 |
| Valentich and his aircraft |
A famous "unexplained" UFO case (or more precisely, a case where the solution is probable, but not clearly proven) is the 1978 disappearance of Fredrick Valentich, a 20 year old pilot in Australia. On October 21 1978 he was piloting a Cessna 182L light aircraft over Bass Strait in Australia. He intended to land at King Island and return to Moorabbin Airport.
However, he never made it to King Island, 127 miles away. The final exchanges between Valentich (DSJ) and air traffic control are as follows: (from Wikipedia)
19:06:14 DSJ [Valentich]: Melbourne, this is Delta Sierra Juliet. Is there any known traffic below five thousand?
FS [Flight Services; Robey]: Delta Sierra Juliet, no known traffic.
DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet, I am, seems to be a large aircraft below five thousand.
19:06:44 FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, What type of aircraft is it?
DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet, I cannot affirm, it is four bright, and it seems to me like landing lights.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet.
19:07:31 DSJ: Melbourne, this is Delta Sierra Juliet, the aircraft has just passed over me at least a thousand feet above.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, and it is a large aircraft, confirmed?
DSJ: Er-unknown, due to the speed it's travelling, is there any air force aircraft in the vicinity?
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, no known aircraft in the vicinity.
19:08:18 DSJ: Melbourne, it's approaching now from due east towards me.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet.
19:08:41 DSJ: (open microphone for two seconds.)
19:08:48 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet, it seems to me that he's playing some sort of game, he's flying over me two, three times at speeds I could not identify.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, what is your actual level?
DSJ: My level is four and a half thousand, four five zero zero.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet and you confirm you cannot identify the aircraft?
DSJ: Affirmative.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, stand by.
19:09:27 DSJ: Melbourne, Delta Sierra Juliet, it's not an aircraft it is (open microphone for two seconds).
19:09:42 FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, can you describe the - er - aircraft?
DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet, as it's flying past it's a long shape (open microphone for three seconds) cannot identify more than it has such speed (open microphone for three seconds). It's before me right now Melbourne.
19:10 FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, roger and how large would the - er - object be?
19:10:19 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet, Melbourne, it seems like it's chasing me.[21] What I'm doing right now is orbiting and the thing is just orbiting on top of me also. It's got a green light and sort of metallic like, it's all shiny on the outside.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet
19:10:46 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet (open microphone for three seconds) It's just vanished.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet.
19:11:00 DSJ: Melbourne, would you know what kind of aircraft I've got? Is it a military aircraft?
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, Confirm the - er ~ aircraft just vanished.
DSJ: Say again.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, is the aircraft still with you?
DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet; it's (open microphone for two seconds) now approaching from the south-west.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet
19:11:50 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet, the engine is rough-idling. I've got it set at twenty three twenty-four and the thing is (coughing).
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet, roger, what are your intentions?
DSJ: My intentions are - ah - to go to King Island - ah - Melbourne. That strange aircraft is hovering on top of me again (open microphone for two seconds). It is hovering and (open microphone for one second) it's not an aircraft.
FS: Delta Sierra Juliet.
19:12:28 DSJ: Delta Sierra Juliet. Melbourne (open microphone for seventeen seconds).
It was Valentich's first and only night flight over water. And neither Valentich nor his aircraft was ever seen, or heard from, again.
 |
| An artist's conception of Valentich pursued by a UFO |
"Adelaide researcher Keith Basterfield has been following the case since the disappearance in 1978, but had been told by the Government in 2004 the official file had been lost or destroyed. He "found" it when searching through an online National Archives index on an unrelated topic. The file has since been digitised and uploaded on the archive's website."
So we have skeptic Keith Basterfield to thank for the recent government "document dump" that gets this new information 'out there.' Basterfield explains that the newly-released files reveal that "parts of aircraft wreckage with partial serial numbers were found in Bass Strait five years after the disappearance." Also, one pilot searching at the right time and place saw debris that appeared to be from a Cessna, but before he could get a good fix on its position it apparently sank. This makes it extremely likely that Valentich's aircraft simply crashed into the water in the darkness, although it falls short of conclusive proof.
