As many of you already know, previously I wrote a bit about an article I read which was written by Matthew Graeber, and I was fairly harsh in my assessment. After writing it, I received an e-mail from Mr. Graeber, and over the last few weeks we've exchanged many more. While I still stand by what I wrote before, I do think that Matthew is a sincere, honest man, who probably shares many of the same beliefs as I do. At the very least, I'm sure the perpetration of any hoax is something that neither of us would stand for.

So, while we may disagree on some things, I extended him an offer to write anything he wanted, no editing or censorship, and I would post it here. I'd like to think that we could do it again, as well, should he ever have something that he'd like published here. I would also like to say that I did attempt to contact BUFO on two separate occasions to get a rebuttal from them, and so far have not gotten a response. Should they wish to respond, I'd be more than happy to hear their side of the story as well.

With that in mind, here is what Matthew wrote this time:


After a rather rocky start, rooted in misunderstanding and suspicions over my assumed UFOlogical intentions, Dustin Clark has graciously invited me to write a guest article for his unique paranormal blog. I've given a bit of thought to this invitation and finally settled on the idea that since my background is primarily linked to the investigation and evaluation of UFO reports - there is little I might contribute to a scholarly discussion on topics like Spirit Apparitions, BigFoot encounters and sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, etc.

Moreover, although I am acquainted with Mythological subjects and mythology's tremendous influence upon mankind, I shall make no effort towards participating in the OddThings discussion of Dustin's most recent article concerning Mythology and the Hopi Prophesies.

However, I did pen several entries for the Carbondale UFO Crash Chronicles which have appeared at UFO UpDates over the course of the last year or so. The most interesting thing about these journal entries are that they are all rebuttals to the claims of a small group of UFOlogists/Paranormalists, who ardently desire to turn the 1974 UFO hoax into a viable UFO crash cover up story and tourist attraction similar to that of Roswell and Aztec, New Mexico.

In entry No.9, the "behind-the-scenes" activities of these self-appointed UFO experts are exposed through their own words and deeds - serving as a note of caution for those who might carelessly wander into the world of BUFORIA without their eyes being wide open!

Of course, I'm hoping that Mr.Clark will also invite the BUFOonians to respond to this essay with their own version of what happened at the ol' Carbondale silt pond back in 1974. I already know, because I was there. But, that counts for nothing because the BUFOonans suspect me of being in on the saucer crash cover up!

So, with these thoughts and considerations in mind, I offer the following, and wish to thank Mr. Clark for the opportunity to do so.

Those wishing to learn more about BUFO and the Carbondale UFO crash cover up are invited to visit the UFO UpDates Archives, simply go to carbondale, pa. ufo crash and scroll along to your heart's content.




Entry No.9
The Carbondale UFO Crash Chronicles

“Will the real Mark Stamey please come to the surface.”

For those of you who have been following this journal, you may recall that in entry no.7 (August 1, 2006 - UFO UpDates ), I discussed “how” the BUFO team of UFOOLogists were planning to contact the volunteer scuba diver ( Mark Stamey),who recovered the railroad lantern from the Russell park pond in 1974 and “arrange” for him to be interviewed by a NBC TV affiliate (WYOU) newswoman from Scranton, Pa.

Naturally, the BUFOONians had also hoped that the diver’s comments would support and endorse their claims concerning the finding of the lantern in the pond was merely a cover up or, “smoke screen” as Mary Sutherland likes to call it - which was intended to shift the focus of the inquiry away from the downed two-seater UFO that had crashed into and settled to the bottom of the silt pond. ( i.e., Yet another, uncovering of a dastardly UFO Conspiracy!)

Leading the way, and calling the shots on this “Way to handle the diver’s interview”, was Ron Hannivig, who contacted Rick Fisher of Paranomal, PA who had already interviewed the diver. Ron contacted Fisher via “CONFIDENTIAL” e-mail that excluded Mary Sutherland from the plan (that is, until such time as Ron felt her efforts would be useful.) Mr. Fisher was kind enough to share Ron’s “enlightening” missives with me, and I placed some of that information in the text of Chronicles entry no.7

Ron’s plans also included the utilization of a young female reporter who was somewhat sympathetic to the UFO crash scenario that Ron and Frank Scassellati had filled her head with over a period of time.

