Showing posts with label Phil Klass. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phil Klass. Show all posts

Sunday, March 29, 2026

Mike Rogers "Confesses" to the Hoax

 

When I learned that Mike Rogers had passed, I put a short note up on this blog. It wasn’t so much an obituary as a notice that he was gone. I shared some of my interactions with him which I believed to be of interest, but drew no real conclusions about the validity of some of the things he’d said in the past.

Mike Rogers. Photo Courtesy of Mike Rogers.
Charlie Wiser posted a comment to that article that said:

Mike Rogers' daughter took his confession on his death bed - he confessed (for the second time) to hoaxing the TW sighting with Travis, confirming his role at the fire tower (the UFO) - he was to stop at a certain viewing point for Travis to get out, then generate panic in the truck and drive away fast after the zapping, to leave the impression Travis was abducted. Given the various changes and contradictions in their stories over the years in response to skeptical pushback, this version fits the actual facts.

Mike also confessed to the first part of the Phoenix Lights (V-shape) in which he was so interested for the past 20 years. If we read his "speculation" as confession - a lightweight wire-and-plastic construction lifted by helium, with DEFINITELY!! exactly 7 lights no matter what people reported, released near Prescott that traveled with the wind speed and direction to Casa Grand - we might solve that part of the sighting. He agrees the second part was flares.

Before I announced on Coast-to-Coast AM that Rogers was gone, I had read the comment. I told the executive producer about it with the caveat that I had not had a chance to vet the information and I wasn’t comfortable mentioning the hoax claim. I did know about some of the acrimony between Travis Walton and Mike Rogers and I knew they had put it behind them. So, I just made the announcement about Rogers’s passing on air and let it go at that.

Travis Walton at the Roswell UFO Festival.
Now I have the other side of the story, which has done nothing to resolve the issue, but does give us, well, a different perspective. André Skondras posted the following that is relevant:

Somewhere In The Skies podcaster Ryan Sprague shared Jennifer Stein’s response regarding Mike Rogers’ alleged deathbed confession about the Travis Walton case. Stein has a wonderful documentary called “Travis: The True Story of Travis Walton.”

“I think it’s incredibly disrespectful to tamper with Mike’s final statements. I do not believe he made any kind of deathbed confession, because filmmaker Patrick James visited him three days before his passing and got a completely different story directly from Mike. Patrick James, an Arizona filmmaker, will be releasing a documentary about the Walton case soon.

‘If this were truly a final statement, why didn’t his daughter post the audio? Why just a text, and then take it down? A lot of things don’t add up. I don’t believe it’s a legitimate post. I suspect it’s Charlie Wiser trying one last time to convince the world that the Walton case is a hoax. I find this behavior sad and disrespectful. I had very nice, respectful texts with Mike Rogers in the weeks before he passed, and he never mentioned any of this.’”

[https://youtube.com/.../UgkxJkWlurO32s0SAlrY...](https://youtube.com/.../UgkxJkWlurO32s0SAlrY...)

Full interview:

[https://www.youtube.com/live/iNo6BqnzY2Q...](https://www.youtube.com/live/iNo6BqnzY2Q...)

[https://x.com/likeitmatters3/status/2036941617685553567?s=43](https://x.com/likeitmatters3/status/2036941617685553567?s=43)

But to repudiate this information, Wiser published the following to the comments of the previous post. “His daughter published a summary of it on Quora - she says it was recorded. She's deleted the post now but a screenshot is on my Twitter. She's currently deciding how best to release the information.”

Although this is evidence that she posted it, that she has since deleted is currently significant. That she said that there was a recording is also significant, as is the fact that the information is no longer available to us. Without that recording, we aren’t left with much evidence expect the apparent fact that she did post it.

I confess that I’m confused by all this and it is something that happens far too often in the UFO field. I can’t count the number of times that I have run into this sort of thing. Two completely different points of view proving that a certain case is a hoax and the other underscoring the importance and validity of the event. Just look at the rumors, half-truths and outright lies that surround the Roswell crash case.

On the other hand, it is often important that we have all the information about a case, a report, a statement that illustrates the conflict so that we might come to a conclusion that fits our belief structure. This means that some who know that there is no alien visitation believe any UFO sighting that isn’t a mistaken view of natural world phenomena about us is a hoax. On the other side are the true believers who accept any story about alien visitation no matter how outlandish that claim might be.

I try to fall in the middle of that continuum because I don’t know that alien visitation is impossible but that I would like some stronger evidence proving that visitation. Here is an example of what I mean because there are two camps. Either Walton was abducted by aliens or he invented the tale with some help.

I could argue either side of the debate because the published information. Philip Klass’s attack on the case is filled with holes, but there are contradictions in Walton’s story as well. There are Roger’s statements that no one saw Walton abducted because they had driven off. So, where was he for those five days? It is a case of I just don’t know.

But the point here is that the tale of a “deathbed confession” by Rogers doesn’t seem to be accurate. That, of course, leaves us right where we were when we entered the debate. Logic suggests it must be a hoax given the problems of interstellar travel and some of the best evidence suggests that Walton was “taken.” To draw a proper conclusion, we simply need more and better information.

Sunday, August 21, 2022

NASA and UAPs (UFOs)

 

More than a half century ago, the Air Force sponsored at the University of Colorado, a study of UFOs. Lead by Dr. Edward U. Condon, they concluded that there was no national security issue, that nothing of scientific value would be learned by further study, and that the Air Force had done a good job during its twenty-two-year investigation. From that point on, other scientists, journalists, news organizations and DoD officials used those conclusions to ignore the UFO phenomenon and often to ridicule those who took it seriously or who claimed to have seen an alien spacecraft.

Dr. Edward Condon

None of this came as a surprise to those who were paying close attention. The conclusions for the Condon Committee as it became known, were written at the very beginning of the investigation. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Hippler wrote to Robert Low of the Condon Committee to outline the Air Force expectations. These were to find no national security issues, to find nothing of a scientific value in additional research and to say some positive things about the Air Force investigation. As noted, all this came to pass.

For those interested in exploring this aspect of the “scientific study” of UFOs, you can read about it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2007/03/hippler-letter.html

Condon even expressed his belief about UFOs and what the ultimate conclusions would be at a meeting in Corning, New York, on January 25, 1967, where he told the audience that UFO’s “are not the business of the Air Force… It is my inclination right now to recommend that the government get out of this business. My attitude is that there’s nothing to it… but I’m not supposed to reach a conclusion for another year.” That was reported in the January 26, 1967, edition of the Elmira Star-Gazette.

