N E W S F L A S H !
GIANT BOX-SHAPED UFO CROSSES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAN SKIES
NEAR EDWARDS AFB

(UFO Reporting Center, March 12, 1988.) A pilot who was
driving 40 miles east of Edwards Air Force Base in California
today saw a huge box-shaped object glowing brilliant white in the
afternoon sky. He called the FAA ARTCC at 2:00 p.m. and was told
they had had it on their radar. It had gone across their radar
screens in just a single sweep. It made an instantaneous 90
degree turn while the witness was watching it. He estimated it
was flying at 30,000 feet and was bigger than a 747. Contact
Robert Gribble of the National UFO Reporting Center for more
information, 206-722-3000.

–Donald A. Johnson, Ph.D.
MUFON Washington State Director
s
something different than missles and aircraft.

Moreover, the term “UFO,” as used in these regulations,
is given very

by Linda Lotz
American Friends Service Committee

Organizations involved in controversial issues — particularly those who
encourage or assist members to commit civil disobedience — should be alert to
the possibility of surveillance and disruption by police or federal agencies.

During the last three decades, many individuals and organizations were spied
upon, wiretapped, their personal lives dirupted in an effort to draw them away
from their political work, and their organizations infiltrated. Hundreds of
thousands of pages of evidence from agencies such as the FBI and CIA were
obtained by Congressional inquiries headed by Senator Frank Church and
Representative Otis Pike, others were obtained through use of the Freedom of
Information Act and as a result of lawsuits seeking damages for First
Amendment violations.

Despite the public outcry to these revelations, the apparatus remains in place,
and federal agencies have been given increased powers by the Reagan
Administration.

Good organizers should be acquainted with this sordid part of American history,
and with the signs that may indicate their group is the target of an
investigation.

HOWEVER, DO NOT LET PARANOIA IMMOBILIZE YOU. The results of paranoia and
overreaction to evidence of surveillance can be just as disruptive to an
organization as an actual infiltrator or disruption campaign.

This document is a brief outline of what to look for — and what to do if you
think your group is the subject of an investigation. This is meant to suggest
possible actions, and is not intended to provide legal advice.

POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF government SPYING

|| OBVIOUS SURVEILLANCE

Look for:

* Visits by police or federal agents to politically involved individuals,
landlords, employers, family members or business associates. These visits may
be to ask for information, to encourage or create possibility of eviction or
termination of employment, or to create pressure for the person to stop his or
her political involvement.

* Uniformed or plainclothes officers taking pictures of people entering your
office or participating in your activities. Just before and during
demonstrations and other public events, check the area including windows and
rooftops for photographers. (Credentialling press can help to separate the
media from the spies.)

* People who seem out of place. If they come to your office or attend your
events, greet them as potential members. Try to determine if they are really
interested in your issues — or just your members!

* People writing down license plate numbers of cars and other vehicles in
the vicinity of your meetings and rallies.

Despite local legislation and several court orders limiting policy spying
activities, these investigatory practices have been generally found to be
legal unless significant “chilling” of constitutional rights can be proved.

|| TELEPHONE PROBLEMS:

Electronic surveillance equipment is now so sophisticated that you should not
be able to tell if your telephone converstaions are being monitored. Clicks,
whirrs, and other noises probably indicate a problem in the telephone line or
other equipment.

For example, the National Security Agency has the technology to monitor
microwave communications traffic, and to isolate all calls to or from a
particular line, or to listen for key words that activate a tape recording
device. Laser beams and “spike” microphones can detect sound waves hitting
walls and window panes, and then transmit those waves for recording. In these
cases, there is little chance that the subject would be able to find out about
the surveillance.

Among the possible signs you may find are:

* Hearing a tape recording of a conversation you, or someone else in your
home or office, have recently held.

* Hearing people talking about your activities when you try to use the
telephone.

* Losing service several days before major events.

government use of electronic surveillance is governed by two laws, the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. Warrants for such surveillance can be obtained if there is evidence of a
federal crime, such as murder, drug trafficking, or crimes characteristic of
organized crime, or for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence
information available within the U.S. In the latter case, an “agent of a
foreign power” can be defined as a representative of a foriegn government,
from a faction or opposition group, or foreign based political groups.

|| MAIL PROBLEMS:

Because of traditional difficulties with the US Postal Service, some problems
with mail delivery will occur, such as a machine catching an end of an envelope
and tearing it, or a bag getting lost and delaying delivery.

