by Joe Daniels

from CanadianXFiles Website

Carp, Ottawa Area, Ontario, CANADA
Key Dates: November 4, 1989 & August 1991

The Carp-Guardian case of Eastern Ontario, is the most controversial in Canadian UFO history. The story involves A UFO crash retrieval, aliens, Canadian and American investigators, the RCMP, TV show producers and a handful of witnesses.

For years a battle has raged over the authenticity of some of the claims made in the case and what exactly was recorded on the video tapes. When the smoke clears an American Investigator would resign from the field.

It all started in 1989 when UFO researchers in Canada and the USA received a package of documents from someone calling himself "Guardian". The contents describe the crash of a UFO near Carlton Place in the Ottawa, Ontario area and a photocopied photograph of an alien.

In 1991 video tapes arrives that shows the crash retrieval. An American researcher contacts a Canadian UFO group and they decide to get together for a trip to the area to investigate further, and the circus starts!

CONTENTS

• American Television Networks Investigate Unexplained UFO Sightings Near Almonte

1. The Guardian Case by Bob Oechsler

2. The Guardian Analysis by Bruce Maccabee

3. The Guardian Caper, Part 1 by Mufon Ontario

4. Guardian Documents From "Guardian"

5. The Guardian Caper, Part 2 by Mufon Ontario

6. The Guardian Caper, Part 3 by Mufon Ontario

7. Graham Lightfoot Letter Regarding Bob Oechsler

8. Comment On Mufon 2nd Part of Report by Bruce Maccabee

9. RCMP Report by Constable De Haitre

10. Final Report on Carp by Bob Oechsler

11. The Rutkowski Summary by Chris Rutkowski

12. Letter of Resignation by Bob Oechsler

AMERICAN TELEVISION NETWORKS INVESTIGATE UNEXPLAINED UFO SIGHTINGS NEAR ALMONTE
The Almonte Gazette

Feb. 3, 1993

UFO researcher Bob Oechsler waved a hand over the pile of documents and photos on the kitchen table.

"This is a landmark case in ufology (the study of UFOs)," he said.

The pictures on the table show a blur of multi-colored lights in a disc shape and white faces with black almond-shaped eyes. Most of them were taken off a video sent to Oechsler anonymously almost a year age. Since then, Oechsler has methodically and meticulously analyzed the video and the site near the Old Almonte and Corkery Roads.

His case was convincing enough to draw two major American television networks there to film. NBC's Unsolved Mysteries airs its version this Wednesday on cable at 8 p.m. and this Friday on CJOH. The Fox network's story on Sightings hits the airwaves Feb. 12. Oechsler's involvement began when he received the videotape at his Annapolis, Maryland home last February.

Attributed only to "Guardian," the pack age bore an Ottawa postmark.

The 32 minutes of footage show a "mostly white" linear light with red flares off to the left and a flashing light on top, said Oechsler. The color of the lights ranges from red to blue to green from one end to the other. Smoke billows out from under the lights and moves to the right. As the photographer moves closer, reflections off the disk show a rounded turret in the centre with a vertical blue strobe on top and "fins" or slates around its edge.

Closing in even more, "Guardian" gets shaky close-ups of the upper strobe.

The sound track has sounds of barking dogs and a "ratchet" sound. (NBC spent $115,000 to recreate this whole effect with no success, said Oechsler.) The rest of the tape is taken up with freeze frames or still shots of supposed aliens standing in tall grass. Some are holding bright lights in their hands.

Hooded figures with large almond shaped eyes have short snouts and little facial detail.

The tape was wrapped in six pages of accompanying information, some typed on fake Department of National Defense (DND) letterhead. The documents showed a map of the Corkery area and a page of hand-drawn symbols with a map of the same area. There is also a photocopy of two Polaroid shots with grass lit by a flash in the foreground and a row of lights in the back.

The fake DND documents have thick black markers through several lines as if released via a Freedom of Information Act request. The remaining text suggests aliens wish to take over the world via the cultural arts and a liaison with the "Red Chinese." "The earth is their entertainment" writes Guardian of the "beautiful blonds" who are infiltrating the New York art world, Hollywood, rock music, literature and sculpture.

A diagram shows the craft flying under the radar curtain to avoid detection.

"It's very different from anything I'd ever received," said Oechsler.

