|An independent Ground Zero investigation into the Jonathan Reed alien case.
By Clyde Lewis
The following investigation is a compilation of Ground Zero articles and stories surrounding the reported case of Jonathan Reed and Robert Raith. A lot of the information in this compendium was previously released in 1998 when Ground Zero first interviewed several other investigators and their opinions of the Jonathan Reed story.
While the majority of critical thinking UFO investigators and enthusiasts dismissed the story when it first landed on Coast To Coast AM with Art Bell, this has not dissuaded Bell or the UFO Congress from embracing and allowing this disingenuous story to continue.
Ground Zero releases this investigative report upon the heels of a complete and exhaustive investigation led by Royce J. Meyers III of UFO watchdog. We encourage you to read his report and read the opinions of other investigators interviewed in the Ground Zero report. Then we ask that you seriously demand that UFO organizations and people like Art Bell become accountable for continuing to give audience to these men.
Way Back in 1995 the word spread all over the internet about an image of an alien being cut up in a film that was found by a rock and roll historian named Ray Santilli. Everyone seemed to be impressed with the alien and then all of a sudden there were a few people who came forward to tarnish the film.
Many of them were special effects wizards, who claimed that they could all do a hell of a lot better at creating an alien, yet no one was able to do it.
Since "The Alien Autopsy" video release to the general public there have been many alleged photos and films of "real aliens" that have turned up. Each one living up to our expectations. Each one looking like the big eyed, human looking, creature that has ended up on the cover of Amazing stories.
The "Alien Autopsy" video apparently wasn't what investigators had hoped for.
There were critics who said that the alien in the grainy black and white footage didn't bleed right, it had too many fingers, the guts were too gooey, the phone on the wall had a curly chord, and the pathologists held their scissors like girls.
There were so many people who were out to foil the Alien Autopsy as a hoax because the owner of the footage Ray Santilli didn't play nice with the UFO community and soon his video ended up in the budget bin.
While the arguments were fast and furious about whether or not an alien was carved like a Christmas goose in a film it looked as if the flood gate was about to open with all kinds of fakers waiting in the wings to try their hand at cosmic counterfeits.
There were many other films and photos that were conveniently smuggled out of military installations after the Autopsy film made its debut on Fox Television. Soon there was a Television special about a film declassified by the KGB showing a saucer buried in the ground, and an alien torso being cut up by Russian doctors. The Alien had no head and the body itself looked like a greenish gray chicken being prepared for a Russian State dinner.
During this time it seemed that everyone had an alien Image they wanted to sell. Everyone had a story. Each one seemed incredible. Each one had it's own rubbery alien held together with spit wads, gum and clay and animated with fishing line. Each one had its freshly pressed spokesman. All of them went by the way side.
This one has incredibly slipped through the cracks and when you read this investigation you will wonder why anyone would even give credence to this story. You will stop and ask why people like Art Bell would embrace such a fraud. You would ask yourself why the chief proponents of this story are keynote speakers at UFO gatherings and why they continue to make money off of people who buy whatever story they are selling.
1998: The Alien Found in Washington State
I received e-mail from two people who are acquaintances of mine who give me information on strange occurrences. I first received notice from Enoch Shemna who is with Eaglenet. He informed me that Talk Host Art Bell had in his possession what appeared to be photos of a dead alien given to him by a Washington Psychologist.
These Photographs appeared on the Art Bell website back in 1998. The photos were purported to being that of an Alien creature that was hit over the head by Washington Psychologist Jonathan Reed. Reed claims that before having a scuffle with the creature his dog was killed. Reed also has made several other claims that now seem to be false. Yet both Reed and his partner Robert Raith continue to be embraced and welcomed to speak at UFO Expos and benefits including the UFO Congress.