However, a pattern of problems may occur because of political intelligence
gathering:

* Envelopes may have been opened prior to reaching their destination;
contents were removed and/or switched with other mail. Remember that the glue
on envelopes doesn’t work as well when volume or bulk mailings are involved.

* Mail may arrive late, on a regular basis different from others in your
neighborhood.

* Mail may never arrive.

There are currently two kinds of surveillance permitted with regards to mail:
the mail cover, and opening of mail. The simplest, and least intrusive form is
the “mail cover” in which postal employees simply list any information that can
be obtained from the envelope, or opening second, third or fourth class mail.
Opening of first class mail requires a warrant unless it is believed to hold
drugs …. More leeway is given for opening first class international mail.

|| BURGLARIES:

A common practice during the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO)
was the use of surreptitious entries or “black bag jobs.” Bureau agents were
given special training in burglary, key reproduction, etc. for use in entering
homes and offices. In some cases, keys could be obtained from “loyal American”
landlords or building owners.

Typical indicators are:

* Files, including membership and financial reports, are rifled, copied or
stolen.

* Items of obvious financial value are left untouched.

* Equipment vital to the organization may be broken or stolen, such as
typewriters, printing machinery, and computers.

* Signs of a political motive are left, such as putting a membership list or
a poster from an important event in an obvious place.

Although warrantless domestic security searches are in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, and any evidence obtained this way cannot be used in criminal
proceedings, the Reagan Administration and most recent Presidents (excepting
Carter) have asserted the inherent authority to conduct searches against those
viewed as agents of a foreign power.

|| INFORMERS AND INFILTRATORS:

Information about an organization or individual can also be obtined by placing
an informer or infiltrator. This person may be a police officer, employee of a
federal agency, someone who has been charged or convicted of criminal activity
and has agreed to “help” instead of serve time, or anyone from the public.

Once someone joins an organization for the purposes of gathering information,
the line between data gathering and participation blurs. Two types of
infiltrators result — those who are under “deep cover” and adapt to the
lifestyle of the people they are infiltrating, and agents provocateurs.
Deep-cover infiltrators may maintain their cover for many years, and an
organization may never know who these people are. Agents provocateurs are more
visible, because they will deliberately attempt to disrupt or lead the group
into illegal activites. They often become involved just as an event or crisis
is occurring, and leave town or drop out after the organizing slows down.

An agent may:

* Volunteer for tasks which provide access to important meetings and papers
such as financial records, membership lists, minutes and confidential files.

* Not follow through or complete tasks, or else do them poorly despite an
obvious ability to do good work.

* Cause problems for a group such as commiting it to activities or expenses
without following proper channels, or urge the group to plan activities that
divide group unity.

* Seem to create or be in the middle of personal or political difference that
slow the work of the group.

* Seek the public spotlight, in the name of your group, and then make
comments or present an image different from the rest of the group.

* Urge the use of violence or breaking the law, and provide information and
resources to enable such ventures.

* Have no obvious source of income over a period of time, or have more money
available than his or her job should pay.

* Charge other people with being agents (a process called snitch-jackets),
thereby diverting attention from him or herself, and draining the group’s
energy from other work.

THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY SIGNS, NOR IS A PERSON WHO FITS SEVERAL OF THESE
CATEGORIES NECESSARILY AN AGENT. BE EXTREMELY CAUTIONS AND DO NOT CALL ANOTHER
PERSON AN AGENT WITHOUT HAVING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Courts have consistently found that an invividual who provides information,
even if it is incriminating, to an informer has not had his or her
Constitutional rights violated. This includes the use of tape recorders or
electronic transmitters as well.

Lawsuits in Los Angeles, Chicago and elsewhere, alleging infiltration of lawful
political groups, have resulted in court orders limiting the use of police
informers and infiltrators. However, this does not affect activities of federal
agencies.

|| IF YOU FIND EVIDENCE OF SURVEILLANCE:

* Hold a meeting to discuss spying and harassment

* Determine if any of your members have experienced any harassment or noticed
any surveillance activities that appear to be directed at the organization’s
activities. Carefully record all the details of these and see if any patterns
develop.

