“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi
PART 10: Consensus lists : National Enquirer Panel
Many UFO researchers have complained about ridicule of UFO witnesses, arguing that a fear of ridicule has resulted in many UFO witnesses failing to report their sightings.
What if, ially in an attempt to overcome that fear and obtain further reports, a company were prepared to offer a reward of $1,000,000 for proof that UFOs come from outer space and are not natural phenomena?
What if the same company were prepared to offer $10,000 for the best report submitted each year, even though not the proof required for the $1,000,000 reward?
Anyone involved with UFO research for a few years must have wondered how much more progress would be made but for the constant bickering between researchers and UFO groups.
What if the company that was prepared to offer a million dollars had also managed to persuade the heads of the three most influential UFO groups (say, NICAP, APRO and MUFON) to put aside long standing feuds to work together, and join forces in screening reports submitted for the $1,000,000 prize?
What if the same company were prepared to provide funds to investigate reports screened by those two groups and/or provide financial rewards for investigators for performing thorough investigations of interesting cases?
What if the same company managed to get several of the most respected scientists involved in UFO research, individuals such as Dr J Allen Hynek, to agree to look at the best reports selected as a result of that screening? If those scientists were put in a room together and asked to agree on the top UFO cases, which cases would be nominated? This would involve researchers reaching agreement on the relevant list of cases (i.e. producing a true “consensus” list), and thus can be contrasted to the approach of taking a poll of UFO researchers - as to which see
PART 5: Consensus lists : Jacques Vallee’s poll (1965)
PART 6: Consensus lists : Ronald Story’s poll (1979)
PART 7: Consensus lists : Paul Kimball’s Vox Populi poll (2006)
PART 8: Consensus lists : Paul Kimball’s expert poll (2005/6)
PART 9: Consensus lists : Fortean Times expert poll (2007)
For good measure, what if the same company also managed to persuade to persuade several highly respectable members of the legal establishment (such as a former Supreme Court Justice and former Attorney General, and a former New York Court of Appeals Judge) to review any cases considered by the panel of scientists to be a UFO that is not a natural phenomenon and came from outer space?
A pipe dream?
No. It has already happened.
It’s just a shame that the relevant company was “The National Enquirer”…
All this happened in the 1970s, when the National Enquirer established a “blue-ribbon panel” to consider UFO reports. The questions about “what would happen if…?” can be considered in the light of that experience. Unfortunately, the answer in that case was:
1. The Panel has largely been forgotten by UFO researchers.
2. Disappointingly little happened as a result of the Panel. Given the resources available to the Panel, and the individuals associated with it, this may be viewed by many ufologists as serious cause for concern. Most efforts within ufology have far, far less support than the Panel. It is possible, however, that the National Enquirer’s reputation was a disadvantage which drastically affected the efforts of the Panel.
Given the diversity of cases included within the lists of the “best” cases produced by various researchers (see PART 3: Existing lists by various individuals ), it might be considered a fairly obvious step to attempt to get UFO proponents to agree between themselves on a list of the “best” cases to be put before sceptics. The National Enquirer’s Panel was one of very few such attempts.
The involvement of the National Enquirer in an effort that, prima facie, involved commiting significant financial resources and obtaining the assistance of high calibre individuals (both from inside and outside the UFO community) is surprising given the perception of that publication. That perception is reflected in comments made by several sceptics and by pro-UFO authors:
1. Skeptic Philip J Klass has refered to the National Enquirer as “a sensationalist tabloid newspaper” (see Footnote 10.01);
2. Terry Hansen, author of “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (2000), has commented that the National Enquirer is “normally perceived as a just sleazy tabloid…” (see Footnote 10.02). Terry Hansen also commented that: “[The National Enquirer has a] reputation for over-the-top senationalism and dubious veracity … Although the elite news media rarely provides serious, in-depth coverage of the UFO issue, the Enquirer was for many years uniquely eager to publish UFO stories, often under screaming, front-page headlines. The juxtaposition of sensational, even ridiculous Enquirer headlines alongside the more restrained (if not openly contemptuous) coverage of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, has served to amplify the disreputable public image of UFOs …” (see Footnote 10.03).