Those interested in reading the 315-page official file still need to go out of their way to find it, however, via a seven-step process outlined by Mr Basterfield, which he perhaps charitably denies is another attempt to hide information. He says: 1. Go to National Archives of Australia. 2. Click on search the collection 3. Click on Begin your search 4. Up comes RecordSearch 5. In the keywords box type VH-DSJ 6. Up comes this file 7. Click on the View digital copy icon. (Miles Kemp, Adelaide Now, Fri, 06 Jul 2012)If that is too complicated, and you really don't want to read all 315 pages in this maddeningly slow way, there is a nice summary of these findings in Basterfield's Blog entries of June 28, July 3, and August 24, 2012. You can also download the first set of documents from scribd. From the documents:
A number of reports of a fast moving brilliant white light were received from various parts of the country. Mt Stromlo observatory advised that the night of the 21st was the peak of the meteorite stream with 10-15 sightings per hour achieved.The question of why Valentich took this somewhat risky night flight is a separate matter. According to Wikipedia,
His stated intention was to fly to King Island in Bass Strait via Cape Otway, to pick up passengers, and return to Moorabbin. However, he had told his family, girlfriend and acquaintances that he intended to pick up crayfish. During the accident investigations it was learned there were no passengers waiting to be picked up at King Island, he had not ordered crayfish and could not have done so because crayfish were not available anyway.So clearly Valentich was being evasive about something. The late Philip J. Klass suggested that Valentich may have been involved in drug smuggling, a suggestion which has infuriated some people and for which there is no proof. However Valentich's stated explanations for making this night flight make do not check out. Some have also suggested that it was Valentich's intention to commit suicide.
Also, it turns out that Valentich was a UFO True Believer, and hence probably inclined to assume anything as a "UFO" that he could not immediately identify. He actually worried about what to do if a UFO attacked him!
 |
| from the recently-released Australian documents |
In any case, we can be quite sure of what happened to Valentich, even if we cannot say why he made that fatal flight.
Good article. I always hear this sited as a "proven" UFO abduction. But if plane parts were found...it now is a crash. I may be aliens crashed his plane, but they did not abduct it.
ReplyDelete|| may be aliens crashed his plane ||
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone would first demonstrate an alien presence on Earth before supposing the least likely scenario to explain a common small plane crash.
Here is a highly-relevant article from the Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine:
ReplyDelete"Military Aviation
The Disorient Express
Despite the best training and technology, why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?
By Tom LeCompte
Air & Space magazine, September 2008
On June 26, 2007, while on a training exercise off the Oregon coast, Major Gregory D. Young of the Air National Guard flew his F-15A fighter into the Pacific Ocean. The $32 million aircraft was destroyed and the pilot killed. There was no distress call, no attempt to eject, and no apparent aircraft malfunction. Young, 34, had 2,300 hours of flight time, more than 750 hours of it in F-15s.
As investigators sifted through the wreckage—what little was left—colleagues, family, and friends were left to wonder: What caused Young to guide his airplane right into the ocean at more than 600 mph? The answer, revealed in an investigative report two months later, was both profoundly unsettling and all too familiar. Young, in the prosaic terminology of the report, “experienced unrecognized (Type 1) spatial disorientation (SD), which caused him to misperceive his attitude, altitude, and airspeed. As a result, [he] was clearly unaware of his position and impacted the water.”
In other words: Young never knew what hit him.
Despite training, experience, and technology, all based on knowledge of how flight affects human physiology, Young had no idea that he was racing downward.
Once called pilot vertigo or aviator’s vertigo, spatial disorientation is a persistent killer. Federal Aviation Administration statistics show that the condition is at least partly responsible for about 15 percent of general aviation accidents, most of which occur in clouds or at night, and 90 percent of which are fatal. According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds."
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The_Disorient_Express.html
Assuming that Valentich became disoriented and thought that Venus, or perhaps a meteor, was flying above him and chasing him, his average life expectancy at that point was about three minutes. Technically, Valentich may have been trained for instrument flying, but this was his first night flight over water, where typically there are no lights on the ground allowing the pilot to self-orient. But even experienced pilots sometimes succumb to spatial disorientation. This is exactly what happened to the plane piloted by JFK Jr in 1999.
