  microtransmitters into us. The
ideal situation was a subplot in the cliffhanger opener of the X-Files
this season, when a microchip was discovered in Scully's back.
	In reality, though, the implants are not that impressive. I've
read through Derrel Sims' articles in HUFON Report, and they haven't
knocked my socks off, to put it mildly.
	Sheldon Wernikoff and I have discussed this at length, and we
have agreed on a few basic points. The radiograms show irregular orts 
of varying consistency, texture and materials, taken from different parts 
of peoples' bodies. There is litlle likelihood they are alien implants or 
tracking devices or whatever.
	Radiologists who had seen copies of one abductee's x-rays said
they were similar to those from patients who had stepped on a needle or
metal fragment which later migrated to another location, becoming
encapsulated in mineral deposits and tissue.
	I haven't made it widely public, but I have examined an "implant" 
taken out of an abductee who came to UFOROM seeking help. It was a metal
shaving, about 1 mm in diameter, irregularly-shaped and with a bit of
calcification from being in the body for so long. It was dug out of 
an abductee's hand, where it was found after an x-ray (for another 
problem) discovered it by accident.
	No, we didn't have it analyzed with an electron microscope a la
X-Files. (No money, and no technician we spoke with would do it for us 
gratis.) Further, I don't imagine anything would have been gained. Certainly
nothing that Sims has produced suggests that intensive analysis is 
worthwhile.
	I had been puzzled by Sims' fascination with the implants, as I 
had heard he was an MD with a keen interest in UFOs. However, posted to 
the internet was the following note about Sims:
	"He was a former Military Police officer, and holds a host of 
"degrees" <g> from various hypnotherapy institutes, but I don't believe 
he holds even an undergrad degree from an accredited university. Funny... 
his business card credits him as being a "doctoral candidate". He runs 
Saber Enterprises, which is the investigative branch of HUFON and 
supposedly is a consultant in the field of personal development and 
corporate human resources."
	So, are the implants credible? I don't know. I hear different 
stories, depending with whom I speak.

		Scathing Scandinavian Scandal

	Ole Johnny, who some have described as a bit of a rabble-rouser, 
posted the follwing rant (I mean, notice) in the various Internet 
newsgroups. It concerns a ufologist with good credentials, but 
apparently low credibility.

From: Ole Jonny <brenne@norconnect.no> 
Subject: MUFON uses contactee on advisory board.

MUFON USES SCANDINAVIAN CONTACTEE ON ITS ADVISORY BOARD OF CONSULTANTS:  
RAUNI-LEENA LUUKANEN.
by Ole Jonny Brenne, UFO-Norway.

Rauni-Leena Luukanen is a Finnish-born doctor of medicine who retired in 
1986 after a car accident in which she claims to have been rescued by 
extraterrestrials. In the early 1980s she wrote a book on life after 
death. Since then, she has written three books on UFOs. She currently 
resides in the southeastern part of Norway. In my opinion, has been actively 
spreading disinformation and dubious assertions during her lecture tours 
and media exposures. UFO-Norway have been receiving quite a lot of inquiries 
about Luukanen and her claims, so we feel it's time to respond.

1.     Luukanen often promotes stories most UFO researchers consider to be 
already resolved or identified as hoaxes. It makes us wonder if she 
really has, or wants to have, access to reliable information or if she is 
just writing books to make as much money as possible on naive persons.
     Examples of stories in her books are the "object which crashed on 
Svalbard/Spitsbergen in 1952" and the "UFO shot down by jet fighters over 
South Africa". The 1952 Spitsbergen story has been found to be nothing 
more than a cheap journalistic hoax. The so-called South African crash of 
1989 has been thoroughly dismissed also in various journals.
     Luukanen never describes the stories completely, but only relates 
the most sensational parts. Details seem not to be important. In this way, 
she is contributing to the creation of myths around the UFO phenomenon, 
whether it be consciously or unconsciously.

2.     I quote from one of Luukanen's books: "A representative of a 
Norwegian UFO organisation once told me that the organisation had in vain 
tried to get the Norwegian Defense to show an interest in UFO research. 
Still the Norwegian Defense have unofficially assisted in UFO research, 
among other things in the well-known Hessdalen valley, [where there have 
been] numerous UFO observations. UFO researchers kept guard night and day, 
took photographs and sent light signals into space, and in some cases also 
received an answer."
	This is totally false and completely out of context. As UFO-Norway is 
the only UFO organisation in Norway, we have to assume it is us she refers 
to. Aside from the fact that no representative of UFO-Norway ever told 
Luukanen any of the above, UFO-Norway have not ever sent any light signals 
out into space, and we have never received any answers, either.

3.     Luukanen claims to have given a lecture at the UN. This is not 
quite right either. She has given a lecture at the United Nations 
Parapsychological Society, which is a club and has nothing to do 
with the UN itself - other than that the members are UN employees. At best, 
it is half a truth.