Anyone interested in the role of the “The National Enquirer” in ufological history may be interested in the 9 page discussion of that publication by Terry Hansen in his “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (see Footnote 10.04). Unfortunately, as with virtually all UFO books, the National Enquirer’s Panel is not discussed within those pages. However, that discussion does include a number of interesting assertions, including a quote attributed to Bob Pratt “Issues of the Enquirer that had a UFO story as the lead headline on page one never sold well. Arthritis, celebrities and such always sold much better” (see Footnote 10.05). Most of the relevant discussion within that book is devoted to the provocative, if far from convincing, suggestion that the National Enquirer’s UFO coverage was manipulated by the CIA.
The details of that Panel do not appear, to put it mildly, to be very well known within the UFO community.
The Panel is rarely referred to in pro-UFO books.
Also, while there are a number of references to the Panel online, most of the references to the Panel on pro-UFO websites are generally in the context of discussing a specific case and merely refer to the fact that the relevant case was selected by the Panel as the best case of a specific year.
Disappointingly, a book on UFOs published by the National Enquirer itself (“UFO Report”, 1985) based on articles previously published in the National Enquirer does not refer to the Panel. Instead, it is a rather sensationalist publication containing section titles which include the following:
- “Attack by Space Robots” (pages 16-18)
- “Eisenhower met Space Aliens” (pages 43-45)
- “Skeleton Found on Beach May Be Space Alien Child” (pages 82-85)
- “Russians say they found live Alien Baby” (pages 85-87)
- “Damaged Alien Spacecraft Orbits Earth” (pages 100-104)
- “Housewife says she visited Alien Planets” (pages 104-106)
- “Aliens Beamed To Earth” (pages 107-108)
- “Brazilian Says He’s Father of Alien’s Baby” (pages 147-150)
- “ ‘Vampires From Space’ ” (pages 160-165)
- “Did Space Aliens Teach the Chinese Acupuncture?” (pages 173-174)
- “Vietnam Vet Meets Invisible Alien” (pages 205-206)
Somewhat ironically, the most detailed accounts of the Panel that I’ve seen in print have been written by UFO sceptics such as Philip J Klass and Robert Sheaffer (see below). With the notable exception of the website operated by UFO researcher Jerry Cohen, discussion of the Panel online is fairly limited and/or inaccurate. Jerry Cohen has commented on the difficulty in obtaining accurate information regarding the Enquirer’s Panel, commenting that “you really can't find it anywhere” (Footnote 10.52).
Indeed, in one online debate on the UFO Updates forum, one leading UFO historian (Wendy Connors) attacked claims made by sceptics about the Panel and:
1. initially denied that the Panel existed, stating that claims made about its existence were "bogus", that “It does not exist” and that "None of these people [on the ‘blue ribbon panel’] are ever named by the CSICOP cult because this blue ribbon panel does not exist" (see Footnote 10.06); then
2. after being challenged, she accepted that the Panel existed, but claimed that "but it was not composed of top-notch scientists as claimed by CSICOP. The reasoning is quite simple. No legitimate scientist would align themselves with a gossip tabloid because it would endanger their credibility and possible cause for loss of research funding. The ‘blue ribbon panel’ is the typical sham..." (see Footnote 10.07).
Fortunately, due to very generous assistance from the AFU (an organisation which is undervalued by many within ufology, possibly because it keeps a relatively low profile), I have been able to review copies of various relevant articles from the National Enquirer.
As detailed below, contrary to the views expressed by Wendy Connors:
- The Panel did exist;
- The National Enquirer somehow managed to attract some of the top names from within ufology, and some impressive names from outside ufology. The Panel involved icipation by Dr J Allen Hynek and representatives of APRO, NICAP and MUFON. It even involved a former Attorney General of the
On
That article also gave the first details of the National Enquirer’s UFO Panel. It reported that “Five of the country’s top scientists have been named to a special ENQUIRER investigate panel which will examine the UFO evidence submitted by our readers”.