* Review past suspicious activities or difficulties in your group. Have one
or several people been involved in many of these events? List other possible
“evidence” of infiltration.

* Develop internal policy on how the group should respond to any possible
surveillance or suspicious actions. Decide who should be the contact person(s),
what information should be recorded, what process to follow during any event or
demonstration if disruption tactics are used.

* Consider holding a public meeting to discuss spying in your community and
around the country. Schedule a speaker or film discussing political
surveillance.

* Make sure to protect important documents or computer disks, by keeping a
second copy in a separate, secret location. Use fireproof, locked cabinets if
possible.

* Implement a sign-in policy for your office and/or meetings. This is helpful
for your organizing, developing a mailing list, and can provide evidence that
an infiltrator or informer was at your meeting. Appoint a contact for spying
concerns. This contact person or committee should implement the policy
developed above and should be given authority to act, to get others to respond
should any problems occur.

The contact should:

* Seek someone familiar with surveillance history and law, such as the local
chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
National Conference of Black Lawyers or the American Friends Service Committee.
Brief them about your evidence and suspicions. They will be able to make
suggestions about actions to take, as well as organizing and legal contacts.

* Maintain a file of all suspected or confirmed experiences of surveillance
and disruption. Include: date, place, time, who was present, a complete
description of everything that happened, and any comments explaining the
context of the event or showing what impact the event had on the individual or
organization. If this is put in deposition form and signed, it can be used as
evidence in court.

* Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, request any files
on the organization from federal agencies such as the FBI, CIA, Immigration and
Naturalization, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, etc. File similar
requests with local and state law enforcement agencies, if your state freedom
of information act applies.

|| PREPARE FOR MAJOR DEMONSTRATIONS AND EVENTS:

* Plan ahead; brief your legal workers on appropriate state and federal
statutes on police and federal officials spying. Discuss whether photographing
with still or video cameras is anticipated and decide if you want to challenge
it.

* If you anticipate surveillance, brief reporters who are expected to cover
the event, and provide them with materials about past surveillance by your
city’s police in the past, and/or against other activitists throughout the
country.

* Tell the participants when surveillance is anticipated and discuss what
the group’s response will be. Also, decide how to handle provocateurs, police
violence, etc. and incorporate this into any affinity group, marshall or other
training.

|| DURING THE EVENT:

* Carefully monitor the crowd, looking for surveillance or possible
disruption tactics. Photograph any suspicious or questionable activities.

* Approach police officer(s) seen engaging in questionable activities.
Consider having a legal worker and/or press person monitor their actions.

|| IF YOU SUSPECT SOMEONE IS AN INFILTRATOR:

* Try to obtain information about his or her background: where s/he attended
high school and college; place of employment, and other pieces of history.
Attempt to verify this information.

* Check public records which include employment; this can include voter
registation, mortgages or other debt filings, etc.

* Check listings of police academy graduates, if available.

|| ONCE YOU OBTAIN EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE IS AN INFILTRATOR:

* Confront him or her in a protected setting, such as a small meeting with
several other key members of your group (and an attorney if available).
Present the evidence and ask for the person’s response.

* You should plan how to inform your members about the infiltration,
gathering information about what the person did while a part of the group and
determining any additional impact s/he may have had.

* You should consider contacting the press with evidence of the infiltration.

|| IF YOU CAN ONLY GATHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BUT ARE CONCERNED THAT THE
PERSON IS DISRUPTING THE GROUP:

* Hold a strategy session with key leadership as to how to handle the
troublesome person.

* Confront the troublemaker, and lay out why the person is disrupting the
organization. Set guidelines for further involvement and carefully monitor the
person’s activities. If the problems continue, consider asking the person to
leave the organization.

* If sufficient evidence is then gathered which indicates s/he is an
infiltrator, confront the person with the information in front of witnesses
and carefully watch reactions.

* Request an investigation or make a formal complaint

* Report telephone difficulties to your local and long distance carriers.
Ask for a check on the lines to assure that the equipment is working properly.
Ask them to do a sweep/check to see if any wiretap equipment is attached
(Sometimes repair staff can be very helpful in this way.) If you can afford it,
request a sweep of your phone and office or home from a private security firm.
Remember this will only be good at the time that the sweep is done.