He added,

"it appears "Guardian" is looking to spread the word of his findings to as many people as possible. We're talking about someone who is very, very knowledgeable here," said Oechsler, referring especially to the complex symbols. "This person is obviously environmentally concerned."

He said Guardian is obviously aware that in the case of alleged UFO sightings, skeptics often attack the messenger without considering the message.

"Guardian wanted to focus on the events not himself", said Oechsler. "That shows a knowledge of UFO cases."

BACKS UP VIDEO WITH RESEARCH
For the past year, Oechsler has been researching every element of the video to determine if it is a hoax. So far, he is convinced it is not. Given the complexity of the video image, "we're not talking about a crude model here," he said. With his colleagues in the United States, Oechsler spent 20 hours studying the video frame by frame.

He said the strobe on top of the "craft" is the only vertical one he has ever seen. He added it is unheard of the pulses alternate in high and low frequencies at a "very fast" speed of 7.5 cycles per second.

Comparing the craft to the grass in the field, Oechsler and company determined it is 25 feet in diameter and less than five feet high. The red flares in the video left no traces of strontium or cesium the two elements that make up most of the content of military flares.

Instead, the site was powdered with "substantial amounts" of titanium an element used in strong steel alloys.

"That was quite curious," said Oechsler.

Oechsler found the titanium all over plants in a 50 foot diameter area where plants have been "dehydrated and melted" with no signs of burning, he said. "All around that sphere the grass was waist-high," he added.

Information from Environment Canada confirms the direction of the wind matches the video's interpretation of the weather that night. Oechsler, a former NASA mission specialist, hooked up with the Canadian UFO Network and found they had received a similar package from Guardian after an incident Nov. 6 1989.

Through member Graham Lightfoot of Cobden, Oechsler met Diane and Bill Labenek who own the property being investigated.

Without letting on they had received a tape, Lightfoot and Oechsler asked if the Labeneks had seen anything unusual. It turns out Diane Labenek had seen an unusual set of lights when tucking her children into bed around 11 p.m. Aug. 18 1991, said Oechsler. She had also witnessed the November, 1989 event. (Because of her agreement with NBC, Labenek cannot tell her story until after the broadcast.)

She drew pictures that were "geometrically correct" to the video and gave details about the incident not captured on tape, like the craft's departure. A neighbor recalls seeing "red lightning" and a white light with a gold halo the same night, according to Oechsler.

Within a half hour of the sighting, and for months afterward, the Labenek home became the target for unusually active helicopter activity. The black, seamless, unmarked choppers hover over the house sometimes low enough to see in the Labenek's windows. Twice they have blown shingles off the house and the outside shed.

DND has given the Labeneks pictures of its machinery to prove it is not their doing. That element still remains a mystery.

Oechsler has also joined forces with the National Research Council (NRC). He claimed he is the first person to work with the council on a suspected UFO matter. They agree, after looking at photos taken by the family, the helicopters are not Canadian.

Oechsler is still questioning many aspects of the video. His biggest question remains Guardian.

"How does he know when and where they land?" he queried.

He said Guardian has to have prior knowledge to arrive on site with packages of Polaroid film and an excellent quality video camera. He said he hopes the television exposure will generate interest and hopefully more information.

He will be in this area until Friday.

Back to Contents

 

THE GUARDIAN CASE
by Bob Oechsler

Former NASA Mission Specialist

The Guardian Case is simply one of the most important investigations in UFO research. My involvement in the investigation began in February of 1992 with the receipt of a video tape and documents sent by an anonymous individual using only the name Guardian. The video represents a remarkable improvement in the quality of UFO photographed images. It shows an unmistakable three dimensional image of a structured craft with extraordinary luminosity characteristics. Further images on the video have proved to be the first authentic images of alien beings associated with such events.

The subsequent field investigation efforts yielded gross physical effects at the landing site which was witnessed by several credible individuals. A Canadian Government official who resides in the area of the landing was taken on-board the craft and claimed to have interacted with the occupants, one of whom was a Chinese man in a black business suit. The witness testimony was subjected to polygraph examination.

The results proved positive.

This once case has undergone more diversified scientific analysis than any other case in history. This due largely to the abundance of physical evidence found at the site. The case has been popularized with international publicity including segments on NBC's "Unsolved Mysteries" and FOX's "Sightings".

