Dr. Reed's Alleged Deadly
ET Encounter Drawing
Heated Responses

From: "Royce J. Myers III"
Subject: More Reed Hoax Evidence
'F' Is For Fraud
In covering the blatantly fraudulent story of Dr. Jonathan Reed, the evidence against Reed just doesn't seem to stop coming in. I received the following e-mail from Don Day:
>>Take a gander at this address. Check the logo design on top. There >>>is the obelisk. Good work Royce!
If you go to the address you will see that it is Norio Hayakawa's homepage. You'll also see an object in the logo that is all TOO familiar...Reed's bogus obelisk. I looked everywhere attempting to locate where they may have obtained their idea at, they chose poor Norio's logo. As far as I'm concerned, this is the final nail in the coffin. UFOlogy needs to bury this shameful ruse.

--Royce J. Myers III
1430 Willamette, No.344
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Here the reversals yourself!

Dr.Reed's Bogus Alien Encounter
I will soon be posting information regarding this case that I believe prove this whole situation to be a fraud being perpetrated for the purpose of financial gain. I will present all of my findings here and leave it up for you to decide. I am waiting to hear back from a certain party regarding this matter. As soon as I have heard from this party, I will post ALL of my information here. Stay tuned...
--Royce J. Myers III
Eugene, Oregon
From Lea H. MacDonald
Major Shadow Discrepancies In 'Obelisk' Photos!
< 11-24-98>
Photos Here
Understanding where the light is being projected from, in the "oblisk" pictures, is key to understanding why the "oblisk" was not part of the original picture.
Looking at oblisk.jpg for initial reference, and in particular to the left at the ground. Note the 3 branches. One is running into the back ground (to and from the viewer), another is running across the frame from left to right and finally there is a small branch less tree, in the foreground of a big tree to the immediate left of the frame. The branch running left to right, points directly to the shadow of the branch running away from the viewer. These three branches run in 3 different directions. Into, across, and vertically in the frame. Although the vertical branch/tree, shadow is faint, it is there nonetheless.
Looking at the shadows being cast by each of these three branches I'm sure you will agree, that the light is being projected from a 10-11 o'clock position from the left of the frames. In support of this, look at the boughs of the trees to the right of the frame. They are illuminated to a far greater extent than the boughs that "round" around to the left.
This sets the stage for the examination of the object itself and moreover, the "refractive light qualities" of the panels on the oblisk. In oblisk.jpg, there are clearly 6 panels showing. Two on top, two on the side and of course, two on the bottom. In oblisk.jpg there are only 4 panels showing, two on the side and two of the bottom. I have defined the panels as different, because they each have angles different from the other.
Oblisk1.jpg was taken to the left, and lower than oblisk.jpg. This then exposed more of the rear panel which should have had better light reflection. However, the opposite is actually seen. The panel is in fact darker. This should not have happened, the light reflection should have been enhanced, because of a more acute angel of attack for the light, to the lens. The front right panel is far brighter than the rear in oblisk1.jpg. this would tell the eye, that the light was coming from the right of the frame. Yet we know this is not the case.
This finding is further supported by the viewing of oblisk.jpg where we can clearly see the top of the object with no difference in color of the top two panels. Viewing the side panels in the same picture, we see little difference in the color of the side panels, other than a somewhat dubious shadow just in front of the middle deflection of the object.
For those who would argue these are shadows, I would submit the following: If in fact these are shadows, they would clearly support light being cast from the left to the right of the frame. With this in mind, and understanding the 10-11 o'clock angle of the light, there should absolutely be a clear shadow on the, very clear area, under the nose of the craft. There is none!
Respectfully submitted,
Lea MacDonald.

Update - Reed & Raith 'Alien'
Royce J. Myers III
Today (25-Nov-1998) I talked with Rob Baldwin, director of the San Diego UFO Society. I gave Mr.Baldwin, who was very polite and pleasant to talk with, my contact information and asked if he would pass it on to Reed and/or Raith, he agreed to do so. This is after I asked if I could have either of their phone numbers, to which Mr.Baldwin gave a resounding no. I told him I was seriously interested in seeing just what the case was all about and that I was not some clown. Mr.Baldwin has apparently received a number of phone calls regarding the story. I asked Mr.Baldwin what he could tell me regarding the case. He was unable to provide me with any details other than what has been said in the public arena. I did ask about what the plans were regarding the evidence. Mr.Baldwin informed me that in addition to a book being published regarding the incident, there was also going to be a video produced. Mmmmmm... Mr.Baldwin was unable at the time to provide me with any details concerning an analysis of the alleged negatives. I was short on time and was unable to go in depth with him about the matter. I am planning on contacting him again. I am awaiting either Mr.Reed and/or Mr.Raith to contact me. I am hoping to obtain more evidence in this case and hopefully some information regarding an analysis. As soon as I know more, so will you. Stay tuned...