* File a formal complaint with the US Postal Service, specifying the problems
you have been experiencing, specific dates, and other details. If mail has
failed to arrive, ask the Post Office to trace the envelope or package.

* Request a formal inquiry by the police, if you have been the subject of
surveillance or infiltration. Describe any offending actions by police
officers and ask a variety of questions. If an activity was photographed, ask
what will be done with the pictures. Set a time when you expect a reply from
the police chief. Inform members of the City Council and the press of your
request.

* If you are not pleased with the results of the police chief’s reply, file
a complaint with the Police Board or other administrative body. Demand a full
investigation. Work with investigators to insure that all witnesses are
contacted. Monitor the investigation and respond publicy to the conclusions.

* Initiate a lawsuit if applicable federal or local statutes have been
violated. Before embarking on a lawsuit, remember that most suits take many
years to complete and require tremendous amounts of organizers’ and legal
workers’ energy and money.

* Always notify the press when you have a good story; keep interested
reporters updated on any new developments. They may be aware of other police
abuses, or be able to obtain further evidence of police practices. Press
coverage of spying activities is very important, because publicity-conscious
politicians and police chiefs will be held accountable for questionable
practices.

Prepared by:
Linda Lotz
American Friends Service Committee
980 North Fair Oaks Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91103

by Dale Musser

Note: In the following report, the term “alien(s)” is used generically
to denote the abducting entities, and does not presuppose an
extraterrestrial origin.

In late summer of 1992, Derrel Sims, chief abductions investigator for
HUFON (Houston UFO Network) implemented a plan to establish
communications with alien abductors. This was to be accomplished by
means of hypnotic suggestions implanted in the subconscious minds of
several subjects with multiple abduction histories. The intent being,
if any of these subjects were abducted again, the hypnotic
suggestions would allow the individuals to gather data and/or
establish more positive contact with the aliens.

In November of 1992, subject DS92007PH was abducted. The subject
maintained conscious memory for a fair amount of time into the
abduction before the aliens were able to “zap” the subject (place the
subject in a mental state where they no longer have conscious
memories of the event). At the beginning of the abduction, the
subject was able to communicate with the aliens, although they did
not appear to be terribly inclined to communicate or reveal much
information. As the aliens were completing their preparations for
their examination, the subject felt herself losing mental control.
The aliens began to reinforce their efforts to “zap” her. In one
last effort to maintain consciousness and communication as long as
possible she blurted out “We know what your doing… we know
about…” (subject still under investigation). This statement
seemed to evoke a reaction on the part of the aliens and appears to
have predicated the events that follow.

Starting December 8, 1992, just prior to the HUFON meeting “Alien
Abductions: Working with Abductees,” several of the subjects on the
panel were reabducted. These abductions were not realized at the
time, but over the next few days, many of the abductees began
suffering PAS (Post Abduction Syndrome). At this time the abductees
were not in communication with each other.

Subject DS92002DM reported that he had experienced a dream or
possible flashback of an earlier abduction When he began having PAS
and other physical manifestations that accompanied his earlier
abductions, it became obvious to him that an abduction had taken
place.

Subjects DM92003JA, DS92034LC & DS92017RP also reported dreams with
possible abduction signs. In addition a number of the abductees
reported having nose bleeds and/or sinus pains.

On Thursday, December 10th, at the monthly HUFON meeting, a number
of the abductees were questioned by the audience about their
experiences. Although most of the abductees were very uncomfortable
and felt that they “…shouldn’t be talking about (their) abductions,”
the meeting went quite well.

On Friday morning, December 11, many of the abductees (most of whom
were on the panel the night before), awoke to find they had nose
bleeds during the night. Almost all had sinus pains and within a
day or two almost all had head colds and flu like symptoms.

Subject DS92009LT awoke on the 11th with an irritation in one eye.
While rubbing her eye, a small object (about the size of a mustard
seed) came out of her eye. The subject called Derrel Sims and
turned the object over to him.

This object has been photographed and is currently undergoing
analysis. The object appears to be made out of a flesh-colored
plastic. It is somewhat egg-shaped (with the narrow end open) and
is hollow inside.