I immediately posted the photos and stated for the record that if these were meant as an April fools prank they certainly don't fool anyone. The alien that I saw could be easily made using all kinds of film special effects and latex. I contacted many special effects artists that I knew. I had worked with Steve Biggs and Denver Robbins. Both were Special effects artists for the movie the stand and did the exploding head prop for my movie "Nightfall." They referred me to other artists who could render me an alien prototype so that I could compare it with the Reed photos.
An example was done by Ground Zero associate Ryan Pennman:
I had to ask him how it was done.
He granted me an interview.
GZ: We Have shown previously how the Reed Alien photos could be prototype aliens taken from a mold, however we have not focused on the obelisk. That is why we came to you. Is it possible that the photos of the obelisk are fake?
DR: Yes. Although the images are done well, there is a discrepancy in the photos that just doesn't convince me that these are legitimate photographs.
GZ: Why then are so many people impressed with these photos?
DR: First a few things that really impressed me. The composition of the obelisk was done very well, the edges are beautiful, and the change in orientation of the 3-D object between each picture was done well too.
GZ: Then you are defending them?
DR: No, because here's where the photos fall short, The obelisk defies the laws of physics. It has no shadow. See, the object in the picture reflects its environment, you can see color and shapes bouncing off the hull, this implies that the light is not simply passing through it, and it should be casting a shadow. Now, the fact that it doesn't cast a shadow would indicate that the light is just passing through it, but if that were the case it wouldn't cast are reflection.
GZ: Of course the argument is that it is a cloudy day, how do you explain that?
DR: For those who are still not convinced, Here's a simple experiment to prove my point. You'll need a piece of aluminum foil and a handful of nothing. First, hold the aluminum foil up to a light source. Notice how the aluminum foil, like the obelisk reflects its surroundings. But, unlike the obelisk, notice that it casts a shadow. Now look at the handful nothing. Pay close attention to the fact that it does not cast a shadow, just like the obelisk. Also notice how the nothing does not reflect its environment. What conclusion does this bring YOU to?
GZ: That maybe they have forgotten the rules of perspective and dimension?
DR: It brought me to the conclusion that the obelisk was created and was a composite, and the creator either forgot about or wasn't paying attention during physics class.
GZ: Well, playing devil's advocate I could say that extra terrestrial physics do not apply here.
DR: Yes you could, but if there had been no environmental reflections on the hull, I probably would have assumed that this was some sort of space aged, highly advanced, extra-terrestrial material, that somehow allows light to pass through it, even though it's opaque. If that had been the case, I would not have been able to either prove or disprove the authenticity of these photographs, only a raid of the creator's computer files would do that. Now, if I had created these photos, I would have either made the hull a solid color without environment reflections, or had the object cast a shadow.
GZ: I understand that you went to the trouble of creating your own design of an obelisk to show us how easy it is to fake. DR: Yes, Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see if I could produce an effect similar to the obelisk photos, minus the discrepancies, of course. It was no problem.
GZ: Wow looks like the real thing, how was it done?
DR: I used Raydream Studio to create and render an oblong, high-tech looking object. Then I used PhotoShop to do the composite and touch-ups. In about 20 minutes and I had an 'obelisk' (complete with a shadow and reflected environment) ready to shoot to a film recorder.
GZ: Which would explain why Art Bell had the Photos in his hand, and how Dr. Reed can produce negatives.
Enoch Shemna then sent me a letter and the contents basically concurred with my first impression. This alien was a very badly made stage prop. In fact the alien itself looked like a Don Post alien available at most prop and novelty stores. The letter talked of the photos and their back ground:
"I have seen the recent Robert Raith photos of the dead alien and the space ship in the woods on your web site and also being passed around via UFO newsgroups.
I will offer my professional opinion on these photos. I am a graphic and digital artist and have used Adobe Photoshop among other 3D imaging software for several years now.
I will comment first on the UFO image - the black triangular UFO in the woods. Right away it looked so fake I had to laugh. Compared to the natural lighting in the woods- the lighting is coming from straight overhead from the sun but on the craft it appears coming from the right. Also since the material the ship is made from is smooth and reflective there should be reflections of the trees upon the surface of the craft.