That article indicated that “the editors” would screen the evidence and “the best ones” would be presented to The Enquirer’s “investigative panel composed of five of the country’s top scientists”. $50,000 would be awarded to a person submitting evidence if “it is the unanimous agreement of the panel that the Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) came from outer space and it not a natural phenomenon”. The article stated that all evidence had to be in the hands of the editors before
While referring to the relevant individuals as five of “the country’s top scientists” may have involved a degree of hyperbole, they were certainly five of the country’s top scientists active in UFO research. They were:
- Dr J Allen Hynek;
- Dr R Leo Sprinkle;
- Dr Frank B Salisbury;
- Dr James Harder;
- Dr Robert F Creegan.
Dr Creegan is probably the only individual on the Panel that may not be instantly familiar to most UFO researchers. He was a professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at
Philip J Klass’ second book on UFOs contained several references to the Panel. He noted that all five members of the panel were university professors – all with Ph. D.’s. Four of the members of the Panel were “long-time technical advisors to
The launch of the Enquirer offer of a reward for UFO proof was briefly reported in the April 1972 issue of NICAP’s “UFO Investigator” (see Footnote 10.12). The relevant article referred to a panel “of scientists associated with the Aerial Phenomena Organization (APRO)” and stated that to win $50,000 “all you have to do” is prove that a UFO came from outer space and is not a natural phenomenon.
On
On 28 May 1972, the National Enquirer featured an article indicating that the Enquirer’s “blue-ribbon UFO investigative panel” was considering the Delphos Ring incident (Case 60 in the “Top 100” article), following a preliminary study conducted by
On
On
On
The award to the Johnson family was reported in two separate articles in the June 1973 edition of MUFON’s “Skylook” journal. An article by Norma Short Norma Short commented that investigative reports by Ted Phillips were used by the Panel in making its decision, but that he did not share in the prize money “which doesn’t seem right” and that the Enquirer “did not even have the courtesy to give him credit for the investigation in their announcement of the award” (see Footnote 10.21). In very similar comments in the same edition of MUFON’s Skylook journal, Lucius Farish referred to the 27 May 1973 edition of National Enquirer commented that “It seems to me that a portion of the prize money should have gone to Ted Phillips … At any rate, I suppose this proves that it can be profitable to have a UFO land in your back yard!” (see Footnote 10.22).
A couple of articles followed about physical evidence being considered by the Panel, including a “mysterious” steel sphere found at Terry Matthews near
At about this point in time, NICAP appears to have become actively involved in selecting cases for the Panel. The January 1974 issue of NICAP’s “UFO Investigator” briefly mentions that NICAP “is presently evaluating cases for the Panel” (see Footnote 10.25). Further detail was given in the following month’s issue of the same publication (see Footnote 10.26). According to that article, decision makers from the National Enquirer met with
(1) it was agreed that cases which were submitted for the Enquirer's UFO panel evaluation would “now receive funding from the National Enquirer to insure complete analysis”;
(2) somewhat surprisingly given the number of references in the ufological literature to the long-standing feud between NICAP and
The Panel met on
The same
On
In the summer of 1975, the $50,000 reward for “positive proof” that UFOs come from outer space and are not natural phenomena was doubled to “a whopping” $100,000. An article published in the
(I note in passing that this incident, in contrast to several of the earlier cases that receiving awards from the Panel, is rarely mentioned in UFO books).
The increase in the reward from $50,000 to $100,000 was reported in the July 1975 edition of MUFON’s Skylook journal. Lucius Farish commented, “So, if you have any crashed saucers in your backyard and you can prove (ah, there’s the rub!) they came from outer space, you can be $100,000 richer” (see Footnote 10.33).
There was an even more dramatic increase in the main reward in 1976. The reward was increased from $100,000 to the “enormous sum” of $1,000,000. An article in the National Enquirer on
In addition to announcing the dramatic increase in the main reward to $1,000,000 the same article also announced two other developments.
