Skunk Works Digest Friday, 17 March 1995 Volume 05 : Number 210a In this issue: AW&ST March 13 UAV countermeasures? Pluto nuclear survival plans from50's USS Eldridge: More details Re: Pluto Re: USS Eldridge: More details Pluto Anatomy of a Hoax - Vallee - Part 1 of 9 Anatomy of a Hoax - Vallee - Part 2 of 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 07:41:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: AW&ST March 13 Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 13, 1995, (Vol 142, No. 11) =================================================================== NASA SPEEDS SELECTION OF X-33, X-34 PLANS 107-109): --------------------------------------------------- NASA selected (unusually fast) three X-33 and one X-34 proposal to go ahead with. NASA plans to pay about $8 million for each X-33 study contract and about $70 for the X-34. The selected teams are: X-33: larger single stage to orbit, reusable launch vehicle (SSTO RLV), on which NASA wants to spend about $660 million: * Lockheed Advanced Development Co., Palmdale, CA (70-80 people) with: - five other Lockheed divisions, - Martin Marietta - Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International - Rohr Industries - AlliedSignal - Bankers Trust Co. - Space Express * McDonnell Douglas with: - Boeing * Rockwell International's Space Division with: - its Rocketdyne Division (propulsion) - Northrop Grumman (advanced composite airframe structures) - Federal Express (operations planning and requirements) - Orbital Science Corporation (commercial venture planning) X-34: small, mostly reusable launch vehicle, on which NASA wants to spend about $70 million, and OSC/Rockwell an additional $100 million: * OSC (Orbital Science Corporation) of Dulles, VA with: - Rockwell International Descriptions: ============= - Lockheed's X-33 SSTO RLV is "a vertical takeoff/horizontal landing vehicle in a lifting body configuration. It would be about 126 ft. long and weigh 1.6 million lb. at liftoff, 87.5% of which would be fuel." More detailed information about Lockheed's 'AeroBallistic Rocket' can be found in AW&ST Dec. 5, 1994, on page 20. - Rockwell's X-33 SSTO RLV is "a delta wing vehicle with twin tails that would takeoff vertically and land horizontally." "The baseline design has five engines, which all remain attached to the vehicle. The specific engines have not been selected, but could be advanced Rocketdyne powerplants designated RS-2100. They would be derived from the space shuttle main engines." "The payload capability for the 187-ft.-long vehicle, with a gross liftoff weight of 1.9 million lb., would range between 15,000-40,000 lb. Empty weight would be 186,000 lb." "The vehicle, with a wingspan of 105 ft., would make extensive use of advanced graphite composite structure on the fuselage, wing and tail, in addition to a composite hydrogen tank. The Rockwell RLV would be processed horizontally and erected into launch position at the pad." "The technology demonstration vehicle would be 52% the size of the full- scale RLV. It would have a gross liftoff weight of about 350,000 lb., a length of about 100 ft. and a wingspan of 55 ft. The demonstration vehicle is not intended to be placed in orbit." It "would be powered by a single space shuttle main engine (SSME) and two P&W RL-10 engines." - McDonnell Douglas/Boeing's X-33 SSTO RLV has not reached the final design stage, but they will work on it during the first 3 months of the study phase. McDonnell Douglas is planning a vertical landing design, but may consider also a horizontal landing version. Appart from its two X-33 designs, MDD is still working on DC-X flight tests for the DoD and is also the NASA contractor for the DC-XA, which will test a composite tank. - OSC/Rockwell's X-34 small launch vehicle will be "a 'mostly reusable,' liquid-fueled, two-stage vehicle, that will be air-launched from OSC's L-1011 [Lockheed TriStar] aircraft, as are the company's Pegasus launchers." "The reusable first stage will land horizontally on a conventional runway. A mission may carry as much as 2,500 lb. and cost as little as $3 million." NASA will serve as a subcontractor, but will own the development vehicle, all technical data, and two or more launches. -- Andreas --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 --- --- ------------------------------ From: neil@bedford.progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 09:30:27 EST Subject: UAV countermeasures? Now that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are all the rage, some of them stealthy, I assume people have to be thinking about countermeasures for them. Jamming them is conceptually simple. What about shooting them down? Presumably, if the opposition is using UAVs it is because they have air superiority (local or otherwise) or it is held back enough to be defendable. Are there any simple missiles that could do the job? When will we have UAVs fighting each other? :-) Neil neil@progress.com ------------------------------ From: hoar@agdis01.newark.af.mil (GM-13 Stephen Hoar) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 09:50:28 -0500 Subject: Pluto What can you tell me about project 'Pluto". I understand it was to be a 1950's nuclear powered cruise missile. From what little I've heard about it I understand it was never flown for two main reasons: the reactor was unshielded thereby contaminating the exhaust and surrounding environment, and secondly, being nuclear powered, it could fly on indefinitely... What can you tell me? Steve Hoar With no fancy artwork. ------------------------------ From: HACKETT@vilas.uwex.edu Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 08:58:17 CDT Subject: nuclear survival plans from50's This is slightly off topic for this list but can anyone recommend any books on "Doomsday" plans from the 1950's...I'm referring to the Mount Weather Scenarios, the relocation of congress to the Greenbriar, and so on. Time Magazine did a cover story on this a few years back but it obviously only scratched the surface. Also, does anyone know if that material has been formally declassified, and if so, where would one go to find it. I'd appreciate any help anyone on the list could offer. Art Hackett Madison, WI ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Thu, 16 Mar 95 14:11:49 EST Subject: USS Eldridge: More details USS Eldridge and the Philadelphia Experiment: Background Details lcoleman@usm.maine.edu [As the whole issue of the the Philadelphia Experiment and the USS Eldridge has resurfaced via last week's episode, "Dod Kalm," of The X-Files, I thought I would post these historical facts about the case and related references on the x-files and forteana e-mailing lists.] The Philadelphia Experiment, of course, is the catch-phrase to describe something that allegedly occurred in October of 1943. However, the story only began to emerge in the 1950s. It started with Morris Ketchum Jessup. This Lamont-Hussey Observatory discoverer of double stars, Carnegie Institute archaelogical expedition photographer, jungle explorer and exporter became well known in the 1950s as Morris or M. K. Jessup, author of four books on UFOs. "One day in October 1955," ufologist Jerome Clark (1992: 39) writes, " Morris K. Jessup received a packet of letters forwarded from the publisher of his book The Case for the UFO." One was a rambling letter from a "Carlos Miguel Allende" who seemed to have special knowledge about levitation. Jessup wrote a quick "response and gave the matter little further thought. On January 13, 1956, he received a second letter from Allende," Clark (1992: 39) continues. It is in this second letter that Allende makes known that he is aware of Jessup's public lectures calling for research into Einstein's Unified Field Theory which could unlock the mystery of antigavity. Allende called on Jessup to not talk about this any longer as it had already been tried and failed horribly. Allende said the test had resulted in the complete invisibility of a ship, a destroyer, and all of the crew, while they were at sea, in October of 1943. Allende wrote that half of the crew was insane from the experience. The experimental ship (researchers would later say it was the USS Eldridge) disappeared from its Philadelphia dock, Allende noted, and minutes later appeared at other docks on the East Coast (Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth). Still minutes later it reappeared back at the Philadephia dock. Jessup did not take the story too seriously. But then a year later, Jessup was invited to the Office of Naval Research in Washington D.C. They had received an annotated (apparently by three different people) copy of Jessup's The Case for the UFO, addressed to Admiral N. Furth, Chief, Office of Naval Research, Washington 25, D.C. It included details of the secret Navy experiment resulting in a ship becoming invisible. Furth allegedly threw it away, but some of his junior officers took it more seriously. They got a Navy subcontractor, Varo Manufacturing Company of Garland, Texas, to publish a few copies, complete with the annotations in their original colors. The unsigned introduction to the book was written by Cmdr. George W. Hoover, ONR's Special Projects Officer, and Capt. Sidney Sherby. Jessup then wrote in his counternotations in this special Varo edition, as it is now termed, of his book. Jessup visited the zoologist, former British intelligence officer and writer on the unexplained, Ivan T. Sanderson, in October 1958. Sanderson (1968) recalled: "There were about a dozen people present, off and on, before, during, and after dinner. At one point Morris asked three of us if we could have a chat in my private office. To this we repaired; and he then handed us the original re-annotated copy, and asked us in great sincerity to read it, then lock it up in safe keeping 'in case anything should happen to me.' This appeared dramatic at the time but, after we had read this material, we must admit to having developed a collective feeling of a most unpleasant nature; and this was somewhat horribly confirmed when Jessup was found dead in his car in Florida six months later." "Jessup's suicide on April 20, 1959, helped inflate the significance of the Allende letters and the annotated Case, and inevitably some chose to believe Jessup had been murdered because he knew too much," writes Jerome Clark (1992: 40) who personally believes the Allende letters are a hoax. Nevertheless, in several books (see below) the Philadelphia Experiment has become a story investigated and hotly debated in ufological and conspiracy fields. Did it occur? You be the judge. Selected references: - Barker, Gray, ed. The Strange Case of Dr. M. K. Jessup. Clarksburg, WV: Saucerian Books, 1963. - Berlitz, Charles, with J. M. Valentine. The Bermuda Triangle. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. - Clark, Jerome. The Emergence of a Phenomenon: UFOs from the Beginning through 1959. The UFO Encyclopedia, Volume 2. Detroit: Omnigraphics, 1992. - Gaddis, Vincent. Invisible Horizons: The True Mysteries of the Sea. Philadelphia, PA: Chilton, 1965. - Jessup, M. K. The Case for the UFO. NY: The Citadel Press, 1955. - Moore, William L. The Philadelphia Experiment: An Update. Burbank, CA: WLM Publications, 1984. - Moore, William L. "Report from the Readers: Invisible Ship Resurfaces." Fate 34,4 (April 1981): 111. - Moore, William L., with Charles Berlitz. The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisibility - An Account of a Search for a Secret Navy Wartime Project That May Have Succeeded - Too Well. NY: Grosset and Dunlap, 1979. - Sanderson, Ivan T. Uninvited Visitors: A Biologist Looks At UFOs. NY: Cowles, 1967. - Sanderson, Ivan T. "Jessup and the Allende Case." Pursuit 1, 4 (September 30, 1968): 8-10. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: kuryakin@arn.net (Illya Kuryakin) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 20:48:52 -0600 Subject: Re: Pluto At 09:50 3/16/95, GM-13 Stephen Hoar wrote: >What can you tell me about project 'Pluto". I understand it was to be >a 1950's nuclear powered cruise missile. From what little I've heard >about it I understand it was never flown for two main reasons: the >reactor was unshielded thereby contaminating the exhaust and >surrounding environment, and secondly, being nuclear powered, it could >fly on indefinitely... What can you tell me? Nice article on that subject in Air & Space, circa June '93. Check it out. Illya Kuryakin "HA!!" U.N.C.L.E. Network Services Ruby kuryakin@halcyon.com Galactic Gumshoe Ooh, ooh, this was supposed to be a four line .sig. Where's the other line? ------------------------------ From: mangan@edac1.kodak.com (Paul Mangan) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 07:26:13 EST Subject: Re: USS Eldridge: More details Hogwash! ------------------------------ From: Jay.Walleradi_email.analog.com@analog.com Date: Friday, 17 March 1995 7:45am ET Subject: Pluto There was a very good article on this a few years back in _Air and Space _. I'll try to find it this weekend and give you some more details or I can fax it to you. You're right about it being a nuclear powered cruise missle. From what I can remember, they said if it would've killed everthing it flew over in addition to carrying several H-Bombs. If there ever was a Doomsday machine, it was this thing. jay **************** The above is my own opinion and not that of ADI ************ ------------------------------ From: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 08:01:20 mdt Subject: Anatomy of a Hoax - Vallee - Part 1 of 9 * Forwarded from "ParaNet UFO Echo" * Originally by Michael Corbin * Originally to All * Originally dated 7 Mar 1995, 9:14 There has been some recent discussion on ParaNet regarding the Philadelphia Experiment and the Montauk Project. I am convinced that this whole thing is a hoax based upon some very good research by Jacques Vallee and others. However, despite the research showing that it is a hoax, the story continues to be discussed as if it were all true. Jacques Vallee has provided this article to ParaNet for electronic distribution only via the computer networks, including Odyssey Network and Fidonet UFO. ANATOMY OF A HOAX: The Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later c Copyright 1993, 1994 by Jacques F. Vallee 1550 California Street, No.6L San Francisco, CA.94109 Note: This article was first printed in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.8 no.1 (1994) pp.47-71. Distributed on Internet with author's permission. Abstracts of all JSE articles can now be accessed on the net at: http://valley.interact.nl/av/KIOSK/SSE/JSE_home.html Abstract The "Philadelphia Experiment" concerns the allegedly paranormal disappearance of a Navy destroyer from the docks of the Philadelphia Navy yard in the late Summer of 1943, followed by disclosures of official contact with extraterrestrial powers. Claims made by purported witnesses of this supposedly secret Navy test directed by Albert Einstein have been repeatedly found to be fraudulent. The author has now interviewed a man who served on a companion ship to the destroyer in question, and who was on the scene the night of its supposed disappearance, which he is able to explain in minute detail. Yet the features of the story are such that it survives in the UFO literature and that it is now