Ten years later, Frank Press, who was the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and was President Jimmy Carter’s science advisor, wrote to Robert Frosch, the administrator of NASA. In a friendly letter, Press suggested that UFOs were a subject that should be a focal point for NASA. In other words, Press seemed to be suggesting that NASA take an interest in UFO reports and sightings.

In his response, Frosch, mentioned the negative conclusions of the Condon Committee, cited other organizations with opposite views, including CUFOS and NICAP, but also thought that some sort of inquiry might discover significant new findings. He also suggested that NASA had to be assured that there was a justification for opening such an inquiry because of the time and resources that would be involved.

In a response to this, Noel Hinners, the Space Science director, was appointed to formulate a response. There were rumors, or leaks (which I suppose are much the same thing) that Stephen P. Maran, of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), would spend two months examining the UFO world post Condon, meaning he would look at the developments from 1969 to 1977. Instead of this, and other positive ideas, Hinners sent a letter to Forsch. In keeping with the skeptical view, Hinners wrote, “There are two major problems involved in considering any review of the UFO phenomenon, by NASA: first, an apparent lack of any tangible or physical evidence for laboratory analysis (emphasis added); second the absence of any sound scientific protocol for investigating the phenomenon firsthand. There is a plethora of secondary source material – human observation and reports thereon – but hearsay is difficult to deal with scientifically…”

Finally, on December 21, Forsch wrote to Press, telling him that NASA was leaving the door open to examine any evidence, though he again mentioned the lack of any physical evidence. He wrote, “I wish in no way to indicate that NASA has come to any conclusion about the phenomena as such; institutionally we retain an open mind, a keen sense of scientific curiosity and a willingness to analyze technical problems within our competence.”

While they continued to cite the lack of physical evidence, Dr. Peter Sturrock of Stanford University, wrote Frosch on December 30, saying, “my colleagues and I in the Study Group on Anomalous Phenomena have obtained access to some physical evidence such as films, material samples, etc.”

NASA Headquarters was somewhat surprised and was unprepared to deal with Sturrock’s suggestion about “obtaining meaningful assessment of these items of evidence.” NASA did, however, think that Dr. Stephen Maran of Goddard Space Flight Center was the man to take on the task of assessing the materials because “He is a skeptic on UFOs; he is extremely sharp and energetic; and he is politically acute.”

Assigning a skeptic to the investigation is not a bad thing. I would think that someone of a skeptic nature, who is interested in reviewing the evidence would be the man to do the job. But, for some reason that never happened. It seemed that NASA decided that any sort of study would consume time, money and resources and it would distract the agency from its original and primary mission which dealt with rocketry, launching satellites and developing a vehicle that could be reused.

I will also note that this idea that he is “politically acute,” suggests that he might have been swayed by the political arena surrounding UFOs, believing that any finding suggesting alien visitation would not be well received. In other words, the wrong conclusion might jeopardize his career. I have no evidence that such is the case other than that one minor phrase.

Today NASA is now saying, according to Daniel Evans, the assistant deputy associate administrator at the Science Mission Directorate that, “We’re going full force on the UAP study… This is really important to us and we’re placing a high priority on it.”

But this wasn’t the only thing said by the NASA representatives at the town hall meeting where this was discussed. They had to add a disclaimer, saying, “NASA has said there is no evidence that UAPs are visiting aliens.”


Please note that this is the same thing they said decades ago. They now reduce the observations of witnesses to little more than anecdotal testimony because that diminishes the important of that evidence. And yet, I would have told them about important observations in and around the Levelland UFO sightings from November, 1957. As I researched the book, Levelland, about those sightings, it became clear that it was much more complicated and robust than we thought. Here was a sighting that had many of the elements that science demanded. There were multiple, independent eyewitness to the object, seen at close range for as long as five to fifteen minutes. It interacted with the environment by stalling car engines and filling the radios with static. There are reports of landing traces, again with multiple witnesses. And what was the official investigation about? The number of witnesses. The Air Force said only three had seen an object, but their own investigation produced more than that.

In the past, while it seemed that NASA was interested in UFOs, there were those who were less than enthusiastic, especially when scientists outside of NASA and the editors various magazines with a more skeptical tone mentioned the nightmare of having to deal with a subject that many considered to be phony and a waste of time. This is, of course, an outgrowth of the Condon Committee’s negative findings which, as I mentioned, were bought by the Air Force with half a million bucks (which in today’s dollars would be something much higher).

Skeptics (or I should say, “debunkers”) entered the discussion at some point. Philip Klass wrote that President Carter had barely had time to find his way around the White House his inauguration before he was inundated with letters and telegrams from people Klass described as uneducated, inarticulate and confused. There was also the allegation that 87% of those who wrote NASA about UFOs were eleven or twelve years old. Or, here was a group of people who didn’t know what they were talking about trying to force a policy on a government agency. The attitude of hostility grew out of this.

NASA, though it seemed would be the perfect agency to investigate claims of alien visitation, rejected all suggestions they do so. While it would seem that evidence that interstellar flight was possible would increase their research budgets, they seemed to think it would bring discredit on the agency.

But now we seem to have come full circle. We have moved from a time in which many of those at NASA thought UFO investigation might be worthwhile, to those who worried that it would damage the agency in some way, back around to it being something NASA should do. Of course, they mention again, that there is no evidence of alien visitation and that they believe the answers are all terrestrially based, but they are now going “full force on the UAP study…”

Please paint me as skeptical, but hopeful. I fear that this will end up where all other good intentioned investigations in the topic had ended up… There is no evidence that they find acceptable no matter what that evidence might be.

Friday, July 23, 2021

X-Zone - The Latest on Travis Walton's Abduction

 For those living under rocks, who haven’t gotten out of the basement, or who, though some miracle, have avoided social media, let me tell you that the cracks in the Travis Walton abduction case have widened into deep fissures. This all began a

Travis Walton

while back when Mike Rogers announced that he was through with Travis Walton. At that time, because I have communicated with both men, I asked a couple of questions because it seem the split had nothing to do with the abduction tale. Oh, Rogers had mentioned, several times that no one saw Walton abducted, but that wasn’t really much of a revelation and proved nothing. For those interested in seeing my take on this, you can read about it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/03/did-mike-rogers-repudiate-travis-walton.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/04/coast-to-coast-am-travis-walton-and.html

This latest exchange, which was hosted by Erica Lukes on her podcast UFOs Unclassified, began with an interview with Mike Rogers and ended with a discussion with Ryan Gordon. The Rogers end of the interview was, to be kind, slightly incoherent and the Gordon bit was quite illustrative. Gordon does raise some interesting points about the whole case. You can find all four hours of the show here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtWgwN2hzOA

