The Steinman Element (Part 4)

Rudolph Steiner

On August 9, 1989, I sent a letter to Timothy Good. I thanked him for providing me William Steinman’s telephone number and provided him details of my conversation with Steinman. Good responded a couple weeks later and informed me he had previously written Steinman in November of 1988, but apparently, Steinman had not received the letter. Interestingly, Steinman revealed to me he had sent a letter to Good, and had been waiting a year for a reply. Apparently, Good’s letter had been lost.

On October 12, I called Leonard Stringfield. He was very interested in knowing more about my conversation with Steinman and again stated he heard that Steinman had gotten out of research, but this time added that Steinman had also mentioned something about a car bombing. I immediately questioned that statement, but Stringfield said he could not remember all the facts, and since he could not expand upon that information, he really didn’t want to say much until he heard from Steinman.

We then discussed my Office of Civil Defense (see earlier blog entry) case. I was wondering whether there was anything to worry about regarding a government agency looking into my inquiries. Stringfield felt there was probably no danger involved with my case, as my witness, Ms. Fairfax, had not revealed classified information. I had to agree. Damn. No cloak and dagger fun for me.

On November 20, I received another letter from Good. He wrote that he had recently been in Los Angeles and spoke with Steinman on the telephone. But the conversation went south. According to Good, “[Steinman] did not seem very pleased to talk to me and it was not productive.”

Whatever was occurring between Steinman and Good, it had no bearing on my research effort. It had been several months since my last conversation with Steinman, so I decided it was time to call him again. Though my first conversation with him was actually depressing, I felt it was worth trying again and hopefully learn more about his research. That happened on December 12. To break the ice, I gave him a brief overview of my OCD case. This seemed to work. He became more talkative. Eventually, I asked him if he could offer some advice about researching the UFO phenomenon. He said, “…just don’t get into it.” Asking if he would extrapolate, he repeated his advice. From here, I inquired whether he felt my current investigation might draw the attention of an intelligence agency. Steinman paused. “When you start fooling around with something like this, you are bordering on the edge of espionage, and start getting investigated by various agencies. They start watching you closely.” I couldn’t get him to expand more about this, so I moved on.

Asking whether he was totally out of research, he replied, “Yes, all together,” and said it was a bad experience, and that was all he could tell me. I immediately mentioned hearing he had lost his job. “That’s true,” he said, adding that everything was fine now. I dropped the issue. Returning to the topic of UFO research, I mentioned the driving passion we both shared. “Passion gets you in trouble,” he interrupted. “The obsession gets you in trouble. It gets a hold of you and you obsessed with getting to the bottom of a secret. The more that you get involved with it that way, the more obsessed you become and that becomes dangerous all the way around to your health, your family life, and everything else.” I asked him if anything bad had happened to him during his research. “Nothing real horrible,” he replied, adding he probably stopped before it did. I immediately thought about Stringfield’s vague comment about a car bomb. Steinman suggested nothing to indicate such a thing had occurred. Maybe he received a bomb threat. I didn’t know because I didn’t ask. Why didn’t I ask?

Steinman informed me he was toying with the idea of another book. Since my first conversation with him, his attitude had changed. At that time, he was not in the least interested in pursuing the UFO subject any further, but now, he was toying with the idea of writing another book. He was contradicting himself. I couldn’t ignore the inconsistency. Steinman began explaining he had lost contact with researchers he had worked pretty closely with, such William Cooper, Bill English, and John Lear, who had become close to him. Steinman’s contact with Stevens had also dwindled because he felt Stevens was more interested in the Contactee cases. “He [Stevens] wouldn’t believe in the mainstream thing that I’m talking about right now and the religious implications,” he commented. “He [Stevens] is more into the extraterrestrial belief.” I said I was confused and to please explain. He mentioned “ultra-dimensional,” and that he was talking about “spiritual forces that have been with mankind for at least eight to ten thousand years, molding and shaping our history, and working in history to influence groups.” I said that was similar to what Jacques Vallee had recently suggested. Steinman said Vallee was on the right track. He said that even Hynek, before he died, was also following that train of thought.

Steinman said that UFOs were only a tip of the iceberg. They were just one little part of the issue and that I would find the clearest cut answer to the UFO enigma in the book by Rudolph Steiner, Lucifer and Ahriman. I had never heard of the book, but had heard of Steiner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner. I was interpreting Steinman’s direction that an evil force, existing in the spiritual dimension was disguising itself as aliens and was manipulating the destiny of man and deceiving world governments and scientific communities, luring them into a trap to accomplish whatever it was trying to achieve. I did not want to go down that path. At that time, I was primarily a “nuts and bolts” UFO researcher. I was interested in UFO sighting reports, highly credible witness reports, military operations, and government cover-ups.

When my telephone call with Steinman ended, I knew that it was likely our last conversation. I’d let those who had an interest in the metaphysical aspects of the UFO phenomenon tackle that subject. But most importantly, I had learned that my interest in Steinman’s affairs was really more about me and my interests. The UFO Crash At Aztec came along at a time that spoke to me on a certain level. It was a mystery that had been investigated by someone with a passion looking for answers. I related to Steinman on that point, and that point alone. I did not want to become embroiled in his views. That was the last time I communicated with him. It was then I made a pact with myself: As my research continued, there must be one major constant, one element that ensured I didn’t get sucked into a world like Steinman’s: Have fun!