The second problem is the distance is all wrong- comparing the size of the trees and the ferns underneath this craft would have to be only about a foot long- or a couple inches in height. The pixelation of the craft is also different than the pixelation of the surroundings in the forest- which shows that the craft was obviously superimposed. Pixelation are the small dots that an image is made from- can be seen when the image is zoomed up in photoshop and sharpened.
There were others who sent letters to me as word got out about my research. Here is one from my esteemed colleague Rob McConnell who is a paranormal investigator in St.Catherines, Ontario Canada:
"A "Dr. Jonathon Reed" claims it happened about 2 years ago. He was hiking in the woods somewhere in Washington State with his dog and lost track of her while he was contemplating nature. A loud commotion is heard nearby. He arrives at the scene too late to stop the alien from killing his dog.
The alien allegedly killed his dog because the dog was "attacking" the alien. I find this very implausible. Domestic dogs and most small animals are terrified of aliens and usually run away. A frightened dog may stand back a short distance and bark at a strange looking intruder. They don't attack unless provoked. Aliens, at least a Grey, would not simply kill a dog. They probably would immobilize it somehow. Unless it was a Chupacabra, which it doesn't look like from the alleged photographs.
The good Dr. Reed comes to his dog's aid sees the black, diamond-shaped UFO hovering, and the alien killing his dog. Does he film the UFO first, and then get a large stick and beat the alien over the head to death? Did the alien just stand there and do nothing after he had just killed the dog? Why didn't the bad alien attack or abduct Dr. Reed? That hovering UFO he allegedly had time to take pictures of troubles me. Is this a case of reverse-missing time? Were the saucer and alien frozen in time by the angry doctor? Nonsequitor here, there had to be another alien in the craft, piloting it. Why didn't the other alien help the one who was being clubbed to death or just zip away and escape? So much for alien comradery and the Hippocratic oath.
Dr. Reed took the alien body home (did he bury his dog in the woods?). Soon afterwards the alien's body was stolen, but not the photos. How sloppy for the MIB's and how very convenient for Dr. Reed! This all a very familiar scenario. It is textbook P.T. Barnum! Snake Oil 101. It's any easy sleight of truth to explain away the never-existing physical evidence. But "let's go to the video tape" and take a closer look at the photos!
The photo of the black diamond-shaped UFO looks like a fake. The scale and perspective is all wrong. Look at the surrounding plants and shrubs. You couldn't fit a grey squirrel in that thing! It even looks fake. I examined the edges around the ship in Photoshop. They are much too jagged and do not blend naturally into the background. The alien photos are not too easy to dismiss, though. They look good but it could be a cleverly fabricated dummy. Hard to tell from just the photos. The "red" blood is odd. I thought Greys didn't have red blood, just a pale fluid.
The whole thing looks suspicious and contrived and appears to be nothing more than a custom tailored hoax. The presentation on the Art Bell show by Dr. Reed's agent Robert Raith, seemed contrived. Even Art Bell had a tone in his voice that hinted at disbelief of the story. Dr. Reed is making an appearance on the Art Bell show tonight. Watch for announcements of Dr. Jonathan Reed on the radio talk show circuit. He'll soon be raking it in, hawking his book and videotape. Caveat Lector! But I guess some people just enjoy being taken in and clubbed to death with obvious hoaxes!
The Videotape that McConnell refers to in his letter was later released. It was also released on the Internet and was later removed. We have provided a section of this tape for you to see online. As you can see the section was removed for obvious reasons. The whole scene looks contrived, as does the alien.
Click to view video
Warning large file
By far the most cited costume of the small humanoid alien figure is the one piece, form fitting spandex suit. The "Reed" alien is no exception.