We are currently in production involving a documentary on the case to be broadcast during ratings week in February 1994.

Back to Contents

 

The Guardian Analysis
Dr. Bruce S. Maccabee, Ph.D.

The article, "Uncovering the Guardian Caper," by Errol Bruce Knapp and Tom Theophanous of MUFON in Ontario (MUFON J,. May 1994), is quite strange. It purports to be a refutation of the Guardian case and the casual reader may well believe that the authors provided some evidence that it was a hoax perpetrated by "Guardian," whoever that is, and promoted, for money, by Bob Oechsler.

However, the alert reader will realize that the article presents no convincing evidence to show that either the witness testimony or the video constitute a hoax. Instead the article makes a number of unfavorable allegations about Bob Oechsler and tries to make it look as if the investigation was inept. I was a consultant and active participant in portions of the investigation and I can state that the investigation was not inept. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the hoax conclusion seems unlikely to be true, considering the witness testimony, and is, at the very least, premature.

The reasons for my opinion of the Guardian case are outlined below.

One of the allegations in the article is particularly disturbing to me, since it distorts my initial impression of the Guardian case. According to the MUFON [Ontario] article:

Oeschler (sic) had shown the tape to Bruce Maccabee and they agreed that what they saw was a UFO and should be investigated further... and that's why Oeschler called Tom at CUFORN.

I don't know how the author or Tom Theophanous could have known my initial opinion of the Guardian video since neither one talked to me about it. Psychic, perhaps?

Anyway, they are wrong.

When Bob first showed me the video and the "documents" that came along with it I most certainly did not "agree" that what I saw was a UFO. My immediate impression was that, if it weren't a hoax, it was, at the very least impossible to prove true since Guardian was anonymous.

To the best of my recollection, Bob did not say that he thought it "was" a UFO. However, he did indicate that it was intriguing and could bear some "looking into." My own reaction was one of disinterest. I generally feel that a case without a witness is, at best, a waste of time.

The "documents" which Guardian supplied made it appear to me to be another of the "Nazi UFO" types of paranoid UFO literature that has circulated in the past. The video, with no commentary, was difficult to understand. Nevertheless we did spend some time studying the video and we arrived at some tentative conclusions. We decided that the red lights were probably flares sending off smoke. We could see what we supposed was the UFO with its blue flashing light on top. We could hear background machine-like noises and we could hear dogs barking in the background.

I was particularly interested in the second part which starts off with the image moving rapidly around the screen. The image becomes somewhat more stable and then one sees, on a frame-by-frame basis, the best images of the supposed UFO as it is silhouetted against light from the background flares. (Note: the second part of the video which Bob received in the mail was many seconds longer than what appeared in the video sent to CUFORN.)

The way the image of the UFO appears, first showing just the top flashing light and then further and further downward on the UFO until finally you see all the way down to the bottom suggested to me that the videographer was walking toward the UFO and climbing a hill while he was videotaping. But, of course, with no witness testimony and no other evidence, for all we knew the whole video could have been a fabrication.

Bob pointed out that the map which Guardian supplied seemed to show a real location and that there appeared to be a lot of potentially verifiable information in some of Guardian's diagrams. However, I was not convinced that the case was worth pursuing. I forgot about the Guardian case soon (seconds?) after I left Oechsler's house on that early spring night when he showed it to me.

I was surprised to learn later that he had contacted some Canadian investigators in order to pursue the case a bit further. I was even more surprised to learn a month or so later on that he planned to go to Canada to try to locate witnesses and perhaps even find Guardian.

I did not really pay any attention to the Guardian case until after Bob returned from his May, 1992, trip and informed me that he had found a witness. According to Bob, she (Diane Labenek) had been found as a result of a door-to-door search along one of the roads indicated on Guardian's map. She had recalled an event that she had seen in the field behind (east of) her house late one August night the previous summer while putting her children to bed. They had seen it, too.

What she recalled was basically what is depicted in the Guardian video, including bright red burning fires and an object with bright lights and a flashing light on top.

Bob told me that he videotaped her describing her sighting and making drawings before she was shown the video. He then videotaped her reaction to seeing the video. She said it showed what she had seen. She also stated that the object or UFO initially landed near the fires and subsequently departed some time after the flares went out. Shortly afterward a helicopter flew over her house and the field. Her estimate of the date and time of the event were consistent with the information provided by Guardian.