Peter Robbins, who might be best known as one of the authors of a book on the Rendlesham Forest case that involved a number of Air Force personnel in December 1980, has posted an alternative view of the Walton abduction, which you can read here:

https://www.facebook.com/668953372/posts/10159496184383373/?d=n

And before we get too deep into this, I’ll point out that I interviewed Steve Pierce, who was one of those who was there when Walton was abducted. It might interesting to compare what he told me with some of the information coming out now. You can read about that interview here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/07/steve-pierce-and-travis-walton.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/03/philip-klass-travis-walton-and-steve.html

I was asked by Rob McConnell to provide my take on this latest episode. I confess that I find it disturbing. It seems to me, that after all these years, decades really, that the pot is being stirred again. Rogers seems, to me, to be a loose cannon at this point. Walton, it seems to me, it a little more rock solid. But this latest information, supplied by Ryan Gordon, has caused quite the stir. You can listen to Rob McConnell and me talk about it on his X-Zone show found here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/45809038

There is one other aspect of this that I do want to mention. That is the lie detector tests that have been given. The members of the wood cutting crew were all, with a single exception, given lie detector tests while Walton was still missing. They all passed, but there really weren’t questions about the abduction. The focus was on the possibility that Walton had been murdered.

Once Walton reappeared, he was given a lie detector test arranged by APRO’s International Director, Jim Lorenzen. Walton failed that test but Walton told me that

Jim Lorenzen

it was the polygraph's fault and the test hadn’t been fairly administered. Because the operator didn’t believe the story, that influenced the test and I have to say that such a charge makes sense.Phil

This wouldn’t be of interest, but Lorenzen, at first, denied that such a test had been given. Philip Klass revealed that bit of information harming the credibility of the case and doing some damage to Jim Lorenzen’s reputation.

Other tests, given later, had positive results. Jerry Black arranged for them in the 1990s. You can read about this later test here:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc348.htm

And you can read more about the Walton abduction from some divergent points of view here:

http://www.nicap.org/751105snowflake_dir.htm

http://www.nicap.org/reports/751105snowflake_report.htm

If all this isn’t enough to overwhelm you, I don’t know what it. Like so much of the UFO field, there is a variety of points for view from the debunker’s “It can’t be, therefore it isn’t,” to the other side of the spectrum which is “What more do you need for proof?”

The Walton case is one of the few in which the abduction was witnessed (well, almost… Rogers said that no one witnessed the actual abduction) and that makes it a stronger case. We had, what was once, a solid wall of confirmation by those involved, that now has developed a few cracks that have become wider and deeper.

I confess that at this point I am more confused than ever. Those who visit here regularly know that I’m not a fan of abduction tales. I have said that I think the more likely abduction scenarios are those like the Walton experience in which the “victim” is a target of opportunity rather than a participant in some sort of long-term longitudinal study. I had, provisionally, accepted the story as true but had some reservations about it. This latest pushes me in the other direction and given that a hoax scenario is more likely than an alien abduction, that seems to be the most likely case… but I just don’t really know for sure.

Next up on my radio show/podcast is my interview with Robert Sheaffer. I had thought we’d talk about the UAP report and the latest from the Navy, but given all this about Walton, we’ll discuss that as well. If you have questions, append them here. Since I moderate the comments, they won’t be published.  

Friday, January 29, 2021

A New Annoyance to Include Roswell and Socorro

 

Yes, I’m annoyed again, which, given the situation in the United States today shouldn’t be a surprise because I suspect everyone is annoyed about something or other. What set me off was another of the special edition “magazines.” This one dealt with the paranormal and, of course, UFOs were lumped in with the paranormal, which is something of a misnomer and a minor annoyance all by itself.

Of course, there was a section on Roswell that was about 300 words long. They seemed to believe the Project Mogul explanation but did note that many of us don’t accept it. I would say that this analysis is more or less neutral, but then, how do you explain a major UFO event in so few words?

The Roswell UFO Museum in downtown Roswell (where else?)

But the real problem was the short section that was devoted to the Socorro UFO landing and Lonnie Zamora. At the end, they noted that explanations had been offered including a hoax by high school students or that the mayor and Zamora had engaged in a different hoax with different motives.

Ignoring, for the moment, those explanations, I will note that Lieutenant Colonel Hector Quintanilla, the chief of Project Blue Book at the time, labeled the Socorro sighting as “Unidentified.” He wrote that he had searched long and hard for an explanation, that he had the proper clearances that would have allowed him to seen any top secret projects under development at either White Sands or Holloman Air Force Base and he could tap into sources unavailable to civilian researchers. He wouldn’t have had to probe very deeply, or known very much about those secret projects, if they fit the descriptions, timing, and location to offer a plausible solution. He came up with nothing.

Now, I look at these two explanations. Philip Klass concocted the explanation that the mayor owned the land where the UFO touched down, and it was the mayor’s plan to build some sort of monument or tourist attraction there. It was to create a situation in which his nearly worthless land would become a valuable property as a tourist attraction with possibly a small motel and other such conveniences. All speculation on Klass’ part.

The major problem with the theory is that the mayor didn’t own the land and the idea for the tourist attraction didn’t occur to anyone until a year after the landing. Then the idea originated in the city council and not the mayor. And, of course, no tourist attraction was ever built.

The second theory fails because there is no way that high school students could have devised such an elaborate hoax. They would have needed to create some sort of object that could land and take off. Zamora saw two beings near the craft or object, but he didn’t see them flee the area, which students would have had to do, unless they took off in that craft. They ran to the rear of the craft, it lifted off with a roar, and they were never seen again. Did they ride off in that UFO? To begin with, just how did they get it out there without being seen by someone? Wouldn’t it have involved more than the two people Zamora saw? Wouldn’t there have been some evidence of these others found on the site? The logistics simply do not work out.

The UFO Landing Site, photo by the Air Force.

This is not to mention that Sergeant Sam Chavez, who responded almost immediately, who arrived while the object might still have been visible high in the sky, saw nothing. And there were those people in Socorro who called the police to mention what they had seen and heard the thing in the air before Zamora made his report.

High school students just couldn’t have pulled it off without a lot of help, it would have involved more than the two beings that Zamora saw and probably vehicles to move the participants around the site.

The point here is that we have this rather slick magazine that provides nothing in the way of evidence, giving an explanation, or explanations, for sightings without actually doing much in the way of real research. Sure, I get they couldn’t have taken up pages, but when the Air Force investigator doesn’t have an explanation that works, it would seem that the magazine would be aware of that. You would think that they would be a little less biased in their presentations.