What does fun have to do with anything written here? I know it sounds confusing and not related. To many, this story is irrelevant and of no consequence. And you are correct. But for me, and that is what this blog is about (my research), I knew that fun was the proper attitude for me to help keep grounded while digging into this extraordinary, confusing, and mystifying subject matter. By not taking myself too seriously, I knew I’d ask the correct questions, challenge the information, think for myself, and most importantly of all, not fall prey to blind faith, or belief systems.

Having fun was my mindset then, and still is today. Strange…but true.

The Steinman Element (Part 3)

Are they watching and listening?

Before continuing with my Steinman story, I’d like to mention something else that is sort of relevant to this story. After several weeks of looking at my notes from the late 1980s, I’m reminded about how passionate I was with the UFO Phenomenon and all the seemingly related subjects, such as cattle mutilations, crop circles, and abductions. Back then, my knowledge of the UFO phenomenon was quickly growing. I found myself most attracted to the “nuts and bolts” category; sightings, landing traces, and crash and retrievals. My interests in UFO literature was more in line with the early works of Edward Ruppelt, Donald Keyhoe, J. Allen Hynek, Raymond Fowler, Leonard Stringfield, Richard Hall, and Jacques Vallee, among others.

As I’ve mentioned before in this blog, UFO literature was exploding. I knew much of what I was reading was more like good science fiction and I soon learned that I was not one who subscribed to blind belief or faith. There were too many unknowns and too many questions. Though I was having great fun entertaining even the wildest of stories, and I must emphasize fun was a big issue, I wasn’t about to fall prey and disregard rational, healthily skeptical, and sound judgment, even though I felt satisfied there seemed ample evidence supporting the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Plus, I was not only entertaining the ET hypothesis. I had great interest in another facet of the phenomenon, one that was more terrestrial based: the military-intelligence-corporate involvement with the UFO phenomenon. Just wanted to mention, but this entry is not the place to discuss that issue, so let’s get back to the Steinman story.

In the summer of 1989, I was communicating with Debby Regimenti, who along with Bob Oeschler was one of the founding members of the Annapolis Research and Study Group (ARSG), a research team based in Annapolis, Maryland. I had located Debby via MUFON’s Baltimore Section Director, Donald Fenhagen. (I’ll be discussing the ASRG in detail in another blog entry, once I’m finished with the Steinman story.)

Regimenti and I had been communicating back and forth, via the telephone, for several weeks about my Office of Civil Defense research. I also told Regimenti about accounts I was hearing about William Steinman. She was curious about the whole affair, though I don’t think she had read UFO Crash At Aztec. Much to my surprise, Regimenti was able to pass the facts I had been telling her along to British UFO researcher and author, Timothy Good, who was visiting the states. Good had just recently released the groundbreaking book, Above Top Secret, and was in the states either promoting the book or on other business. Good knew Bob Oeschler and Regimenti, so she was able to tell Good about my research and recent attempts to get into touch with Steinman. Fortunately for me, Good knew Steinman, and told Regimenti to go ahead and give me Steinman’s telephone number and asked that when I reached him, to send his regards. Ass you can imagine, I was very happy about getting that number. I couldn’t believe my luck.

On July 20, 1989, around 8:00 P.M., Eastern Time, 5:00 Pacific, I picked up the telephone and placed my call to Steinman. As I pressed each number, my mind raced with questions. The phone stopped ringing and I was prepared for contact, but an answering machine intercepted my call. Hanging up, I didn’t leave a message because I felt if all the information was true, Steinman would most likely screen my call and I probably would not have been able to talk with him. Not wanting to take that chance, I called back two hours later and this time his wife answered the telephone. She said Bill was out walking the dog and asked me to call back in about 45 minutes.

Around10:00 P.M., my time, Steinman answered my call. I introduced myself and told him that I was a member of the Annapolis Research and Study Group. I told him that I got his number from Timothy Good, who had asked that I send his regards. I told Steinman that there were rumors circulating about him and I was hoping he could clarify the matter. His tone was one of caution as he asked about what rumors. I said that it was my understanding he was no longer involved with UFO investigations. He concurred. I asked him if it were true that he had lost his job due to his research and activities surrounding the alleged UFO crash at Aztec, New Mexico. He said that he could not comment. Backing off, I asked him if he thought there was anything to the whole UFO business. He said that there was definitely something to it and that everyone should reconsider his own ideas about what is going on. Asking him to clarify, “There are definite religious implications and we will see something happen around 1990 or 1991,” he stated. After a moment of silence, I inquired about bold statements made by John Lear and William Cooper, who were very concerned with the problems of abductions, alien alliances with the U.S. and Russian governments, Area 51, among other issues. Steinman told me that they were definitely right with what they had to say. He would not expand upon why he felt there was truth to those matters.