After The special effects artists from Ground Zero gave their opinions about the aliens and the ships. There were a few people who felt that our investigation was badly prepared. No one could see the similarities in the alien prototypes provided by Pennman. There were others who criticized the Robbins Obelisk photo as well stating that Reed's photos still looked real and that ours looked like the fakes.
I explained that the preparation was done spur of the moment for a quick report. We did not have the time or the money to actually prepare a better than average alien.
I then related a story that I felt was appropriate concerning alien props and how a mix up ended up on the cover of Penthouse magazine. There were photos in Penthouse that claimed to be the real photos of the alien smuggled out of Roswell New Mexico.
The photos were clearly frauds. Maybe it was just a case of mistaken identity? The photos were even reported to be real by Art Bell's award winning reporter Linda Moulten Howe.
Photos depicting the purported Roswell alien were posted to the Internet back in August 95. They were said to have originated in a weekly Chinese tabloid called the MING PAO Weekly. They WERE pictures of a Roswell Alien. Albeit a fake alien used in the Roswell Museum! Linda Moulten Howe even investigated the idea of the aliens being faked including asking the creator of the Roswell Movie prop Steve Johnson if they were his creations. Howe reported that they were similar but NOT his creations! It was then reported that an unknown woman had called Johnson and faxed some pictures off of the Internet for him to see. However Johnson said that the pictures were so poor that he was not be able to tell the difference. Both Johnson and his assistant say that they had never heard of Howe.
An old colloquialism used by debunkers is appropriate at this juncture.
Extraordinary claims have to produce extraordinary evidence. Reed claims that he had the alien in his freezer! He sat on the story for two years! If you had an alien in your freezer, wouldn't you save a finger or a hand? Have it stuffed, or mounted?
Rob McConnell makes a very good point when he says, "Why didn't the alien kill the good doctor?" After all, the dog just looked at the alien wrong and it was dissolved like sugar in hot water. But on the other hand this is like asking, why you never get a busy signal when you call a wrong number. If the doctor died, we wouldn't have a story now would we? McConnell is also correct when he says this is a by the book snake oil case. I can demonstrate that this is by the book by pointing out what I thought when I first heard about the dissolving dog.
Samuel Clemens knew the value of a tall tale. The truth is, when a hoax is served up to the public, it becomes a win, win situation. Make a good lie, and report it. You get hits on your website.
Your radio show's ratings go through the roof, your magazine and newspaper sales triple. You pretend to investigate it. Knowing full well that it is a hoax. Let a few insiders in on the investigation. A few will bite at it and that is all that you need.
So milk it with all kinds of arguments for the validity of it. There will be researchers who will declare it a hoax. This helps their business. It increases hits to their websites. It sells newspapers.
Magazines that were once monthly's can now go biweekly. Websites that feature a strange story or two can now grow into big networks. You can even pretend like you are proving that the very hoax you created is a hoax, you will still win. It 's the business of commercializing controversy. It is an attempt to devalue all attempts to get to the truth. The process includes the fattening of their pocket books!
There is a paranoid view as to why the Reed case survives even though it is obvious that it is a blatant hoax. It can be an attempt to destroy the intellectual property that seems to have sole ownership to the king of late night, Art Bell.
Art Bell has had a successful run of it with his 400 plus stations and the subject matter that he covers from the absurd to the believable. He has always been quick to point out his power and his ratings and his book sales. What he doesn't tell you is that he is the only thing worth listening to at 2 o'clock in the morning.
Name someone else who is worth the trouble.
By default Bell holds a virtual intellectual monopoly on the paranormal and ultra weird. Now, we are seeing that Bell wants to devalue the position of the paranormal investigator by bringing on whackos that obviously are out to fool the public.
Why is he doing this?
It's obvious in my opinion.
It appears that he believes that he has the monopoly on the intellectual property of what is considered pop mythology. If you kick him at all he can easily pull up stakes and shut down the whole sordid affair. If anyone thinks that they can replace him, think again.
Mike Segal attempted to replace Bell after his first "retirement" and it was a near death experience for Coast to Coast AM.