Anyway, I’m tired of having to make the same explanations over and other. As I say, Project Mogul Flight No. 4, was cancelled and did not fly, so it is not responsible for the Roswell crash. The cluster of balloons launched later in the day would not have made it up toward the Brazel ranch to leave the recognizable debris of weather balloons and rawin targets. How do I know this? Because Charles Moore, who is the author of this nonsense, had to change the launch time of Flight No. 4 claiming it was three hours earlier than the time the launch that was canceled. He had to do this because the winds aloft data did not support the path of the balloons later in the morning drifting to the Brazel ranch.

And we’ve dealt with the tired explanations of the Socorro landing. It is clear, from the information that has been developed by various researchers including Ray Stanford, Ben Moss and Tony Angiola (not to mention my own work on the case), that there was no plan for a tourist attraction and high school students didn’t pull off a prank.

I wish those who create these things would put a little more research into the articles. It doesn’t really do any good if they fill the pages with the first thing they find on the Internet. It just seems that very few, whose job it is to do proper journalism, take the time to do it. Kind of explains where we are today.

Thursday, September 24, 2020

X-Zone Broadcast - Robert Sheaffer Discusses Klass and Friedman

 

I invited Robert Sheaffer back on the program as a response to another radio show in which the host and the guest attacked Philip Klass. I didn’t think that it was a fair assessment of who Klass was and that his personality was similar to that of Stan

Robert Sheaffer

Friedman, who had partnered with that guest. You can listen to my show here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/41089664

and the second hour here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/41089667

We did examine some of the things that Klass had done that were fairly nasty, but then we did the same thing with Friedman. You can get a better idea, along with some documentation here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2020/08/stan-friedman-vs-philip-klass-whats.html

And to learn a little about what Klass has done, in a somewhat similar vein, you can read it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/09/philip-klass-and-his-letter-writing.html

I did look at other aspects of some of Klass’ UFO investigations and you can see them by typing his name into the search engine on the blog. I also looked at Klass’ investigation into the Travis Walton abduction and Klass’ attempts to convince Steve Pierce to “confess” to the Walton hoax. Pierce never did, even with an offer of a large amount of cash offered by Klass.

In other words, we looked at how Klass had operated in the past and compared it to some of the things that Friedman had done in his campaign to become the Number One Guy in the world of UFOs.

As we discussed this, we also looked at some of the famous UFO cases, such as the Coyne helicopter sighting. I explained why I found some of what Klass had said about it to be inaccurate based on my experience as an Army helicopter pilot who had been through the same training as Coyne and his co-pilot. Naturally, you can read about that here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/search?q=Coyne

We also talked about the Lubbock Lights case and in a discussion that was reminiscent of our Levelland discussion on another edition of the radio show. That means, simply, that Robert offered a possible explanation for the Carl Hart photographs taken in Lubbock. He supplied a link to that analysis, which, with luck, you can read here (I say that because the link might not work for everyone):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/470983769757563/permalink/688177534704851

I am not a fan of the explanation but will note, as I did on the show, that there seems to be only two solutions here. Hart either perpetrated a hoax or he photographed something that is truly anomalous. Having interviewed Hart in the 1990s, I accept his statement to  me that “I still don’t know what I photographed.”

The best part of the show, I believe, is that you had two guys on it, who look at the UFO phenomenon from opposite sides of the room. We could agree on a number of points without the discussion devolving into insults and accusations. We might disagree, but we did look at the other side to see if there were good points to be made. We also, in the course of the show, tried to provide references for those who were interested to follow up on what we said.

We pretty much left it at that point. What we did prove, if that is the right word, is that Klass was no worse than Friedman, and Klass might have been more honest in his assessments. He might have been blinded by his bias but there seemed to be no evidence that he fabricated or suppressed evidence… the same can’t be said about Friedman.

Note: Before I published the article about Klass and Freidman, I invited Kathleen Marden on this program. She declined the offer.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Philip Klass and the FBI

A while back we discussed Phil Klass’ habit of writing to the employers of those who thought they had seen a UFO, or who investigated them, or just disagreed with him. He seemed outraged that there were people who didn’t accept everything he said, and took great offense at that. He would express his disappointment with those by creating a little trouble for them.

A few skeptics who visit here thought I was being overly harsh and a little unfair to Klass. They thought several examples were needed. But even with some acts I thought were over the top, those skeptics thought Klass had done nothing wrong. With Klass it seems to have been an on-going thing.

While going through the FBI files that dealt with UFOs, I came across a series of letters that Klass had sent to them. Apparently Klass was offended by an article written by Dr. J. Allen Hynek that had appeared in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. It was an article that didn’t actually advocate any particular position but suggested that UFO sightings reported to law enforcement entities would be of interest to those at Hynek’s new Center for UFO studies. It provided a way for law enforcement to respond to the concerns of the citizens without having to actually do anything. A sort of win - win. Law enforcement cleared the report and the CUFOS received it for further investigation, if necessary.

According to a Memorandum dated February 21, 1975, Mr. Heim, reported that Klass had called the editor of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. According to that document, Klass, “In strong terms laced with sarcasm, he derided our publication of the article by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, ‘The UFO Mystery,’ in the February, 1975, issue of the LEB. Klass suggested that by publishing this article, the FBI had given its endorsement to a hoax (that UFOs are extra-terrestrial in origin) and to a fraud (Dr. J. Allen Hynek).”

Importantly, according to the memorandum, “Mr. Klass was politely reminded that nowhere in Dr. Hynek’s article appearing in the Bulletin, or in numerous other of his writings which were examined by us, does Hynek suggest UFOs are extra-terrestrial in origin…” (Remember, this is 1975, about the time he was establishing CUFOS).

A letter dated June 14, 1975, written to then FBI Director Clarence Kelly, Klass renewed his assault. He wrote, “The enclosed photo-copy of a headline and feature story in the recent issue of ‘The National Tattler’ is a portent of the sort of ‘FBI endorsement’ for the flying-saucer myth that you can expect to see, repeatedly, as a result of an article about UFOs carried by the February issue of The Law Enforcement Bulletin.” While his source for this claim of FBI endorsement outrage is The National Tattler, hardly the pinnacle of journalistic excellence, that didn’t matter all that much to Klass, he quoted it anyway.

Klass added, “That article was written by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the spiritual leader of the vocal group of ‘believers’ and ‘kooks’ who claim we are being visited by extraterrestrial spaceships. And while the FBI did not endorse Hynek’s views per se, the decision to publish his article and to alert law enforcement agencies as to what to do ‘if they land,’ has embroiled the agency for all time.”