Perhaps Mary Sutherland’s inputs regarding the so-called cover up added to the mysterious story - and the reporter possibly believed that a news report the alleged “Historical Event” or, “Big One!” as Ron likes to call it, would be helpful to Carbondale’s declining economy and possibly spark a lucrative tourist industry in the Lackawanna County community. Besides that, it may have seemed like an interesting local story too. (i.e. considered as good news filler to the young TV newsperson.)

Sadly, the newswoman was fired (Ron suggests because of her airing a brief Carbondale UFO story while her boss was away on vacation.) Fisher says, the young woman was dismissed for other reasons…so, the mystery dismissal continues.

Anyway, Ron attempted to persuade Fisher that his interview with the diver should be considered as “a preliminary, fact finding interview” which would be greatly enhanced by the professional TV taping and airing that Ron was planning. Actually, Hannivig knew that Fisher had beaten him to the punch so-to-speak, by first interviewing the diver (Mark Stamey) - and Ron Hannivig wanted to cash in on the interview he felt had gotten away from him because of Mary Sutherland’s failure to pursue the matter in a timely fashion as previously suggested by Ron.

Hannivig apparently felt strongly that the diver’s testimony would more or less “clinch” the incident as being a conspiracy - and even suspected the diver of being in on the cover up. His suspicions were shared and echoed by Mary Sutherland who actually suspected that the diver was summoned to the pond by me in order to perform his part in the assumed conspiracy. The plot thickens….

Mary had claimed in earlier commentary, that I was a very shoddy and inexperienced UFO field investigator who often gotten the names of key eyewitnesses wrong. As an example, she mentioned that the diver, Mark Stamey, was actually named Mark Stanley - and ridiculed me for not knowing his proper name. Naturally, Mary failed to think her claim through, and continued with the charge that I had summoned the diver to the pond from New York - presumably, without even knowing his proper name.

Mary seems to have trouble deciding if I am the head of the conspiracy or just a non-professional, out-of-the-loop UFO investigator. But, then again, Mary is quite confused on a number of points about the 1974 incident.

Moreover, Stamey the diver, has recently come forward to tell of his experience at the pond on that long-ago November day – and Mary now knows his name really is Stamey (not Stanley) - which caused her to automatically shift gears and suggest that it was I who misnamed him Stanley in the first place - presumably, in order to muddy the waters of the BUFO Carbondale investigation.

Mary even goes so far as to quote from my (Magonia Supplement No.55 published) essay/report on the incident - and suggests that because the upper crust leadership of NICAP, APRO, MUFON and CUFOS failed to respond after receiving my original report on the case - that the “Professional” UFOlogists obviously hold me (and my 1974 report) in ill-regard. Actually, Mary doesn’t realize that there is no such thing as a “Professional” UFOlogist. As there is no certification in UFOlogy as a science, proto-science or art.

No ph.D’s, No MBA’s, BA’s or any sort of certification. Moreover, what Mary and her so-called investigator’s do is not UFO researching, it’s “UFO entertainment” and the promotion of that entertainment. What Mary doesn’t grasp is that the “leadership” of the major UFO group’s wouldn’t respond to a finding of a UFO hoax, simply because their dues-paying, card-carrying membership would have no particular interest in reading about another UFO hoax in their exclusive group journals. ( It would be considered a complete waste of perfectly good print space.)

Moreover, since Dr. Hynek himself had already deemed the event a probable hoax, and closed the investigation of the matter to get on to far more promising cases. Why should the major UFO group leaders waste their time on the matter and contact my fledgling Philadelphia-based UFO group?