Firstly, any claims unanimously viewed by the Panel as being a UFO that was not a natural phenomenon and came from outer space would be submitted to a Judicial Review Board for “final judgment”. The $1,000,000 reward would be awarded if “the two judges agreed that the award recommended by the Blue Ribbon Panel is correct”.
The calibre of individual that the National Enquirer managed to persuade to agree to icipate in the “Judicial Review Board” may be considered rather surprising. The article stated that the relevant two judges were:
1. Tom C. Clark : Justice Clark “was an Associate Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court from 1949 to 1967 and Attorney General of the
2. Francis Bergan : Justice Bergan “was Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, from 1963 to 1972, with a long and distinguished career before his retirement”. [For a brief biography of Justice Bergan see Footnote 10.38].
Secondly, the National Enquirer doubled the award for the “most scientifically valuable evidence on UFOs” (though not qualifying for the main reward) submitted each year, from $5,000 to $10,000.
A further article in the National Enquirer, dated
The National Enquirer achieved yet another surprising coup in 1977. It had already succeeded in getting APRO and NICAP to cooperate in assessing the “best” UFO cases (despite the long-standing feud between the leaders of APRO and NICAP) and in 1977 it managed to add representatives of MUFON to the selection process (despite the feud between the leaders of APRO and MUFON).
In the May 1977 issue of the MUFON Journal, Dennis Hauck reported upon the expansion of the National Enquirer Panel to include MUFON representatives (see Footnote 10.40). Dr John L Warren (MUFON State Director for
Interestingly, Dennis Hauck commented that these appointments “rectify a sensitive situation and give full recognition to the Mutual UFO Network, Inc as one of the major UFO organisations in the world” (see Footnote 10.40). That comment may imply that some within MUFON viewed the previous lack of involvement of MUFON to have been some sort of snub.
The first prize after MUFON representatives began icipating in the Panel deliberations was made in relation to the Tehran jet intercept case of September 1976 (Case 47 in Isaac Koi's “Top 100” article). An article in the National Enquirer reported that the Panel had awarded $5,000 to six (unnamed) Iranians in relation to this sighting, for the most scientifically valuable UFO case “reported in 1977”. The reference to “1977” appears to have been an error, since the
The same article in the National Enquirer reported that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark had died, creating a vacancy on the National Enquirer’s “Judicial Review Board” which had been filled by another “outstanding jurist” – Emilio Nunez “retired Associate Justice in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court” who reportedly had “had a long and distinguished career in law”. The article once again summarised the procedure in relation to the Panel’s deliberations, indicating that all evidence sent in would be screened by the editors and the “more promising entries” would be sent to Jim Lorenzen (international director of APRO), Jack Acuff (president of NICAP) and John Schuessler (deputy director of MUFON). The claims with “the best evidence” would be submitted to the Panel, and if the Panel recommended payment of the $1 million award then they would pass the case on to the Judicial Review Board “for final judgment” which would determine if the Panel’s award “is correct”.
On
On
On
What happened to the Panel after May 1980? Emails to John Schuessler (one of the individuals that had been on the Panel and is still alive) and MUFON have, about a year on, not resulted in further information. UFO researcher Jerry Cohen has, however, made available some information from Bob Pratt, one of the National Enquirer reporters involved in reporting UFO sightings, in relation to Pratt’s knowledge of the Panel from “late 1975” onwards (see Footnote 10.45).
Comments by Bob Pratt in relation to the continued existence of the Panel after 1976 include the following:
- The Panel continued until “1980 or 1981”, when “the Enquirer formally abandoned the reward offer and disbanded the Blue Ribbon panel and the mini-panel”;
- The meetings to screen the reports to be submitted to the Panel consisted “of representatives of the three main UFO organizations, would meet once or twice a year with me and my editor to help select those cases that would be considered by the big panel. No one got paid anything but the Enquirer took care of all arrangements and all expenses for visits to south Florida or wherever the panel would meet -- such places as New York, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and even Mexico City)”.