The telephone call then, was not enough to slander Dr. Hynek. When he didn’t receive the response he wanted, he renewed his attack, but toned down the rhetoric in the written communication. He just claimed that Hynek was the “spiritual leader” of, what to Klass, would be the other side. But he had learned that the FBI had not endorsed the opinion that some UFOs were alien craft merely that they approved of the idea of the UFO reports being relayed to a non-governmental agency to investigate. Hynek had offered the various law enforcement agencies an alternative to telling the public to call the Air Force or the local college authorities if they felt a need to make a report.

I am not sure what so annoyed Klass about this. Hynek asked for the various law enforcement agencies to relay the reports to the Center. I don’t know why Klass would object to this. It wasn’t as if he was attempting to force his belief structure on anyone. He was merely asking for information. Klass was actually attempting to somehow inhibit that flow.

There is nothing wrong with Klass contacting the FBI to respond to their publication of Hynek’s article. There is nothing wrong with Klass offering to write a rebuttal piece giving his opinions about the reality, or lack thereof, of UFOs. There is nothing wrong with Klass writing, “I would welcome the opportunity to present the other side of the UFO issue in The Law Enforcement Bulletin, and to thereby help remove the earlier seeming FBI endorsement of flying saucers.”

It was the language, the allegations and the name calling which is out of place. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree, but Klass wouldn’t leave it at that. He crossed a line, repeatedly, with his personal attacks and his shading of reality to suit his purposes. He was uninterested in debate; he was in a campaign to inflict his views on everyone else.

The point is that Klass did carry about a campaign against those with whom he disagreed. I know that I don’t attempt to suppress the opinions and beliefs of the skeptics who visit here (except when the insults become too personal) and welcome, for the most part, their view of the issues. But for a few, such as Klass, it wasn’t enough that he had what he believed to be the ultimate truth; everyone had to agree with that truth as well.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Project Aquarius, Steve Pierce and Other Questions

There have been a number of questions that have appeared in the comments sections of previous postings and I thought this might be a good place to deal with some of those, rather than searching from posting to posting.

First, let’s deal with this Project Aquarius nonsense. It was pointed out that Aquarius was a real classified project from the NSA. At least that was the original premise. However, Barry Greenwood, first in Just Cause and reprinted in the December 1987 (issue 236) of the MUFON UFO Journal, said, “Finally, our last issue [Just Cause] dealt with the sort-lived confirmation of an Air Force ‘Project Aquarius’ by the NSA. The revelation fizzled however when the NSA retracted its confirmation based on a false assumption… No other independent confirmation of the Project Aquarius document has been possible.”
Sure, the true believers are going to say, “And you believe this?” And my answer is going to be, do you have any independent confirmation of Project Aquarius?
I thought not.
More to the point, two of the projects listed in the Aquarius document have been identified. Project Snowbird, which had to do with flying alien craft, according to Aquarius, was actually a joint Army/Air Force cold weather training exercise. Code words are not duplicated because that could lead to the compromise of highly classified information. There is a two volume Code Name Directory to prevent that from happening.
Project Sigma, also in the Aquarius document which claimed it was an attempt to communicate with alien intelligence, was a classified project between the Air Force and Rockwell International.
If the information about these two projects, contained in the Aquarius document is inaccurate, what does that say about the rest of the document? Since there is no provenance for it and since it is filled with misinformation, is it no wonder that proponents of MJ-12 seem to have forgotten about it. Neither Stan Friedman nor Robert Wood has provided answers to my questions about these Aquarius documents.
Another area that has bothered the readers is my interview with Steve Pierce. Frankly I was surprised by some of the responses. I wasn’t advocating for the Walton abduction. I was not suggesting that it was based on alien intervention and anyone who has read my writings on alien abduction knows my point of view. No, I was suggesting that Pierce related what he had seen and done the night Walton disappeared, and his impressions of his interaction with Philip Klass.
What I wanted to know when I interviewed Pierce, was his view of the Klass story. We had heard from others, but not from Pierce himself. It seemed to me that he was more amused by Klass than intimidated or annoyed by him. While it is clear to me that he believed that Klass had offered money for his “confession,” I am not convinced that an actual offer of payment had been made by Klass. In other words, I think that Pierce believed that Klass had made an offer, though that offer was indirect. I think that it was mainly a misunderstanding and with that I think we could say that both sides are telling the truth… which is not to say that both sides are telling a truth grounded in our shared reality.
This means, simply, that Pierce believes an offer was made. Klass had said no such offer was made. Both believe, or believed, what he said. Both are right… I think that Pierce misunderstood what he was told by third parties… In other words, I have no reason to doubt what he said.

I also pointed out that Pierce thought that Klass was a fairly charming fellow, which, when you moved away from some of the outrageous things he said about UFO witnesses and researchers, was true. He could be vindictive and nasty in a UFO fight, but on other topics he was quite funny. He told me once that Aviation Week photographers had taken some good pictures of the latest Soviet fighters at the Paris Air Show in the 1980s. The magazine gave the originals to the Air Force, but somehow failed to get a print of one of the pictures. When they asked for it they were told they couldn’t have it because the pictures were classified… which makes no sense (meaning that the Air Force would classify them since the aircraft had been introduced in a public setting where everyone and his brother could take pictures so the source wouldn’t have been compromised… but I digress…)
So, I published an interview with Pierce providing his perspective on these events with Klass, and I have annoyed some… How could I trust Pierce? Well, I sat down with him, talked with him, and he didn’t say anything particularly controversial, other than Klass could be charming.
Finally, there is this latest allegation that I’m a shill for the military, though I’m not completely sure what this means. This isn’t the first time that something like this has happened. I was accused of working on Project Blue Book with Hector Quintanilla, I was a CIA agent of some kind, that I had been spying on APRO for the Air Force, and I don’t know what all. This latest seems to have been raised by Douglas Dietrich, who I don’t believe I have ever met and who I do not know. No evidence for this has been presented, but some believe it… It is not true and if Dietrich said anything like this, he is on thin ice.
This is one of those situations where the two of us know the truth. If he said it, he knows he’s making it up… I know what I have done in the military and what I haven’t done, and nothing in this allegation is true. If I find a source for the allegation, and Dietrich’s name is attached, I may go after him. And I assure those out there that there is nothing embarrassing in my military file or embarrassing questions to be asked that would prevent this.
Of all these above points, I think those about Project Aquarius are the most important. This is an issue that should have been resolved when more was learned about it, one of the Aquarius documents was proved to be a forgery, and when the information contained in it was found to be inaccurate. In today’s world, there are those who still believe in MJ-12 but ignore those documents that came before the “Big Three” that show just how flawed they are. They continue to pontificate about MJ-12, saying the criticisms have been answered, but, of course, they have not. MJ-12 should be dead but it is not. I don’t know what more we can do it kill it, other than continue to raise these points.