Back to August 2006 and Mary’s whimsical URL featuring Mark Stamey in an 11/2 hour BUFO Radio interview in which Stamey (according to Mary), ‘fesses up” on his actual role in the incident, as well as witnessing the acting police chief (Det.Sgt.Francis X. Dottle), toss a trainmen’s lantern into the pond as a “smoke screen” to draw attention away from the downed sport-model UFO that was really beneath the surface.

Not too very long ago Mary was saying that what was in the pond sooo scared the diver, he vowed never to go in that pond again! He also said (according to Mary), he would take the secret of what he observed in the water to his grave. Of course, (according to Mary), so did Sgt. Dottle make a similar vow.

First of all, according to Rick Fisher, (who is not a BUFO member and never has been despite Mary’s claims), he personally interviewed Stamey several months ago and spoke to him on July30 th. this year - the diver said nothing about a cover up to Fisher during their lengthy telephone conversation.
So too, Stamey had told press reporters at the pond in 1974, there was nothing else in the pond other than the lantern. A comment which he repeated to the acting police chief and several UFO experts who gathered as onlookers to his second dive in the murky pond on the late afternoon of November 11,1974.

The problem with Mary’s BUFO Radio “exclusive?” interview with Mark Stamey is that he never knew he was being taped, and was shocked to see how Mary Sutherland had “misrepresented” his story in her URL which is not only grossly distorted , inaccurate and false…much of it appears to have been created by Mary herself. Log on to “http://www.burlingtonnews.net/carbondale.html”

However, the BUFO radio show is quite difficult, if not impossible to download so, you’ll have to take Mary’s word concerning the authenticity, accuracy and veracity of the inappropriate 11/2 hour interview she conducted without Stamey’s knowledge.

Stamey advised Mr. Fisher that he only told Mary exactly what he had said to him months earlier. This included, NO FESSING UP about anything, NO WITNESSING THE POLICE CHIEF TOSSING THE LANTERN IN THE POND, NO OBSERVATION OF A UFO RESTING ON THE POND’S FLOOR OR, VOWING TO TAKE THE SHOCKING SECRET OF WHAT HE HAD OBSERVED TO HIS GRAVE.

In an e-mail I received from Mr. Fisher on August 3,2006 concerning Stamey’s alleged letter to BUFO’s Frank Scassellati, Fisher wrote:
“There is no letter from Stamey to Frank, that’s what confused Stamey, he called and told Mary he never contacted Frank and doesn’t know who he is. Stamey saw that (Letter on Mary’s URL), and asked me who Frank was”…( Hmmm, good question?)

Apparently, Stamey had happened to type his own name in the search engine of his P.C. and “lo and behold”, Mary’s URL appeared on the very first scroll page.

Mary also posted that Stamey said I was a “liar” when I mentioned that he had asked me to write a note to his New York State parole officer back in 1974, explaining his presence (as a volunteer), at the Russell Park pond. Stamey didn’t say that either, according to Rick Fisher who received a call from Stamey after he saw Mary’s
outrageous claims about him.

Surely, Stamey who is now is a professional journalist had never been exposed to such BUFOONian behavior and unbridled yellow journalism. Of course, Stamey is not the first “unsuspecting” individual to wander into BUFOria, where what you actually say is “magically transformed” into what Mary wants you to say.

Young witness, Dawn Race, Frank Scassellati ( Mary’s own investigator), and others have also had their statements transformed by Mary. So, while Mary apparently likes to do the favorable “editing” and “Re-writes” of witness testimony – her second investigator, Ron Hannivig prefers taking a more subtle and stealthy approach - Ron merely attempts to control how much the witnesses might say and to whom they might say it.

In one of Ron’s “numerically listed” suggestions (or rules) on how Stamey’s taped TV interview should be handled he wrote, “9TH. The diver must behave as Travis Walton and his crew had - just to stick to their original story – keep it extremely simple and straight forward, and never allow himself to be maneuvered into a position where he finds himself talking to someone in control of the microphone….moreover, taping an interview for later editing and airing.”

Ron also suggests the diver grant just “one” interview to the TV reporter. (Ron makes this suggestion several times in his 10 point missive.)