Talking with Steinman was difficult. I had become uneasy with the interview. He would respond to my questions with very brief answers, followed by silence, only speaking again when I asked him another question. His tone of voice was very serious and, to me, had a hint of depression. But he did not press me to hang up. I asked him if he could offer me any insights regarding me launching my own UFO related investigations. “The subject of UFOs is something you get into and continue to become more deeply involved,” he stated, continuing, “You then find out things that you wished you hadn’t and it changes the course of your life. It changed mine. The subject of UFOs is of religious importance. People should reevaluate their Christianity beliefs and pursue these levels.”

This was the second time Steinman mentioned religion, but I did not want to go down that path. I changed the topic and asked him about alleged pressure and repercussions by government and military intelligence agencies that want someone to stop researching UFOs. “The involvement with the government is very touchy, and repercussions depend on whose toes it is you step on,” he responded. “This accounts for if you get a warning or not.” I didn’t ask him if he had been threatened. I don’t know why.

Steinman fielded a few more questions and said that he kept tabs on what was happening with UFO research, but that he no longer actively pursued any of it, and told me to tell Mr. Good that he has been waiting over a year to receive a letter from him. I asked Steinman if I could continue to correspond with him and he said yes. I was surprised by his answer.

The following day, I called Debby Regimenti and told her about my conversation with Steinman. Curiously she asked, “Keith, how religious are you?” I told her I was not religious. She said that Steinman was probably very religious and due to the implications of alien intervention, he was not ready to find out the possibilities of the whole scenario. Personally, the whole religious aspect was something that did not interest me. Whatever Steinman discovered, it was nonetheless very disturbing for him. What I did know, there was no way I was getting get sucked into his religious paranoia; if that were the case. My interest in the Steinman story regarded the possibility that he was warned by an intelligence agency, as Wendelle Stevens had suggested. Though I was convinced my investigation of the Office of Civil Defense posed no threat to national security, Steinman’s investigation seemed even less threatening, so if he was warned, did my simple research warrant such a response from government agencies. I couldn’t ignore this possibility, no matter how unlikely, as I had read so many similar accounts in other books regarding those who were visited, or in communication with, operatives of intelligence agencies who were investigating researchers involved with the UFO phenomenon.  

My telephone call with Steinman had only further whetted my appetite to dig until I hit a roadblock. Since he agreed to further communicate with me, I definitely planned on contacting him again.

The Steinman Element (Part 2)

Retired United States Air Force Lt. Colonel, Wendelle Stevens, shown here as a Major.

By June, 1989, my Office of Civil Defense (OCD) investigation was in a holding pattern. I was waiting for Ms. Fairfax to respond and hoping my FOIA responses might soon shed some corroborative light on the case. In the meantime, on June 16, I placed a telephone call to Leonard Stringfield. During our conversation, we discussed many aspects of the UFO phenomenon. I mentioned Steinman’s book, UFO Crash At Aztec, telling him how much I enjoyed the book and was very much interested in learning more about Steinman’s research effort with the Aztec case. Since Stringfield had written the book’s Foreword, I asked him if he could provide any details about his contact with William Steinman. Mr. Stringfield said that according to his information, Steinmann had dropped out of research. From what he gathered, due to the activities surrounding his book Steinman had apparently lost his job. Stringfield further stated that he did not know any other facts about the situation, nor had he talked to Steinman in a very long time, so instead of speculating, he planned to try and reconnect.

The following day, I decided to contact another principle personality who was affiliated with Steinman’s book, retired United States Air Force Colonel, and long time UFO researcher and publisher, Wendelle Stevens. In fact, it was Stevens who published UFO Crash At Aztec. It was early afternoon when I called and Stevens answered the telephone. I introduced myself. He was very receptive and more than willing to answer my many questions. Eventually, we got around to the Aztec story and I told him about hearing that Steinman had excited active research. Stevens was not surprised by my revelation. He said the repercussions against Steinman were due to his writing the UFO Crash At Aztec. I asked how he knew, but Stevens would not share anything about his sources. Maybe he knew already. He stated that Steinman was warned a couple of times, probably by FBI agents, about the publishing of his book, and said that Steinman not only lost his job, but his wife had left him as a result.

Stevens explained that he thought the probable scenario surrounding Steinman’s departure was that he had been warned to drop the case. He said it was likely Steinman’s employer was contacted by a government intelligence agency, asking, or suggesting, that the employer get rid of Steinman. The employer could have easily made up a reason to lay-off Steinman, telling him it was due to some sort of cut back. Stevens further stated that he felt it was unlikely Steinman would get another government job anywhere on the west coast, suggesting that if Steinman shut up, and move back to the east coast, he would most likely obtain a decent job, as long as he maintained silence.

The tone of Stevens’ delivery had become serious when mentioning the possible warning Steinman may have received from the intelligence agency. I asked Stevens to further expand upon his opinion regarding steps taken by an intelligence agency against someone they wanted kept quiet. I am not sure if Stevens knew the answer from personal experience or he learned it from other sources, as he responded without delay. He said an example of such a scenario was as follows: If a researcher was probing a sensitive issue and beginning to bring attention to it, the first warning would be very brief. An agent, possibly FBI, would show up at the researcher’s door, looking like a typical salesman. The agent would flash a badge and then ask to come in. Once inside, the agent would ask questions about what the researcher to discuss his or her information about the case. The agent would inquire why the researcher needed to know about the subject matter. He would then advise the researcher to leave it alone because there was nothing to it. At that point, the agent would proceed to leave.

