by Paul McCarthy

Ever wonder what an alien craft might look like inside? If the if the
information collected by Temple University historian David Jacobs is
correct, it may now be possible to know. After interviewing 50 UFO
abductees who say they have been whisked off some 275 times, Jacobs has
pieced together a picture of what’s under the dome.

It’s incomplete, says Jacobs, because the atmosphere aboard a UFO is
all business and no one is offered a guided tour. Abductees are there
for a physical exam, he says, and they only see as much of the craft as
is neccessary to get the job done. That’s why they invariably describe
spartan, efficient, and sterile surroundings with virtually no luxury
features at all.

These are clinical-looking rooms with domed ceilings, skylightlike
windows, and gray or white walls, Jacobs explains. And the aliens are
good housekeepers. “It is clean and neat. We have had some cases where
people vomited and it was cleaned up immediately.”

Despite these broad similarities, Jacobs adds, there are at least two
types of craft, “with the typical large UFO checking in at about two
hundred feet in diameter and its smaller cousin at about thirty-five
feet. If the craft is on the ground, abductees climb a staircase that
is lowered from the object. But if the vessel is hovering, they are
floated up.”

Accidental tourists find themselves in a hallway with metallic walls
that are usually bare but sometimes contain a floor-to-ceiling window.
Usually they are ushered along a curved corrider, which gives them the
feeling that they are walking around the perimeter of the ship,
although no one makes a complete loop, says Jacobs. Eventually they are
led to the vessel’s center, the “medical arena,” where unpleasant
physical examinations occur.

Virtually all medical zones are illuminated by a mysterious light
source that abductees cannot locate, Jacobs says. But they have
pinpointed the position of voluminous medical equipment–attached to
walls and ceilings, in drawers, or on rolling carts. As for the
examination table, Jacobs says, it’s generally “hard with very little
give,” and contains lighted, armlike devices snaking up from its sides.

In many cases, Jacobs notes, the examination room resembles the hub
of a wheel. The spokes, or hallways, lead from the hub to other
chambers, revealed only to some abductees after the exam. Also
circular, with domed ceilings, white or gray walls, and built-in
benches, some of these seem to be “visiting rooms” in which human-alien
hybrid babies are touched, held, or viewed.

Finally, abductees may pass through a control room that sounds
nothing like the bridge of the starship ENTERPRISE. There is a console
with lights, an unpadded seat, and no windows.

While all this is fascinating, equally interesting is what abductees
don’t report, Jacobs says. His witnesses are remarkably consistent in
not describing living areas and other details expected to pop up in
fabricated or imagined accounts. “Of course,” Jacobs says, “that
doesn’t mean they don’t exist in other parts of the UFO.”

Ever wonder what an alien craft might look like inside? If the if the
information collected by Temple University historian David Jacobs is
correct, it may now be possible to know. After interviewing 50 UFO
abductees who say they have been whisked off some 275 times, Jacobs has
pieced together a picture of what’s under the dome.

It’s incomplete, says Jacobs, because the atmosphere aboard a UFO is
all business and no one is offered a guided tour. Abductees are there
for a physical exam, he says, and they only see as much of the craft as
is neccessary to get the job done. That’s why they invariably describe
spartan, efficient, and sterile surroundings with virtually no luxury
features at all.

These are clinical-looking rooms with domed ceilings, skylightlike
windows, and gray or white walls, Jacobs explains. And the aliens are
good housekeepers. “It is clean and neat. We have had some cases where
people vomited and it was cleaned up immediately.”

Despite these broad similarities, Jacobs adds, there are at least two
types of craft, “with the typical large UFO checking in at about two
hundred feet in diameter and its smaller cousin at about thirty-five
feet. If the craft is on the ground, abductees climb a staircase that
is lowered from the object. But if the vessel is hovering, they are
floated up.”

Accidental tourists find themselves in a hallway with metallic walls
that are usually bare but sometimes contain a floor-to-ceiling window.
Usually they are ushered along a curved corrider, which gives them the
feeling that they are walking around the perimeter of the ship,
although no one makes a complete loop, says Jacobs. Eventually they are
led to the vessel’s center, the “medical arena,” where unpleasant
physical examinations occur.