Also see this article, and the pilot training PSA, "178 Seconds to Live": http://www.aspiringpilots.com/the-aspiring-pilot/2010/10/178-seconds-to-live-.html
Okay, wait: Valentich said he was "orbiting"? Unless this means something else from what I'm interpreting, which is "circling," he was almost certainly toast at that point. He's on his first night flight over open water with no lights to be seen (look at his destination on Google Earth - there's not even a decent city on King Island.) No reference point to pin a wingtip on, and he's busy watching something above him. That's the recipe for a descending spiral. Note that the engine was running rough 40-some seconds before loss of transmission - if he was descending and not realizing it, his mixture may have been set for higher altitude and could have been getting fuel-starved when he got down below 1,000 feet. His altimeter reading was 4,500 at 3 minutes 40 seconds before transmission ceased, which if we assume this was impact at sea level would make a descent rate of 1,200 feet per minute average (likely on an increasing rate, however,) certainly not hard to accomplish when not watching the instruments.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I suppose I now have to download the whole shebang and see if he was even rated for instrument flight...
Al, Valentich indeed said he was "orbiting," and so was the object! I'm with you: he was already in his "descending spiral," and apparently didn't realize it. There's no mention of him looking at his instruments, he's fixated on his "UFO!" A pilot accustomed to flying only using Visual Flight Rules, upon encountering a situation where there are no visual clues (in clouds, or in darkness over water) almost invariably goes into a death spin, with the average time to the crash being 178 seconds!!! According to Wikipedia, Valentich had a Class Four Instrument Rating. This does not sound terribly impressive. Also he had never flown over water alone at night before. From the time that Valentich first reported the UFO - when he presumably became disoriented - until his last transmission was 6 minutes and 14 seconds (374 seconds), well within the range of pilot crash times measured using a flight simulator.
DeleteI used the on-line planetarium program at http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yoursky to try to reconstruct the sky at the time. (I would have used my own RTGUI, but it doesn't go back before 1980!) Assuming that I did enter all of the correct parameters (for the exact location I used that of an 'oil slick' later reported), the sun was almost 11 degrees below the horizon when he took off. So the sky was already getting dark. Venus was shining at magnitude -4 (really, really bright) in the southwest, elevation 22 degrees. Around the time he got in trouble, the sky was almost completely dark, and Venus had sunk to 11.5 deg elevation in the southwest. Apparently he thought Venus was "above" him, so he obviously had no idea of where "up" or "down" was. So at that point, he has "178 seconds to live."
We also read in Wikipedia "He had twice applied to enlist in the Royal Australian Air Force but was rejected because of inadequate educational qualifications. He was a member of the Air Training Corps, determined to have a career in aviation. His student pilot licence was issued 24 February 1977 and his private pilot licence the following September. Valentich was studying part-time to become a commercial pilot but had a poor achievement record, having twice failed all five commercial licence examination subjects, and as recent as the previous month had failed three more commercial licence subjects. He had been involved in flying incidents, straying into a controlled zone in Sydney (for which he received a warning) and twice deliberately flying into cloud (for which prosecution was being considered)." I wouldn't want to ride in an aircraft with a pilot like him!
Greetings,
ReplyDeleteRelaying your excellent (again!) blog entry, blog I'm a follower from France, about the "Valentich" case in our french UFO-Sceptic forum ( http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t3482-le-cas-frederick-valentich-21-octobre-1978#61774 ), I found several pictures of CESSNA 183 Skylane.
I noticed that in several picture, the "cockpit glass roof" are green tinted/colored. For example, in this following picture:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessna-182...-Skylane/1258019/L/&sid=c1f2e18187a110110d04f7bd94463e0f
Do you think it could explain why Valentich was speaking about a green light (if Venus was his UFO)? Or? Do we know if his Cessna have green tinted "glass roof"? Or?
Thank you again for your blog!