 

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Philip Klass and His Letter Writing Campaigns

Lance objected to my word “routinely,” when I suggested that Philip Klass routinely contacted employers of UFO witnesses and investigators. Christopher Allen suggested that if I listed five examples, then that might cover the point.

What I should have said originally is that Klass (seen here) routinely caused trouble for the witnesses, researchers, investigators and believers in UFOs by writing letters to their families, friends and employers and that he harassed them periodically when they didn’t respond to him as he thought they should.

Here’s what we can prove.

Klass, using his power as an editor of Aviation Week (meaning he wrote his letters in the McDonald case on the magazine’s letterhead, suggesting the inquiry was not from Philip Klass private citizen, but from Philip Klass on the staff of the magazine) contacted the Office of Naval Research about Dr. James McDonald. He wanted to know if McDonald had been doing UFO research while on grant research in Australia.

The answer was yes, but the ONR knew about it and had tacitly approved what McDonald had been doing. Klass was not satisfied, though I don’t know why, or who he thought he was to object. He had raised what we all might agree was a legitimate concern about the misuse of government money for UFO research. ONR launched an internal audit and determined that what McDonald had done was not outside the rather wide scope of his research grant.

Klass, continued writing letters (no Lance, not one everyday), but enough to cause concern in the ONR. While the thinking at ONR is not known, it is known that the military, as well as others in Washington, D.C., respond quickly to inquiries from Aviation Week. Klass might claim that he was a private citizen concerned with taxpayer money, but he used the club of the magazine to get what he wanted. ONR decided not to continue funding McDonald’s research. We can guess why they made that decision, but it would only be a guess.

It is not clear if Klass’ superiors knew what he was doing or if they would have approved had they known in the beginning. By the time the question was raised about the legitimacy of Klass’ use of Aviation Week letterhead, the wagons were circled and other editors suggested they knew and approved of Klass’ action. Kind of the same circumstance that we find with McDonald and his superiors at ONR.

The point here is that Klass did contact McDonald’s superiors and slung allegations about the legitimacy of McDonald’s research. You can suggest that all Klass wanted to know was if McDonald had been conducting UFO research in violation of his grant, but once that question was answered, Klass should have moved on. Instead he continued to write letters. Obviously he had another agenda.

Had this been the only example of this sort of thing, then it could be overlooked. Maybe Klass had gone too far in his questioning and maybe he wrapped himself in the mantle of Aviation Week, but McDonald had used ONR funds to pursue his UFO research. When ONR didn’t complain, or rather announced that they found nothing improper, that should have been the end of it. Of course it wasn’t.

Klass did this again after Dr. Bob Jacobs wrote an article for the January 1989 issue of The MUFON Journal. In it, Jacobs said that he was a former Air Force officer and that he had been involved in a UFO sighting, which, I guess is now called The Big Sur UFO Filming. Jacobs said that the UFO was alien and that the Air Force had ordered him not to talk about what he had seen and what had been filmed. He wrote that he had been told, “Lieutenant Jacobs, this never happened.”

In his article, Jacobs referenced a paper, Preliminary Report on Image Orthicon Photography written by Kingston A. George. Klass, though he had all the information necessary, wanted Jacobs to send him a copy of the paper. Klass offered to pay for it but Jacobs didn’t like the tone of the letter. To him it seemed that Klass was ordering him to send the paper.

Jacobs refused, and Klass, apparently went ballistic. He wrote a two page report in his Skeptics UFO Newsletter (SUN) about Jacobs and the Big Sur sighting, suggesting somewhat unkindly that the whole thing was bogus.

Klass wrote, “JOURNALISM PROFESSOR (AND FORMER USAF OFFICER) ‘MANUFACTURED TALL UFO TALE, THEN ACCUSES THE GOVERNMENT OF COVERING IT UP.” (Those who have seen the SUN Newsletter know that Klass was in the habit of capitalizing, underscoring and using boldface type to emphasize his remarks, sometimes using all three at once.)

Jacobs suggested that he had cited his source properly, given Klass the name of it, the author and the date, and that was all he was required to do to properly source the document. Klass then wrote to Jacobs’ boss at the University of Maine in an attempt to discredit him.

Klass wrote:

Dear Prof. Craig:

I am writing to bring to your attention what seems to be to be unbecoming conduct on the part of a journalist and member of your faculty. One should expect a faculty member to serve as a role model for students in demonstrating the ethics and responsibilities of their profession. I refer to Dr. Bob Jacobs.

According to that letter, Klass introduced himself and then said he had become interested in Jacob’s claim that he had photographed a UFO. He wrote that he had offered to pay for the report mentioned earlier and that Jacobs had refused to send the document.

Klass then wrote:

I understand why Jacobs is reluctant to release this report. Based on my research, I’m confident the report would reveal that his ‘UFO tale’ is a cock-and-bull story.

If Jacobs were a young journalist working for the National Enquirer, or one of its even less scrupulous clones, I might be more tolerant of his behavior. But when a professor of journalism, who publicly accuses the USAF and the U.S. Government of ‘cover-up,’ resorts to intentional distortion of the facts to mislead his readers and then to cover-up, I am deeply distressed.

I hope you share my feelings.
It was signed by Klass.


This is akin to the tactic he used against McDonald and the ONR. But the University of Maine had no fear of Aviation Week or a UFO hobbyist (as Klass described himself in the letter) from Washington, D.C. Jacobs did not lose his job.

To read all of the article by Dr. Bob Jacobs, see:



But that’s not all.

When Stan Friedman (seen here in "lecture" mode) began to contemplate a move to Canada, Klass decided that he needed to save Canada from the foibles of Friedman. He wrote a letter that Richard Dolan found in Canadian archives in 2005.

According to Dolan:

The letter was dated August 15, 1980, and addressed to Dr. A. G. McNamara of the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics. It was unsolicited, and is a straightforward character smear of Stanton Friedman, who was at the time in the process of moving to Canada. According to Klass, Friedman was a “full-time UFO lecturer (of the ‘snake-oil salesman’ variety).” He was moving to Canada "to become its chief UFO Guru." Friedman was ‘quite a showman’ whose lectures were ‘so filled with half-truths and falsehoods that it would take me several hours to offer a rebuttal. And like wrestling with an octopus, when you manage to pin down one leg, the other seven are still thrashing about.
The letter disparages Friedman’s professional credentials as a nuclear physicist, twice refers to Friedman’s "mountainous ego," and calls him "something of an outcast" within the UFO "movement." All in all, a nasty and underhanded little letter. Better yet, Klass enclosed a "White Paper" he prepared on Friedman "that illustrates the man’s modus-operandi and his distortion of facts." (This White Paper was not included in the material I saw at the archives.)