On the same day, subject DS92002DM awoke to discover he had a nose
bleed (the first in over 20 years). He also called Derrel Sims to make
immediate arrangements for a hypnosis session. On Sunday, December
20, 1992, DS92002DM was regressed hypnotically to his latest
encounter with aliens.

The event occurred the night of December 10, the night of the HUFON
meeting. Some time after the subject went to sleep for the night, he
was awakened by aliens in his bedroom who, in a very quick
procedure, removed a nasal implant from the subject and immediately
left (later under hypnosis a number of other abductees reported
similar events). Mr. Sims then regressed the subject to the next
earliest abduction (December 8).

On December 8, subject DS92002DM awoke and observed a bright flash
of light (there was no sound of thunder following). The subject rolled
over and noticed a small gray alien “wearing a harness/utility
belt.” The subject was instructed to follow the alien outside,
where a blue/white light was shining on a spot on the ground. The
subject was instructed to stand in the light, and an instant later,
found himself in a large circular room (about the size of a high
school gymnasium).

The subject was instructed to disrobe and led out of the room and
through a series of corridors and passageways. Part of the time they
walked but mostly they were transported by a means unknown by the
subject (floated or on a conveyor).

Eventually, they arrived at a small room where several other aliens
were present. A quick physical examination was given and then a
human- appearing individual entered the room (the subject in prior
abductions had never encountered a human). The human asked several
questions as to how/why the abductee knew he had been abducted
before. The subject was also asked how abductees knew/found out
about other abductees and why were they meeting together.

A model of the human brain was shown to the subject and he was asked
to indicate where the “subconscious mind was located.” When the
subject was unable to indicate a location, he received a mental image
of another abductee (DS92007PH) in a state of suspended animation
and had the impression she was being asked the same questions. The
human then left the room and the subject was moved to another room.

This room appeared to be some type of meeting or conference room. It
also was round, but the lighting and the furnishings were quite
different. A number of different alien life forms entered the room,
the last being the one with human appearance. The small grey
aliens left the room but two of the taller brown aliens stayed.
(The description of the other life forms is being withheld pending
further investigation).

The subject was again questioned as to the nature of the subconscious
mind and to his knowledge of his abductions and other abductees.
After each question the subject received images of other abductees.
He could see them in a room together. They were all nude and seemed
to be unaware of the presence of each other. Each seemed to be in a
halucinative state and behaved as if acting out a part.

He sensed that the other abductees were being “accessed” by the
aliens by some means and were being asked many of the same questions
as himself. The subject also sensed DS92007PH, who was in a
different location from himself and from the other abductees. He
could “feel” the aliens trying to “access” her mind to retrieve
information. A debate seemed to be taking place among the aliens as
to whether the “experiment/project” should be allowed to continue or
if it had been compromised by the recent events (abductees knowing
of their abductions and meeting together).

Accusations were made about “improper procedures being followed by
the “Grays” and “Browns.” At one point, when DS92002DM “sensed/saw”
the other abductees as they were being accessed by the aliens, he
had the thought that the other abductees “don’t know there are
others there.”

This thought caught the attention of the human who seemed surprised
that the subject was picking up on their activities. Immediately, two
“Grays” entered the room and took hold of the subject’s hands and he
was unable to “pick up anything further of the alien thoughts or
questioning.”

At this point another of Derrel Sims’ hypnotic suggestions activated
itself with the subject with interesting results which we are unable
to report at this time as further investigation and experimentation
are continuing.

One of the more interesting aspects of this case, and one which is
being looked into further, pertains to a question asked of subject
DS92002DM by the aliens. At one point he was asked what he knew
about a government project called “Project Prometheus.” Although
the subject had no knowledge of such a project, we are researching
the matter.

As the meeting seemed to be ending, the human asked the subject what
he “would like to do,” to which the subject responded that he would
like to go with them (a suggestion even he finds bizarre). The
subject was told that this was “impossible” as he was “contaminated”
(the subject did not feel this implied physically).

The human then took him into a side room where he was shown a
“strange sort of chart or diagram” which he did not understand and was
unlike any he’d ever seen before. He then was led by the two
“Browns” through several other rooms to another examination
room/laboratory where a nasal implant was placed in his nostril (the
one later removed). The subject was then given his pajamas, told to
dress, and returned to his home and bed.