4.     Luukanen also claims that pilots, astronauts, and cosmonauts are 
forbidden to talk on the subject of having observed UFOs. If they do this 
they are subject to 10 years imprisonment and a 10,000 dollar fine.
     In Russia, among others, Vladimir Kovaljonok (Sojuz 6) has publicly 
spoken of his observation in 1981. In USA, James McDivitt even filmed a UFO 
(Gemini 4, 1965). Gordon Cooper har described, his UFO observations of 1951. 
There are no known incidents where a pilot, astronaut, or cosmonaut has 
been punished for statements on UFOs.

5.     Luukanen signs her letters with "MD, DT, MH, DPH, DHA, and author" 
after her name. It must be assuring to be able to impress people with all 
these titles, but not everyone falls for that. She doesn't investigate any 
reports herself, but only passes on various rumours, allegations, statements, 
and stories. MD means Doctor of Medicine of course, and that is fair enough. 
But at least one of the titles above can be purchased from The New York 
Academy Of Sciences for only US$80. 

6.     Luukanen claims her books are written by a process known as automatic 
writing - often accompanied by claims of "it only took 70 hours to write 
this". It seems like the contents of a book is legitimated or "proven" in 
certain New Age circles if it is claimed to have been written by automatic 
writing. Psychologists and psychiatrists are generally in agreement that 
this phenomenon originates in the human subconscious. Why has no original 
information ever surfaced this way? Why are the contents always infested 
with misunderstandings and errors?

7.     Luukanen claims the aliens she is in contact with are here to help 
us, and are ready to rescue us out of "the last great catastrophe". It's 
probably safe and reassuring to have some cosmic friends standing by to 
fix things if the situation becomes too bad. This is a very dangerous 
attitude/belief. Where were the aliens during the mediaeval crusades, 
world war 2, the Vietnam war, etc etc. It is probably most sane to try 
and fix things on our own, instead of waiting for cosmic salvation.

8.     Luukanen claimed in several of her lectures during 1992, that former 
US president George Bush would announce the rumoured cooperation between the 
US and the extraterrestrials - in an attempt to save himself as president.
     Bush obviously forgot it - he lost the election.

9.     Luukanen claims to be in telepathic contact with extraterrestrials 
and also having paranormal abilities. It is characteristic that these 
abilities have never been demonstrated - they probably never will.

10.     In another quote from one of her books: "It's real easy to see how 
'skeptics' have captured central positions in certain American, Russian, 
Swedish and even Norwegian UFO organisations, whereby it is easy to 
spread coordinated disinformation through the most important media with 
the aid of certain skeptic journalists."
     Well, personally, I am content with being named a skeptic - especially 
by Luukanen. That is exactly what I aim to be. The allegation of UFO-Norway 
spreading disinformation is way off the mark. Anyone accepting that can't 
possibly have been reading anything produced by us or subscribed to our 
journals. It would be of great advantage if Luukanen could have 
enough guts to point out more specific examples in stead of just a general 
accusation. One has to be skeptical (especially with regard to the UFO 
phenomenon) if one should have a chance of avoiding to swallow everything 
hook, line and sinker - like Luukanen has done.

11.     Luukanen constantly claims these extraterrestrials are really kind 
beings and wish us all good - everything they do is for our own good. It 
doesn't appear all rosy and good. How is Luukanen able to reach such a 
conclusion on the basis of available abduction material, is beyond me. 
Most reports of that kind indicate - according to the experiencers' 
reactions and feelings - quite the opposite. Whether the aliens are good 
or bad is a question we so far are unable to establish.

12.     Luukanen keep talking about "UFOs". Why? She refers to spaceships, 
so why not say spaceships then, not UFOs? Spaceships have nothing to do 
with the acronym UFO, which by definition is unidentified - unknown. This 
only contributes to even more confusion - and more disinformation.

13.     In several of her lectures, Luukanen claims that Kurt Waldheim, 
in November 1978, stated that "Sweden, Norway, the Philippines, Grenada and 
France have officially recognised UFOs".
     What she has done here is to uncritically pass on the rumour stated by 
the Earl of Kimberley during the three-hour long debate in the British House 
of Lords on 18 January 1979. ("Ten Governments now openly admit that UFOs 
exist and are real: France, Norway, Sweden, Brazil, the Argentine, 
Venezuela, Mexico, the Philippines, Peru and Grenada.") Apparently, the fact 
that the Earl of Kimberley was wrong, doesn't bother Luukanen much at all.

14.     Luukanen claims the extraterrestrials have a "horizontal 
circulation" (of the blood). It should be interesting to hear a medical 
doctor explain how this works.

15.     Luukanen often claims to give lectures at and exchanging top secret 
information at numerous UFO conferences with scientists and military 
personnel. The largest UFO conferences are the MUFON and BUFORA 
conferences held each year. Luukanen has never given any lecture at these 
conferences - at least she is totally absent from the proceedings. We have 
as yet not all the proceedings of all the other conferences she claims to 
visit, but one of the important ones is the Abduction Study Conference at 
MIT, 13-17 June 1992. The proceedings are called "Alien Discussions" and is 
at approx US$70. Luukanen is not mentioned in this close-to-700 page book, 
nor in the 476-page book by C.D.B. Bryan. Proceedings of the TREAT 
conferences are also available, but these are not secret.