During an investigation of the area where Mrs. Labenek indicated that she had seen the red fires Bob located what appeared to be evidence of some "landing traces. These were found at the back (east) end of the Labenek's field, about 2,000 ft from the house.

There were crushed bushes, mashed to the ground, that had not grown back by the time of his visit, even though the event had occurred the previous August. (These bushes were still mashed down in November, 1992, when I visited the site.) He also found black material on the bushes.

Bob found that the Labenek's have an outdoor kennel near their house. This fact is important inasmuch as a dog or dogs are heard barking in the Guardian videotape. He also found a path or route, starting at the fence on the north side and running eastward, through the field that the videographer might have taken.

Mrs. Labenek's view of the portion of this route closest to the house (still hundreds of feet away, however) was blocked by a large storage building on the Labenek's property. This blockage, and the darkness, could explain why Mrs. Labenek didn't notice anyone walking in the field. Bob discovered that while he was walking along this route he went through an area that gave the impression of walking up a hill, similar to what we had deduced that the videographer had done during the second section of the video.

All of this information made the first four segments of the Guardian video, but not the accompanying "documents," more interesting to me. (The later segments of the video showing an "alien face" in various poses is still enigmatic and, at the present time, of little value in establishing the validity of the Guardian case.)

The video raised lots of questions, of course, about Guardian and how he (she?) managed to get the video. These questions were unanswerable at the time (and many are still not answered). However, the existence of the questions did not prevent a more careful study of the video to determine what it actually showed and whether or not it was consistent with the witness testimony.

Of course, when Bob returned he had an accurate map of the area and a drawing of the field with dimensions. In the following months, Bob and I explored other possible routes through the field for the videographer.

Although Bob had found a route through the field that seemed to involve walking up a slight hill, it was his impression that this path was too far from the UFO and flares. We therefore tried to think of other possible areas in and around the field where the videographer could have walked. Bob had not found a "real" hill, but something more like a depression in the field. It was my impression that he should look for a real hill somewhere near the back of the field. He did look for a hill in his July and September visits but he found none. The problem of determining the most likely route was not solved until his October trip, which is discussed below.

In June, Bob and I visited Dr. John Conkling, President of the American Pyrotechnic Association and professor of chemistry at Washington College in Chestertown, MD. By this time Bob had received the results of scanning microscope and X-ray tests of plant material from a laboratory at the University of Maryland. The laboratory had done analyses to determine the chemical elements present in plants that had been partially coated with black material that was found on some of the plants at the supposed landing site.

These tests failed to show the presence of strontium, although they did show excess titanium, as compared to control plants that did not have the black material. Dr. Conkling viewed the video and agreed that the fires look like flares, but he was puzzled at the lack of strontium. He pointed out that in military red flare mixtures the color is imparted by strontium (nitrate or carbonate). Although there were two other materials to create red fire (calcium and lithium), for various reasons these are not used in military flares.

He suggested that Bob get more plant samples to look for strontium residue, which should persist in the environment for years. (He also supplied us with a spectrum of red flare light which I used in the analysis of diffraction camera photos of one of the Gulf Breeze "red lights." The Gulf Breeze red light was found to have a spectrum different from that of a military or road flare.)

During subsequent analyses of the video I discovered that not all of the faint images above the bright red flares were smoke. Initially I had thought that all of these faint images were puffs of smoke being blown upward and to the right. But after watching a number of times I realized that some of these images stayed in fixed positions above the flares.

I concluded that these images must have been caused by light reflected from trees behind the flares. When I visited the site in November I found that there is a dense row of pine trees behind the location where Bob estimated that the flares were. Thus these faint images of trees provided another element of consistency between the video and the landing site identified by Oechsler. Incidentally, the images that are puffs of smoke move to the right in the Guardian video.

From the reconstruction of the videographer's route through the field it is clear that he was facing roughly east. A check with the weather for the date of the sighting given by Guardian showed a gentle north or northeast wind, which would blow smoke southward or to the right in the video, thus establishing a measure of consistency between the video and the known conditions on the date of the sighting.

Before Bob's fourth trip in October, 1992, we tried to estimate the size of the UFO in order to obtain an even better estimate of the videographers path through the Labenek's field.