Subjects DS92009LT and DM92003JA were also hypnotized and reported
being abducted on December 8, and being in a room with others.

Subject DS92034LC had conscious memories of being in the room on
that night.

All three of these subjects have independently described the room, its
appearance, and individuals in the room. All of the subjects’
descriptions are similar and details of the room match–including
several unique aspects unheard of in other cases.

It is interesting to note that all of the abductees in the “group room
experiences” perceived events differently although parallel. One
believed she had died and was with her dead brother (who had strange
eyes). One thought she was with God whose face she couldn’t see
because of a fog that only allowed her to see his shape. All of the
individuals reported themselves and others in the room as being nude.

One abductee who felt hungry was told they would be fed was handed
silverware as though they were about to be served food. When she
was told to look at the silverware under hypnosis, it was not
silverware at all but some strange objects she could not identify.

Each of the abductees in the “group room experience” seemed to be in
a drugged or hallucinative state. This condition seemed to alleviate
when they were taken to another room for examinations and nasal and
ocular implants.

Other abductees also have reported supporting events and experiences.
The total number of abductees involved in the event is not known for
sure.

Great care was taken in the early stages of the investigation to
ensure that subjects were unaware of the others’ events. It was only
after hypnosis, with similar descriptions of events and locations by
five different individuals (each unaware of any other abductee
reporting anything) that information concerning the event was
released. Numerous descriptions and minute details have been
deliberately left out of this report, as investigations are still
ongoing.

The significance of this event cannot be overlooked. It would appear
that the implants were deliberately placed in the abductees before the
HUFON meeting and removed the day after. Whether the aliens knew
about the meeting or had simply implanted the abductees with the
intent of monitoring a gathering of abductees is unknown. However,
for the first time within the history of the abduction phenomenon,
the abductees seem to have captured the attention of the abductors.

Although we do not know the outcome of these events we hope that it
may lead to a breakthrough in communication, improvement in
relationship with the aliens, and an end to abductions and
experimentation on unwilling subjects.

For more information on HUFON abduction research, contact Derrel
Sims at (713) 353-1550, or Patrice Eldrige at (713) 353-3980.

End of File
—
* Origin: ParaNet - Leading UFO Research Network 303-429-2713 DATA
(1:104/422.0)

— .
Titan|um Knight
Mail: titan@sys6626.bison.mb.ca
The Atomic Cafe–Where neutrons meet atoms and split.

From: titan@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Titanium Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: * Mass Abduction Update
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Jul 93 19:57:01 GMT
Organization: System 6626 BBS, Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

File: massup

>From alt.paranet.abduct Mon May 3 23:08:45 1993
From: Vince.Johnson@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Vince Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.abduct
Subject: Mass Abduction Update
Message-ID: <2152.2BE43FB3@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 2 May 93 21:17:00 GMT
Sender: ufgate@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:30163/150.0
Lines: 161

The following file is courtesy of HUFON REPORT,
the newsletter of the Houston UFO Network.
For more information, call (713) 850-1352.
———————————————————————
—
Houston Mass Abduction Update
by Dale Musser

Since issuing the report on the December 8, 1992, Houston mass
abductions, more things have come to light. The reports were barely
printed when DS92002DM received a phone call from an individual who
we’ll call Bill (not his real name). This individual had been with
DS92002DM on the abduction that caused DS92002DM to become aware of
his abductions (a missing time event). Three years had passed before
he found out about the event and Bill had moved away with out leaving
a forwarding address shortly after the abduction. DS92002DM was
surprised by the call, Bill said he had been thinking about DS92002DM
and the trip they had taken. He related the events of the trip and
mentioned the “strange blue light” seen by the subjects just before
the abduction took place. DS92002DM asked the subject what was the
next event he could remember and the subject responded with an event
three hours later. When DS92002DM asked Bill if he remembered
anything at all of the road between the point where they saw the blue
light and the location hundreds of miles later, Bill began to laugh
nervously. When DS92002DM started to relate events as revealed
during his hypnosis session, Bill became hysterical and did not want
to discuss the event further. Bill also related that he had been
feeling depressed and lethargic “…since Christmas.”