Royce J. Myers III
Eugene, Oregon
From Russ Haslage
Dear Jeff,
I hope that you will see fit to post this on your webpage with the rest of the posts on this subject.
In my early days, during the 1970's, I was a well-known UFO investigator, and although I have not done any investigations in some 20 years, the priciples of investigation remain the same.
After reading all of the posts here regarding the meeting of Dr. Reed and an "alien" in a Washington State forest, I must point out some remarkably easy clues that point to the whole event as a hoax. I know we've determined this, but it seems that these surface indicators have been overlooked.
One of the things I was taught when learning to investigate sightings is that the witness' character (truthfulness, openness) are of paramount importance. Although Dr. Reed seemed very humble on Art Bell's show, he was not so forthcoming with some information.
One of the most apparent signs of this is the fact that he has "allowed" Art to post only seleceted photos on the website. If this man was being truthful and open, we'd see it all. From the numerous shows Art has done on this subject, we are told that many more pictures are available, as is a video tape. Why aren't those photos and tape available, especially in the light of current speculation that this is, indeed, a hoax? If this guy's telling the truth, he'd release everything to prove his sincerity.
Another glaring testimonial against his story is the fact that we hear a number of times in both interviews that phrase, "I am not prepared to discuss that...," or, "I am not prepared to release that at this time." Why is that, doctor? Because a question was asked that you and your writer friend have not come up with a nifty answer for? In addition, the doctor has said that he is in hiding and on the run constantly since his adventure. Interestingly enough, he also mentioned in last week's interview that he was receiving faxes and letters that he found encouraging. He also mentioned that his friend Gary would know how to contact him. Funny how a guy on the run is receiving faxes and letters on a steady basis.
Lastly, on my examination of character and surface elements, look at the newest picture of the obelisk. There's a remarkably large and clear leaf in front of the obelisk in one picture. That leaf is a solid green color, not with any of the different hues and shadows seen on any leaf, let alone one that large. Now look at the other picture. See any bushes or trees in that picture that are anywhere near the height necessary to put that leaf there? That leaf was drawn in there (probably by computer) to give the picture a more realistic look. It failed.
After the story broke, I decided to give the doc and Art the benefit of the doubt. I wrote to Art to request that he get the doctor without the writer and to acquire the authority to release all photos and tapes in order to prove the doctor's sincerity. None of that was done. We still hear the writer chime in to add facts or to put the doctor's story back onto the road of what we can only assume is the written story in the book.
We all are pretty much convinced it is a hoax. I just thought these surface clues might be of value to anyone keeping score.
Russ Haslage
Dr. Reed's Alleged ET Encounter
From Jeff Ritzman
Hi Jeff,
After being involved in UFO photo and video analysis for 14 yrs now, I'd like to give you our take here on Dr. Reed's "ship/obelisk" photos. Anyone will tell you who has done enough photo work, that the available net photos are not good enough in quality or resolution to adequately do objective analysis work on them.
In this case, thats simply NOT true. I have to disagree with Matt Ridgeway < when he says the giveaway is the angle of the shot. If one looks closely at the shot for what it is, in majority, a shot of the woods, then it appears due to sun angles, to have been shot close to noontime or at some time during direct overhead light. One can deduce all the infomation on photographic angles, pixel counting of the object, light on the thing is glaringly obvious. There is NO shadow beneath the object! Nor is there any around it! Dr. Reed said he "touched" this object. We can then say, "ok it's a solid object"..soild objects block light and have shadows. The object has reflected light on it. Therefore it should have the capability to throw a shadow.
This is one of the very few series of photos, that kills itself before it even gets to "can I have the negatives to run some tests on?" The photos of at least the object itself show it to possibly be a paste in from a program called Truspace, due to the aspect ratio of pixels, versus the ratio outside the object.
The alien photos? Well, since there's no way to test for an authentic alien, I'll leave that to the masses to argue. Kinda looks like a potato though doesnt it?