being revived under a novel form for the benefit of a new generation of readers. Using this incident as a model of a successful hoax, the present article extracts thirteen parameters that have been instrumental in its remarkable survival over the last fifty years; it compares the features of this fabrication to other questionable episodes of UFO lore; finally, it attempts to draw up a list of suitable measures for their detection, challenge and ultimate exposure. The Prevalence of Hoaxes One of the remarkable features of the study of the paranormal is the permanence and pernicious influence of hoaxes. Not only do spurious stories arise, as they would in any other field, but they are eagerly seized upon with little effort at initial verification, even by people who have an established reputation as objective researchers. Frank criticism of the process inevitably arises, but it is commonly mistaken for an attack upon the integrity or the intelligence of the advocates of the case who naturally feel defensive and harden their position. Those who continue to question the "evidence" tend to be assimilated with skeptics and their objections are often misrepresented. The media contribute to giving such stories an aura of respectability, to such an extent that tall tales come to represent the only "knowledge" of the paranormal the public will eventually cite in everyday conversation. Even more remarkable is the fact that some hoaxes tend to acquire a life of their own, and continue to be invested with believability among the public even when overwhelming negative data eventually create unanimous agreement among specialists about their lack of substance. This makes the work of the researcher vastly complicated, not only because the field becomes heavily tainted by the unreliability of these stories, but because one has to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining the situation to outsiders and dispelling prior misconceptions. From a sociological point of view, however, hoaxes are quite interesting. They provide rich insights into the preconceptions of both believers and skeptics. They illuminate the motivations of the authors of the plot and the eagerness of the spectators. For any hoax to succeed it has to be believable and relevant. Those that endure, resisting even the absolute proof, the definitive exposure of the culprits and their methods, are endowed with additional qualities. They resonate with deep-seated imagery in the minds of the masses and of the educated public. They never fail to generate high ratings on prime time. They touch all of us, whether or not we like to admit it. Their victims are as likely to be found among the highly educated, even the scientifically trained, as they are among the masses. In the words of Norman Mailer, "if lying is an art, then fine lying is a fine art." (Mailer, 1991) Proven or suspected hoaxes abound in contemporary ufology. The saga of UMMO in Spain provides an example of a story which is simply too good and whose implications appear too profound for believers to be swayed by rational arguments. Even absolute proof of trickery can always be superseded with the notion that a truly superior alien civilization might well plant fake photographs or false prophecies in order to test the faith of its followers on earth, an argument actually volunteered by the self-described Aliens themselves in some UMMO documents (Vallee, 1991). Sociologists have long observed that exposure, in such cases, may even serve to strengthen the core of a belief system, no matter how outrageous, although it does tend to scatter away the outer layer of sympathizers (Festinger, 1956). In this regard, paranormal hoaxes are no different than their religious or political counterparts. Exposure of the Protocols of the Sages of Sion, a fabrication that began as a fake document concocted by the dreaded Russian Okhrana in 1905 and was successfully picked up and reframed against the Jews by Nazi propaganda in the Thirties with terrifying efficacy (Cohn, 1967), has not permanently dulled its impact. Indeed the Protocols have now reappeared as "channeled" material from space entities, thus endowed with that glow of supreme authority that many New Age believers find harder to question than a "mere" historical document, and absolving the human medium from any unnecessary burden of guilt (Ecker, 1992). If specific incentive to study the structure of hoaxes was necessary, this horrible example from recent history should be enough motivation for us to work hard at studying and exposing hoaxes in our own field. The present article focuses on a particularly resilient fabrication that exhibits all the important features of a successful ufological hoax, enabling us to analyze it in detail. As we proceed with this study we will attempt to point out the possible parallels among various UFO stories or rumors exhibiting similar characteristics. Mention UFOs casually in any cocktail conversation, and people are likely to bring up a number of "actual cases" they have heard discuss on television shows such as Sightings or Unsolved Mysteries. The alleged