Virtually all medical zones are illuminated by a mysterious light
source that abductees cannot locate, Jacobs says. But they have
pinpointed the position of voluminous medical equipment–attached to
walls and ceilings, in drawers, or on rolling carts. As for the
examination table, Jacobs says, it’s generally “hard with very little
give,” and contains lighted, armlike devices snaking up from its sides.

In many cases, Jacobs notes, the examination room resembles the hub
of a wheel. The spokes, or hallways, lead from the hub to other
chambers, revealed only to some abductees after the exam. Also
circular, with domed ceilings, white or gray walls, and built-in
benches, some of these seem to be “visiting rooms” in which human-alien
hybrid babies are touched, held, or viewed.

Finally, abductees may pass through a control room that sounds
nothing like the bridge of the starship ENTERPRISE. There is a console
with lights, an unpadded seat, and no windows.

While all this is fascinating, equally interesting is what abductees
don’t report, Jacobs says. His witnesses are remarkably consistent in
not describing living areas and other details expected to pop up in
fabricated or imagined accounts. “Of course,” Jacobs says, “that
doesn’t mean they don’t exist in other parts of the UFO.”

[The following is a teletype message from the Dallas, TX, FBI office to
the Cincinati, OH, FBI office regarding the event at Roswell. The "xx"
means it was scratched out, "??" means I couldn't read it. The
following material is from: _The Roswell Report: A Historical
Perspective_, George M. Eberhart editor, 1991 the J. Allen Hynek Center
for UFO Studies. ISBN 0-929343-59-X.]

—————————————————————————–

FBI DALLAS 7-8-47 6-17 PM

DIRECTOR AND SAC, CINCINNATI URGENT

FLYING DISC, INFORMATION CONCERNING. MAJOR CURTAN, HEADQUARTERS

EIGHTH Air Force, TELEPHONICALLY ADVISED THIS OFFICE THAT AN OBJECT

PURPORTING TO BE A FLYING DISC WAS RE COVERED NEAR Roswell, NEW

MEXICO, THIS DATE. THE DISC IS HEXAGONAL IN SHAPE AND WAS SUSPENDED

FROM A BALLON BY A CABLE, WHICH BALLON WAS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY

FEET IN DIAMETER. MAJOR CURTAN FURTHER ADVISED THAT THE OBJECT FOUND

RESEMBLES A HIGH ALTITUDE WEATHER BALLOON WITH A RADAR

REFLECTOR, BUT THAT TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN THEIR OFFICE

AND WRIGHT FIELD HAD NOT xxxxxxxxxx BORNE OUT THIS BELIEF. DISC AND

BALLOON BEING TRANSPORTED TO WRIGHT FIELD BY SPECIAL PLANE FOR EXAMIN

INFORMATION PROVIDED THIS OFFICE BECAUSE OF NATIONAL INTEREST IN CASE

xxxx AND FACT THAT NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, ASSOCIATED PRESS, A

OTHERS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK STORY OF LOCATION OF DISC TODAY. MAJOR

CURTAN ADVISED WOULD REQUEST WRIGHT FIELD TO ADVISE CINCINNATI

OFFICE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION. NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION BEING

CONDUCTED.

WYLY

END

CXXXX ACK IN ORDER

WA ?? FBI CI MJW

BPI HS

S-32 PM O

O-22 PM OM FBI WASH DC VH

University of California:

San Diego: Norman M. Kroll (Physics)
Walter H. Munk (Geophysics)
William A. Nierenberg (Physics)
Herbert F. York (Physics)

Berkeley: Richard A. Muller (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory)
Charles H. Townes (Physics)
Kenneth M. Watson (Physics)

Santa Barbara: Harold W. Lewis (Physics)

Santa Cruz: Stanley M. Flatte (Physics)