His return was good for business in the apocalypse. Crank up radios and human growth hormone pills got a jolt in sales when Art returned after his self imposed hiatus. He literally controls what everyone is supposed to think is important in that vital conspiratorial subculture. If Bell says that there is a hole to hell, then that hole to hell is dug with good intentions. He is untouchable. He has worked himself into being the unimpeachable authority on such matters.
Public opinion would probably claim that he invented paranormal in long form. It can be argued that he is the leader of a two way communicating monster cult that has given credibility to what a lot of people believe are fringe theorists and lunatics.
It will be a dark day when he either dies or retires for good. However I see him basically ruining his credibility and the credibility of the investigation into outrageous claims. He is doing it because once he is gone no one will follow his act. They won't be able to. How could you when the chief has demonstrated the field's absurdity?
All he has to do is give audience to a bunch of hucksters and viola, instant tainting of everyone else who appears on his show.
The paranormal has done him well and he is ready to cash in and the best way to do so is to eliminate anyone that makes him look bad. He can also bring on absurd guests that basically make all of the research into the paranormal look silly, thus eliminating anyone from trying to bring anything new to the table.
If they know they are going to meet a hostile audience the well will dry up. This could put a small dent in anyone else out there that is trying to present new ideas on these topics.
Dr. Jonathan Reed has now gone from being a pseudo celebrity on Art Bell to now speaking to Ufologists about his alleged run in with an alien in Washington. One where he wrapped the alien up in an aluminum foil blanket and put him in the freezer like a burrito and how he conveniently escaped.
There is to my knowledge not one serious researcher that believes his story. Yet the power of he who owns the intellectual monopoly has spoken.
So here is where we tread lightly because this would mean that Bell intentionally puts guests with fraudulent stories on his shows. Then comes the argument of whether or not this is entertainment or reality gone awry.
It is not entertaining to see people with real stories to tell being shadowed by these circus superstars with no proof of Alien contact and a rubber alien in tin foil.
Unfortunately some people surmise that calling Art Bell a fraud is like saying that a lot of what is considered fringe speculation is fraudulent. Once again it may be a convenient way to cut loose ends and to silence those who would usually come forward and tell their stories.
When you call Bell a fraud you run into another wall in the maze. You are now devaluing the so-called God of paranormal talk. That is why it is imperative that more people speak up and give their opinions. We eliminate the monopoly and create a healthier forum that challenges without malice.
We must use great care when we challenge the views of each other. We need to remember that hoaxes are common in this arena but not all accounts are hoaxes, and not all reports are intended to be misleading or fraudulent.
Hoaxes and frauds are not the same thing. Many times I hear these words lumped together and I get frustrated. I also hear people call a hoax on someone who's intent was not to defraud anyone.
A hoax is based primarily in harmless trickery. A fraud however is when money is made off of a hoax. I guess in a sense that if Bell is intentionally misleading the audience for profit he is a fraud. This devalues the subject matter if this is the case.
I remember an interview I had with Joe Firmage, whom I felt was sincere in his search for the truth. Yet it was becoming more and more evident that someone who saw him as a threat was demonstrating that his interest in the M-J 12 documents was unfortunate because these documents were allegedly bogus.
Was somebody's thunder being stolen? Who was losing credibility with his ideas?
Whenever somebody declares that a story is completely false you need to ask yourself:
Who is it that is calling foul? Who benefits from calling foul? Someone who is losing their grip on their cash cow? Or someone who is hoping to grab a piece of the pie? What is the purpose behind the report of a hoax or fraud?
When you are looking to expose a fraud then you must ask yourself what the motivation behind the fraud is. The old saying goes - if you want to know who is behind a fraud or behind the exposure of a fraud just follow the money trail.
Art Bell does not hold a monopoly on the intellectual property known as the speculative forum. With the latest lawsuits, absenteeism, and alleged fraudulent guests, it would appear that Art Bell is devaluing the forum for alternative talk.