UFO crash at Roswell, the MJ-12 documents (which purport to emanate from an American Government agency that knows all about the nature and purpose of UFOs and their alien occupants) and various sensational abduction reports will probably be mentioned. Then, almost as an afterthought, someone may ask, "wasn't there a secret Navy test in the Forties, in which a whole destroyer actually disappeared?" Others may volunteer that Einstein had something to do with it, and that many serious researchers believed the incident to be the key to the nature of UFOs. You will be confronted once again with the tall tale of the Philadelphia Experiment. The story, of which we have just celebrated the fiftieth birthday, is a good example of a hoax about which everything has become known, thanks to many years of diligent research by people who were first fascinated by the tale and gradually grew skeptical of its extraordinary claims. Its impact on the public over the fifty years that have elapsed since the initial incident has been significant: one hardcover book signed by widely-read author Charles Berlitz and veteran paranormal investigator William L. Moore has become the standard reference (Berlitz and Moore, 1979). It is "dedicated to the outriders of science whose quest for knowledge takes them to the most distant stars and to the innermost worlds." A feature movie directed by Stewart Raffill was released in 1984, starring Michael Pare in the role of a vanishing sailor. The dramatic nature of the story was enhanced by its impact on several early UFO researchers, including Morris K. Jessup. It was given an aura of further credibility by the obvious interest shown by the Office of Naval Research in the initial stages and by the secrecy surrounding it. Official secrecy, which often results from purely bureaucratic procedures, tends to be taken by advocates as evidence of coverup, making wild speculation seem legitimate. Contributing to the mystery was the enigmatic personality of the man who claimed to be the main witness and a direct link to space intelligences, Carl M. Allen alias Carlos Allende. <> --- * Origin: ParaNet -- Leading UFO Research Network (1:104/428) -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ====================================================================== Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/ Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services ------------------------------ From: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 08:10:03 MST Subject: Anatomy of a Hoax - Vallee - Part 2 of 9 * Forwarded from "ParaNet UFO Echo" * Originally by Michael Corbin * Originally to All * Originally dated 7 Mar 1995, 9:14 <..Continued from previous message> Our purpose here is not to expose the story one more time, but to dissect it into the key elements that have enabled it to remain alive and to influence the imaginations of so many people for so long. We will endeavor to hammer the final nail into the coffin by relating the previously unpublished testimony of a man who was on the scene in July and August 1943 and who contacted the present author to set the record straight. We will show how the Philadelphia Experiment, now regarded as a "dead horse" among ufologists, is being quietly reborn for the benefit of a new generation of believers under the trappings of the "Montauk Project." In conclusion we will attempt to draw general lessons from the survival of this blatant hoax over half a century. We have identified thirteen important features that made the story compelling. It is our hope that the safeguards drawn from the study can help us recognize patterns this outright fabrication shares with other tales that are capturing the imagination of paranormal researchers today. Feature no.1: A very precise and amazing "fact" Vague stories about merely curious or unusual happenings naturally fail to hold an audience's interest for very long. Folklore experts, psychological warfare specialists and Intelligence officers are aware that such vague stories are often leading indicators of important facts, but they know what to look for. The general public does not. Thus for a hoax to reach mythic proportions, as the Philadelphia Experiment does, it must be truly amazing by the boldness of its claims and it must have a well-defined localization in time and space. There is no ambiguity on this score: according to the main witness a large ship, destroyer DE-173, identified as the USS Eldridge, performed the impossible feat of disappearing from the Philadelphia Navy yard in late July or early August 1943. A secret experiment was conducted and "the result was complete invisibility of a ship, destroyer type, and all of its crew, While at Sea." (Steiger and Bielek, 1990) In a letter sent to me in 1967 the alleged primary witness wrote: I watched it, saw it, observed its birth, growth, action and reaction upon the vehicle to which the super-field was being applied. (Allende, 1967) Sailors were said to have been affected by the field, to such an extent that some went insane, others developed mysterious illnesses. Two of the sailors