By this time I had realized that any reasonable path for the videographer would have to be consistent with the image sizes on the video. By combining the size of the landing trace area with the estimated camera distance, the focal length and the estimated zoom ratio (6:1) of a typical video camera I "guessed" that the diameter of the UFO was 20 to 30 ft. Therefore I proposed that Bob carry out an experiment using a 25 ft diameter "model UFO" consisting of tall stakes driven into the ground to form a circle.

I then suggested that Bob use his own video camera, restricting the zoom ratio to 6:1, in the following test: walk away from the circle of stakes while filming until the size of the "UFO" image in his camera is comparable to that in the Guardian video. I expected that Bob would find himself quite a distance from the "UFO, although he thought that he would be relatively close (he was of the opinion that the videographer had gotten really close to the UFO).

As it turned out, this was quite an important experiment because it proved that the videographer was farther from the UFO than Bob had previously guessed. Bob found that he had to be about fifteen to seventeen hundred feet away to get the same image size for the first part of the video which shows the red fires and the UFO side by side. Because of the shape of the field and the because of the trees around the field the only route which was compatible with both the relative orientation of the flares and the UFO and also with such a large distance was the route that Bob had found initially.

This route started at the northwest side of the field near the Labenek's large storage building, and continued in a direction slightly south of eastward for a distance of about 700 feet. All other alternate routes were rejected. To get into the field the videographer could have either entered from the empty field to the north or by walking up the Labenek's driveway, past the house and past the dog kennels. (I thought it unlikely that he would have walked up the driveway.) In order to enter the Labenek's field from the north the videographer would have had to cross a barbed wire fence. Bob found two places in the fence where the wires had been pushed apart indicating the passage of someone. (I confirmed that these existed during my visit in November.)

When I visited the area I investigated the route through the field which Bob had determined during the October tests. Although I had earlier considered the possibility that the videographer had walked partway around the UFO and found a hill in some other direction to walk up while videotaping, I realized that the simplest path for the videographer was straight toward the UFO from the location of the initial point which was 1,500 to 1,700 ft from the UFO and flares.

Therefore, to carry out my test I started at the estimated initial position and walked in a straight line toward the supposed landing location. In so doing I rediscovered what Bob had found during his May trip: this route led me through a depression in the field which caused my view of the estimated landing location to be obscured temporarily. As I continued to walk, however, my view was restored in the same manner as shown on the Guardian video. At the point where my view of the ground level was restored I was about 1,000 ft from the supposed landing area.

I should point out that I had no problem walking through the field and did so while looking through the video camera lens. I found no big rocks or potholes to trip over. (Of course, in the summer it would have been more difficult because of the tall grasses and plants that grow in the field.)

I made yet another check when I was at the site. In September, 1992, Bob learned that the Labenek's next door neighbor, Dr. A. J. Quarrington had also seen some strange things that night.

He was watching TV when suddenly there was some interference with the signal. At this time he looked away from the TV and noticed red light coming through his window. His first thought was that he had seen red lightning. He looked through the window to see the red lightning and, instead, he saw red looking fires at the back of the Labenek's field.

He also claims he saw a yellow glowing object pass over and drop down behind trees. He did not say he saw an object on the ground with a flashing blue light. Yet the flashing blue light is a prominent feature in the video and was recalled by Diane Labenek.

I wondered, why didn't he see it if he could see the flares? While I was in the field I looked toward Quarrington's house, which is about 500 ft south of the Labenek's house and about 2,000 ft west-southwest of the supposed landing site. I discovered that I could see his house from the estimated location of the flares (about 50 - 100 north-northeast of the landing site, ) but a line of dense pine trees cut off my view of his house when I was standing at the estimated the landing site itself.

Hence his failure to see the UFO on the ground is consistent with the nature of the Labenek's back field and the estimated landing site area discovered by Bob in May, 1992.

One result of this case having been presented on Unsolved Mysteries in February, 1993 was that another witness came forward. This lady, called "Sarah" claims that she saw the UFO take off from the Labenek's field and then land on the road in front of her house where she saw aliens coming out.

"Sarah" has recently told a portion of her story on the "Encounter's" TV show (she wishes to remain anonymous and uses a pseudonym). I tend to believe her because she has passed a lie detector test. It was administered by a rather skeptical polygrapher who tested her twice.

