High Strangeness: Can We Get Back to Talking About UFOs Now? -- Part IV

Friday, July 10, 2015

Can We Get Back to Talking About UFOs Now? -- Part IV

If you've been reading along with the first three installments of the Fort McCoy saga here, here and here, then I don't need to recap.

What I want to do here in this final installment is look at the "second stage" of a UFO report. What is the "second stage?" Well, not every UFO report has one, but those that do are awfully interesting. As I've done before, I'm going to get unscientific here and talk about subjective reality, so consider yourself warned...

The first stage of a UFO report is when the witness recounts the facts of the sighting (as he or she understands them): where the event happened, when it happened, what the UFO looked like, how the UFO behaved, how long was it visible, etc., etc. The second stage comes about -- if it comes about at all -- when the witness goes a little deeper and reports on how the event affected him/her mentally, emotionally, even spiritually. This information is virtually valueless to the actual investigation of the event, but, let me tell you, it is fascinating when a witness drops his/her guard and starts to tell you the other half of the story, the one they never thought they'd tell...

As I said, sometimes -- most times -- witnesses never go there. That can be because the factual report is all there is, or it could be because the emotional & psychological aspects are too strange and scary for the witness to deal with them openly. When the witness in the Fort McCoy sighting sent me his old notes on the event, he included several pages of new notes, written after he and I had talked on the phone. Apparently he felt safe enough to share how this event has affected him for the past 35 years, knowing that I wouldn't ridicule him or judge him.

Here are some of his new notes...
"One regret that I have is after the night of the UFO incident, I'm regretting that I didn't get in on the conversations at the mess hall in the days following the incident. I was so busy with my duties and thinking forward with the refugees that I don't think I talked about the incident but a couple times while we were deployed to Fort McCoy."

"When my chain of command more or less let me know that they had heard enough and I should concentrate on the task at hand, that is exactly what I did. By the time I left Ft. McCoy I had all but tryed (sic) to put the UFO incident out of my thoughts for I really wanted to make a career out of the infantry and new (sic) this incident would not be favorable to my present goals."


"Even though I'm still reluctant to say I saw two intity's (sic) or outlines of two figures inside the craft, I struggled with this for years until one day I realized if I seen (sic) the craft and know that I did, I must also realize that I saw it all and I should just come to terms with it. This was the revalation (sic) that gave me the courage to say I'm O.K. with this whole incident and just want to be able to express it without the possibility of some kind of ridicule or disbelief from others. Besides, I just turned 60 yrs old and back when I was 25 yrs old it was a little more difficult for me to understand what I witnessed, and to talk about it with anyone."

"The last thing I wanted to say is I thought at the time of the incident that it was my duty to report anything unuseawal (sic) to my chain of command because of the seriousness of the UFO incident and the refugee resettlement. The next morning after the UFO incident at the mess hall and the following couple of days I remember feeling a bit strange emotionally and for just a few days I had some difficulty trying to concentrate when I wasn't busy with my dutys (sic). It was like when we were not busy with refugee stuff or when we had a moment of free time to address our personal needs or hygiene I found myself slipping back into this strange feeling, but never could really understand what I was feeling."
"I now hope that my coming forward with the report and the possibility of verification from other soldiers that were present that night will help to shed more light on the incident, and the overall phenomenon of undeclared, unenvited (sic), or/and unidentified forean (sic) objects over and around this great country..."

Those are some deep thoughts there... The funny thing is, I have absolutely no doubt that I will be hearing more from this witness.

As for the Lieutenant and the Colonel who made the witness feel like a fool for speaking up, all I can think of is this...

Sergeant Hulka does NOT want to hear about what you THINK you saw last night, soldier!

13 comments:

Tom said...

I find this report very interesting. Debunkers will howl about scientific proof. The nature of the phenomena may very well preclude any type of definitive proof. Debunkers will say to that: of course, because you cannot prove a hallucination, or some such thing.

I've come to the recent realization that hard core debunkers disgust me as much as hoaxters.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...

Hey Tom,

Those goddamn Debunkers, asking for evidence (like a basic date, for instance) and all! The nerve!

Your attitude is what allows idiocy like the Roswell slides to emerge.

Hope you enjoyed those! You certainly seem to deserve them.

Lance

Tom said...

Hi Lance! Didn't know a film editor qualifies as a scientist. Oh well. Enjoy being miserable!

Neal Foy said...

This is an interesting case with the possibility of multiple witnesses coming forward. I really hope that happens soon. It will be interesting if others give an account of how they felt after the sighting. I would expect different reactions from some.

With my own sighting of a Black Triangle in 1997 my emotional response was basically WOW, that was impressive. Nothing much deeper than that.

To the debunkers multiple witnesses won't matter because they already have their debunkers' handbook open to the mass hallucination page. I'm quite amused by the dewbunker calls for science while at the same time trying so desperately to prove a negative. One of the few things science holds as impossible.

