Rob McConnell, on his X-Zone Radio program on Thursday, July 21, interviewed Charles Stansburge, who is a MUFON State Section Director covering some fourteen counties in Texas. According to what Stansburge said, at that time, he had taken a photograph, or he had a photograph, that showed an alien creature and something described as a portal close to a mutilation site. He said that he was told by MUFON officials that he was not to share it with the public or the media.
McConnell commented, “It seems that MUFON - that claims that the government is suppressing information on UFOs and extraterrestrials is guilty of suppressing information themselves. If this has happened in this case, how many more cases is MUFON suppressing the information on?”
But this was not the end of the story, and within days, Stansburge was back, retracting the story. There had been no embargo on publication of the photograph, by MUFON or anyone else, at least according to what was being said now. Stansburge wanted to make that clear.
At this point, all I had heard was that there had been a photograph of an alien taken at a mutilation site, and if this was true, then it was big news. McConnell asked me if I wanted to appear on his radio program and he was attempting to get Stansburge on the show as well so that we would have an opportunity to discuss all this. While it would be relatively late at night, I agreed and learned a couple of hours later that Stansburge would be on as well.
McConnell allowed me to conduct much of the interview and there were many things that I didn’t understand. It seems that Stansburge learned of the mutilation of a sheep through an article in a Houston, Texas, newspaper and contacted the sheriff’s office to see if he might be of assistance. Stansburge is a retired police officer as well as a MUFON field investigator, and as mentioned, a State Section director.
According to Stansburge, he was not involved in the original investigation, had not taken the photographs, but had been given a complete set of them. They were taken with a digital camera and the vast majority of them were of the mutilation. There was only a single photograph that, again according to Stansburge, showed a gray alien kneeling near a small copse of trees and there was some sort of distortion to the right of the creature, near a larger tree that Stansburge said was some kind of a portal, though he didn’t know where that portal might lead.
A deputy took the photograph, as well as many others, and no one on the scene noticed an alien or the portal at the time. In fact, they hadn’t noticed any alien when they reviewed the photographs later. It was quite a distance from the lens and was back in the trees.
Stansburge interviewed the deputies who had gone out, and I believe he also interviewed the rancher. Stansburge said that the rancher had lost a number of sheep over the months. Some had completely disappeared and a few (I believe) had been found mutilated. When Stansburge finished his report, he submitted it, again I believe, to the Texas State Director and that it was eventually sent to MUFON headquarters. Interestingly, they all seemed to believe that the mutilation was damage inflicted by predators or scavengers and had nothing to do with aliens. It seemed that Stansburge was disappointed in those results, but that would suggest that aliens had nothing to do with the mutilation and made the mutilation irrelevant.
So we returned to the picture. No one had noticed the alien until Stansburge saw it on the photograph. As far as I know, there has been no analysis of it so there is no report about that. All we have, at the moment, are our impressions from it.
Now, before everyone gets all worked up, while the interview was going on, McConnell, who had a copy of the picture, sent it to me. I couldn’t find anything in it because it covered my computer screen, but as soon as Stansburge told me that everything of interest was at the top, I spotted the portal, and then to the left of that, near the copse of tress, I saw the alleged alien.
When you examined the following picture, remember I have cropped it so that the mutilated animal is no longer visible because it provides no information. I have only reproduced the small section of the photograph that shows the alleged alien and the portal.
|Photo copyright by Charles Stansburge|
While it can be said that it certainly looks as if there is an alien kneeling in the grass, it is a very small image, at the far end of the picture, and is more likely an optical illusion. It is not a clear image. I believe the color of the alien matches the color of some of the wood on the trees near it where the bark has been rubbed off. suggesting optical illusion rather than alien creature. It just isn’t very clear and frankly could be about anything.
|Photo copyright by Charles Stansburge.|
Here’s my thinking on this, and I say this without having walked the site, is that the deputy who took the picture didn’t see any alien. The sheriff and others who examined the picture did not see any alien. It was only after some time that Stansburge spotted what he thought was the alien. The resolution of the picture is such that we can’t get a clearer image and the one that is there is open to various interpretations. The picture is not of sufficient resolution for us to use as evidence of alien visitation. It is an interesting anomaly, probably the result of the lighting, the distance, and the type of camera giving the impression of an alien. If I lived in that area, I would return to see if I could duplicate the picture and I would walk up to the trees to see what had actually been photographed which is probably still there… but at this time, I don’t believe this is a very important piece of evidence nor do I believe that it shows an alien creature.
I want to thank Rob McConnell for allowing me to conduct the interview and Charles Stansburge for his patience under my questioning. Stansburge was quite the gentleman in all this.