On March 15, 1993, DS92002DM met with subject DS92021SM whom he
had not seen in several months. DS92021SM currently lives in the
western part of the state and only comes to Houston rarely. He is
also the individual who witnessed DS92002DM’s abduction in June of
1992 and saw the aliens taking him away. It is because of this and
his having been processed earlier concerning the June event that the
subject has a case number (video tapes on file with investigators).
DS92021SM was unaware of eventsconcerning the mass abduction, (he is
not a member of HUFON or any UFO organization and has had little
interest in the subject prior to recent events). DS92021SM related
to DS92002DM and to two investigators that he believed he had seen a
alien in his room “…early to mid-December, not sure of date,” and
that after that he suffered symptoms similar to those he had in June
after DS92002DM’s abduction (Post Abduction Syndrome). The subject
related that he also discovered several needle marks “… in a line
above his navel” about the same time.

Subject DS92007PH, who was in the December abduction, has also
reported having needle marks both prior to and after the December 8th
abductions.

Subject DS92003JA, who was involved in the December abduction
visited her sister who lives in a neighboring state. Both she and her
sister have reported being abducted as children. According to
DS92003JA her sister has made statements that would indicate that she
was abducted on or about the time of the December 8th event.

What does this all mean? Based on the statements of the
abductees in the December 8th event we know the aliens were concerned
about how abductees knew/found out about their abductions. There
were indications that the aliens were investigating their own
procedures for flaws and indications were made that they were
reviewing their procedures. If this is true, individuals present
during the abductions of the subjects in the December 8th event may
have also been abducted for questioning. This may have occurred on
December 8th, or shortly thereafter. We do know that there are
several persons reported by subjects in the December 8th event that
have not been identified. We still have several subjects who may
have been associated with the December 8th event that have not been
processed. Bill’s call may have been prompted by memories
stimulated when he may have also been picked up and questioned in
December. Similar events may be true also for DS92021SM and
DS92003JAs’ sister. It has become obvious that the investigations of
the December 8th event may have only begun.

———————————————————————
–
Project Prometheus: Subtle Hint or Threat to the Aliens?

Since learning the details of the mass abduction of December 8, 1992,
we have been seeking any information that could lead us to further
details concerning the nature of a “Project Prometheus.” During the
mass abduction, at least two of the abductees were asked by the
abducting entities what they knew about “Project Prometheus.” At
that time, none of us, abductees or investigators, had ever heard of
it.

Shortly before the publication of “The Abduction Event of December 8,
1992″ (released in March, 1993), we learned that a “Project
Prometheus” had been proposed to the U.S. government some time in the
past. No date was indicated when this proposal was made, who chaired
the proposal or the branch of the government it was related to. The
sketchy details available about this project concerned acquiring
advanced technology (from alien sources?) by any means possible.
Though the term “alien” was not used in the description, indications
were clearly made with references to advanced flight capabilities of
UFOs.

Armed with this tidbit of information we falsely assumed more would
follow in short order. It did not. Then on March 15, 1993, a book
was found in storage at the Houston Public Library titled The
Prometheus Project. The book was written in 1968 by Gerald
Feinberg, Ph.D. Although the book was in storage (not out on the
shelves) it was still available to be checked out.

Well, it wasn’t what we thought. Not that the book doesn’t relate to
things pertaining to possible alien interests, it does. It’s just that
we expected something more covert. Project Prometheus, as put forth
by Dr.Feinberg, is a project proposed by a group of scientists to
determine long range goals for the human race. One of these long
range goals would be the “…spread of the human race beyond the
confines of earth to other stellar systems, either for exploration
or for eventual inhabitation of them.” Other goals include changing
our own environment, bioengineering, life extension, and greater
insight as to the nature of things.

Then several weeks later in a discussion with a retired navy officer,
I inquired if he had ever heard of a Project Prometheus. He replied
that he had and related that in the early 1970s he was a navy
commander working in the Pentagon on a project for the early warning
system. Much of this equipment was installed in Alaska and was used
to detect a early aerial attack from the former Soviet Union. The
portion he was involved with was a submarine detection system
installed between England and Iceland to monitor marine traffic
coming out of the Norwegian Sea. While working on this project, he
learned that certain types of alerts were to be reported to Project
Prometheus. He inquired of his commanding officer as to what Project
Prometheus was and was informed “It’s a skunk works. I wouldn’t ask
about it anymore if I were you.” (A “skunk works” is an insider’s
term for a secret project).