As you can see Ron seems to favor a form of “controlled censorship” of the witnesses and appears to have a curiously paranoid mistrust of the press – These and many other “Suggestions” were outlined in his “CONFIDENTIAL” message to Rick Fisher and Frank Scassellati – leaving poor Mary Sutherland out-of-the-loop in regard to this highly sensitive, secretive, instructive and critical matter.

However, on January 20th 2006, Ron e-mailed Mary in regard to her asking him about the status of first and second divers, ( i.e.,Where were they living, were they still alive?) Ron Hannvig replied “There is only one diver you need contact – Rick Fisher had already done so, with awesome results if you do not want to contact Fisher directly,…contact Stan Gordon, or Stan(ton) Friedman in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada - I’m sure they can act as a mediator.”

This is the second time the two Stans have been mentioned in this sorted matter…or, UFO soap opera. ( Take your pick.)

So, what does Mark Stamey have to say about all of this? I contacted Mr. Fisher and asked him to get in touch with Stamey. I didn’t want to do that myself for fear of being accused of leading the witness or, attempting to control him like Ron and Mary does. Of course, Mary will continue to say Fisher and I are in working together in this despicable UFO crash cover up. But, the truth is that it was Mary’s delusional claims against us that actually brought Fisher and I together through e-mails. I never heard of Rick Fisher until a year or so ago, and we’ve never met face-to-face.

Unfortunately, my suggestion to Mr. Fisher concerning Mark Stamey possibly making a brief comment for this chronicles entry did not pan out. Stamey recently went into the hospital and Fisher is working on a book about the Carbondale incident, so he may not wish to divulge what Stamey may have told him in great detail. I respect that confidence and will make no comment concerning my disappointment with this turn of events.

However, there may be some folks who feel that Fisher has broken a sacred (UFOlogical and journalistic), taboo by sharing Ron’s “CONFIDENTIAL” missive with me. But, I ask, which is the greater sin/evil, breaching a confidence with a BUFOONian or, allowing a half-baked conspiracy within one’s midst to be carried out? Obviously, I’ve answered that question by sharing this journal entry with you.

Rick Fisher probably didn’t expect me to write about Ron’s letter when he passed it along to me. He just thought I’d get a chuckle out of it. But, I really do not think it’s very comical, and I was never included in anyone’s confidence on the matter.

Fisher’s book is intended to explore “WHY” some UFO enthusiasts think/believe a UFO crashed at Carbondale, while other suspect that an errant soviet missile had plummeted into the pond. ( BUFO’s been promoting both stories.) He was contacting me because I had deemed the incident a hoax back in 1974 - and he wanted to know “WHY” I had come to that conclusion.

Naturally, since Fisher had already been investigating the matter a couple of years before Mary and her sleuths started looking into the incident ( As an “assumed” BUFO possession), there was a little tension and mistrust of Fisher who was a paranormal researcher and internet promoter somewhat like Mary - What’s worse, Fisher even intended to open a “mysteries museum”, perhaps with the Carbondale mystery as a center piece for his fledgling business enterprise.

Fisher adamantly denies that doing so was ever his intention, but the BUDOONians may have had their suspicions about his plans. (?)

For the information on Stamey that Rick Fisher has shared with me, I wish to thank him and give him full-credit for his assistance and kindness. Without Mr.Fisher’s help this entry would never have been written. Without Mary Sutherland’s recent idiotic and misleading URL, it would not have been necessary to write.

Ron Hannivg, said in an e-mail to a UFO colleague on January 11, 2006. “…The testimony of the diver - Mary is now searching for, is extremely vital to the Carbondale matter, and being privy to what he had already discussed I can say with absolute certainty that his testimony will surely clinch this case – beyond any doubt, whatsoever.”

