I work at UCLA. Also, I am a human rights advocate and lead the appeal to stop covert research in America (this came out of my tenure as Staff Liasion for the Human Subjects Protection Committee - 1989 to 1993, I burned out after 4 years). The response was that UCLA's Institutional Review Board now requires signed Informed Consent even from subjects involved in covert/black research. Sorry, I couldn't do the same country-wide. I have not stopped, and Jeff Rense considers me his in-house expert on covert research involving human subjects.
I still get mail asking for information or help. Derrel Sims, Helmut Lammer, etc., etc. refer some of their cases to me. Usually, I am behind the scenes. At this moment, laying on my desk are EM photos from Dr. Roger Leir waiting to be scrutinized. I have expanded my field of interest after reading the 1997 IPELS (available through the UCLA's LAPD - LAser Pulsed Driver - website) and the Air Force University document called "2025". In 1991/92, I was asked by Don Schmitt (co-author with Kevin Randall of The Crash at Roswell) to do surface surveys of the "Roswell Crash" site. That did not work out, but I went to New Mexico and did my own research. Somewhere, that paper is on-line or available through the magazine "The Excluded Middle" published by Gregg Bishop.
I have been on Jeff Rense radio program, "Sightings" (12/04/97 - it could still be available in Jeff's archived section). I have no idea how I got on this list, but I have been sharing background scientific information with Bruce Cornet and Kent Steadman for the purposes of explaining anomal aircraft and weather. Please see Kent Steadman's website Orbit, and locate the section where Kent posted my critiques of the IPELS papers. If you have specific questions, as to my employment, please see the UCLA website for my job title and name of department.
My salary level will be implied by the job title - as you will see, California state employees are not paid very much. None of the information I have accessed is closed to the public, one just needs to be resourceful and know how and where to look. I am called a "super hawk" meaning I can find data and remember it and integrate it with other information.
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 98 17:24:00 PST
Here follows my statement:
Firstly, several years ago because of certain events taking place in my life (and my daughter's) - events I referred to as "experiences" - I began a search for answers to internal questions I was asking myself. I was living in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and found an article in one of those throw away suburban newspapers. The article was about the "Pyramid on Mars", and quoted someone named "Don Schmitt." I drove to the building where the publisher was located and tracked down the reporter of the article; got Schmitt's telephone number and called him. He arrived with Rich Heiden for an interview one day.
The contact with these two men put me in touch with Dr. Hynek. Now thinking back on my conversations with these three gentlemen from CUFOs, and remembering their skepticism at my tale of "abduction", I decided to set-up a hypothesis centering around what I called a "highly strange event" and to test it. It took me many years of searching the so-called ufology literature and scientific journals testing the validity of the central hypothesis of just what terms to ascribe to the highly strange event called "alien abduction."
The preponderance of evidence, which includes studies/readings in how the mind/memory works, suggests that there is no such an event as "alien" abduction. However, there is reams of papers describing human technology which creates events that for all practical purposes can take any "form" the controller/operator of the technology wants it to take. During my searching, I have been careful to follow my own dictum: "the mind abhors a vacuum, and will create whatever it needs to fill the vacuum." It is necessary to constantly test the supposition of a hypothesis. Ask any scientist.
In all my reading of ufology I have found no clearly laid-out hypothesis; only unwritten "laws" of how ufology will and will not be done, and what will and will not be stated. The search for the truth is not done utilizing critical analysis.
As a matter of fact, critique is considered hostile if it does not agree with the consensus - very much the same in the staid old sciences. This is very funny to me, as 1) ufology is not considered a science; and 2) ufologists scoff at scientific critique of their theories and/or articles ready to scream skeptic (as if it was a swear word) at a moment's notice.
Second, I too at one point in my search was able to provide UFO magazine publishers with sketches of what I thought were "ETs"; provide details of events. All of this happened before any of the current "ET abduction" images which now permeate our popular culture to the point I now can see "grey" rubber figures sitting in store windows.
My drawings can be seen in older issues of California UFO magazine published by Vicky Cooper-Ecker. None of the images I drew match the "greys." Other people were providing sketches, but they did not look like the "greys." Clue number 1. From this I surmised that the early type of brain cortex pulsing manifested from each person's own subconscious to the term "alien." Just think about this for a moment. The "aliens" originally were tall, blond-haired entities - for many years that is what contactees were reporting. After Whitley Strieber's immensely popular book, there are "greys" everywhere; that is all that is being reported. This is Clue number 2. Where are the ufology hypothesis dealing with this significant change? Why isn't anybody questioning this?
During my dialogs with Don Schmitt and Rich Heiden, I state that all these "abduction" events were being recorded by the very subjective human mind; a very tricky business at best for depending on accurate reporting of highly strange events. Remember the dictum: "nature abhors a vacuum", and when an individual is confronted by a highly strange event many things can take place. For example, allowing prejudices to color the observation. This is why individual trained in empirical observation are relied upon for a "closer to the truth" report. And, a constant retesting of the original hypothesis.
And, yes, I can relate to all those individuals claiming "alien abduction" even though the facts of the matter suggest another conclusion; facts which do not support "alien intervention" in any way shape or form. I have met people who went through an "alien abduction" did not accept it at face value, and began to be able to see through surface imagery, remembered details before and after the "event", and were able to discover another answer to their question.
What I find is incredible is that testimonies which provide a different scenario than "alien abduction" is not being heard by the general population. Which leads me to wonder why this is so. There appears to be: 1) a deliberate attempt to keep these testimonies from the general public by government policy or individuals controlling ufology; or 2) the market for these types of experiences is market driven by vested interests in only one solution; or 3) a factor of self-censoring for the same reasons individuals were afraid to discuss "alien abductio
n." Take your pick. Me, I have come to the conclusion it is all of the above.
Tuesday, January 12, 1999 3:19PM 10:48:23 AM Pacific Standard Time: I believe what you Easterners are spotting is the Air Force's new SHAFT; must be some test flights. It sits on a Zero -Stage Flying Wing - possibly with "lifter arms" attached at strategic points around the top. The SHAFT is lifted up and released in the upper level of the atmosphere; there, it attains Mach 12 at 100,000. SHAFT's payload is an unstated quality of either SMEAR bombs (with a range of 1,000 miles) or a TAV (orbiting vehicle). SHAFT looks like a very huge black wing. More on this aircraft in the 2025. Fantastic (??) what our tax dollars are being spent on to keep us out of harm's way. (I am referring to "2025" documentation for all the above so-called UFOs. UFO to you maybe, but not to the AF. And, no, it is not back engineered from alien craft.) Let's identify the aircraft we know so that we can identify the aircraft we REALLY don't know.
Date: 1/12/99 9:19:50 PM Eastern Standard Time