~Jeff Ritzmann/CEO
Millenium Graphics & Imaging
From Bob Barnes
Speaking as a professional actor and recording engineer, I'd like to offer some observations on the recent "Dead Alien" post at the Art Bell site. While I did not recognize the scream as from any of the 17 sound effects libraries I have in my studio, the "scream" sounds almost as if someone dubbed it in over pre-recorded "scratchy record" effects. You don't get "scratches" on a TAPE recording!
However, the recording of the man "running thru the woods" is most definitely a fake. First of all, if it was recorded on a video camcorder (as Art says it was) there is no sign of jostling as the man "runs" along--no sound of the mike rubbing clothing or hitting branches, etc. There's no "pumping" of the automatic gain control that is standard in almost all camcorders. Neither does the microphone proximity vary as it would if the man was running and carrying the recorder. The voice stays the same distance from the mic at all times--indicating the voice was recorded in a much more controlled environment and NOT while the operator was carrying it at full run.
Finally, as an actor, I must point out that the "vomiting" sequence is some of the worst acting I have ever heard. Nobody--NO-ONE--"barfs on the run"... There is no sign of anticipation of the vomiting, no sound of wretching, (just some gagging throat noises), no liquid sounds and the whole thing almost sounds like it was spliced into the huffing and puffing. This guy throws up at a full run and never misses a beat! Sorry... no way!
Bob Barnes
Actor, Narrator, Spokesperson
By Matt Ridgway
I hope this is the proper address to send this type of mail. I would like to express my opinion concerning this alleged e.t. encounter.
First, let me say that there are several obvious problems with the good doctors story, the most obvious being that all the 'evidence' has disappeared or been stolen. Had the good doctor bothered to take pictures of his mutilated dog BEFORE it broke down to this mysterious 'powder' I might take his story a bit more seriously. Also, I find it very hard to believe that had the Doc seen some otherworldly creature as he'd claimed that he'd have the presence of mind to 'attack' it, not to mention the fact that this incredibly fast moving thing couldn't just 'run away' or move aside and avoid his crude attack. If the dog couldn't handle it, I somehow doubt the doctor could. Also, if I'm not mistaken, aren't dogs traditionally cowardly when it comes to this sort of thing?
Then, instead of running for the nearest news station with the single greatest find in human history and proudly displaying it for nationwide cameras, he takes it home and locks it in his freezer because he's afraid of what might happen to him. What a crock!
And the 'photos?' PLEASE! I am a graphic designer for a software/book publishing company, and I often have to base my designs on composites of several different photos, and I can tell you that the photo of the object is definitely a fake, and not a very creative one at that. I could reproduce this photo in an hour (given the original photo reference that was used to begin with) tops, and do it in such a way that it's even more convincing. The obvious 'tell' in this shot is the horizontal plane.
The photo was taken at such an angle as to place the 'horizon' just below the horizontal center of the shot, thus matching the incredibly static straight side shot of the object. My guess would be that the objects 'framework' was created in a drawing program like Illustrator, and then imported into Photoshop, color modeled, then placed into the outdoor pic. If the object had had photos taken at a variety of angles it would change the angle of the ship. This could not happen since the ship, most likely, only existed in a 2-D drawing program, there is no 'bottom' or 'top' or 'back' to show. A real obvious feature are the two 'leaves' that protrude between the object and the photographer, supposedly to add 'depth'-these are obviously cut and pasted.
And finally, as a previous writer stated, the 'wound' on the side of the alien's head is NOT consistent with a blunt trauma. I have no expertise in the field, but even I can see that the wound should be much larger, far less 'neat' and the exposed matter should be pushed in, or at most squished out at the edges and pushed in at the center. The wound looks to me more like it is some entrails or meat matter being pushed from the inside of the head outward, not to mention that the head's shape looks suspiciously similar to an enflated balloon, which would be ideal for paper mache'-ing over to produce a head-like contour.
As far as Art goes, I think that Art likes to play his subjects/guests in such a way that he can appeal to everyone. When the info is new, he trumps it up and plays it up for the hardcore/wanna belivers out there. Then, when they turn out to be complete lies/fakes he says it's all just for fun. I don't blame Art, he's just trying to produce interesting radio, and succeeding. It is up to the individual listener to decide for themselves what is real and what is not.
I actually believe in ETs, and I feel the best take on this 'evidence' can be found at the zetatalk website when they say that no matter what photos are taken there will ALWAYS be room for doubt so that there's that 'escape hatch' for those who are not emotionally ready to accept the truth. It is my opinion that mankind, as a whole, is nowhere NEAR ready to tackle the more important issues concerning it's origins and it's true place in the universe, and it saddens me that this is so. We may find that we run out of time before we achieve our necessary growth.