The mystery is, only Art knows if he is doing it intentionally. Circumstantial evidence tells us that if he continues to give audience to alleged shady stories he is indeed not worthy of his position of power.
Yet Art does have a way to excuse himself and the wall he teeters on has a safety net.
He plays like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Alice in wonderland. Humpty said to Alice that the words and ideas he chooses to express mean just what he chooses them to mean -neither more or less. Many people will pick and choose data to further their point. They will take it out of context, mold it and shape it, paraphrase and throw out convenient data.
We all do it from time to time; it's no secret.
Which means that it is up to you to decide if he is selling you a lemon. However as you can see, those who have tried to tell people about the lemons have ended up facing the wrath of a magician whose magic tricks are rusty and are in need of a face lift.
Sometimes we have to admit when we are wrong. It hurts, but eventually all is forgiven. In the realms of speculation we must try to develop an ear that hears the truth and an eye that sees the detail that others overlook.
There needs to be room for more open discussion. There needs to be critical thinking in the realms of paranormal investigation. Too bad there wasn't a list of what is crap and what isn't.
If you were to compile a list of every major paranormal, conspiratorial, or strange event from the Kenneth Arnold sightings, to Kennedy, to Elvis sightings, to the Phoenix Lights.
And then asked Art Bell to remove the ones he felt were frauds and then you gave the same list to someone else and asked them to point out the frauds, and compared them you would have two different lists.
If you gave one of those lists to Linda Moulten Howe and asked her to do the same you would see more stories being thrown out as frauds. Hand that list to Jeff Rense and Laura Lee, and then to me and so on, so on, so forth and soon the list would disappear.
While the old school investigators argue over magic and it's relationship to science. While there are some who are gullible to one side and not open to both, There are a few truth seekers out there who are willing to keep the investigative process honest and hopefully this new blood will allow the process to continue.
Royce J. Meyers III who is the investigator behind the UFO watchdog website has done an exhaustive investigation into the identity and character of Jonathan Reed.
UFOWATCHDOG.COM has been investigating the Jonathan Reed UFO Case since first being publicized, and arguably endorsed, on the late night radio program Coast To Coast AM with Art Bell in 1998.
Royce says that "Jonathan Reed" and his cohorts garnered no fewer than six appearances on Coast To Coast AM. He also says that "Jonathan Reed" has also made appearances at UFO conferences, which included being invited to the International UFO Congress three times with one of those times as the conference's keynote speaker.
In his report filed at his website Meyers claims that "Jonathan Reed" and his associates have sold books and videotapes to the public on the basis that their claim of an alien encounter in a Washington State forest during October 1996 was factual.
From the beginning of its investigation and based on the facts and evidence, UFOWATCHDOG.COM has advocated that this case was being perpetrated by a group of individuals intent on deceiving the public for personal gain.
UFOWATCHDOG.COM called on those people supporting and/or promoting this case to publicly disclose and investigate the numerous lies and inconsistencies surrounding "Jonathan Reed" and his associates. These people chose to ignore many, many relevant facts and, in many cases, simply chose to carry out acts of omission instead of offering all of the available facts in this case to the public. Many of the facts that were ignored or omitted demonstrated sufficient evidence showing fraud in this case.
Royce Meyers even says that he has uncovered the true identity of "Dr. Jonathan Reed." He claims that Reed's real last name is Rutter and that he is not even a doctor. We invite you to read his report as a part of this investigation.
Here are several links to help you in your investigation.
JONATHAN REED EXPOSED!
UFOWATCHDOG.COM Exclusive Story
In order to have a reputable and even investigation we must also show sites and link to sites that also attempt to support Dr. Reed.
Jonathan Reed Official Website
Alien Destiny Support of Reed and his work (Daniel Iaria)
My colleague Michael Goodspeed originally wrote an expose on the case. The site that originally had the article was later shutdown. Michael recovered the written piece that was later featured on other websites during the first few years of the Reed reports.