Bill Chalker said...

Hi Mark, thank you for posting details about this intriguing case. I encourage you to keep digging as a lot of the details seem to share common "threads" with other cases of interest.
For some time now I have been examining worldwide reports of so-called "solid light" cases. The unusual "exhaust light" qualities may or may not be in this category and I would be grateful if you are able to try to further clarify this element with the reporting witness. The sudden discontinuity and "falling asleep" also seems a common thread and not necessarily fodder for consigning the case into the "dream" "sleep interface" imagery category, given that there seems to be a wealth of contrary details suggesting that this may have been an actual event possibly witnessed by others. I look forward to any details on the case generally and specifically on the odd light aspect. Clearly I don't wish to force fit a possible characteristic if it doesn't exist in the first place.
"His attention was also drawn to what appeared to be a flaming exhaust trailing the craft, but when he looked at it, it didn't display any physical characteristics of a rocket exhaust... There was no trail of smoke behind the craft, just a stationary "light coming out of the tail." "
"Sometimes he couldn't find the words to describe things and he just gave up -- the appearance of the odd "flame exhaust" was just impossible for him to put into words, no matter how hard he tried."

Mark OC said...

Thanks for your comments, Neal and Bill. I've been giving a lot of though to how to proceed now that I have the list of men who were on duty that night. The person I really want to talk to is that Lieutenant... wouldn't it be something if he's been thinking about this for 35 years?

Neal Foy said...

Hi Mark,
1980 was a banner year for UFO sightings so it isn't inconceivable that this was an actual sighting. The Lieutenant's reaction doesn't seem unusual, as Col. Halt of Rendlesham fame put it, reporting a UFO sighting wasn't career enhancing.

After all this time he may be willing to talk openly about the sighting. We can hope so. It must be a little difficult for you to come up with a plan for an interview. I'm assuming that most of the people you talk to have reported a sighting and are willing to talk. In this case coming out of the blue after so long could be a challenge regarding all the potential witnesses. Best wishes for your investigation.

Ted Molczan said...

Mark, it would be great to have testimony from additional witnesses, especially if they documented the sighting at the time. Perhaps the date and time could be narrowed.

Has the present witness provided any information, whether in his CMS filing or in subsequent communication, on the compass directions or azimuth of rising and setting with respect to the tree line? The maximum elevation and direction in which this occurred is also of interest.

I would not be surprised to learn that he no longer recalls those details, but perhaps he could reconstruct some of them from other information. For example, his drawing of the scene appears to depict a road, and he has described the UFO's orientation with respect to a road. If he can recall which road that is (perhaps with reference to a map), and what side of it he was on, that could help to determine his sight lines. At a minimum, knowing the direction in which he was facing would be helpful.

I would be grateful for any information that you could provide with respect to these questions.

Ted

Mark OC said...

I've asked the witness about directions, and he "thinks" he may have been facing north as the object passed from east to west, but he can't be certain. I've looked at Fort McCoy on Google Earth, and guess what? The base is not laid out along the cardinal directions at all! It's a big triangle...

The witness feels sure he could identify the spot where the sighting took place if he could ever get back to Fort McCoy, but he has retired in the south and a trip to Wisconsin seems doubtful.

We'll just have to hope that we can contact some other witnesses....

Ted Molczan said...

Thank you, Mark. I wish you success in locating additional witnesses, who may be able to better address the outstanding questions.

The following document contains the most useful map of Ft. McCoy that I have found, in that it identifies the various numbered blocks within its triangular cantonment:

http://www.milwnavyleague.org/PDFs/2014RAD.pdf

With the aid of that map and several historical documents, I have learned that the Refugee Resettlement Center was comprised of all of the east leg of the cantonment (blocks 200 through 800), blocks 2700 and 2800 of the west leg, and Block 1000. The 20,000 ft. fence that had been erected around those blocks was the main focus of military security, primarily to prevent escape.

I offer the following information on the layout of the Resettlement Center, in the hope that it may be helpful in reconstructing the events surrounding the sighting in question. Perhaps it can jog some memories. I caution that the information is incomplete and subject to revision.

The west leg housed families and unaccompanied minors.

Block 700 housed single males. An unresolved point of confusion is that one reference states that single males were housed in the west leg. A single-male compound was the focal point of the disturbance on 1980 Sep 7, during which 7,000 ft. of fencing was torn down. (Volunteer refugees assisted in replacing it by Sep 10.)

Block 800 (aka block 8) was operated by INS to detain felons.

In Block 1000, Bldgs 1065 and 1067 were operated by the U.S. Marshals Service to detain misdemeanor offenders.

Ted

Mark OC said...

That's impressive work, Ted. Where did you find these documents?

Ted Molczan said...

Mark, here is the current version of my source file of information relevant to the location and layout of the Resettlement Center at Fort McCoy, WI.:

http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/Ft._McCoy_1.txt

Ted