He reported,

"In my opinion 'Sarah' was truthful on all issues examined," which included the following subjects:

• seeing bright lights over the trees at the Labenek's farm (yes)

• seeing two aliens exit a craft on the road in front of her house (yes)

• hearing a helicopter pass over the Lebanek farm after the event (yes)

• knowing whether or not the video of the aliens was a hoax (no knowledge of a hoax)

As far as I am concerned the case stands or falls on the testimony of the witnesses, not on the video (and certainly not on the Guardian documents). However, since the video seems to be largely consistent with the witness testimony it becomes a valuable resource for details of the imagery that the witnesses could not recall.

One such detail of particular interest is the flash rate of the "blue beacon" on the top. It is a brief flash occurring in one frame of every four frames, which corresponds to about 7.5 flashes per second (at 30 frames per second).

A recently released document from the Canadian government states that three experts from the Department of Transportation concluded that what landed in the Labenek's field was "likely" either a Sikorsky S-76 commercial helicopter or else a UH60 U.S. military helicopter (yes, U.S. helicopters do cross the border). These helicopters have a white "masthead light" at the center of rotation of the control rods. The control rods are small diameter (ca. 1") vertical bars which run between the top of the helicopter body and the blades. They control the aerodynamics of the blades.

According to this document the masthead light was turned on and the helicopter blades were rotating at 360 - 400 RPM. According to the document, the repeated rotation of the control rods around the masthead light caused the light to pulse at "7 cycles per second as stated in the television video" each time a rod passed between the light and the camera. To some people this "authoritative explanation" may seem convincing.

However, it fails in several ways:

1. The supposed UFO does not at all resemble a helicopter.

2. Rotating helicopter blades would create a wind that would stir up the smoke from the red fires.

3. Although the videotape picked up the noise of a dog hundreds of feet away, there is no engine noise that would be expected if the videographer were as close as 1,000 ft from a helicopter.

4. The masthead light is white, but the flashing "UFO beacon" is blue.

5. This explanation contradicts the characteristics of the flashing light recorded on the video, a fact that should have been obvious to the Canadian "experts." The passage of small diameter control rods between the camera and the masthead light would cause periodic decreases in brightness of the light which would be at full brightness most of the time (e.g., three frames bright, one dark). This is the opposite of the Guardian video flashing light which is dark most of the time and bright for only a short time (i.e., dark for three frames, bright for one frame).

Another aspect of the flashing light is of interest. Each time the light flashes at the top of the UFO a light appears a short distance below it. This lower light is less bright and is extended in the left-right direction.

Analysis of the shape of the UFO and the location of this light indicates that it is the reflection of the top light from the curved surface of the UFO, thereby indicating that the UFO is a 3 dimensional structure and this reduces the likelihood that the "UFO" was a two dimensional model, such as might be used in a hoax.

Regarding the hoax hypothesis, without any information on Guardian or how the video was obtained we must allow for the possibility that the video is a hoax because virtually any photo or video could be created given enough desire (or a reason for doing so) and the necessary time, money, technical capability and equipment.

If we accept as a "given" that the video could be a hoax, then the real question is can we prove it was a hoax? Without information about Guardian or the manner in which the video was obtained we certainly cannot directly prove it was a hoax. We can reverse the question and ask, can we prove it was not a hoax? Again we must answer no, we cannot prove it was not a hoax. Since we can't prove it was not a hoax we might decide to err on the side of caution and "conventional wisdom" and say that it probably is a hoax.

On the other hand, a person who accepts the hoax hypothesis for the Guardian video must explain the testimony of three witnesses. The testimony points to some very unusual UFO-type event that occurred on one night in August, 1991, at the east end of the Labenek's field. Are we to assume that the video is a hoax but the Labenek/ Quarrington/"Sarah" sighting is real?

About the only ways I can imagine to establish consistency between the video hoax hypothesis and the testimony is to either assume that someone set up an elaborate hoax in the Labenek's field without them being aware of it or to assume that the Labeneks and the others were part of the hoax.

At present I am aware of no convincing evidence which supports the idea that the Labeneks or anyone else were part of a hoax conspiracy and it is difficult to imagine that anyone could have set up a hoax in their field without their permission.