     In summary, we can say that UFO-Norway and Luukanen have two 
diametrically opposite views of the UFO phenomenon.
     Luukanen is not much concerned with scientific research - the inner 
voice and the inner experiences are more important. She distorts and 
disinform on the subject - sometimes so much that we wonder if it is a 
conscious act.
     UFO-Norway is concerned that these UFO phenomena are placed under 
competent scientific research, where the phenomena are measured and 
registered in every way possible. At the same time we recognise that the 
material we have available today does not validate the promotion of any 
specific theory.
     Too bad MUFON doesn't share those views.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Editor's note: I don't think Ole is a fan of MUFON.]

			Shaggy UFO Story

	Finally, a note about a mysterious UFO crash off the coast of 
Nova Scotia. Known as the Shag Harbour case, the story was generally 
ignored until a persevering ufologist named Chris Stiles began chasing it 
in the early 90s. His work attracted the attention of some tabloid shows,
and it suddenly is front and center in the list of mystery UFO crashes.
	Recently, Discovery Canada (a Canadian version of the Discovery
Channel) ran "Alien Week," a series of UFO-related programs and
documentaries. Much of the programming was all-new interviews and
stories. I was filmed for the series, as were Errol Bruce-Knapp, Tom
Theofanous, Laurie Vassos and several others. The "skeptical scientist"
role was played well by Dr. John Caldwell, an astrophysicist, who had
never investigated any sightings, read relevant publications or spoken
with knowledgeable ufologists. He explained that it was unlikely that
aliens were travelling to Earth from distant planets because of the
emormous amount of money such trips would cost.
	But I digress. Also on the show was a segment about the Shag
Harbour crash. Not knowing much about the case since there really isn't
much available yet, I thought it was interesting. Basically, in 1967, an
object was seen to fall into the ocean. Navy divers were sent to
retrieve it, but the official story was that nothing was located. A
"green foam" was seen floating on the water in the area, but it was
never sampled. The rumour was that they really did find something but
that it was covered up. Stiles has apparently found documents showing a
great deal of official interest in the event, suggesting something
remarkable had in fact fallen into the harbour.
	Anyway, I was cc'd a copy of a letter sent to Discovery Canada
by an angry viewer who had offered them a slightly different version of
the story. I'll delete the name, but here's the letter:

To: comment@discovery.ca
Subject:       Re: Shag Harbour UFO sighting in 1967
CC: rutkows

I noticed that you repeated the item by Jay regarding UFO mysteries in 
Canada, quoting the Shag Harbour incident in 1967. I am amazed that you 
did not bother to follow up on my mail message sent to you Jan 10 and 
repeated below. Are you not interested in getting at the truth??
I offered you an exclusive UFO news scoop and you ignored it. I am puzzled 
- why would you do that? It makes me wonder if you are really interested 
in scientific investigation or are just using the programming material 
to sell more beer. Perhaps Chris Rutkowski will be more interested.

(name deleted)
> Begin forwarded message
> To:            connectn@discovery.ca
> Subject:       Shag Harbour UFO sighting in 1967
 
> On Oct 4 and again on Oct 11, 1967 three men doing nightwatch at the 
> rock-weed processing plant just north of Shag Harbour in Woods Harbour, 
> set off signal flares, which arched southward out over the water west of 
> Shag Harbour. These were observed and interperted as UFO's. When the 
> controversy arose, the men were afraid to confess for fear of losing their 
> jobs. (There may have been liquor involved as well.)
> One of the men confessed this information to my father-in-law when they were 
> both in hospital some time ago. My father in law is in his eightys. Two of 
> the participants have since died and the remaining one is not in good 
> health.
> I believe that the one remaining could be convinced to confess for the 
> record, if he were assured that he would not suffer ill consequences. I 
> would be willing to make introductions in the event that someone were 
> interested in conducting a legitimate investigation without excessive 
> publicity.
> [xxx] was the fisherman who took the RCMP out to 
> investigate the night of the sighting. I remember him commenting on the 
> unusual greenish foam streak on the water in the vicinity of the sighting 
> that night. Unfortunately, no one thought to take a water/foam sample at 
> that time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I immediately sent a reply to the sender, asking for more info. I also
asked other ufologists about it. The trend is to be wary of such a
claim, because Stiles is reported to have some remarkable documents 
that support something more than just a flare. It's also odd that it took 
so long for this story to surface. Also, it's possible that the events took
place in the reverse order - the UFO was seen to crash and that was
what sparked the men to send up the flares. I don't know; it was a long 
time ago.
	You know, when I started getting interested in this stuff, back
in the early 1970s - things seemed a lot simpler.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Swamp Gas Journal is copyright (c) 1996 by Chris A. Rutkowski.
Mail correspondence to:  Box 1918, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada  R3C 3R2
Email correspondence to:  rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca
Special thanks to A. Wyndham, for assistance in proofreading and
editing this issue. 
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)