If the researcher persisted with the investigation, a second visit by two agents would occur next, this time in a more serious manner. The agents would enter the home (not sure about whether or without permission), show I.D., and possibly bring attention to the fact they were armed. The display of their weapons would be for the purpose of intimidation. Once inside, they would drill the researcher with questions and make threatening remarks, such as, “It might be beneficial for you to leave this subject alone.” A comment about the researcher’s wife or relatives may be mentioned; possibly unnerving the researcher. Then the agents would leave, once they were sure their message was understood.

Should the second visit not work, and researcher continued to ignore the agents’ advice, their next step would not employ verbal warning, or intimidation. Steps taken could happen in a variety of ways. Stevens said that one method may include sabotaging the researcher’s vehicle, such as a cutting a brake-line or rigging a wheel to come off during driving. Also, a cancer causing agent might be employed and used on the researcher’s car’s steering wheel, causing terminal cancer within a month. There were an endless variety of methods used against a researcher, Stevens further commented.

Stevens and I continued our conversation about other topics and then I thanked him for taking the time out of his day to speak with me.

My telephone call to Stevens had done nothing but wet my appetite for more information. His ominous scenario seemed plausible, but in my position, I saw no reason to take his information at face value. The possibility that Steinman was warned off the case, however, was compelling. I had embarked on a similar research path, and granted, I had not put in the leg work like Steinman had, but my research project could easily take me down a similar path, one where I might inadvertently touch upon something sensitive, not necessarily having anything to do with UFOs. I was intrigued.

I must point out, 1989 was a very unique year in UFO research. The topic exploded with stories about underground alien bases, crop circles, cattle mutilations, abductions, mind control, secret bases, alien interaction, MJ-12, Roswell, to mention only a few categories. Main stream publishers were releasing a much larger than usual influx of UFO books. There seemed a real dynamic change occurring. To me, it was a fun time and I could not help wondering about how much truth there was to Stevens’ “spook” scenario.

On June 30, I had some extra time, so I penned a letter to Stringfield inquiring whether he had discovered the reason why Steinman dropped out of research. I also requested any information he could provide me about Steinman’s background. I also wrote a similar letter to Stevens hoping he could expand upon our conversation about possible warnings from intelligence agencies and maybe sharing further information about Steinman he had not mentioned.

I had learned so far that William Steinman was a researcher who had uncovered some very intriguing material that expanded upon an alleged 1948 crash and retrieval of a UFO and its occupants. Though the case was highly controversial, and considered by many a hoax, Steinman was able to infuse the case with some new and compelling information, due to his diligent and time consuming research, of which, as I mentioned earlier, was inspirational for my entry into UFO research; what Stringfield would later call a “hall of mirrors.”

On July 6, I was very anxious to find out if my letter had reached Stevens. Reaching him again on the telephone, we exchanged pleasantries and I got right to the point, asking about my letter. He said he had received it, but decided not to respond, as he felt I was not that important, meaning my connection to Steinman’s investigation would not warrant communication. He told me that if I did get in touch with Steinman, I would get nowhere with him because he would deny everything and probably hang up on me.

My investigation of the Office of Civil Defense’s possible affiliation with UFOs was now under way and I wondered what laid in store for me, should Stevens’ scenario have any element of truth. Despite his warnings, I felt compelled to press on. I knew that Steinman had probed deeply into his investigation, something I was considering doing with my own. Was there a chance my project might uncover something that was best kept secret, for whatever reason, and my probing might bring unwanted government attention to me? I didn’t know, or really care at the time. I was very curious and doing nothing illegal. Since I had no dealings with intelligence agencies, at this time there was no reason for me to fall prey to other’s fears, paranoia, or possibly false information. I’d worry about that if it happened. My UFO endeavors were of the same nature as Steinman’s, and now learning the rumor that his research endeavors brought about ramifications for his actions, then speaking with him could only help clear up the matter and possibly guide me in the right direction through the land mines my own research

.

Stringfield and Stevens’ information was not good enough. It was important that I find answers for myself while conducting research, so I needed to go straight to the source. My next step meant contacting Steinman.

The Steinman Element (Part 1)

The author began his investigations into the Aztec recovery as a skeptic, in January 1981. But as the evidence began to pile up he was forced, contrary to his inclinations, to accept the fact that a flying saucer was indeed recovered east of Aztec, New Mexico, in March of 1948. A case such as this has to be solved through an accumulation of evidence, mostly circumstantial in nature due to the fact that hardware and the bodies are not available (below that super-secret level) as hard evidence for examination.” William Steinman, August 1985.