We have also received information that there exists in a book titled
Teller’s War a reference to a Project Prometheus. According to this
book, Project Prometheus was associated with the Star Wars program
and was developing a weapon that fired nuclear projectiles to shoot
down and/or cripple satellites or space craft. One can see how the
aliens would be interested in such a project.

Which of the two Projects Prometheus are the aliens interested in?
One government project to obtain alien technology by hook or by
crook, or one set forth by scientists to advance the human race?
Subject DS92002DM from the December mass abduction leans toward a
government project, while information retrieved from DS92007PH leans
toward one that is designed to advance the human race. Neither were
aware of either project before the December event. DS92007PH’s
description of Project Prometheus is very similar to that in Dr.
Feinberg’s book, however DS92007PH thought the project was alien
initiated. DS92002DM felt the implication was clear in his
communication that the project was a government operation.

In either case, one can easilysee why the aliens would be interested.
In the meantime we are left with more questions. Which project were
they referring to — Dr. Feinberg’s; the government’s; or both?
Were they trying to tell us something by asking the question? Or
were they throwing us a curve to lead us off on a wild goose chase?
Certainly we will be digging into this unusual situation further.

One is the editor of a renowned magazine devoted to debunking UFOs, psychics,
and astrology. The other believes that a superior intelligence will
transform the human race. What’s more, they’re brothers. Kendrick Frazier,
44, and James Frazier, 39, admit they have “lively disagreements” whenever
they get together for reunions at the family home in Greeley, Colorado. Ken
edits THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, a quarterly magazine published by the Committee
for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and the
scourge of the “new nonsense,” including the beliefs of brother James. [SEE
"CENSORING THE PARANORMAL," CONTINUUM #1.] But Jim, who works as editor of
the local GREELEY NEWS, insists that his beliefs are neither new nor
nonsense. “Our benefactors have been here as long as we have,” he declares,
“initiating the likes of Gilgamesh and Socrates into the mysteries of the
cosmos.”

To Ken, this sort of statement represents a threat to the progress of
science. In the mid-70s, as editor of the respected publication SCIENCE
NEWS, he grew alarmed when readers wrote in asking for stories on the
paranormal. Not long afterward he began to correspond with longtime debunker
Martin Gardner. Their idea: the formation of a skeptical, scientific
organization “to correct public misunderstanding.” 2 years later, CSICOP was
born.

Jim’s odyssey began in the mid-70s as well. On May 17, 1976, around 3:30 AM,
he says, he was awakened from sleep by the voice of Beelzebub booming from
his clock radio. Apparently, Beezlebub was speaking through radio show host
Brian Scott, who said he’d been abducted by giant thick-skinned, long-eared
aliens back in 1971. Ever since, Scott claimed, disembodied ETs had been
borrowing his vocal cords to express ideas of their own. Jim, a psychologist
and would-be film producer, listened till dawn, utterly fascinated. 6 weeks
later he introduced himself to Scott, and several months after that, in
December 1976, he accompanied his new friend on a visit to Inca ruins at
Tiahuanaco, Bolivia. There, Jim Frazier says, he saw Scott become possessed
by a mysterious being “with the presence of a king.” In fact, he was more
than a king — he was Ticci Viracocha, the god who brought the Incas
civilization from on high.

According to Jim, Brian Scott is just one of many humans who have been
visited by alien forms. But, he says, “Scott alone has survived the
experience with all his faculties intact. If we only listened to him, he
would help us create a new world, a new philosophy, new forms of language, a
new relationship between man and the unknown.” One thing’s for sure: The
relationship between Jim Frazier and Brian Scott continues to this day. Jim
now owns the rights to Scott’s life story and has even written a TV
miniseries about his friend.

Ken Frazier is reluctant to discuss his brother’s unusual beliefs outside the
immediate family. But, he states, “it’s possible for people to have vivid
personal experiences from which belief systems stem. I don’t question the
seeming realness of these experiences.”