Ron continues, “ My problem here: I have been caught in-between two paranormal investigators, who for some reason are at odds with each other – and I don’t want either of them “ Jumping-the- gun”…intimidating or wearing down the key witness in this Carbondale case. When the time is right - witnesses will be coming out of the woodwork.”…

Ron is coyly referring to Mary Sutherland and Rick Fisher’s falling out over false claims she posted about him. Ron knows that but, it may be that Fisher had also shared some of his Stamey information with the BUFOONians before he became a pariah in Mary’s “Living in the light” eyes. (?) In any case, No witnesses have apparently been coming out of the woodwork at Carbondale as Ron predicted in this January missive to “Jjjjjj Mmmm”- whom ever that may be?

So, while it is quite difficult to establish exactly where the boundaries of fact and fiction may be on this convoluted and woeful tale - one thing seems to have a ring of “authenticity” to it. Ironically, this bit of light peeking out of the shadows of BUFO comes from Ron Hannivig, Mary’s field investigator and self-proclaimed (Albeit unaccredited), investigative journalist-at-large.

In an e-mail reply to Mary, dated January 20, 2006 Ron wrote “What Rick had shared with me – regarding his interview with the diver was confidential – and I cannot get past that confidence.

Ron continues,” I can tell you he (The diver) was evidentially alive when Fisher interviewed him – but very sick. I can also tell you that Fisher believed his entire side of the story, and Rick bought into it…, that would be good enough for me, as I as I fully trust his judgment and ability as a serious researcher.”

Interestingly, in an e-mail to Fisher, also dated January 20, 2006 (The same day), Ron Hannivig seems to be less informed on Fisher’s interview with the diver. Rom wrote “ I am indeed well aware that you have valuable information and….DID DOCUMENT THE INTERVIEW WITH THE DIVER, A TAPED INTERVIEW, assuming it was documented on audio tape…and yes, I still intend to protect your exclusive rights to this key…quite possibly ( Italics mine), - decisive testimony – and it should also be obvious that I want to protect your Source the best that I can.”

Ron continues; “This is why I had ignored Mary’s request – and went straight to ----- who had done an excellent and professional job in reporting the Carbondale matter and got her report past the political Commissar at CBS’s network affiliate here, in N.E. PA (WYOU). She likely had lost her job for doing so.”

Occasionally, people make what are commonly referred to as ”Freudian slips” which expose their true feelings and thoughts about any given situation, relationship or the individual’s fears or desires. Mary Sutherland is a chronically “Slip-prone” when it comes to this sort of thing, and she more-or-less falls into her own traps which she has foolishly attempted to set for others.

A recent example of this can be found in the letter that Stamey (the diver), allegedly sent to Frank Scaaaellati who, in turn, passed it on to Mary, and she quickly posted in her latest URL (at the bottom of the first page). The letter concerns Stamey’s “clarifying” a few points before beginning his technically detailed and uniquely concise recollections of the incident that happened 32 years earlier.

There is a serious flaw in the opening paragraph which informs you that the diver could not have penned (all of this letter), although it is attributed to him by Mary. Let’s take a quick look at the paragraph.
“There were a few minor points I would like to clarify. I was not told to put the lantern back. I was told by chief Dottle, “The people are not buying the story, We have to send you back in the water and this time when you see the object, not the lantern, leave it there. Don’t touch it.”

Stamey “allegedly” continues, “That told me that the lantern was supposed to be found and whatever came in from the sky was still in it and I should ignore it when I actually found it.” (Doesn’t read like a professional journalist wrote this strung-together sentence does it?)

Besides “tagging all the bases” that would tend to support Mary’s “fishy” conspiratorial pond tales. There is the striking “strangeness” of Stamey doing so within the very first paragraph of his alleged letter - and mentioning that he should “ignore” the object in pond “not the lantern”, when it’s a matter of public record and fully-documented by the global press that the lantern had been removed from the pond on the “first” dive. Additionally, Stamey says,”I was not told to put the lantern back.” (i.e., In the water.)

Moreover, chief Dottle had advised Stamey not to touch the object in the pond, and just take a quick “look-see” at what it was before Sramey went into the water on the first dive - so, it would not be at all unusual for Dottle to remind him of that “ precaution” just before the second dive.