As mentioned in my October 8, 2010 entry, in 1987, I was blind-sided by the UFO phenomenon. Before that time, I was following the subject, but it was limited; hadn’t read that many books. One day, abruptly all that changed when I saw a bookstore display that featured Whitley Strieber’s Communion, Budd Hopkins Intruders, and Gary Kinder’s Light Years. That book display was instrumental in grabbing my attention and placing it squarely in the world of UFOs. From that point on, I wanted to dive in and learn as much about the UFO phenomenon as possible. This was the time when my passion for the subject ignited.

In 1987, as my UFO book collection quickly grew in size, I discovered another new title that was released in January of the same year: UFO Crash at Aztec, by William Steinman and published by Wendelle Stevens. UFO Crash At Aztec covers Steinman’s investigation of an alleged UFO crash near Aztec, New Mexico in 1948. That story was originally brought to public attention by author Frank Scully in late 1949 magazine articles, subsequently followed by his 1950 book, Behind The Flying Saucers.

Many of you have read UFO Crash At Aztec. Many of you have strong feelings about the case itself, especially the cast of characters who were behind passing the story on to Frank Scully. But that story is not what this blog will cover. It is not whether Steinman’s conclusion is right or wrong. Simply, I just want to convey that his book came at a time when I was searching for something to study that had real depth and facets. I had a great time reading Steinman’s book. The subject matter was fascinating. The book was exciting. Inspirational. There was no question: I wanted to become involved with that kind of research and launch my own UFO investigation. If aircraft had been recovered that were extraterrestrial in nature, then… I was more than interested. Ultimately, Steinman’s book was one of the original influences that inspired my specific direction of research: the military’s involvement with the UFO phenomenon.

UFO Crash At Aztec was also important because it made me aware of Leonard Stringfield, who wrote the book’s forward. I had no idea that within the next two years, Mr. Stringfield would help me with the Fairfax case (posted here in 6-parts: The Office of Civil Defense: An Extraterrestrial Connection?). Stringfield begins:

When I was first approached in July 1985 to write the Forward for William S. Steinman’s book, which deals mainly with the alleged recovery of a crashed UFO near Aztec, New Mexico, in 1948, I was reluctant to accept it. No way; not the Aztec case!

Though Stringfield knew the Aztec case was riddled with problems, as he began reviewing the chapters, he was struck by how provocative Steinman’s investigation was becoming. It was not lost on Stringfield how obsessed Steinman was with the alleged crash and recovery at Aztec. He understood Steinman had invested a great deal of time and effort into the investigation. Despite Steinman’s strong belief in the case, he deserves credit for his willingness to let Stringfield include criticism in the Foreword. Stringfield writes:

And now, for some personal second-thought observations about the Bill Steinman ventures. Seldom do writers allow or invite open criticism of their work in their book’s Foreword, which is usually reserved for either a complacent colleague or some other agreeable authority in their field – and, almost all would rather read words that glorify; not about their faults. Not so with Bill Steinman. To my knowledge, he voiced no objections whether my comments were noncommittal, constructive, or negative – they would be printed in full.

In 1987, when I read Stringfield’s Foreword, I, too, was impressed by Steinman’s willingness to publish Stringfield’s negative remarks about the case and even criticism of Steinman. Why would Steinman allow Stringfield to criticize the book? At the time, I figured it was simply a case of Steinman presenting an investigation he wanted to share, so others could join in to help uncover the truth, despite what Steinman believed.

The UFO Crash At Aztec story is not the important element of this blog. I thought it be interesting to mention here that Steinman’s passion for the story was something I recognized in myself. It was that kind of passion, and obsession, of which I shared in my own quest, then and now. Though now, I wouldn’t say I’m obsessed.

Collectively, UFO Crash At Aztec, Mr. Stringfield’s crash and retrieval research, and the Fairfax case were the original building blocks responsible for my great interest military involvement with the UFO phenomenon. In 1989, periodically, over the course of six months, as I accumulated information for my own investigations, I thought it would be fun devoting some time to tracking down Steinman. Why not? I figured it was worth while to speak with him. I’d love to hear him speak about his investigation and tell him how his work inspired me to begin tackling a case of my own. If we hit it off, maybe even learn something that had not made it into his book. So, the next couple entries in this blog will include information about my very brief foray in tracking down Steinman for my own curiosity.

The United States Office of Civil Defense (OCD): An Extraterrestrial Connection? (Part 6)

Mr. John E. Davis

Driving home, I knew my visit had not gone well. I was convinced Ms. Fairfax was there at the school, but simply avoided meeting with me. Not communicating with me through the mail was one thing, but to avoid a face-to-face, was another; it spoke volumes. From that moment on, I knew communication between us had ended. With the loss of my main source, the investigation was losing steam.

That evening I called Mr. Stringfield and relayed the news. He immediately recognized that any further contact with Ms. Fairfax would have to come via her contacting us first; anything beyond that was grounds for her to contact a lawyer and level some kind of harassment charge against me.

Mr. Stringfield and I were disappointed the case was not progressing, but his experience indicated not all was over. He felt Ms. Fairfax might have a change of heart down the road. She had his latest publication and he was confident she would appreciate his desire to respect witness anonymity. The best thing for us to do was move in a different direction. It was time to focus on our new lead, Mr. Davis.