Princeton University: Curtis G. Callan (Physics)
Roger F. Dashen (Physics)
Freeman J. Dyson (Institute for Advanced Studies)
Val L. Fitch (Physics)
Edward A. Frieman (Astrophysical Sciences)
Marvin L. Goldberger (Physics)
Francis W. Perkins, Jr. (Astrophysical Sciences)
Marshall N. Rosenbluth (Astrophysical Sciences)

Stanford University: Samuel M. Berman (Physics, SLAC)
Sidney D. Drell (Physics, SLAC)
Joshua Lederberg (Genetics)
Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky (Physics, SLAC)
Allen M. Peterson (Electrical Engineering)
Burton Richter (Physics, SLAC)

Columbia University: Henry M. Foley (Physics)
Richard L. Garwin (Physics)
Malvin A. Ruderman (Physics)

Cal Institute Technology: Frederick Zachariasen (Physics)

Dartmouth College: Gordon J.F. MacDonald

Harvard University: Steven Weinberg (Physics)

University of Illinois: Charles P. Slichter (Physics)

Rockefeller University: Kenneth M. Case (Physics)

NASA, Houston: Joseph W. Chamberlain (Lunar Science Institute)

RAND Corportation: Robert E. LeLevier

—————————————————————————–
UPDATED JASON GROUP LISTING:
FROM DOD Science Advisory Committees for Fiscal Years 1984-1986
JASON GROUP of DOD Consultants via MITRE Corp. [as of 6/1987]
HENRY D.I. ABARBANEL, UNIV. CAL. SAN DIEGO
LUIS W. ALVAREZ, UNIV. CAL. BERKELEY
PETER M. BANKS, STANFORD UNIV.
CURTIS G. CALLAN Jr, PRINCETON UNIV.
KENNETH M. CASE, ROCKEFELLER U.
JOHN M. CORNWALL, U.CAL. LOS ANGELES
ROGER F. DASHEN, PRINCETON U.
RUSS E. DAVIS, UNIV. CAL. SAN DIEGO
ALVIN M. DESPAIN, U. CAL. BERKELEY
SIDNEY D. DRELL, STANFORD U.
FREEMAN J. DYSON, INST. ADV. STUDIES
DOUGLAS M. EARDLEY, U.CAL. SANTA BARBARA
STANLEY M. FLATTE, U.CAL. SANTA CRUZ
NORVAL FORTSON, U. Washington
MICHAEL H. FREEDMAN, U.CAL.SAN DIEGO
EDWARD A. FRIEMAN, SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INC.
RICHARD L. GARWIN, COLUMBIA U.
MURRAY GELL-MANN, CAL. TECH
MARVIN L. GOLDBERGER, CAL. TECH
MICHAEL C. GREGG, U.Washington
DAVID A. HAMMER, CORNELL U.
WILLIAM HAPPER, PRINCETON U.
PAUL HOROWITZ, HARVARD U.
JONATHAN I. KATZ, Washington U. St. LOUIS
JOSHUA LEDERBERG, ROCKEFELLER U.
ROBERT E. LELEVIER, R & D ASSOCIATES
GORDON McDONALD, MITRE CORP.
CLAIRE E. MAX, LLNL/U. CAL.
RICHARD A. MULLER, U.CAL.BERKELEY
WALTER H. MUNK, U.CAL. SAN DIEGO
DAVID R. NELSON, HARVARD U.
WILLIAM A. NIERENBERG, U.CAL.SAN DIEGO
ROBERT NOVICK, COLUMBIA U.
WOLFGANG K. PANOFSKY, STANFORD U.
FRANCIS W. PERKINS Jr,PRINCETON U.
ALLEN M. PETERSON, STANFORD U.
WILLIAM H. PRESS, HARVARD U.
BURTON RICHTER, STANFORD U.
MARSHALL N. ROSENBLUTH, U.TEXAS
QSCAR S. ROTHAUS, CORNELL U.
MALVIN A. RUDERMAN, COLUMBIA U.
PAUL J. STEINHARDT, U.PENNSYLVANIA
JEREMIAH D. SULLIVAN, U.ILLINOIS
CHARLES S. TOWNES, U.CAL.BERKELEY
SAM B. TREIMAN, PRINCETON U.
JOHN F. VESECKY, STANFORD U.
KENNETH M. WATSON, U.CAL.SAN DIEGO
HERBERT F. YORK, U.CAL.SAN DIEGO
FREDRIK ZACHARIASEN, CAL. TECH
————————————————
LIST compiled from DOD membership lists given
under FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT requests and in
published CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, by Charles
Schwartz, Physics Dept., Univ. of Cal.Berkeley,
94720.