Chief Dottle and everyone present during the first dive knew that some sort of object was in the pond before Stamey went into the water. But, Dottle had absolutely no way of knowing or, reason to suspect that another object might have been there…in fact, he had absolutely no compelling reason to suspect that another object even existed.
He apparently permitted the second dive to “appeas” the discontented and very vocal UFO experts/enthusiasts who had gathered at the scene after the lantern had been recovered.. So, why would Dottl, (A professional police detective for many years, with court room testimony experience), have made such a “foolish and assumptive” comment? The answer is, he wouldn’t have but, Mary would and often does!

Mary has made a fatal timeline and fact flaw, that should immediately excuse anyone from reading her URL fantasy any further - Simply because Stamey apparently did not pen the entire letter, and couldn’t possibly have be aware ( or privy to) all the intricate details contained in it, since Stamey is said to have been completely ignorant of all of this Carbondale conspiracy nonsense. Or as, Ron Hannivig suggests, Isolated from it in New York State all these many years

Ron Hannivig actually puts it this way,“…His (Stamey’s) isolation… per se,….from Carbondale, PA since thee event, etc. adds the utmost credence to his account.” ( WHAT DRIVEL, that is of course, “IF” Stamey (The professional journalist), hadn’t computer access, lived in a cave and never read about BUFO’s on-going investigation into the so-called Carbondale cover up.

So, if the lantern was removed from the pond on the first dive, why would the police chief tell Stamey not to touch the object “not the lantern”, when the lantern was no longer in the pond at all. It just doesn’t make any sense at all, EXCEPT to Mary Sutherland and her pair of woefully defective saucer sleuths.

There is another problem with Mary’s alleged Stamey letter ( Still in the first paragraph). Unknown to Mary, Ron and Frank, Stamey was fitted with an inflatable vest as he went into the pond on the first dive, He was also tethered with ropes that would help the recovery team in the boat pull him aboard if he got in to any trouble while in the water.

The reason for the inflatable vest was to keep him from touching the bottom of the pond for fear of possible electrocution and/or radiation if the “Unknown” object should suddenly reactivate and become illuminated again. (The previously reported strange light beneath the pond had gone dark about 21 hours earlier.)

In Mary’s amusing URL, Stamey is reported to have said he was warned to be cautious if the object should suddenly start to “Vibrate” or emit any “Fluids”. Neither vibrations or fluids were ever a consideration, or mentioned during the 1974 event. A check of press stories will confirm that Stamey and the police chief never mentioned such nonsense, neither did the three primary UFO investigators at the scene.

There was also no decontamination chamber available to the authorities at the scene ( As Mary claims), and Stamey was going to be sprayed with water from fire hoses “IF” he were exposed to any radioactive mud, silt or vegetion while in the pond. That never happened as frequently monitored radiation levels never exceeded normal background ranges.

In another of Mary’s recent URL fibs, it is mentioned that I told Stamey that the (UFOs) are usually basketball shaped, and this one had beams of light radiating from it. That alleged conversation never took place. At the time of the incident, I spoke very briefly with Stamey at the pond, and only had one alleged eyewitness report concerning what the strange object in the sky supposedly looked like.

That was the interview report of William Lloyd - age16, one of the three teenage boys who perpetrated the hoax. William said, THE OBJECT WAS LENS-SHAPED, WITH A RED DOT IN THE MIDDLE AND SPARKS SHOOTING OUT IT’’S REAR SECTION. ( a tracing of his original sketch appears in the 32 page investigative UFORIC report of December 1974.)

About a month and a half after the incident had occurred, the written report forms filed by the Lloyd brothers, William and John (who were with Bobby Gillette at the time of the alleged sighting), arrived in the mail and their UFO sketches now depicted an ill-defined oval object which was about the size of a nickel (5 cent piece) held at arm’s length. Not lens-shaped, no red dot in the middle and no fire or sparks trailing the object.