On February 12, 1990, it so happens I received another corroborating FOIA response from the Office of The Assistant Secretary of Defense:

“Mr. John. E. Davis was appointed as the Director of Civil Defense May 14, 1969.”

There was a chance Mr. Davis might remember Ms. Fairfax. With my attention off her role in the story, I located a telephone number for Mr. Davis, and on March 1, 1990, telephoned him at his home. His wife answered the call. I introduced myself and explained my interest in his work as Director of the OCD. Putting me on hold, she got back on the line and forewarned me that Mr. Davis had recently become ill, but he was willing to speak with me. When he picked up the telephone, it was difficult to understand him, as he was very weak, nearly whispering. He was struggling to speak, so I didn’t want to prolong the conversation, and only asked a couple basic questions. He confirmed that he was the Director of the Office of the Civil Defense from 1969- 1972, appointed to that office by President Nixon. I politely thanked him for his time and wished him well. I wanted to ask him so many questions, but it wasn’t appropriate to continue. I asked him if I could call back in a week when he might be feeling better. He agreed.

In the meantime, I reviewed my FOIA responses, including another one from the U.S. Army. They had provided me a copy of the July 1968 - June 1969 OCD annex to the annual report to the Secretary of the Army ( I no longer have that report, only the below paragraph, of which I copied for inclusion in an early report I was writing at the time.):

“This report covers how the Office of Civil Defense is prepared for helping our country’s population wherever it may be, such as, at home, at work, or at school, in case of an emergency. The OCD acts for the Secretary of the Army, working within the Department of Defense., to develop and administer the overall national defense program, which includes: 1. A fallout shelter program; 2. A civilian chemical, biological, and radiological warfare defense program; 3. Development and operation of civil defense warning and communications systems; 4. Planning for emergency assistance of state  and local governments in a post attack period; 5. Guidance and assistance to State and local governments to increase their protection and emergency operations capability; 6. Programs for financial contributions and donation of federal surplus property to the States for civil defense purposes; 7. Developing systems to conduct nationwide assessment s in event of attack to determine: (a) the nature and extent of damage, (b) surviving resources, and (c) specific hazards resulting form the detonation  of use of special weapons. In support of the forgoing responsibilities, OCD conducts the following programs: Research and Development, Training and Education, Emergency Public Information, and Industrial Participation. OCD also advises the Secretary of the Army on military support to civil defense; and participates in emergency exercises involving elements of Department of Defense and other Federal agencies, and State and local governments.”

Reviewing the OCD’s responsibilities, I wondered why Colonel Sullivan or Retired Colonel Davis would be speaking about a UFO and its occupants. The only thing I could figure was the OCD was responsible for one of the underground shelters built by the Army Corps of engineers and was under Army supervision. Since Ms. Fairfax didn’t know anything about the other officers in the room that day, they could have been Air Force. I didn’t know. That got me thinking, but I’ll address that later.

On May 5, 1990, I placed another telephone call to Mr. Davis. He answered the telephone, but before I could ask questions, he again became too ill to talk and handed the telephone over to his brother and his wife, who listened in on the other line. I explained to them that I was working on a research project about the OCD during 1969-1972, and asked if they would mind answering about Mr. Davis. They immediately obliged. Mrs. Davis said she remembered my first telephone call and would be glad to help. One of my first questions was whether Mr. Davis had been active duty in the service during his years at the OCD. Mrs. Davis fielded the question and said that he had been a WWII sort of hero and he retired an Army Colonel and stayed in the reserves and by the late 1960s was appointed by President Nixon as the Director of the Civil Defense.

I then immediately crossed into dangerous waters, asking “Did Mr. Davis have access to UFO related material while he was head of the OCD?” I said my information came from a woman who claimed she was his personal secretary during 1970 and that she personally heard Mr. Davis discuss a UFO in the Army’s possession during a meeting with other military officers. Mr. Davis’s brother quickly interjected that he wasn’t informed on the subject, and did not want to comment on the issue. Mrs. Davis did not comment. There was an uncomfortable silence. For a moment, no one said a word.

Had I blown my welcome with that question? Was it premature? It was out of context with the rest of the conversation. Certainly, it was unexpected. But, nonetheless, I felt compelled to ask the question. They didn’t hang up on me. That was a good sign. Mrs. Davis broke the silence and said she would discuss it with John, and that she had my address. I thanked them for their time.

After a few days, I placed a telephone call to Mr. Stringfield. We discussed how I handled the situation and determined all we needed was a little damage repair. First thing was to wait it out and hope Mrs. Davis contacted me. If not, I should call back and ask more refined questions; keeping the term UFO to a minimum. But that was the last time we had communication. I learned that Mr. Davis had died a week later on May 12, 1990.

So now, Ms. Fairfax was not communicating and I was no longer able to communicate with Mr. Davis. Though I had many questions about the OCD’s role with UFOs and whether Mr. Davis and Colonel Sullivan were the same person, I decided to not worry about those issues and simply accept the possibility that Ms. Fairfax’s story might be true. That’s when something occurred to me. The main point of Ms. Fairfax’s story was not about the U.S. military having a UFO in their possession. It had to do with what branch of armed service was in possession of the UFO. This intrigued me.