Best Regards,
Gilles Fernandez
Gilles,
DeleteThank you for this interesting information. I was asking myself the same question about a possible 'green tint.' If you remember, during the Mansfield, Ohio helicopter 'UFO encounter,' of 1973 the object was reported to have 'beamed a green light' into the helicopter (http://www.ufoscience.org/case731018.html). It turns out that the upper window of the helicopter was indeed tinted green, which explains how the object could appear bright green.
I do not know if Valentich's aircraft had a green tint at the top of its window. Perhaps that information is available somewhere. I see that even many automobiles have custom-tinted windows, usually with blue at the top.
A strange thought occurred to me as I was reading some of the Valentich documents (page 4 of the version at http://www.scribd.com/doc/99038229/, paragraph labeled 22). "The pilot's father believed that a UFO had taken his son and would re[turn] him later." (There is 'white out' covering the end of the word beginning with "re"; I have added what seems to be the correct ending.) THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT TRAVIS WALTON'S BROTHER TOLD INVESTIGATORS WHILE TRAVIS WAS 'MISSING'! Now we know that none of the reasons that Valentich gave for making this trip are correct (to pick up friends, or crayfish). Is it possible that the father and son jointly planned a Travis Walton-style incident where Fredrick would land somewhere and 'go missing' for a while, to return with a tale of abduction by aliens? This idea just occurred to me yesterday. I'm not saying this is definitely the reason Valentich made that trip, but in the absence of any other plausible justification for this risky over-water in darkness flight, the possibility that they planned a hoax ought to be considered.
I think that's stretching things a bit. I'd like more detail on what exactly 'picking up crayfish' entails; I think it's reasonable to suggest that he simply didn't know his trip would be in vain, or forgot that he hadn't ordered any.
DeleteHis father, in the above document, seemed dismissive of the idea that UFOs were a danger to pilots. How much of a 'believer' Dad is is questionable. Of course he's going to cling to hope that his son is still alive, and if he follows the public perception that UFOs are a 'real' phenomenon, and having access to the transcript of his son's final conversation, of course he's going to be influenced and encouraged to believe Frederick was taken alive by a flying saucer.
Thank you for your reply, Mister Sheaffer.
ReplyDeleteFor the anecdote, I have too the Mansfield case and the top glass window of the helico possible explanation proposed of the "green light beamed" detail in this "famous" UFO case in my mind when I decided to scheck if some Cessna 182 Skylane have green tinted windows. Hihi, it seems we have the same "readings" ^^
Interresting idea and strange occurency between Travis Walton case and what the Frederick's father told realy...
Regards,
Gilles
Carb icing and disorientation...Keep in mind that carb ice can occur at any ambient temp...I flew in Nam with the carb heat on all the time...(OH-23G Helicopter)
ReplyDeleteDale
Though the SD angle seems reasonable generally, experience demands caution in assigning factuality to the words of a twenty-year-old known believer and prevaricator made in an excited, stressful, confused situation--especially the ambiguous or incorrect use of the word "orbiting." The "UFO" was "orbiting" and the plane was "orbiting?" In our analyses of "UFO" reports, witnesses perceptions are known to be unreliable and often completely imaginary. In the Black Box model, an ambiguous visual stimulus is transformed into a tacit "UFO report." Stimulus event and perception, reflection, confabulation, narrative creation, formal reporting.
ReplyDeleteSo what is just a flashing light in the distance to a rational one becomes a "UFO" or even an ET spacecraft to the fantasy prone. That the mere failure to identify became an event worthy of reporting is the very core of the mass media-manufactured and perpetuated collective delusion.
Once a completely predisposed believer begins to think he's seeing a "UFO," all the culturally supplied motifs and behaviors typically attributed to the illusion by "UFO" mythology begin to mold his perceptions and inform his description of the "UFO." It's under intelligent control, it's aware and observing the witness, it's buzzing a car or aircraft ("circling"), it's threatening, and often ends up behind and in pursuit of the witness as is common in dreams and folktales. And relatively stationary planets and stars change colors, grow brighter or move about, and (often green) meteors change direction or others appearing elsewhere are misidentified as the same "UFO," and the blackness between lights becomes an imaginary rocketship, saucer or triangle.