But why send the letter at all? Klass said he wanted to warn the good people at NRC that Friedman would now in all likelihood be directing his focus on them.
"I can assure you," Klass wrote, "that you and your associates will be publicly accused of a UFO Coverup (or ‘Cosmic Coverup,’ as he is prone to say) that ‘dwarfs the Watergate scandal.’" Also, "to alert you to deal cautiously with him knowing he is inclined to distort the facts and exploit any ambiguity in your statements."
The final statement is illustrative. "Please treat this letter in confidence, sharing it with appropriate associates as you see fit."

Dolan concluded, “In other words, tell as many people as you can, but behind Friedman’s back, please.”

For those who wish to read Dolan’s complete analysis of this incident, see:

www.keyholepublishing.com/New%20Klass%20Letter%20Found.htm

But that’s not all.

In a similar vein, as I joined the Air Force Reserve as an intelligence officer, Klass was in communication with the man assigned to do the background investigation. I know this because the man happened to live across the street from my father and told him I was being investigated for a security clearance. All I know was that Klass thought that it ironic that as a UFO investigator I had written magazine articles that suggested the Air Force was engaged in a cover-up of UFOs. He suggested they read those stories before deciding if I was worthy of the trust of the Air Force. After all, I had already demonstrated that I thought little of the Air Force and if trusted with its secrets, might I not leak them into the public arena.

I do know that the investigator did obtain some of the stories I had written about the Air Force, including one about the opening of the Project Blue Book files while I was still in Air Force ROTC. That story, and the others, did not seem to worry the Air Force. I was both commissioned and then granted a top secret security clearance (I'm standing on a building at the Baghdad International Airport in 2004).

Klass, in a move that I never understood, mentioned that I drew a number of unnamed benefits based on my military service. We exchanged a series of letters over this with Klass harping on these benefits. I told him repeatedly that after using the G.I. Bill for college and to buy my first house, I knew of no other benefits to which I was entitled. At that point I had not completed twenty years of military service (active duty and reserve and National Guard). Since then I have retired from the military with more than twenty years and do receive various benefits.

He didn’t like my answer and kept asking the question. However, when I asked about his military service he responded, sarcastically, about his long military record. Yes, it was all tongue in cheek and I understood that, but if he expected a serious answer from me, shouldn’t he supply a serious answer to my question? He did avoid service during WW II and Korea and was probably considered too old for Vietnam, though the Army didn’t think I was too old for Iraq.

But that’s not all.

J. Allen Hynek, who had once been an Air Force consultant to Project Blue Book, learned that Klass called McGraw-Hill about Hynek’s UFO book. According to Allan Hendry, Klass wanted to know why McGraw-Hill had a “UFO nut” on its payroll and suggested that McGraw-Hill fire him.

And when he wasn’t attempting to interfere in the private lives by attacking our livelihoods or our plans to move, he was busy assassinating the characters of those who disagreed with him or who claimed UFO sightings. The Travis Walton case proves the point with Klass’ continued assaults on Walton’s integrity and his prying into Walton’s past.

Let’s be clear on this. Background checks are important and necessary. When Robert Willingham claimed to be a retired Air Force colonel, it was necessary to learn if that is the truth. If Willingham was not an Air Force officer, then his story of the Del Rio UFO crash collapses. But my investigation was limited to the public sources available, and not a search through his entire background to find any dirt that I could. The issue was Willingham’s military service and not what he might have done as a teenager.

And, if a witness has a long history of deceit, is known for his tall tales or practical jokes, then it is necessary to learn that. But there becomes a point where that sort of investigation can become intrusive and borders on harassment. Klass was unaware of the line, or maybe he knew where it was, but simply didn’t care.

While he should get credit for learning about the first lie detector test taken by Walton, the one Walton failed, getting into Walton’s juvenile record is going a step too far. I’m not sure that a juvenile indiscretion, a one time thing, should become part of a UFO investigation, especially if the circumstances are as Walton laid them out in one of his long responses to Klass. A very well written and intelligent response appears in the 1996 updated edition of Fire in the Sky.

Walton is an extreme case, with Klass spending years attacking not only Walton but the fellows with him and his family. I think that dragging his family into it is another step too far. Call the case a hoax, suggest that it is not grounded in reality, but do you really need to attack the family as well.

Klass (back to the camera in Roswell, New Mexico) attacked Minnesota police officer Val Johnson, after Johnson said his police car was damaged, and he was burned, by a UFO. Klass called the case a hoax, which was calling Johnson a liar, in national publications and various other forums. Fortunately, Johnson’s boss, and the others in the area didn’t buy Klass’ assessment, which had been based on Klass’ opinion that there are no UFOs and therefore Johnson must be lying.

In another case, that of Australian Frederick Valentich, who disappeared in a small aircraft after reporting that he was under aerial assault by some undefined UFO, Klass told Don Ecker that Valentich was a drug smuggler. There is no evidence of this, other than Valentich seemed to have had four life preservers on his light plane. I’m not sure how Klass determined this, or if it was true, but the smear was there.

For more information about this see the Wikipedia entry about Klass and see:

http://darkmattersradio.com/?tag=philip-klass


In fact, we can look at case after case in which Klass had decided that the witnesses were lying. He claimed he could prove them to be a hoax, but his proof often fell short. He just didn’t have the information to prove a case a hoax, but since there were no UFOs, then, in some cases, that was the only possible answer.

To some, labeling a case a hoax is not a big deal. But the bottom line is this, especially when the case has received national, or international, publicity, labeling it a hoax is calling the witness, or witnesses, liars. If there is evidence that the case is a hoax, then yes, it should be labeled as such and we all, skeptic, debunker, researcher or enthusiast, should spread that solution far and wide.

But when there is no evidence of a hoax, but the only available answer left to explain a case in the mundane is hoax, then it should not be labeled as such. Klass had no evidence that Val Johnson had wrecked his police car on purpose and made up the story of the UFO, but Klass labeled it a hoax anyway.

A quick search in almost any reference will revel Klass’ investigations and his conclusions. Anyone will be able to see that Klass attacked not only the case, but the witness, or the investigator involved. His attitude seemed to be that if you can’t attack the case, then attack the witnesses.