- Dr Hynek quit the Panel “after he became convinced that the Enquirer wasn't too interested in funding research”. Although NICAP had reported that the Enquirer had agreed to provide funds for investigations, Pratt has commented “If such agreements had been made, they were no longer in effect when I got involved in late 1975”. Pratt has stated that Hynek asked Pratt’s advice “on whether he should stay on the panel. I told him I didn't think the Enquirer was serious about funding any research and he quit the panel. He had agreed to icipate in the beginning in the hope that the Enquirer would provide some research funds. It certainly could have afforded to do so (it would spend great gobs of money to get stories of all kinds) but the publisher, Gene Pope, wasn't all that interested”.
It should be noted that if Hynek quit the Panel because the Enquirer would not fund research, his timing may have been poor because the Enquirer eventually started paying some of its financial award to investigators (see discussion above of the 27 May 1980 edition of the National Enquirer and the financial awards for 1979 cases).
One of the longest discussions of the National Enquirer in the MUFON Journal appeared in the February 1984 issue, in an article by Walt Andrus entitled “The Enquirer and MUFON” (see Footnote 10.46). The article acknowledged that the National Enquirer’s Panel no longer existed, but did not state when it was disbanded. The article was about other actual and potential cooperation between MUFON and the National Enquirer. For the first time in the MUFON Journal, the article had a very cautious, even defensive, tone regarding co-operation with the National Enquirer. The article stated that “Since Bob Pratt left the National Enquirer, some of us have had serious doubts about the authenticity and integrity of some of the UFO stories that have been published under various reporters names”. However, despite those “serious doubts”, Walt Andrus indicated that MUFON would be co-operating with a National Enquirer reporter by providing documentation on the “four best current cases that MUFON members had investigated but which had not been previously published in the Enquirer”. Walt Andrus stated that the four cases selected had all been published in the MUFON UFO Journal “over the past few years” and gave the following titles: “Mother and Child Abducted in Texas”, “Pilot Encounters Ringed UFO”, “Missouri Landing Trace Case”, and “Repeated Sighting of Domed Disc in Michigan”. Due to the “serious doubts” regarding the National Enquirer, MUFON imposed several conditions upon this cooperation. Firstly, Walt Andrus required that nothing could be published until “every word was cleared with him” to ensure the accuracy of the article. Secondly, to expand the membership/subscription base of MUFON, Walt Andrus required that the article include the complete address of MUFON (including a code added to the zip code, to track the number of responses). Walt Andrus stated that “the number of new and competent field investigators joining the MUFON team will be the ultimate criterion”. He went on to state that members of the MUFON Executive Committee “recognize that there is a gamble in cooperating with the National Enquirer” but expressed the view that “the integrity of the tabloid and its management is also at stake in the eyes of the UFO community” and that “my experience to date has been very positive and congenial”. (The anticipated article subsequently appeared in the 10 April 1984 edition of the National Enquirer, see Footnote 10.47).
Walt Andrus ended his article in the MUFON Journal with a paragraph calling for views from readers of the MUFON Journal concerning future cooperation with the National Enquirer. Several responses were published in subsequent issues of the MUFON Journal.
Although not directly relevant to a consideration of the National Enquirer Blue Ribbon Panel (since that Panel had disbanded by this point), I think that the contents of two of those responses are worth noting since they indicate the diversity of views regarding cooperation with the National Enquirer.
Firstly, a letter to the editor from Joe Kirk Thomas of Los Angeles, California opposing cooperation with the National Enquirer was published in the May-June 1984 edition of the MUFON Journal (see Footnote 10.48). In an articulate and well-argued letter, Mr Thomas expressed the view that “the wrong audience was targeted” and asked “why would we court a relatively undereducated audience?”. He suggested the readers of the National Enquirer were largely “middle aged or older housewives of fairly low educational background” and “a rather credulous lot”. Given these characteristics, “while such a population could increase Journal circulation, it is unlikely that it would provide us with new, serious ufologists”. Mr Thomas went on to state “I can guarantee that academics do not place the Enquirer very high on their readings lists!”.