even vanished from a local bar under conditions that left the waitresses terrified and confused. Not only did the ship become invisible, but it was teleported to Norfolk, returning to Philadelphia in an impossibly short time. During its period of invisibility, some ufologists claim, the U.S. military was able to contact alien entities with whom they established cooperation (Berlitz and Moore, 1979, p.159). Feature no.2: Interesting witnesses The first revelation about the stunning "Navy test" in Philadelphia came in the form of a series of letters sent to writer Morris K. Jessup by a man named Carl M. Allen. Mr. Allen, who also signed Carlos Miguel Allende, sent the missives from Gainesville, Texas but gave his address as RD. No.1 Box 223, New Kensington, Pennsylvania. He claimed to have first-hand knowledge of the experiments in question. Alerted by Jessup, Navy investigators were said to have gone there and found nothing but a vacant farmhouse. In the absence of a captivating primary witness, the most remarkable paranormal story generally fails to make an impact on the public and on the media. Reliable UFO observations are often disregarded by the press because of this fact. In the important Trans-en-Provence case (Velasco, 1990) the primary witness is a quiet retired worker who shuns publicity and speaks French with such a heavy Italian accent as to be difficult to understand. A very hospitable man, he remains accessible to serious researchers (believers and skeptics alike) but he declines to appear on television shows and refuses most press interviews. Such stories make for poor media material. Contrast this with a flashy contactee like George Adamski or a man with an extraordinary career as petty crook, race car driver and soldier of fortune like Swiss adventurer Billy Meier, and the difference is obvious. Thus the witness must have an interesting, intriguing personality, he or she must be someone about whom we are eager to learn more. In this regard, hints that the person has vanished, possibly because he fears for his life or guards valuable secrets, greatly enhance the tale. Carlos Allende was in hiding for most of his existence. He corresponded with several people in the field, yet his whereabouts could never be pinned down. In 1967 he wrote to me from Dallas, Texas, giving a return address in Minneapolis. Other letters were mailed from Mexico. Allende remained an elusive figure until the summer of 1969, when he dropped by the Tucson office of the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) and confessed the whole thing was a hoax, but he later recanted his confession. Bill Moore expanded on the mystery, devoting much of his book with Berlitz to the mystery of Allende: "it is still virtually impossible to say very much about him with any degree of certainty", he wrote, leaving the impression that the man might be a Gypsy initiate, while Steiger and Whritenour went one step further, asking boldly: "were Carlos Allende and his correspondents representatives of an extraterrestrial power which took root on earth centuries ago and has long since established an advanced underground culture?" (Steiger and Whritenour, op.cit.) The mystery was eventually brought much closer to earth. In July 1979, researcher Robert A. Goerman, whose hometown happened to be New Kensington, Pa., discovered that one of his neighbors, seventy-year old Harold Allen, was in fact Carl's father. Born on May 31, 1925 in Springdale, Pa., Allende had no gypsy blood whatsoever. He had three brothers, Frank, Donald and Randolph, and one sister, Sarah. Goerman's investigations cast an unflattering light on the life of Carl Allen. Although brilliant in school, he never really used his mind and never worked very hard at anything except what his brothers describe as "leg-pulling." Goerman concluded: Carl Meredith Allen is an outcast by his own choice. He has nothing to show for himself but his marvellous tale of a disappearing ship and the "legendary book" he claims he co-authored. (Goerman, 1980) As to the vacant farmhouse at RD#1, Box 223, New Kensington, it was simply never vacant, and the Allen family still owns the property. The "investigators" who claimed to have gone there may simply have been indulging in a little lie of their own. About 1983 Carlos Allende showed up in Denver, where my friend Linda Strand, a science writer, interviewed him and took his picture (Vallee, 1991). She describes him as an odd character, a typical drifter who made off-the-wall statements and scribbled some marginal notes in her copy of the Berlitz-Moore book before walking off again. He offered no explanation of what he claimed to have seen. <> --- * Origin: ParaNet -- Leading UFO Research Network (1:104/428) -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ====================================================================== Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org. Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/ Michael Corbin Director ParaNet Information Services ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #210a **********************************