Matt Ridgway
Abacus Software
Graphic Artist
By Gary Val Tenuta
Recently, on the Art Bell show, Art's guests were one Dr. Jonathan Reed and his partner, Robert Raith. Dr. Reed told an amazing tale of his encounter with an alien being two years ago in the forests of Washington state. Since many of you are already familiar with the story, I won't go into the details here. For those of you who are not familiar with the story, there is a transcript of the interview on Art's web site (
Reed and Raith sent photos of the alien and of what they call the "obelisk" to Art Bell. These photos are very clear, very sharp, and are posted on Art's web site. Also sent to Art was a video tape of a portion of the incident which includes audio of the alleged "scream" of the alien. This paper deals with my personal analysis of the case in regard to the photos and the "alien scream".
I'm a professional graphics artist/illustrator with 15 years experience in the field including portrait and caricature art plus a modicum of experience in 3-D modeling. I have a keen eye for detail as relates to this sort of thing. Last night I rented the movie FIRE IN THE SKY, the fictionalized version of the Travis Walton abduction case. My friend and colleague, Todd Jumper (co- founder of EagleNet) had suggested the Reed alien was a prop from that movie. So I made freeze frame comparisons of the aliens in the movie with the photos from Dr. Reed. Here is my analysis based on those comparisons:
1 The Reed Alien, while not precisely the same as the FIRE IN THE SKY alien,
is extremely similar in head and facial contours.
2 The eye shape and construction is nearly identical.
3 The mouth shape and construction is nearly identical.
4 The color of the skin is comparable as is the skin texture.
5 Perhaps the most telling feature, because of its relative uniqueness, is the
prominent vein structure on the neck of the aliens. Again, this is nearly
identical in both cases.
6 Dr. Reed's recording of the "alien scream" is, from what I could tell,
identical to the scream of the alien in the movie. In the movie the scream is
cut short but there is little question, in my mind, they are the from the same
source. I would guess Dr. Reed may have had access to the longer sound clip
from which a portion was used in the movie FIRE IN THE SKY. It may even be
from the sound files used in the remake of BODY SNATCHERS. Perhaps this is a
"stock" sound file available to movie studios similar to "clip art" available
for graphics work.
Based on this evidence, I have to conclude the reasonable assumption would be that Dr. Reed has borrowed or purchased props and sound files from the movie studio which produced FIRE IN THE SKY. It is quite likely there were several versions of the aliens constructed for the movie, some of which were not used. These "rejects" may in fact be what Dr. Reed has acquired. There are businesses which specialize in the sale of used movie props. The Hollywood Gallery is one such outlet ( If Dr. Reed is using props which did not actually appear in the movie, this might be a way to get around the issue of copyright infringement, allowing him to publish these photos in his up coming book.
Regarding the so-called "obelisk" (a poor choice of words to describe this object), if it is a hoax, I don't know how it was done. Nevertheless, since it is an element which has no correlative or corresponding counterpart in any other UFO case files that I'm aware of, it would seem logical to assume this may also be a movie prop. While I cannot explain how it might be suspended in the air, I imagine it would not take a genius to figure out a way to do it. For all I know the object is extremely light and may simply be suspended by a transparent high-test fishing line. The trees and foliage would provide plenty of background to obfuscate the line. I believe Dr. Reed suggested the object had the feel of granite. This verbal suggestion, in combination with the visual "appearance" of the object, would have the subliminal effect of "fooling" the viewer into thinking the object is much heavier than it might actually be.
As to the identity of Dr. Reed, I have yet to hear anyone question when and from where he received his doctorate. To my knowledge, we have no verification that this person is, in fact, who and what he claims to be. If this story is a hoax, it would be logical to assume he is using the pretense of being a doctor as window dressing to help boost the credibility of this incredible tale.
With all the physical evidence involved in this story -- the alien body, the emergency blanket it was wrapped in, the freezer it was stored in, the mutilated dog, the stick with which the alien was struck on the head, the so- called obelisk, and who knows what else -- conveniently, all of this is gone. Apparently, not a single shred of physical evidence is left for hands-on analysis. Yes, there are the photos but, while I'm convinced they are real untouched photos of real objects, I think the FIRE IN THE SKY correlations make the objects in those photos highly suspect.
