taken from THE UFO CRASH/RETRIEVAL SYNDROME
Status Report II: New Sources, New Data
By Leonard H. Stringfield
information from a firsthand witness is a criterion of
this second paper. However, in this instance, I must rely
on an intermediary of trust and his willingness to replay
a number of informative tapes over a period of 18 months
for me, recording the voice of a former C.I.A. employee.
Normally, this reporting procedure might raise doubts
about any such informant, but it is my judgment based
on a long period of communication by phone, correspondence,
and tape that my intermediary is an honest person, and
to this date, there is no hint of deception in his role.
as certain in my belief that my intermediary has been
honest with me, I must therefore, believe that his informant
friend, the former C.I.A. employee is what he poses to
be, and hopefully that the information he relates is true.
I have heard his voice and his revelations a number of
times on tape, and at this writing, I feel I know him
as a person of authority, yet personable, crisp of tongue,
leaving more questions unanswered than answered; and a
person whose voice intonations hint that he has a keen
sense of wit. In short, I feel that both he and his taped
voice I have heard are bona fide.
intermediary is Robert D. Barry. He is Director of the
20th Century UFO Bureau, residing in Yoe, Pennsylvania,
and he's been a UFO researcher and lecturer since 1957.
My first contact with Barry came in March 1978, when I
learned of his knowledge of a crashed UFO with occupants.
I reached him by phone, explained that I was working on
a paper to be addressed to the MUFON Symposium in Dayton,
Ohio, and was asked to submit a letter to further identify
myself and my objectives. In response, Barry sent me the
following letter which I had quoted, in part, in Abstract
#14 of my first paper:
source of information on the crashed UFO subject involve
quite a few but my major sources number four, including
one within Intelligence circles as well as a scientist.
As it relates to the crashed UFO of 1962, it occurred
in the state of New Mexico. The craft experienced flight
difficulty at a time it was being tracked on military
radar. It was tracked across two southwestern states before
coming in over New Mexico. Military jets were sent up
for intercept. As the craft moved in over the state of
New Mexico, it lost altitude and continued to experience
flight difficulty. It impacted on desert sands at an estimated
90 m.p.h. Its underside hit the sand as a plane coming
in for a landing. Its landing gear was not down and its
flight pattern at impact gave the indication that the
two occupants in the craft were evidently dead at the
time of the crash...hence the flight difficulty experienced
by the craft.
craft was 68 feet in diameter and 13 feet in height...typically
circular. The two beings discovered inside the craft were
42 inches each in height. Each being was donned in a one-piece
suit that contained no buttons or zippers. The occupants
were removed the following day after impact to a major
medical university hospital in the U.S. where skin tests
and other scientific analyses were performed. Skin color
was gray-pink. Head slightly larger for the size of the
body; eyes somewhat larger than norm but the nose was
small with little protrusions...no ear lobes, but a hole
at each side of the head where we have ears...then, of
course, inside the hole area was the inner ear portion.
Mouth very small and thin lips. The circular-shaped craft
was described as exploratory and was removed to a major
military base in the southwest where scientists and engineers
were assigned to work on the craft in an attempt to discover
its power of propulsion. On this particular case, a total
of twenty individuals were involved in the investigation
and research. Since that time, three of them have died...of
natural causes...leaving a total of 17 familiar with the
incident and follow-up research."
it turned out, I invited Bob Barry to accompany me in
Dayton to air a letter he had received allegedly from
the C.I.A. The letter, using a C.I.A. masthead, concerned
Barry's recent involvement in producing material about
the 1962 crash, for a documentary film about UFOs being
made by Sun Classic Films. In summary, because of the
sensitivity of some of the material about the crash incident,
the letter directed Barry to visit the C.I.A. offices
for consultation. However, when Barry checked with the
C.I.A. for affirmation, they claimed no knowledge of the
letter. Mystified, Barry, nonetheless, felt that the letter
deserved more than a brush-off and despite the C.I.A.'s
denial as its sender, there were certain aspects of the
letter's character and content that warranted further
many discussions of the letter's pros and cons with Barry,
I felt that its contents, inasmuch as it tied in with
the 1962 crash case, should be aired for public view.
Through June and early July 1978, Barry and I oftentimes
questioned the C.I.A. letter's validity. We tried to rationalize
its content, or find a hidden sinister motive, and guess
who, if not official, had the effrontery to use a C.I.A.
masthead for spurious purposes. We guessed at a few likely
researchers as the culprit, but again, we agreed to air
the letter in Dayton.
in mid-July, Barry called me to relate that his C.I.A.
friend had advised him not to air the alleged C.I.A. letter.
In his opinion, it was not genuine. But because of the
commitment to air the letter and still uncertain of a
possible C.I.A. covert motive, we felt it was too late
to back down, and to back down would create even more
suspicion in the eyes of research.
July 29, Barry exposed the letter and, as expected, some
researchers were critical of Barry for presenting it and
of me for allowing it. For me, however, regardless of
the letter's intent or authenticity, Barry's C.I.A. friend
had made an honest evaluation. That, and many subsequent
events, helped substantiate my faith in Barry's informant.