Mr Thomas contended as follows: “Like most of the supermarket tabloids, the National Enquirer has a reputation for sensationalism and fabrication. It may be unfortunate, but it is true that ‘you are known by the company you keep’. Mixing UFOs with such circus favourities as Jackie Onassis and Princess Di can only trivialize ufology, and reinforce the sceptical attitudes of many citizens. It is a poor vehicle for public education of any type”.
Mr Thomas concluded that MUFON should “diligently pursue” publication of articles in magazines, but that even if MUFON could find no national publications willing to present MUFON material “I think it is a very serious error to cooperate in any way with the tabloids. It is the wrong type of publicity and can only cause embarrassment and division within our organization”.
Secondly, in the October 1984 issue of the MUFON Journal, a view supporting the MUFON directors was expressed. Cliff Henderson of Sunnyvale, California, did not take issue with Mr Thomas’ characterisation of the National Enquirer’s readership. Instead, Mr Henderson relied upon the large circulation of the National Enquirer and stated that the relevant housewives could write to their Senate and House members, providing the Journal with an increased “clout” (see Footnote 10.49).
The conflicting views expressed in those two letters to the MUFON Journal give some indicatation of the range of potential strategies that could be adopted for promoting ufology (although such matters are rarely discussed in the UFO literature).
CONCLUSION
The National Enquirer’s Blue Ribbon Panel is rarely mentioned in modern discussions of ufology, even when (as happens fairly often) sceptics allege that ufologists are never/rarely prepared to list the best cases.
There appear to be two main possibilities to explain this fact.
Most ufologists are either:
1. unaware of the work done by National Enquirer’s Blue Ribbon Panel and those associated with it (including the considerable collaborative work by APRO, NICAP, MUFON and several leading ufologists); or
2. would prefer not to mention the National Enquirer, due to its image.
The former possibility is questionable given the number of references to the Panel (including express reference to the dates of some of the relevant editions of the National Enquirer) to be found in Philip J Klass’ 1974 book “UFOs Explained” (see Footnote 10.01, Footnote 10.09, Footnote 10.18, Footnote 10.30, and Footnote 10.44), and repeated by Robert Sheaffer in his books (see Footnote 10.10, Footnote 10.11, Footnote 10.19, Footnote 10.20, Footnote 10.35, and Footnote 10.36). However, it should be noted that at least one leading UFO historian (Wendy Connors) appears to have been unaware of the existence of the National Enquirer’s Panel (see Footnote 10.06 and Footnote 10.07). The first possibility therefore raises questions about the familiarity of many ufologists with the most influential sceptical literature.
Several skeptics, including Philip J Klass, should be given due credit for seeking out details of a process by which involving several leading ufologists selected the “best cases”, and for seeking to address those cases. They generally have not received due credit. It is far more common to find allegations in the ufological literature that Klass and other skeptics have only attempted to address weak cases and have ignored the “best” cases.
The second of the two possibility outlined above raises questions about the wisdom of the strategies adopted in the past (and currently) by leading UFO groups. If the image of the National Enquirer’s image is such that most ufologists find it unpalatable to refer to work done in association with that publication, then one may suggest that all the relevant collaborative work done in relation to the Blue Ribbon Panel by APRO, NICAP, MUFON and others was basically a waste of everyone’s time and effort.
In a decade or two, will current efforts within ufology similarly appear to involve an unwise allocation of very limited resources and highly questionable strategic judgments?
One of the few ufologists to have previously written about the National Enquirer’s Blue Ribbon Panel is Jerry Cohen. He kindly provided the following views:
(a) “…the big problem was, _where_ it was taking place. I believe the reason little happened is because of the fact it all occurred at the Enquirer, which mainstream scientists, or most other educated people for that matter, could not possibly take seriously, no matter who was involved. Knowing the type publication it was, people could never trust the paper. Therefore, the fact they were published in that paper carried with it a virtual guarantee everyone's efforts would be totally ignored and forgotten as more silliness from the Enquirer” (see Footnote 10.51).