29 years later on a BUFO site, I discovered that the Lloyd brothers were now saying that the object was about the size of a “basketball” held at arm’s length - perhaps this is where Mary’s version of what I supposedly said to the diver before he went in to the pond came from? But, then again, it’ very difficult to know exactly where most things come from with Mary Sutherland and her pair of saucer investigators.

BTW, Bobby Gillette confessed to Scranton-Times Tribune reporters that he and his companions ( The Lloyd brothers), had thrown the lantern into the pond on the 25th. anniversary of the hoax. He also confessed that he made up the entire story about seeing an object in the sky when he got scared as police were converging on the pond. He said he had fears of being sent to Boy’s Town or reform school. (source: Scranton Times-Tribune, Scranton, Pa. November 7,1999)

Naturally, Ron Hannivig ( The self-proclaimed investigative journalist), wrote a long-winded and convoluted “Rebuttal” to Gillette’s confession - while also explaining that the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing of 1995, was actually a “building collapse” caused by shoddy construction - and that the home-grown terrorist, Timothy McVeigh was just one of the government’s scapegoats for the deadly disaster.

Anyway, Stamey ignored the police chief’s warning not to touch whatever he observed (during the first dive),while supposedly taking a quick “look-see” at what was lying on the pond’s floor - instead, Stamey grabbed the railroad lantern and immediately brought it to the surface, WITHOUT first informing chief Dottle, the men in the recovery boat or the UFO investigators what he had found.

So, yes, Dottle did advise Stamey not to touch what he discovered in the pond simply because when he first went into the water no one knew exactly what was there. (With the exception of the three tight-lipped teens who had tossed the lantern in the water.)

The UFO field investigators and the police were concerned that perhaps “Space Junk” had splashed down into the pond, and the “Space Nuclear Auxiliary Power” or, so-called “Snap unit” had survived re-entry. (That’s why radiological monitors (Geiger counters), were in use throughout the recovery operations at Dr.Hynek’s suggestion.)

When Stamey performed his second underwater search. I had already left the area and was headed home. But, I seriously doubt that the recovery boat team were still present, as they had been on the scene for quite some time and were very tired - as were most of the other volunteers who were involved in the 44 hour-long fiasco’s resolution. So, it is possible that Stamey went into the water without the recovery team being present but, with chief Dottle and the small group of late-to-the-scene ( UFO experts and Esoteric Arts) onlookers standing by..(?)

It’s amazing, neither the press or, Jerome Gillott the Carbondale recovery team photographer took any photos of this second dive. Neither did the UFO experts who had traveled many miles to Carbondale in “anticipation” of being present at an historical UFO event. Considering the camera-consciousness of UFO enthusiasts it seems strange that no photographic documentation exists of the second dive at all.

Well, this has been a very long and convoluted journal entry and I sincerely apologize to those of you who have endured reading it. However, BUFO produces sooo much convoluted material on the Carbondale hoax that it takes an equally convoluted response to wade through some of the many pond stories they come up with. In fact, Mary has stated that it is her “job” to present as much “material” as it takes to persuade others to believe as she does concerning the Carbondale UFO crash cover up. (a saucer crash conspiracy that never happened.)

To date, Mary and her small band of marymen have produced numerous versions of what happened at the pond in 1974 - and I’m certain the list will continue grow as she continues to force-fits pieces of her conspiracy puzzle together - even if it takes more creative witness testimony re-writes to do so.

Mary does not tend to deal in empirical observations, documented fact or physical evidence. She and her investigators were apparently not present during the incident, and none of them were the primary UFO field investigators who actually observed and participated in what was going on at the time. Yet, they manage to have ALL the answers and All the questions about the incident - and if Mary doesn’t have what she needs from her investigators, she simply consults ( Her BUFO sponsored) internet psychics on the crash cover up.

Mary Sutherland and her woeful pair of saucer sleuths are 32 year after-the-fact wannabes who haven’t a clue about the factual Carbondale UFO incident. They are conspiracy peddlers, self-promoters, character assassins and self-appointed experts. They represent everything that’s wrong with contemporary UFOLogy - and are in fact, perfect examples of why the real scientific community wisely distances itself from the fringy saucer throng.