Here is the piece in its entirety for this special Ground Zero Investigation:
Michael Goodspeed Reports:
For the past couple of years, a highly-enigmatic and mostly inaccessible man by the name of "Dr." Jonathan Reed, along with his faithful cohort Robert Raith, have been regaling the alternative world with their tale of an ET encounter like no other.
You see, one fine morning in the woods of Washington state, Reed had a very unfortunate incident with a visitor from another world. It all started when he and his dog Suzy were hiking in the picturesque beauty of the Cascade Mountains when, suddenly, ET's evil sister jumped out of a bush and ate poor Suzy!! Dr. Reed responded as would any red-blooded American - he grabbed a makeshift Lousiville slugger and brained ET's sister into a bloody coma.
The carcass of the being was then shipped to the refrigerator in Reed's home, until it later "regenerated" and released itself on its own recognizance. Dr. Reed also has a number of photographs of the alien, and an "obelisk" that was presumably occupied by the creatures star-trekking pals.
He has repeatedly promised to provide physical evidence of his "encounter," but has never delivered to anything resembling an independent source. Normally, when a story as patently absurd as this comes along, and all photographic and/or physical evidence is thoroughly debunked, the appropriate response is a light-hearted chuckle and a shake of the head. One must keep an open mind to the most extreme possibilities, but we mustn't open our minds so wide that our brains fall out (like the poor alien in this case). Prominent members of the UFO community have always distanced themselves from fantastical tales that have no supporting evidence. The reason for this is obvious-hoaxes provide needless ammunition to debunkers, and muddy the waters for people who seek the truth. It's hard enough to discern between fact and fiction in this field without blatant liars receiving endorsements and air time from popular personalities.
You can imagine, then, why many UFO investigators/researchers/journalists are expressing their abject horror over the choice of Reed as keynote speaker at the 2000 International UFO Conference in Laughlin, Nevada. Reed and Raith have long been viewed as nothing more than comic relief by UFO insiders. I have yet to meet a single respected UFOlogist and/or researcher, investigator or journalist who thinks otherwise. It's sad that Reed and Raith have not been challenged on the radio show that has given them their primary exposure, but many in the UFO community have been extremely vocal in expressing their disgust.
I challenge anyone to find a SINGLE respected UFOlogist who finds their story credible. The photographic evidence offered by Reed has been shredded in every manner imaginable. Numerous photo analysts have had a field day discrediting Reed's pictures, which are campy even by 1950's B-movie standards.
Here are just a few examples:
Steve Neill, Hollywood special effects wizards, from
"To date, all of the 'Aliens' I've seen both posted on the internet and in allegedly homemade encounter/contact videos don't even come close to our current professional/technical standards. And this latest one (the Reed 'alien') is no exception. I know rubber when I see it and I'm seeing rubber. If they really want to deceive us, they have to try a lot harder. This 'alien' head appears to be rubber latex with a rubber cement paint job painted on the outside surface; it has no depth. The red that appears under the eyelids looks very much like polyurethane foam that has been tinted red. We often use that same process to create 'gore' effects.
Of course, it would help a great deal to see the actual tape, but I'm sure when I do it will only further reinforce my view. This is an amateur job, in my opinion, is an obvious attempt to make money and nothing else. And it scares me to think how many people might fall for this, and other similar charades, and spend their hard, honestly-earned money on people who cannot or will not earn an honorable living."
Royce J. Myers III
"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 high...how 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?
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.
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."