It has, unfortunately, been over two months since our last issue of
“Smear”, and in that period of time MUCH has happened regarding the now-
famous “Majestic-12″ or “MJ-12″ documents released by Bill Moore and friends
earlier this year.

Before we move on to a summary of new information, let us mention some-
thing we neglected to state in our earlier ravings: Apparently long deceased
Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter was the most important member of this group
of twelve, because his name comes first on the list (he is referred to as “MJ-
1″) and because he was allegedly the briefing officer who presented this
startling information to president-elect Dwight Eisenhower on or about Nov.
18th, 1952. Hillenkoetter, after retirement from his position as first dir-
ector of the CIA, became a member of the board of directors of NICAP, circa
1957. Can anyone seriously believe he would have dared to OPENLY join a pro-
UFO organization if he had the KNOWLEDGE of UFO reality that the “MJ-12″
briefing document leads us to assume???

We have already published our exclusive information from Dr. Ernest
Taves, a very close friend of Dr. Donald Menzel, who apparently was “MJ-10″.
Taves, like others who knew Menzel well, cannot believe that the long-de-
ceased former director of Harvard Observatory could have had this above-men-
tioned knowledge of UFO reality and still have written 3 anti-saucer books,
and still have debunked UFOs emotionally at every opportunity. Yet Moore and
Friedman see nothing amiss here, and have in fact written long, detailed re-
buttals re the “Menzel Connection” and all other negative evidence that has
been brought up in regard to “MJ-12″. They do seem to believe what they are
saying!

CUFOS, in an editorial by Jerry Clark in the May-June issue of the “In-
ternational UFO Reporter”, and in a more recent press release, seems general-
ly supportive of “MJ-12″, and claims that the “verdict is still open.”

MUFON has expressed various opinions, swaying pro and con. They used our
Taves material in a recent issue of their Journal, and in the August issue of
their Newsletter, edited by MUFON’s Massachusetts director James Melesciuc,
they state: “The results of the MJ-12 circus created by Moore, Shandera and
Friedman could be detrimental to the future of document research. The hunger
for publicity or for financial gain by any type of self-styled expert can be
as damaging to the subject as the crackpots and fanatics. Moore and Friedman,
of all people, should realize that by promoting evidence loaded with loop-
holes, will cause people to question the quality of their research and would
be disastrous to their reputations….”

Needless to say, CSICOP, as personified by Phil Klass, issued a totally
negative press release, based on insufficient information, in our opinion.
Much more interesting than the CSICOP release is the September issue of “Just
Cause”, published by Lawrence Fawcett and Barry Greenwood. In an article en-
titled “The MJ-12 Fiasco,” they give a vast amount of detailed negative data
that no student of this matter should overlook. (Address: P. O. Box 218,
Coventry, CT., 16238). To this Bill Moore’s only comment (to us, by phone)
is: “Sour Grapes.”

“Just Cause” introduces into the fray the name of a present or former
intelligence officer named Richard Doty, assigned to Kirtland Air Force Base,
New Mexico. The magazine alleges that Doty may very likely be Moore’s source.
Alas, when we said in our last “Smear” that “we believe we have the name of
the probably perpetrator”, it was Doty to whom we were referring. We have
thus been “scooped”, but never mind: Moore admits knowing Doty, but denies
that Doty is his source. So the mystery deepens!