At Carbondale, the police department worked shoulder-to-shoulder with many civic-minded volunteers and Dr.Hynek’s field investigator (Douglas K.Dains), in an attempt to reach a safe, ”evidence-saving” resolution to the incident. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a hoax- but, it might just as well have been a genuine historical UFO event. Most everyone at the scene was very disappointed with the out come - but, that’s no excuse to allow three absurd BUFOOLogits to re-write history to further inflate their egos and promote their self-assumed expertise in what is truly a delusional fantasy of their own making.

The Carbondale UFO crash story is an authentic piece of Lackawanna County’s history and folklore; and it is the City of Carbondale and its citizens who deserve any financial rewards from its promotion. There is nothing wrong with an exchange of ideas and beliefs concerning the story. It’s just that the City of Carbondale should sponsor the UFO conventions and promote their own annual festival of the “The day the earth stood still” at Carbondale. After all, their tax dollars paid for the 44 hour ordeal. (I’m almost certain Mary Sutherland would agree with me on that point!?)

In fact, Mary and her defective detectives would be marvelous speakers and workshop attractions at such an event. Ya see, it’s okay to be bullish - and, it is even okay to be a bear in the growing internet UFO entertainment industry. But, one shouldn’t be a pig about sole sponsorship of the event.

One also shouldn’t attempt to destroy the reputation and character of people with whom one doesn’t agree over what may or may not have happened at Carbondale back in 1974. Everybody seems to like a mystery, everybody likes some science fiction, and everybody seems to like UFOs. Did ya know that UFO sites are second only to porn sites in popularity on the net. So, lighten up will ya Mary, Mr.Dottle, Mr. Fisher and I aren’t really the boogie men you make us out to be.

Who knows, perhaps the municipal sponsors of the UFO conferences at Carbondale will ask all of us to speak at their annual festival - and we can all have the opportunity to sit down for a cup of coffee at McDonnell’s restaurant after our lively debate on the pond incident… (My treat!) Or, would that just be wishful thinking on my part?

I’ve already written the town council and mayor of Carbondale with this suggestion. So, if Mary should suddenly hear from them, she’ll know what it’s about. Wouldn’t it be grand if Pennsylvania became the second state in the union to have “ two saucer crash site” tourist and annual festival attractions like New Mexico! Imagine and east coast Roswell and Aztec. Wouldn’t that be a marvelously lucrative enterprise….hmmm, Mary has already said she wants people to think Roswell/Carbondale.

Anyway, as clearly demonstrated herein, BUFO is soooo full of it (convolution), that is, that it’s virtually impossible to respond to each and every error-filled charge, claim, suspicion and assumption they might come up with. Even if I were to do so, they’d just come up with more conspiracy-laden nonsense. They are not only unreachable through logic, common sense and reasoning, they are agenda-driven, and appear to be obsessed with the 1974 non-UFO incident at Carbondale.

Matt Graeber is solely responsible for the contents this Chronicles entry. He also challenges the BUFOONians to a face-to-face debate on the Carbondale incident at any time, and at any place. (Providing the debate is “admission-free” to the public or, Carbondale community sponsored, taped and aired for all to see in Lackawanna County.) Perhaps Ron Hannivig can help arrange that too?

Final thoughts:
It might be interesting to have the press cover and host the debate so Mary can receive all the free publicity she seems to crave. Ron won’t like them controlling the microphones but then again, Ron, ya can’t have it all your way.

I hereby, forgive and release Mary Sutherland from her promise to post ( at a BUFO site), my “entire” report/essay on the Carbondale hoax (as she agreed to do in April of 2004.) At the time, I thought her reader’s might like to review a “fair and balanced” article on the incident… (she failed to provide them with one) - but, did post an edited “wee bit” of the story elsewhere - shortly after it appeared on the dreaded net - Published as a “Special Issue” by the UK’s “Magonia Supplemet” on March 15th.2005

Matt Graeber - August 5th, 2006