I love this story. I really do. It's one of the best I've heard in a long time. Nobody wants a case like this to be factual more than I do. Those in the UFO community who know me, know I'm not a debunker. But in this case, at this point, I'm just not buying it. Are you?
Hoaxed Alien and Confused Late Night Radio Host
By Royce J. Myers III
I have attempted to contact the San Diego UFO Society regarding the hoaxed alien encounter story heard on the Art Bell show. I have yet to receive a response of any kind. The hoaxers, Dr.Jonathan Reed and Robert Raith, told listeners of the Art Bell show if they wanted any further information regarding the event that SDUFOS should be contacted. I will continue to attempt to contact either Reed and/or Raith regarding this matter. If you have any information concerning this matter, I would appreciate you contacting me. Of course Art goes on to use materials from the bogus alien encounter on his website.
Has anyone else noticed Art Bell's apparent confusion as to where he stands on the subject matter he brings to his listeners? After listening to Art last night (with guest Joe Nickell) it is obvious that Art will only say what he has to say to serve the moment.
First, regarding the Reed and Raith Alien Hoax, Art stated on his show that there was no way that the photos could be faked. Not once during the broadcast did Art put any kind of disclaimer on the story, many of Art's statements in fact endorsed the tale as being genuine. Yet when Art was on the air with CSICOPer Joe Nickell, Art changed his tune and stated, "I go out of my way to tell my audience what they hear may be pure b.s.." Art also stated, "I don't warranty it to be real." During the original broadcast of the Hale-Fraud soap opera on his show, Art NEVER made an attempt to tell his audience that the content was not verified in any way. Art has done this on MANY occasions.
Art goes on to say that he has no responsibility in the content that is presented on his show. He says he's an entertainer, yet his promos say otherwise, "Our search for the truth never ends..." - Art Bell radio promo. Art needs to send a straight and clear message out. Which is it Art, are you an entertainer, a journalist, a truth seeker (don't laugh too hard)? His probable repsonse..."Um, uh, all the above! Yes, that's it!!!" Or Art would use his catch-all phrase for anyone who criticizes him, "When you get your own show, then you can do whatever you want!" Joe Nickell (though I GREATLY disagreement with this person, specifically concerning crop formations and the work of the BLT Research Team) was GREAT last night. Nickell was both professional and courteous, even when callers to the show tried to attack him or were rude in interupting him. Nickell was as cool as an ice cube and presented his side of things very, very well. Art's performance left much, much more to be desired. Art walked on egg-shells, occasionally stomping a foot only in an attempt to keep his balance when he slipped. Art bailed out of a Roswell debate with Nickell. Art's obvious lack of knowledge regarding the incident was his undoing. When you go to a pistol duel always remember to bring ammunition.
Art tried at every possible opportunity to corner or get into a debate with Nickell, but he failed miserably in representing any aspect of the paranormal or UFOlogy. One attempt in particular that was laughable at best on the part of Art was when he asked Nickell about the picture of a grey at the CSICOP website. Art's tone of total suspicion indicating that there was some underlining or sinister reason for the picture was a joke! Art really was making an ass out of himself when Joe Nickell said, "Science is imperfect." To which Art replied with a resounding and victorious, "AH-HA!" I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard.
When things starting going downhill for Art he either laughed it off, joked it off, quickly changed the subject, criticized radio host Jim Bohanan (spelling?), gave extra time to callers defending the show and/or Art, or attempted to give some weak argument in favor of UFOS or the paranormal. Art tried to sound like the Snuffed Candle Award given to him by CSICOP was no big deal, but Art went on to defend himself and his show as much as he could. Nickell came to the show with a shovel while Art lied down in a hole and provided the dirt to fill it with. I find it embarassing that the public may be under the assumption that Art Bell is the voice of UFOlogy.
--Royce J. Myers III Eugene, Oregon
Raith And Reed Alien Hoax
By Royce J. Myers III
his whole affair involving this alleged dead alien and everything that goes along with it is nothing more than a laughable and blatant hoax. I have an educational and occupational background in law enforcement and forensics. I have been employed as a laboratory assistant within a police department crime lab. I have attended autopsies, seen hundreds of photos of violent crimes, have been to crime scenes, and have done work in digital imaging.