(b) “We can easily see why skeptics would want to avoid [discussion of the Enquirer’s Panel], but what about the pro-UFO people? I'm a little surprised here. Again, it may have something to do with people's personal agendas, or just that people missed the importance of it (because we get so focused on our own thing, we can't see the overview), or perhaps other research might have been done that tended to diminish its importance, but I am not aware of this … They most likely didn't focus on it because it was information from a tabloid paper which most people thought were probably entirely dubious. Pro-UFO people probably didn't want people remembering Hynek associated with the Enquirer, for fear it would compromise the rest of his excellent research by association.” (see Footnote 10.51).
FOOTNOTES
[Footnote 10.01] Philip J Klass in his “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 312 (Chapter 28) of the Random House Hardback edition, at pages 370 of Random House paperback edition.
[Footnote 10.02] Terry Hansen in his “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (2000) at page 236 (in Chapter 6) of the Xlibris softcover edition.
[Footnote 10.03] Terry Hansen in his “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (2000) at page 230 (in Chapter 6) of the Xlibris softcover edition.
[Footnote 10.04] Nine page discussion by Terry Hansen in his “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (2000) at pages 231-239 (in Chapter 6) of the Xlibris softcover edition.
[Footnote 10.05] Terry Hansen in his “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (2000) at page 238 (in Chapter 6) of the Xlibris softcover edition.
[Footnote 10.06] Comments made by Wendy Connors on the UFO UpDates forum at:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jun/m03-007.shtml
[Footnote 10.07] Comments made by Wendy Connors on the UFO UpDates forum at:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jun/m06-014.shtml
[Footnote 10.08] Article by William Dick entitled “Enquirer Offers $50,000 Reward for UFO Proof”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.09] Philip J Klass in his “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 313 (Chapter 28) of the Random House hardback edition, at pages 370-371 of Random House paperback edition.
[Footnote 10.10] Robert Sheaffer in his “The UFO Verdict” (1980) at page 20 (in Chapter 3) of the Prometheus softback edition.
[Footnote 10.11] Robert Sheaffer in his “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998) at pages 37-38 (in Chapter 3) of the Prometheus hardback edition.
[Footnote 10.12] Article entitled “Newsnotes” in NICAP “UFO Investigator” April 1972 issue, page 4.
[Footnote 10.13] Article entitled “Enquirer Panel Investigating Reader’s Claims for $50,000 UFO Reward”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.14] Article by William Dick entitled “Enquirer Blue-Ribbon Panel Investigating Reported Discovery of … ‘Glowing Ring’ on Kansas Farm After UFO Sighting - Soil Baffles Scientists”, National Enquirer, 28 May 1972 (page 27).
[Footnote 10.15] Article by William Dick and Robert H Abborino entitled “Enquirer Blue-Ribbon Panel Investigating UFOs Reveals… FIVE AMAZING UFO SIGHTINGS”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.16] Article entitled “UFO Riddle May Be Solved Soon, Says Enquirer Team of Experts”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.17] Article by William Dick entitled “Enquirer Awards Kansas Family $5,000 for Supplying the Most Scientifically Valuable UFO Evidence in 1972”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.18] Philip J Klass in his “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 314 (Chapter 8) of the Random House Hardback edition, at page 372 of Random House paperback edition.
[Footnote 10.19] Robert Sheaffer in his “The UFO Verdict” (1980) at page 23 (in Chapter 4) of the Prometheus softback edition.
[Footnote 10.20] Robert Sheaffer in his “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998) at page 44 (in Chapter 4) of the Prometheus hardback edition.
[Footnote 10.21] Article by Norma Short entitled “National Enquirer Gives $5,000 Award To Johnson Family” in Skylook, June 1973, page 13.
[Footnote 10.22] Article by Lucius Farish entitled “In Other Words” in Skylook, June 1973, page 15.
[Footnote 10.23] Article by David Klein entitled “Mysterious Steel Sphere Puzzles Enquirer Panel of UFO Experts”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.24] Article by Bud Gordon entitled “Enquirer Panel of Experts says … Mysterious Object Found After UFO Sighting May Be From Outer Space”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.25] Article entitled “$50,000 Reward” in NICAP’s “UFO Investigator”, January 1974, page 4.
