Monday, May 4, 2020

BAASS wanted to analyse physical evidence

By Marc Cecotti and Keith Basterfield


During our previous research into the activities of Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) in South America, we kept hearing accounts of their interest, amongst other things, in physical evidence.


We first looked into one aspect of the BAASS interest, namely the commercial agreement between BAASS and MUFON, specifically that BAASS was engaging MUFON to:

"c...purchase from seller field investigation services and all information and material derived from those services, including but not limited to: Physical evidence...and other material including effects on humans, foliage, trees, soil..."

The MUFON Strike Team for Area Research (STAR) screened all the raw, incoming sighting reports entering the MUFON Case Management System (CMS) database, for cases defined by MUFON as category 2 or 3, for the STAR Impact Project (SIP) to investigate.

An internal MUFON document advised the persons screening these reports, that they were specifically interested in two categories of reports, namely:

Catgory 2, which equates to the Vallee classification system types AN2, FB2, and MA2, CE1. Here, MUFON field investigators were to "...gather physical evidence and send to designated labs for testing."


Category 3, which equates to the Vallee classification system types AN3, AN4, AN5, FB3, FB4, FB5, MA3, MA4 and MA5. Here, MUFON field investigators were to "Gather...physical evidence and send it to designated labs for testing."

So, in summary, in specified cases, physical evidence was to be collected and sent off to designated labs for testing. Nowhere does it state where, or who, the labs were.


How many such STAR physical evidence case were there, where this procedure was followed, and samples sent off to labs? One of the pieces of work undertaken by Keith Basterfield, was to go through the relevant issues of the MUFON Journals, and create an Excel spreadsheet which listed 71 cases designated as STAR reports under the BAASS agreement. Only two such cases mentioned the collection of samples. These cases were:

1. MUFON CMS case number 17780 from Fort Wayne, Indiana. The August 2009 MUFON Journal gave the following information. At 0430 hours on 28 June 2009 a woman reported seeing multiple white orbs and one large red orb in trees around her house. These lights approached her. Small amounts of an unknown liquid fell from the orbs and collected on the glass of her front door. Samples of this unknown liquid were taken by the MUFON investigator next day.

2. MUFON CMS case number 18601 from Mavlverne, New York, dated 8 August 2009. The bedroom of the witness lit up as if by a high powered spotlight. There was no noise. Every leaf on a tree was found to have been "burnt to a crisp." "Waiting lab analysis."


What were the results of the lab analyses in these two case? In short, MUFON did not receive the reasults of any case lab analyses. A reminder here, is that, to be fair to BAASS,  the BAASS/MUFON contract did not state that any feedback would be given back to MUFON.

Phyllis Budinger

One of the cases listed on the Excel spreadsheet was MUFON CMS case number 17125 from Buffalo, Oklahoma, dated 18 May 2009. Scant details in the MUFON Journal only speak of a close encounter with blue/white lights.

It was therefore a surprise to us, when looking through The Black Vault collection of technical analysis reports undertaken by analytical chemist Phyllis Budinger, to find a very detailed report on the Buffalo case.

Technical Service Response Report number UT068 dated 20 January 2010, written by Phyllis Budinger, Frontier Analysis Ltd., revealed that the analysis of soil and grass samples was requested by C J Modlin, MUFON Chief of Investigations; Vicki LeBlanc MUFON, and David MacDonald, Field Investigator MUFON.

Why the samples were sent by MUFON to Frontier Analysis Ltd., independent to both MUFON and BAASS, remains to be ascertained. However, the technical report is a very useful guide to just what analysis, this type of sighting was being subjected to.

What was reported?

At 0030 hours on 18 May 2009, a witness described seeing an object with blue, red and white strobe lights, moving very low near Buffalo. Within 10-15 seconds, the lights seemed to be near a dirt road in front of the witness and slowed down there. The female witness got into a pick-up truck and drove it; and  at this point she felt that the lights were only 150 feet away, and stationary. She believed the lights were on a single object. After a short time driving, she looked back but couldn't see the lights anymore.

At the location where the the lights had been seen, was "...a large portion of grass laid down" which the witness photographed. The MUFON field investigator was on scene on 29 May 2009, when more photographs and measurements were taken. An area of apparent dead grass had three areas where the grass seemed to have been crushed in a swirled pattern. There was no evidence of radiation. Next day, the investigator took some samples of the affected grass and soil, and control samples.

The Budinger report includes photographs of the samples she received on 23 October 2009. A spectrometer was used to obtain infrared spectra. The results were as follows:

Soil - tests by Budinger

* "Infrared analyses detects no difference that can be considered significant between the site soil and control soil."

* "The test shows the magnetic materials at the site soil amount to 14mg/g in the site soil and 11mg/g in the control soil, this analysts feels the values are within statistical error of the test."

* "A test for radiactivity showed none above background."

* "There was also no u/v florescing material."