The photos of the alleged alien do not show any type of wound that is consistent with blunt trauma as described by the person involved in the alleged incident. In one of the photos you can see a material that looks similar to insulation or cotton stuffing coming out of the alien's head, not even close to brain tissue or muscular tissue. Note the "neat" look to the wound, its very round and obviously not consistent with any type of wound that would be caused with a blunt object such as a stick or baseball-bat. In a case involving blunt trauma to the head you would expect to see a more tatered/torn look to the tissue surrounding the wound. Judging from the photos, it appears that the bogus alien would have a skull or some type of skeletal system. If that would be the case then you would see some evidence of the skull caving in. Of course, there is nothing visible in the photos to support any of that. As for the eyes, what the eyes do in cases of blunt trauma will judge from victim to victim. Again, this is an alien so no one can say with any certainty what the eyes would do :)
The blood pattern on the head is revealing as it is not consistent with the type of assualt described by the witness. There is no "teardrop" shaped blood spatter pattern showing the direction of the assault, the type of object used, or the velocity of the assault. I also question why there is nothing (i.e. pine needles, dirt, leaves, et al) clinging to the blood of the wound since the incident did take place in the forest. The alien is pretty clean for just having had its brain bashed in. The blood is probably from the Halloween section at a costume shop or a retail store such as Wal Mart. Assualts involving blunt objects are VERY messy. In this case you would expect to see a large amount of blood spattering due to the amount of blood that is circulated throughout the cranial area in addition to the force employed. Of course, I am not an expert in alien anatomy, this is an assumption. I also question what the material is that the alleged alien is laying on. Is it foil, the backing of insulation? It gives a nice sci-fi type of effect. Additionally, I find it convenient that we only get head shots of the alien.
The photo of the UFO looks very suspicious to me as the edges of the object are jagged and the pixels do not seem to be a part of the photo at all. There are endless possibilities here, my guess is that the image has been digitally manipulated...probably Adobe Photoshop, you can do anything with this program. Of course Art Bell advertises the photo as showing "no visible means of support." This evident observation on the part of Art (Mr.Sensationalist) means absolutely nothing. I've seen David Copperfield leviatate with no visible means of support, does that mean he really is leviatating...I think not.
It also appears that the object has a shadowing effect on the underside, yet it casts no shadow nor does the foliage in the background. Where is the light source that is causing the shadowing effect on the object coming from? Another point to remember in looking at UFO photos is that the great majority of hoaxes seem to have the UFO at the center of the frame and the lighting perfect. This is true for this photo as well, it is too perfect. Did the witness in this incident have enough time to set up a tri-pod for his camera while he killed the alien? The photos are very nice and centered for someone who has just gone through such a tramatic experience. It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. You can expect to see fashion models in the center of a photo, I just tend to believe that UFOs do not pose for photographers (ala Billie Meier). The object also appears to have a reflective quality to it, but you do not see anything resembling a tree or other foliage in the reflection of the object. This again suggests that the object was not in the original photo.
Judging from the photo it appears that the camera used was set to infinity as the background and foreground are in focus, with the exception of a portion of the bottom of the photo which appears to be out of focus. I served as a Forest Protection Officer with the U.S. Forest Service and have spent a great amount of time out in the wilderness. My point in this is that the ferns in the background of the photo can not be more than 2 feet tall is the alleged alien? This fact provides a reference for the size of the object in the photo. Quite a small vessel for an alien, wouldn't you agree? (I later discovered that the "witness" claimed that this object was not the craft the alien travelled in, this is after Art Bell mentioned that several people pointed out the size of the craft to him.)
What also makes this whole incident suspicious, aside from the obvious fraud visible in the photos, is the fact that the victim now has a copyright on it. I can guess that we will not be waiting long for a book and a video to be available, all at a modest profit of course. Last but by no means least, being on the Art Bell show doesn't help your credibility in any way and autonatically makes the whole incident suspect.
My observations are based solely on the photos from various websites. I have not seen the video, but I would love to have a copy so I can tear this obvious fraud apart some more. No wonder the majority of people in this country don't take UFOlogy serioulsy with the amount of hoaxers and con artists out there. We can do nothing but wade on through the endless sludge of sensationalists, profiteers, charlatans, and so on, in the quest for evidence and truth.
Royce J. Myers III
Eugene, Oregon
Lewis Baker
I have a comment regarding the stories on your site regarding Dr. Reeds story. We know that when a story such as this makes it to the mainstream media it is labeled as a hoax before any investigation is done. We should expect more from your show. In this case we have negatives that can be examined. We also have video tape to test. I don't know what the agenda of those who have already labled this a hoax without examining this evidence is. They are not credible and have no place on your site. Sincerely, Lewis Baker