[Footnote 10.26] Article in NICAP’s “UFO Investigator”, February 1974, pages 3-4. Article entitled “NICAP-APRO Evaluate UFO Cases for National Enquirer Panel”. The text of the relevant article is available online on Jerry Cohen’s website at:
http://www.cohenufo.org/enquir.ufogrps.html
[Footnote 10.27] Article entitled “NICAP and APRO Take Major Step Toward Improved Relations” in NICAP’s “UFO Investigator” June 1972 issue, page 1.
[Footnote 10.28] Article by Allan A Zullo entitled “Enquirer Awards $5,000 to Helicopter Crew for 1973’s Most Valuable UFO Evidence”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.29] Article by Lucius Farish entitled “In Others' Words”, Skylook, July 1974, page 16.
[Footnote 10.30] Philip J Klass in his “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 332 (Chapter 28) of the Random House Hardback edition, at page 394 of Random House paperback edition.
[Footnote 10.31] Article entitled “NICAP Cases Among Best of Year” in NICAP’s “UFO Investigator”, April 1975, page 2.
[Footnote 10.32] Article by John M Webb entitled “Enquirer Doubles Its UFO Reward Offer to $100,000 … 4 Share Out $2,000 Award for 1974’s Most Spectacular UFO Sighting”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.33] Article by Lucius Farish entitled “In Others' Words” in Skylook, July 1975, page 14
[Footnote 10.34] Article by Bob Pratt and John M Cathcart entitled “$1,000,000 Reward – Enquirer’s New Offer for Proof That UFOs Come From Outer Space … Seven Share $5,000 for 1975’s Most Extraordinary Encounter with a UFO”, National Enquirer, 13 July 1975, page 5.
[Footnote 10.35] Robert Sheaffer in his “The UFO Verdict” (1980) at page 20 (in Chapter 3) of the Prometheus softback edition.
[Footnote 10.36] Robert Sheaffer in his “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998) at pages 37-38 (in Chapter 3) of the Prometheus hardback edition.
[Footnote 10.37] For the Wikipedia entry on Tom C. Clark, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_C._Clark
[Footnote 10.38] For a brief biography of Justice Bergan see:
http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/bergan-berkstresser.html
[Footnote 10.39] Article by Bob Pratt entitled “3 Women Are Abducted by a Massive UFO … Lie Detector and Hypnosis Confirm Their Chilling Account”, National Enquirer,
[Footnote 10.40] Article by Dennis Hauck entitled “National Enquirer UFO Panel Expanded” in The MUFON Journal, May 1977, page 17
[Footnote 10.41] Discussed in an article by Lucius Farish entitled “In Others' Words”, The MUFON Journal, June 1978, page 19.
[Footnote 10.42] Discussed in an article by Lucius Farish entitled “In Others' Words” , The MUFON Journal, August 1979, page 19.
[Footnote 10.43] Discussed in an article by Lucius Farish entitled “In Others' Words”, The MUFON Journal, July 1980, page 19.
[Footnote 10.44] Philip J Klass in his “UFOs Explained” (1974) at page 312 (Chapter 28) of the Random House Hardback edition, at pages 370 of Random House paperback edition.
[Footnote 10.45] Email from Bob Pratt to Jerry Cohen dated
http://www.cohenufo.org/BPratt_conversations.htm
[Footnote 10.46] Walt Andrus, “The Enquirer And MUFON”, The MUFON Journal, February 1984, pages 16-17.
[Footnote 10.47] Discussed in an article by Lucius Farish entitled “In Others' Words”, The MUFON Journal, March 1984, page 19
[Footnote 10.48] Letter to the editor by Joe Kirk Thomas, MUFON Journal, May-June 1984, page 19.
[Footnote 10.49] Letter to the editor by Cliff Henderson of
[Footnote 10.50] Article by Bob Pratt entitled “6 awarded $5,000 by Enquirer for Most Scientifically Valuable UFO Case”, National Enquirer, date not stated on copy held by
[Footnote 10.51] Email from Jerry Cohen to
[Footnote 10.52] Email from Jerry Cohen to