Introduction to NOUFORS

What's New


Michel M. Deschamps - Director

Personal Sightings

Sightings Archive

Newspaper Archive


UFO Characteristics

UFO Physical Traces

Animal Mutilations

UFO Occupants

Crop Circles

Audio Clips



and UFOs

Military Officers
and UFOs

Scientists and UFOs

Astronauts and UFOs

Pilots and UFOs

Cops and Saucers

Celebrities and UFOs

Who's Who in

Skeptics and Debunkers

Encyclopedia of Terminology and Abbreviations

Kidz' Korner




Status Report II: New Sources, New Data
By Leonard H. Stringfield

Case A-6

Reporting 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.

Just 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.

My 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:

"...My 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.

The 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."

As 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 investigations.

After 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.

Then, 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.

On 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 hope so."

• 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."

Composite drawing of Humanoid Head from
reports by firsthand witnesses.

Drawing 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.



In 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 sources.

Concerning 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.
No infringement intended. For educational purposes only.