Grass - tests by Dr. Charles Leitzau

* "No visual abnormalities."

* "Infrared examination of the site grass sample detect no unusual anomalies."

End comment

It would be interesting to know, if there were indeed other case physical evidence analyses among the 71 listed STAR events. A look through the MUFON CMS, by typing in the case number, and reading the long description which the witness provided, failed to find other such cases. However, we do not have access to the full, edited versions of the case files, which mean we cannot be sure, that other such cases were not missed by us. Naturally, it would also be of great value to have access to copies of the full set of 71 STAR SIP final edited case files; copies of the BAASS analyses, and any further investigations undertaken by BAASS.


  1. Dr. Julio Fernándo GuglielloMay 5, 2020 at 3:31 AM

    BAASS not only wanted to "analyze physical evidence", they also wanted to: 1- collect non-direct evidence of the existence of cross-border technology (photos, videos). 2- Know if someone somewhere outside the US had developed human technology based on non-human technology. 3- Know if that technology was in corporate or government hands. 4- Know if someone had cross-border developments, without having accessed non-human technology. 5- Evaluate the degree of knowledge of local people. 6- Discern if that degree of knowledge was a competence for BAASS. Among other things. But they made several mistakes: A- They contracted with MUFON, in MUFON they are only ufologists with good press. B- They went to other ufologists in South America, who are also only ufologists with good press. None of these have financial resources or research technology. C- They were greedy, people in South America are not dummies. D- They sent the wrong professionals to investigate. E- They went to the wrong groups. E- They were poorly advised from the US intelligence areas. F- Bigelow did not allow himself to understand that in South America he could have had partners, not just information providers. However, Bigelow was only a stage, then he followed his work, the same work, the TTSA using Luis Elizondo for their CVs, but they had the same mistakes, although the biggest mistake was going to South America playing international spy. Visible faces will continue to change, but ultimately this is a US government task. The Russians and the Chinese are in the same, with the same mistakes. Don't you know that all this happened in Australia too?

    1. I think you are correct in saying that South American ufologists are just that, but I think you are wrong in saying the same for MUFON.
      Why do you say that?.
      I respectfully ask, I have had a MUFON membership since 2003 and in 17 years I have never heard an evaluation like yours.
      But I am open minded and would really like an explanation, simple and easy to understand.
      Thanks, and thanks Marc and Keith.

    2. Hi Robert, if you would like to contact me at I will try and address your question.

    3. Sebastián Moreno - Buenos Aires - ArgentinaMay 6, 2020 at 6:23 PM

      To Dr. Gugliello: in the same way as Mr. Robert, as an admirer of a powerful Argentine ufological group, based in the city of Victoria, Entre Ríos, called "Visión Ovni / CEFORA / Museo del Ovni", headed by Mrs. Andrea Simondini, who Mention in these news, I want you to explain to me why you refer with that quality to ufologists in South America.

  2. Dr. Julio Fernándo GuglielloMay 6, 2020 at 2:34 PM

    Excuse me Robert, I did not want to offend you, I respect MUFON and what they do.
    But, I have been doing field, laboratory and documentary research for 40 years, and look, the numbers do not close me.
    A field job costs at least $ 1,000 to $ 1,500, without going too far from home.
    Between 2003 and 2018 MUFON declared income for: 4.9 million? in 16 years, suppose MUFON members contributed 10% more out of their pocket, rounded: 5.4 million ?.
    That is equal to 925 dollars a day.
    Or let's do the calculation by number of cases, today they have a total of 108606, let's say that in 16 years they had: 34064 ?.
    That equals $ 159 per case.
    1 gallon of fuel costs about $ 3, a flashlight costs $ 30, a chemical physical laboratory exam costs $ 315, for example.
    And there are still services, electricity, gas, telephone, celphone, equipment, internet, etc. etc. etc., and the payment of $ 36 an hour to the MUFON CEO.
    I ask: how much does each STAR team field campaign cost?
    There I found a question, because the money raised does not allow investigating all cases: does someone else pay for that ?, or: how do they do research ?.

  3. Dr. Julio Fernándo GuglielloMay 6, 2020 at 10:00 PM

    Response to Mr. Sebastián Moreno.
    Dear Sebastian, the "power" of a group, DEFINITELY, is not measured by the number of interviews its leader gives daily.
    The true power is found in the RESPECT that this group has towards people who are not part of it, it is found in ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH, it is found in the HONESTY of its members when they have to tell their leader "you were wrong" and the power lies, ESPECIALLY, in the case of global ufology, in the STRICT AND INFLEXIBLE CUSTODY of the CONFIDENTIALITY of the witnesses to UFO sightings.
    When I was young, many, many years ago, I wanted to be a powerful Eagle, but I had no wings and no claws, I could NEVER be.


A National Science Foundation initiative - a UAP workshop

 Introduction Details have emerged of a workshop titled " Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP): A Dialogue on Science, Public Engagem...