But the fact that Valentich was a known believer and lied about the reasons for his flight (and the fact that he disappeared) lend the element of a hoax or hoax gone wrong in this story; so I'll venture (since we're speculating) that Valentich was attempting to create an Arnold-style hoax. Also, this "UFO talk" laden story--without a shred of evidence--has the self-referencing aspect of repeater Terauchi's small group scare over Alaska, in which the believer is so steeped in "UFO" mythology that he refers to an earlier fatal crash by "UFO" in his report of his hysteria! Another of the fantastic "UFO" cases which not only lacks ET, but a real "UFO" of any kind.
"Though the SD angle seems reasonable generally, experience demands caution in assigning factuality to the words of a twenty-year-old known believer and prevaricator made in an excited, stressful, confused situation--especially the ambiguous or incorrect use of the word "orbiting." The "UFO" was "orbiting" and the plane was "orbiting?" In our analyses of "UFO" reports, witnesses perceptions are known to be unreliable and often completely imaginary. In the Black Box model, an ambiguous visual stimulus is transformed into a tacit "UFO report." Stimulus event and perception, reflection, confabulation, narrative creation, formal reporting."
DeleteSure, there are misperceptions of events based on beliefs and/or vantage points and so on, but I ask you - why attack the witnesses? What good does that do you? As for the veracity of reports, you need to familiarise yourself with the scientific data on credible sightings.
"So what is just a flashing light in the distance to a rational one becomes a "UFO" or even an ET spacecraft to the fantasy prone. That the mere failure to identify became an event worthy of reporting is the very core of the mass media-manufactured and perpetuated collective delusion."
The cynical armchair critics tried to pass off the Rendlesham Forest incident as a misidentification of a nearby lighthouse. Too bad proper investigation has revealed that this was impossible given the topography of the area and the credibility of the witnesses involved.
"Once a completely predisposed believer begins to think he's seeing a "UFO," all the culturally supplied motifs and behaviors typically attributed to the illusion by "UFO" mythology begin to mold his perceptions and inform his description of the "UFO." It's under intelligent control, it's aware and observing the witness, it's buzzing a car or aircraft ("circling"), it's threatening, and often ends up behind and in pursuit of the witness as is common in dreams and folktales. And relatively stationary planets and stars change colors, grow brighter or move about, and (often green) meteors change direction or others appearing elsewhere are misidentified as the same "UFO," and the blackness between lights becomes an imaginary rocketship, saucer or triangle."
I don't think you can confidently predict the role of cultural influences on UFO witnesses but we are all socialised by culture memes of one kind or another as human beings - that means we are all dupes to some degree. So let's not put too much emphasis on cultural influences - probably not that helpful in analysis.
It has been shown that multiple witness triangle sightings in Belgium circa 1990 and in the Mid West United States in the mid years of the last decade are highly credible - the objects sighted were not flares, balloons in the wind or conventional aircraft.
"But the fact that Valentich was a known believer and lied about the reasons for his flight (and the fact that he disappeared) lend the element of a hoax or hoax gone wrong in this story; so I'll venture (since we're speculating) that Valentich was attempting to create an Arnold-style hoax. Also, this "UFO talk" laden story--without a shred of evidence--has the self-referencing aspect of repeater Terauchi's small group scare over Alaska, in which the believer is so steeped in "UFO" mythology that he refers to an earlier fatal crash by "UFO" in his report of his hysteria! Another of the fantastic "UFO" cases which not only lacks ET, but a real "UFO" of any kind."
Can I recommend you read the excellent essay by Stanton Friedman, a rational investigator into the UFO phenomenon:
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2009/05/pseudo-science-of-anti-ufology.html
- Kadium
@Kadium
Delete> Sure, there are misperceptions of events based on beliefs and/or vantage points and so on, but I ask you - why attack the witnesses?
In the absence of corroboration: "There is nothing to examine in an eyewitness account except the background of the witness, to see if he or she has a habit of telling tall tales, has trouble distinguishing between real objects and the imagined, and if he or she is a solid citizen not given to flights of fantasy."
A denier didn't write that, it was believer Kevin Randle in his book Scientific Ufology, p. 17.