The United States Office of Civil Defense (OCD): An Extraterrestrial Connection? (Part 5)

 The above picture is Project Bluebook’s Major Hector Quintanilla, Jr., and staff. Whenever I see this photograph, I often think of Ms. Fairfax’s story. I can imagine her sitting in the adjoining office, typing away, trying hard to not ease drop, while her boss, the supposed Colonel Sullivan, was in the next room with other military officers discussing the issue of a recovered UFO and its occupants.

By late 1989, my primary focus with the case was determining the real identity of Colonel Sullivan. The more I thought about it, the more I entertained the idea that Ms. Fairfax had been mistaken and he was not actually the director of the Office of the Civil Defense, but an officer of a particular branch within the OCD. Actually, there were numerous possibilities surrounding Colonel Sullivan’s actual title and role.

On December 8, a couple months after receiving the October 11 FEMA response, revealing the OCD was attached to the Office of the Secretary of the Army, I received another FOIA response, this time from the Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary. This reply provided a piece of information I was hoping to learn:

“The office of History of the Army Corps of Engineers has provided the enclosed biographical sketches of Mr. John Edward Davis. Mr. Davis served as Director of Civil Defense in the Department of the Army from, 1969 – 1972. If you require additional information relating to Mr. Davis, I suggest that you write the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Liberty Memorial Building, Bismark, North Dakota.”

Unfortunately, now looking through my records, all I have left is one of the biographical sketches the Army sent on Davis. Why the other(s) is missing, I don’t remember. What remains is a copy of the 38^th edition, 1974-1975, Who’s Who in America:

“DAVIS, JOHN EDWARD…Dir. Civil Defense, Office of Sec. Army, Washington, 1969-1972; dir Civil Preparedness Agy., Dept. Def; Pres. First Nat. Bank McClusky, N.D., 1959- ; Mayor, McClusky, 1946-1952; gov, N.D., 1956 – 1960; chmn. Republican Nat. Com. N.D., 1961; Served with AUS, 1941-1945. Decorated Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart; recipient Distinguished Service medal Dept. Def., 1973. Mem. Am. Legion (Nat Comdr. 1966-1967), V.F. W. Beta Theta Pi Mason (33 deg., Shriner)…”

Mr. Davis had quite an impressive background. I now had confirmation he was the Director of Civil Defense. Another piece of information contained in the above biographical sketch was that Mr. Davis latest address was in Virginia. But the Who’s Who In America was over ten years old. Nonetheless, it was worth a shot, so on January 10, 1990, I wrote a letter to Mr. Davis at the Virginia address explaining my interest in the Office of Civil Defense, of which he headed from 1969 – 1972. I asked several questions, most importantly how large his staff was during 1969 and 1970, if a Colonel Sullivan was part of his staff, and if he could remember any of the personnel, such as secretaries names who worked in his office.

While waiting for Mr. Davis’s unlikely reply, I became anxious to move forward. I felt it was time for another contact with Ms. Fairfax. I was anxious to move on. The case was in limbo. I needed to clarify some information and thought that a face to face might reveal something new. At the very least, I might learn from her body language whether I had caught her in a lie, or my questioning might spark some new memories, of which would help rectify the Colonel Sullivan / Mr. Davis situation.

On February 7, I visited Ms. Fairfax’s place of work. Arriving in the parking lot, I sat in my car going over my list of questions. I wanted to make they were specific enough, but not accusatory, putting her on the defensive. There was only ten minutes before school was out for the day. I was more nervous this time around than the first time I met Ms. Fairfax. Both visits, however, were unannounced, so this didn’t help matters. I almost returned to my car and drove off, but as I walked closer to the school’s main entrance, I had a second surge of confidence. I was committed. There was no turning back.

Upon entering the school, spontaneously I decided to bypass the main office and headed straight toward the classroom where we first met. Kids were flooding the hallway, so my presence was somewhat camouflaged. I was hoping I’d catch Ms. Fairfax before she had time to exit her classroom. But, before reaching the classroom, I was met by another teacher, who asked if he could help me. Looking him in the eyes, I said I was there to meet Ms. Fairfax. He poked his head in the classroom and looked for me. No luck. He said she was not there and advised me to go to the main office and have her paged. I thanked him and quickly departed.

It was not feeling right, so I bypassed the office and went back to my car. Sitting there, I kept thinking about when I got home how disappointed I’d be with myself for not trying to speak wit her one more time. I had driven all the way up to see her, so there was no reason to not follow through and leave.

With new found confidence, I re-entered the school and went straight to the main office. Entering, I saw three students milling around and the secretary was sitting behind her desk. It was the same secretary who greeted me months ago during my first visited to the school. The secretary asked if she could help me. I said I was there to meet Ms. Fairfax and asked if she could page her here to the office. The secretary asked my name and when I told her, there was a noticeable change of expression on her face. “Oh no,” I thought. I knew that moment she recognized me; at least my name. I was dying. She told me to wait there while she tried to locate Ms. Fairfax, and would be right back. At that time, thoughts of fleeing the scene were first and foremost. Ms. Fairfax was not expecting me. From her lack of response over the last several months, she most likely did not want to communicate, much less see me again. My plan was back-firing. But I remained.