Such conduct can be seen in the University of Nebraska seminar about UFOs to be held in 1983. According to Jerry Clark:

On August 23, 1983, an administrator at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln took a strange phone call from a man who had a complaint which he expressed at some length. When he finally got offf the phone, the administrator summarized the conversation in a memo to another university official:

“Mr. Phillip [sic] Klass ... is a member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal [CSICOP]. This committee has a much different view of unexplained phenomena than those groups we are working with as sponsors of "this conference [titled Exploring Unexplained Phenomena]. He was, in fact, quite adament [sic] in his position regarding the credibility of the conference presenters. Further, Mr. Klass has a personal feeling that the nature of this conference seriously questions the integrity of the United States Government. He feels that there is no scientific evidence to support the claims of the presenters and indicated that these organizations, by publicly questioning the government, lend support to the Communist movement."
On November 23 Klass wrote the administrator, who was startled to see large chunks of Klass' words from their three-month-old conversation quoted verbatim -- indicating, the administrator correctly surmised, that Klass had taped the two without informing him he was doing so. Klass said that since a "copy of your memo was 'leaked' to outsiders," he wanted to "clarify and expand upon statements" he had made. He said "we" -- presumably meaning himself and CSICOP -- did not seek to "prevent conferences or meetings by those who want to propose UFOs" but that he had some trouble with the university's sponsorship of a conference on the subject. What, he asked, would the university do "if the American Nazi Party came in and said they [sic] wanted to hold a conference?"
"I emphasize to you that I am not, repeat not, suggesting that any of the people or any of the organizations are in any way affiliated with Communist Fronts or with the Soviet Union. But as a patriotic American, I very much resent the charge of 'coverup', of lying, of falsehoods, charged against not one Administration, not two, but eight Administrations going back to a man from Missouri named Truman, a man named Dwight Eisenhower. Because if this charge is true -- Cosmic Watergate -- then all of these Presidents were implicated, and all of their Administrations.... [In making this charge, ufologists] seek what the Soviet Union does -- to convey to the public that our Government can not be trusted, that it lies, that it falsifies. Now I'm not so naive -- remembering Watergate -- to say that never has happened in history. But from my firsthand experience (i.e., 17 years in the field of UFOlogy), I know this charge is completely false. And I resent it as an American citizen."
Remarkably, Klass distributed copies of this letter to others, including me, on the evident belief that it would exonerate him, in other words demonstrate that when read in context his sentiments would sound rational. He would even charge that the administrator's paraphrase had been "inaccurate," when if anything it made Klass' charge sound marginally less nutty. As I wrote Klass on December 6, "In the past, when your critics have accused you of engaging in McCarthyism, they were using the term in a metaphorical sense. Now, it seems, they will be able to use it in the most literal sense."
For those who wish more information and to read all of Jerry Clark’s thoughts on this, see:


and


Phil Klass, of course, didn’t see it all quite this way. In an interview conducted by his friend, Gary Posner, he gave his own version of the events. Klass told Posner:

To the best of my aging recollection, I have never attempted to get any organization to cancel a pro-UFO conference or any of its selected speakers. But I know what you're referring to. Back in 1983 I received a phone call from a faculty member of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, who was embarrassed because the school was sponsoring a conference on the alleged "Cosmic Watergate Government UFO Coverup," and no skeptical speakers were on the agenda. So I decided to write a short article "needling" the university. But before doing so I needed to interview an appropriate official. So I called Prof. Robert Mortenson, the school's director of conferences, who expressed surprise to hear that no skeptics had been invited. He told me that he appreciated my concern, and that if they were to sponsor a UFO conference the next year, there should be a better effort made to balance the presentation. At one point during that telecon I did say that, although I am not suggesting that any of the people or organizations involved in the conference are in any way affiliated with communist fronts or the Soviet Union, nevertheless, their reckless "Watergate-type coverup" charges against eight administrations, going all the way back to President Truman, serve, not unlike communist propaganda, to foment distrust and suspicion of the integrity of our government. I also very distinctly remember telling Mortenson, "Let me emphasize to you that I am not, repeat not, suggesting that you cancel or terminate this conference." Again, that was in 1983. A newspaper article the following year quoted Mortenson as saying that the university had decided not to hold another UFO conference that year because the ones in 1982 and 1983 had lost money.
This was, of course, the excuse given for not holding another conference, though it came after the conference host demanded to know why the series had been cancelled.

Klass continued his version, saying:

...[F]ollowing our conversation, Mortenson wrote a brief memo about it to an assistant chancellor. But he misquoted me as having said that conferences like this "lend support to the Communist movement," which carries quite a different connotation -- I had been very, very deliberate in my choice of words to insure that I would not be misunderstood. Anyway, who leaked the memo I don't know. But photocopies of it were distributed at the conference. And the next issue of the MUFON UFO Journal said that I had tried to "scuttle" the conference because it, and others like it, were "aiding the Communist cause." In the same issue, MUFON's director, Walt Andrus, quoted the memo verbatim and even indicated that he had in his possession copies of Mortenson's original handwritten notes that he had jotted down during our conversation. So, armed with all that, one of my most vehement critics began to hurl the charge of "McCarthyism" against me -- even though I had earlier provided him with a verbatim quote of what I had actually said. Mortenson later denied in a letter to me that either he or his deputy had given his notes to Andrus, but he did say that copies of his memo had been sent to the program coordinator and the "file" for informational purposes. But as for exactly what I did say in that conversation, it is just as I told you. When I picked up the phone to call Mortenson, I was planning to write an article, but I never did because he sounded so gratified to learn from me that the panel was so biased, and even asked me if CSICOP would provide speakers for the next year's conference. And because I had planned an article, to assure accuracy I tape recorded that call and, fortunately, I still have that tape.
For those who wish to read all of Posner’s interview with Klass, see:

www.gpposner.com/Klass_inter.html

For all of this, I had a fairly cordial relation with Philip Klass over the years. We once went sailing on the Potomac and got stuck, momentarily, on a sandbar. In later years Klass didn’t remember this, but I did, probably because it is the only time that I went sailing.

We would speak at conventions, and as I have told others, on the last occasion that I saw him, I had to assist him up a couple of stairs to the elevators and then onto his hotel room. His health wasn’t as good as it had been in the past.

And for all the trouble he caused, he was not the worst of the lot. That distinction belongs to Kal Korff, who in today’s world attempts to market himself as a colonel and who has threatened to sue anyone who looks at him sideways. He is a vicious man filled with rage and makes up the most outrageous claims. When challenged with evidence, he quietly changes these claims, but never apologizes.

Of the two, I much prefer Klass who seemed to be a gentleman outside the UFO arena. Korff is just nasty. How you feel about all this is, I suppose, a matter of perspective.