> Can I recommend you read the excellent essay by Stanton Friedman, a rational investigator into the UFO phenomenon:
Please don't. As many investigators have pointed out publicly, Friedman lets his beliefs get in the way of properly interpreting facts (Truzzi, Moseley, Sheaffer, Shough, Randle, for starters). In their book Science and the UFOs, believers Jenny Randles and Peter Warrington have a chapter titled "The Failure of Ufologists." They speak in generalities about these failures, avoiding naming names, except for one: Stanton Friedman (p 71).
I cannot assess the entirety of Friedman's essay but I am very familiar with the Hill case. I can tell you that everything he says about it in the essay is wrong.
For instance, Friedman says, "The object was seen in front of the moon (strange behavior for Jupiter) all without hypnosis." Not true. In Mr. Webb's 1961 pre-hypnosis report, there is no statement about the object passing in front of the moon. The first time we hear about it doing so is in a 1964 hypnosis session, as told in Mr. Webb's 1965 report and in Interrupted Journey. In fact, Fuller tells us in his introduction: "One final note: Most of the dialogue taking place between the Hills during the incident is taken directly from the recordings of the hypnosis sessions..." The Hills don't speak to each other on the ship, so Fuller is referring to their conversation on the highway, something for which they never reported amnesia! Even so, Fuller patches their conscious recall with content from the hypnosis sessions. Therefore, all accounts of the object passing in front of the moon are derived from the hypnosis sessions -- the opposite of what Mr. Friedman tells us in the essay.
So I must conclude 1) Friedman is either disastrously wrong or 2) he's counting on his audience not having access to the original reports (which I do have) so he believes they won't check for themselves. That's pretty bad considering he has been reporting on the case for over 40 years and co-wrote a book about it.
Just looking at the Hill case, Friedman proves to be a completely unreliable source of information and analysis. (And don't get me started about the Fish map!)
Kadium said:
ReplyDelete"Sure, there are misperceptions of events based on beliefs and/or vantage points and so on, but I ask you - why attack the witnesses? What good does that do you? As for the veracity of reports, you need to familiarise yourself with the scientific data on credible sightings."
Nobody is attacking witnesses, any more than UFO believers are attacking skeptics (I'll leave you to puzzle that one out for yourself.) But as you said immediately before it, there are misperceptions. And then, there are also delusions and hoaxes. Proper investigation doesn't rule any of these out arbitrarily, especially by appealing to emotional arguments, but instead rules them out only if they're demonstrably impossible.
You also have a wicked tendency to throw around the word "credible," without realizing that the only way to determine if a sighting is credible is if it correctly identifies a known object. Everything else, without exception, is inferred.
Ever notice how few court cases are decided solely on how "credible" someone is? Ever wonder why? Maybe you'd like to take a gander at how many people exonerated by The Innocence Project had been wrongly convicted by "credible" testimony.
"I don't think you can confidently predict the role of cultural influences on UFO witnesses but we are all socialised by culture memes of one kind or another as human beings - that means we are all dupes to some degree. So let's not put too much emphasis on cultural influences - probably not that helpful in analysis."
What you just said was, "We can all be influenced by culture, so let's not consider culture." Does that makes sense to you? If it does, kindly explain how to me.
And then you can explain why Rendlesham, a scattered collection of conflicting (& changing) testimony, conflated accounts, and nonexistent evidence, remains the holy grail to UFO proponents. Don't you find it curious that *all* of the claims in favor of something suspicious are accepted wholesale, while *all* of the holes and *all* of the evidence showing it to be crap are dismissed?
It's good to get more information on this case, although IMO there was already plenty of information available to determine this was a case of pilot error resulting in a crash, and the only reason that a UFO was involved was the pilot's personal beliefs in flying saucers.
ReplyDeleteHopefully someday there will be more information about the 'other' modern pilot-vs-UFO case, the Felix Moncla encounter, and that can be put to bed as well.
Toward the end of part V of the "lost Betty Hill Interview," Betty tells how she and a friend were in Australia at this time. They went to the area where Valentich disappeared, and asked the UFOs to bring him back. The UFOs came in to listen to her plea, but they did not bring the poor guy back.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QIc9ao10qM&feature=relmfu