Moments later, the secretary came back into the office and told me that Ms. Fairfax was not there. I thanked her and made my exit. AS I crossed the parking lot, I’d occasionally look over my shoulder to see if other school staff members were following me. There were no flashing lights of police cars roaring down the street. I was back in my car and my paranoia subsided the further I drove away from the school.

Bummed out, and in a fog of many conflicting thoughts, I pulled up to McDonald’s carry-out window. “Yeah, I’ll have a vanilla shake. That’s all.” As I drove home, sucking the brain-freeze through my straw, I couldn’t help but think that the sucking sound aptly defined what I had just gone through.

The United States Office of Civil Defense (OCD): An Extraterrestrial Connection? (Part 4)

Several weeks had elapsed and still no word from Ms. Fairfax. On May 28, 1989, I decided to write a follow-up letter and sent it snail mail to her work place; the high school where we first met. Again thanking her for the time and courtesy she extended me, I reiterated Mr. Stringfield’s offer and provided her a copy of his biography to look over. There wasn’t much more I could do, but wait. School was out for the summer. I contemplated making another surprise visit, as I figured Ms. Fairfax would be there longer than the students. Patience, however, won out.

Over the next several months, while waiting for Ms. Fairfax to respond, I sent Freedom of Information Request to several government agencies for information regarding Colonel Sullivan and the Department of Civil Defense. It was also a hurry up and wait exercise.

Four months had passed and still no word from Ms. Fairfax, so on September 20, I wrote her another letter. This time I included a copy of Mr. Stringfield’s newest publication, UFO Crash/Retrievals: Is the cover-up lid lifting? Status Report V. Mr. Stringfield and I thought his new work might break the silence that had occurred between Ms. Fairfax and I. The following day, I drove to her high school and hand delivered the package to the school’s main office. I departed.

Meanwhile, I started receiving responses from various agencies to some of my FOIAs. Most were dead-end results. Coincidentally, one of my FOIAs had reached its destination the same day as I was delivering the package to Ms. Fairfax. Then on October 11, things started to change when I received a letter from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Finally, I had received a response with some substance about my case. FEMA had provided information that seemed to verify Ms. Fairfax’s story of employment was beginning to match up. Two of my primary questions were answered. Interestingly, I had requested information regarding the Department of Civil Defense, just as Ms. Fairfax had called it. According to the FEMA’s letter:

“A department of Civil Defense by that name never existed in the Department of Defense. However, there was an Office of Civil Defense (OCD) in the Pentagon form Aug. 1, 1961 to May 1972. At that, OCD was superseded by the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency within the Department of Defense until July 1979, when the national civil defense function was transferred out of DOD to the new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It has existed within FEMA since that time.”

The second important piece of information was that the Office of Civil Defense was part of the Office of the Secretary of the Army from 1964 to1972. I know knew that the OCD was definitely located in the Pentagon, just as Ms. Fairfax had stated, and that Colonel Sullivan was an Army officer. I wasn’t too concerned about Ms. Fairfax’s use of "Department" versus "Office" of the Civil. This was not a critical mistake to her story.

But the FEMA letter provided some disappointing news:

“There has never been a Colonel Sullivan who served as National head of the Civil Defense at any time.”

This was the first time I found a discrepancy in Ms. Fairfax’s story. Maybe Ms. Fairfax had been mistaken about Colonel Sullivan’s actual role. Though she did say he was in charge of the OCD, Colonel Sullivan could have been subordinate to another officer in charge. Maybe Ms. Fairfax was not fully aware of the official chain of command and had not realized she was part of a much larger organization and her office was one of several within the OCD. I also considered that Ms. Fairfax was a college student at the time, so her knowledge was minimal regarding the actual size of the OCD, as her position was administrative with a limited “needed-to- know” status. Another possibility, however, was that Ms. Fairfax may have purposely used Colonel Sullivan as a cover name. After all, being under the microscope of the F.B.I., regarding the theft in the OCD’s library, was an unpleasant experience that left an indelible mark on her. So that issue, along with a signed Confidentiality Agreement, were reasons enough for her to keep a low profile.

The more I thought about it, though Ms. Fairfax having the Colonel’s name wrong, was a red flag, it really was not discrediting the case. The fact that she was describing an organization operating out of the Pentagon, an organization that was not common knowledge among UFO researchers, seemed, to me, too well thought out and inventive, especially since she was not researching, nor seeking publicity with her UFO story. So, her story remained strong. Given the circumstances surrounding how her story was revealed in the first place, it was highly unlikely she was trying to create a hoax. I definitely needed more damaging information before discrediting her account.

With the latest revelations, I felt confident that despite these two minor discrepancies in Ms. Fairfax’s story (the Colonel’s name and “Department” versus “Office” of Civil Defense), it remained strong. At this point, the question I wanted answered most...what was the Colonel’s real name?