Phil Klass, relying largely on information from British researcher Chris-
topher Allan, has made a big deal out of the fact that the “MJ-12″ briefing
paper uses an unusual format in writing the dates, which happens to be ex-
actly the same unusual format that Bill Moore uses in writing HIS dates. Our
comment is: Whereas the notorious Straith Letter Hoax of 1957 DID reflect
Gray Barkers’ stylistic peculiarities, since it was written late one drunken
night with no forethought, Moore would have to be remarkably stupid or insane
to make such a naive mistake. If the dating similarity means anything, it
more likely means that the REAL hoaxter was trying deliberately to frame
Moore!

So, to get to the point: It appears that most thoughtful Ufologists be-
lieve “MJ-12″ is possibly or probably a hoax, and some Ufologists, plus all
of the debunkers, believe that Moore & Co. are behind it. Our position is
that, although “MJ-12″ is a hoax in all probability, Moore’s group is NOT
behind it. On to our exclusive information:

Your humble “Smear” editor spent large parts of three days with Moore
and Shandera recently (Sept. 23-25), in Burbank, California, discussing “MJ-
12″ and related topics. We were left with the strong impression that they
are, if anything VICTIMS of a complex sophisticated hoax that has engulfed
them for several years - a DISINFORMATION campaign of some sort, for what
purpose we do not know.

Ufologists don’t seem to realize that Moore has been involved since 1980
in the receipt of supposed “inside” government information from first one in-
formant, and eventually several, on a more or less continuing basis. Like
“Deep Throat” in the Watergate Scandal, these informants do not always hand
him answers, but they tell him where to look. As a result, Moore has given up
his literary career, which looked very promising after the publication of
“The Roswell Incident” (with Charles Berlitz) in 1980, and has devoted all of
his spare time to research related to these ufological matters. He earns a
bare living by selling UFO books and his own tracts by mail order.

Shandera joined Moore in the quest in 1982. He too has largely given up
his career, which was in film and broadcasting. His financial situation is
better than Moore’s however, as his wife has a very good job in the TV in-
dustry.

Friedman is, it seems, a more passive partner, in that he is merely kept
informed of information received by the other two. He continues to work at a
normal science-related job in his home town in Canada.

Another thing that Ufologists don’t seem to realize is that Moore’s evi-
dence consists of a great deal more than what he has released so far. (Appar-
ently his sources tell him what he can release, and were he to disobey, he
would blow the whole ongoing relationship.) There are other documents, includ-
ing one he claims was given to him for exactly 20 minutes to do what he want-
ed with, and then was taken back. He photographed it and read it into a tape
recorder, in the presence of the agent who lent it to him.

There are also several videotapes. We were allowed to see one 20-minute
tape and most of another. These consist of a supposed agent talking in a tot-
ally disguised voice, answering a list of questions from a supposed newsman.
The agent is disguised, and the newsman has his back to the camera. The prov-
en identities of these two are known to Moore and Shandera, they say. No one
was present at the tapings except these two, plus Moore, Shandera, and the
producer.

The contents of the tapes are Way Out - literally and figuratively. We
have been asked not to print anything about the contents, so we will merely
comment that we find the material literally incredible without further evi-
dence to back it up. Moore & Co. apparently have such evidence and expect to
get more.

The scenario is that by the end of this year, Moore’s informants will
either come forth with more information and public disclosures, or else Moore
will give up on his informants and go public, himself, with all the inform-
ation he has obtained so far. In either case, we are in for some interesting
times!

There is much more to all this, but Space prevents us from rambling fur-
ther in this issue. Re our continuing “MJ-12″ quest: Our sincere thanks to,
among others, Tommy Roy Blann (who now says he has suddenly withdrawn from
the UFO field!); to Jim Speiser of ParaNet; to Antonio Huneeus for material
on the deeply mysterious “Humo Papers” which he has not yet sent (See Next
Issue!); and to the alleged Space People for making all this madness pos-
sible.

Also a tip of the “Smear” sombrero to the various zines that have seen
fit to reprint or condense some of our “MJ-12″ material in earlier issues:
“California UFO”; “Would You Believe?”; “The MUFON Journal”; and (ugh!)
“Skeptical Inquirer”.