Lea H. MacDonald (article from 12-22-98 at
"Several days ago I received an email from a fellow researcher by the name of Royce Myers. He had been kind enough to attach a logo from the page of a Norio Hayakawa. He pointed out that the "inset" picture of an object looked very much like the infamous Reed 'obelisk.' I cut the image from the logo and pasted it beside the Reed 'black obelisk' image to do a comparison. Much to my surprise there were several 'exact matches'...so exact, in fact, I felt compelled to post the images on my web site. I did this, however, only after several more hours of very close comparison and analysis. I drew attention to the identical shadows and a couple of pixels, not to mention the exact proportion duplication of the two 'obelisks.' Within a day of the posting of the obelisk comparison, I received an email from an the "designer" telling me to "REMOVE PICTURES IMMEDIATELY!" He claimed: Not only was it (the 'obelisk') a cropping of artwork "he made" for Norio, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the Reed alien hoax whatsoever. The "designer" went on to say, the logo was on Norio's site for about a week and then people started emailing him about this Reed hoax of which he did not want anything to do with, and added, in his honest opinion he felt it was a hoax as well.
He ended up by admitting, he did design it to look similar on purpose to see if anyone would respond - to show people how easy it is to hoax a graphic. Little did he know it would receive such a response." So, just what, exactly, are the organizers of the IUFOC thinking?
Are they not aware of the enormous harm their "endorsement" of Reed will do to themselves, and ufology as a whole? Those of you who see the study of UFO's as a mindless form of entertainment in the same ilk as professional wrestling might not object to Reed's mercenary attempt to make money; in the age of TV shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire," selling one's dignity for a quick buck has become an acceptable social more. People like Reed have gotten away with selling snake oil since the beginning of time.
But we have come to expect and DEMAND more at the annual IUFOC. In a recent article on the damage inflicted on ufology by misinformation and/or disinformation, I wrote: "The past 50 years have proven demonstrably that the greatest enemy of ufology is the deliberate hoax. It's a diffcult enough task for genuine researchers to compete against the rigid mind-set of "mainstream" science and the popular media without having to constantly explain, rationalize, and apologize for public hoaxes. The frauds perpetrated by people like Ed Walters, Billy Meier(?), Bob Lazar, Courtney Brown, Jonathan Reed, Richard Hoagland and others have provided tremendous ammunition to debunkers who are intent on destroying ufology.
People like Reed ride on the coattails of great researchers who gave everything of themselves in pursuit of the truth. Names like Jacques Vallee, Dr. J. Allen Hyneck, and Stanton Friedman come immediately to mind. The air time... given to (these) shameful hucksters is a grotesque insult to past UFOlogists, and only serves to diminish their research." I went on to write that in the modern era of ufology... "geunine truth-seekers must ...sift through an increasingly large pile of dung in order to find a granule of truth.
Somewhere, James Randi and Philip Klass are laughing their heads off." Reed's successful infiltration of ufology is raising serious questions about who the good guys are...and who might not be what they seem to be. In the past, the IUFOC has mostly featured the most credible, reputed figures in the alternative world. It's almost impossible to believe that the judgment of the event's organizers has become so lax, or their desire to sensationalize so great, that they would risk discrediting themselves by associating with this guy. Is their another agenda at work here, one that all serious UFOlogists should be wary of? Even the most well-intentioned researchers are occasionally hoodwinked by pre-packaged disinformation, and when people like the IUFOC organizers show no discrimination in who they endorse, the already exasperating task of discerning truth from fiction and knowing who trust becomes nearly impossible. The Reed story should be viewed in the same vane as a TV-show like "Dark Skies," an abominable series that was axed by NBC a dozen episodes into its first season.
The sole purpose of "Skies" was seemingly to make the ET phenomena look so unappealing and implausible that only a moron or lunatic would have any interest in it. I worry greatly that members of the general public will have a similar response to media coverage of this year's IUFOC. If ufology is ever going to be recognized as the legitimate study of a genuine phenomena, then its most influential members will have to start displaying a modicum of rational judgment.
As you can see this case has been hotly debated. After seeing all of the evidence both for and against the Jonathan Reed you can decide for yourself as to whether or not this case is genuine ore a fully contrived fraud.
However the evidence is overwhelming for the latter of the two choices.
Return To Ground Zero
Voice Your Opinion