Following is a sampling of other C.I.A. revelations from
April through July 29, 1978, during the critical period
while preparing my first paper, and following the threat-on-my-life
episode in Dayton:
Barry learned that UFOs seemed to have helped influence
Israeli forces in a tactical maneuver to victory over
the Arabs during the 1967 war. Barry told about the events
and brought in his religious view in an interview that
was carried by a wire service worldwide. Eventually, the
Midnight Globe, October 11, 1977, published the story,
which was edited to their liking. When it was announced
that Barry was to accompany me in Dayton, the article
was sent to me from researchers with a variety of comments.
When it first became known by the C.I.A. that I had plans
to feature certain data about UFO crashes and retrieval
operations, I was advised of the risks and to be careful.
In April 1978, for instance, it was suggested that I avoid
the mention of a retrieval by U.S. military forces of
a crashed UFO on Mexican soil. On one tape, there were
witty comments that it would be wise to "stay out
of dark alleys" and "stay in crowds." There
were no direct threats.
Referring to my talk in Dayton, he advised that I might
expect "agitators there." On another tape, I
was told that agents (unidentified) would be there in
case of trouble. I construed this to mean for my protection.
Following the threats on my life on July 29, 1978, in
Dayton, Barry came to my room and called his C.I.A. contact.
He was told, "I told you there might be trouble."
When I heard from a new source of the alleged existence
of a human-like cyborg and was put on standby to receive
proof of itto be displayed in Dayton, I asked for advisement.
One response, "I have no information about a cyborg.
Maybe it's a hoax." On another occasion, when my
"cyborg" source asked me to be prepared to receive
from him x-rays as proof at the site of my scheduled lecture
for the St. Louis research group in Carlyle, Illinois
(June 1978), the former C.I.A. informant stated on tape,
"Do not use it unless you have medics nearby. You
might end up in the river." He also said, having
information like that, if true, "can cause airplanes
to crash." Indeed, I thought about that during my
flight to St. Louis. As a footnote, my contact, with his
"drop" of proof, did not show up.
Informed to be alert for two foreign agents in Dayton.
Also, C.I.A. and F.B.I. would be there. My comment, "I
Revealed that a scientist, whom he named, would be present
in Dayton and would be prepared for public comment in
the event I would disclose data (names, places, etc.)
beyond the prepared script in my paper. Later, I heard
the comment, "Stringfield didn't come across with
the hot stuff, so he (the scientist) didn't have to comment."
In early July, he commented, "80% of your paper
is correct...use only cases with firsthand witnesses...discount
the others." Asked about the Kingman, Arizona,
retrieval of 1953, he said, "A lot of it is just
story. Don't use it."
On July 6, 1978, during the last hectic days before Dayton,
I was advised that he had been called to an urgent meeting
in Washington. Earlier, I had submitted five different
drawings of the alien head, based on composite information,
and a drawing of the alien hand, for his review and comment.
His final comment: "Use head number two. That's
close enough," and regarding the hand, wherein
I had indicated a stub where the thumb would be, he said,
"remove the stub." (See attachments.)
Then he said tersely, "Please don't contact me
anymore. I can't talk."
drawing of Humanoid Head from
reports by firsthand witnesses.
of Humanoid Hand from
reports by firsthand witnesses.
On August 4, after the MUFON Symposium, word came, "Everybody
did a good job." He further indicated that the
plan was a "test of media and public reaction."
Finally, he gave his version of the cause of alleged threats
on my life in Dayton, an issue that has not been clear
to this time of writing. Belatedly, he related that the
culprits were members, or henchmen, of a New York movie
studio (not Scotia Films or Sun Classic) that had in their
possession secret documents and film purporting to validate
the existence of retrieved alien craft and occupants.
They feared that my talk might include some of their material,
or more, he said, and that it was necessary to intimidate
me, hoping I would shy off.
During the period between April to July 29, he acknowledged
and/or confirmed the Ft. Riley retrieval, the Nellis AFB
confrontation, and a retrieval report near Johannesburg,
South Africa. Of the latter, he provided the year of the
incident as 1953. He did not, however, confirm my reference
, in my first paper, of a confrontation near Lumberton,
Ohio. He also had a "No Comment" for the 1973
retrieval in Case A-2.
When I first talked with Barry about the 1962 retrieval
incident in New Mexico, he indicated that his C.I.A. informant
had been one of the first officials at the crash site
and also had been first to go inside the craft to recover
the two alien bodies. In August 1979, when I talked with
Barry and heard the replay of the tape, the information
was corrected. Said the former C.I.A. informant, clarifying
the issue of his perticipation, he was the first person
to look inside through the hatch of the craft but was
NOT inside the craft. This attempt to be factual, again,
pointed out to me that our tripartite exchange of information
was not only of sound footing, but, perhaps, one means
by which some of the hidden data could be safely released
to test public reaction, or for other ulterior purposes.
anticipation of any contrary opinion, I believe Barry's
former C.I.A. source is legitimate. I repeat, I have been
in touch with Barry for too long a period to argue over
his research objectives, or to fault his religious views,
or to be concerned about the methods he employs in pursuing
a UFO case. Barry and I have speculated on all issues
of the UFO problem, and also about certain aspects of
his C.I.A. informant's answers to our questions. I find,
in summary, that most information received from his prime
source does tally with information I have from other diverse
the controversial C.I.A. letter, researcher Richard Hall
has informed me that he knows the identity of the person
who perpetrated the prank. While this fake letter will
be forgotten in the annals of the UFO, the 1962 crash
report, however, will be strengthened by new data perhaps
relatable by Barry in the future.