Hence I conclude that the hoax hypothesis is unlikely to be correct, and is, at the very least, premature. (Note: Diane Lebanek at first offered to take a lie detector test. Then someone told her that if she passed she would be killed. She then refused to take a test.)

In this letter I have briefly summarized some of the important information in the Guardian case. I have presented more factual details here than there are in the MUFON article. The MUFON article seems to be more of an ad hominem attack on Bob Oechsler than an analysis of the Guardian case. If the author of the article or any of his sources can convincingly refute the testimony of the witnesses then, indeed, this case can be consigned to the scrap heap.

However, until then, it must be treated seriously.

Back to Contents

The Carp Case
(The Guardian Caper)

- The MUFON Ontario Version: Part 1 -

This case has had much coverage in the media. Tabloid television shows like 'Unsolved Mysteries', 'Sightings' and 'Encounters' have given it much air-time, as have cable-TV stations all over North America.

Internationally, magazines newspapers and news-letters have devoted hundreds of pages to it and UFO conferences around the planet have intrigued many thousands of attendees with it's seemingly startling details.

'Carp' has achieved 'One Of The Most Significant Cases In UFO History' status. You've probably heard, seen and read about it yourself.

In this and succeeding issues we'll deal with the FACTS of the case. We'll describe the events, as told by the media and as we've experienced them - and we'll try not appear too judgemental.


Beginnings - 1989
Tom Theofanous, working with The Canadian UFO Research Network (CUFORN), received a package from someone calling themselves 'Guardian'. It had no return address.

"The package contained a story about a UFO crash that supposedly happened close to Carlton Place, which is about a half-hour drive from Ottawa", Tom said. "There was also a photo-copied picture of an Alien."

"For the most part, we thought it was a joke. But, CUFORN director Harry Tokarz decided to call Arthur Bray, a well-respected UFO author and researcher who lives in Ottawa, and ask him if he had someone in the Carlton area who could check out the story for us. As luck would have it, Arthur knew a fellow who was fascinated by the field of ufology, Graham Lightfoot."

Graham, with what was to become typical thoroughness, used the somewhat sketchy co-ordinates he got from Arthur Bray to not only pinpoint the 'UFO crash-site' near Manion Corners, but also locate a number of witnesses.

One of those witnesses, Diane Labanek, claimed that on the night of November 4th 1989, she saw an intense, bright light pass overhead, heading towards a swamp at the far end of the field behind and south of her home. She said she also saw several helicopters earlier that evening using bright lights to scan the area.

Another West Carlton resident recalled that that was the weekend when some cattle escaped from a nearby pasture and that it took till late Sunday to round them up.

A couple told Graham about the wife being scared by a very bright light shone through their south-facing bathroom window. "It reached right down our hallway!". The wife also mentioned that she vaguely remembered hearing the sound of helicopters at the time.

Others talked of "dogs and cattle being disturbed".

Many people could think of absolutely nothing unusual happening during the course of the weekend, including a couple who had a telescope set-up.

Graham reported those findings to CUFORN, along with results of his examination of the field and swamp behind Labanek's home - there were no signs on the ground, anywhere, of the heavy equipment that would be needed to recover a 'crashed craft'.

His report closed with,

"although I could find nothing conclusive to support or disprove any of the witnesses claims. I shall check back around the area later this summer."

The same Guardian material had been sent to several other investigators, researchers and UFO groups and as the story spread, both the former Provincial Director of MUFON Ontario Clive Nadin, and the current Quebec Director Christian Page, visited the area on separate occasions, and spoke to the 'witnesses'.

They confirmed Graham Lightfoot's initial findings and agreed with Tom & Harry at CUFORN that someone was "trying to put us on - a hoax!"

 

Guardian Re-Surfaces - 1991
In the middle of October 1991 CUFORN began receiving more Guardian 'information' via the mail and all postmarked 'Ottawa'.

An envelope with some documents that mention a 'conspiracy' between the Chinese and 'Grey Aliens that are planning to take over the world', arrived first. Then came a Polaroid photograph of a 'UFO' flying across an unidentified road. A while later came a black & white picture of a grey-type 'Alien'.

The fourth delivery in the series was a package. It contained the now infamous VHS video tape with a green label on the cassette, with a thumb print and the word GUARDIAN printed on the label.

There were also three playing cards in the package, all with hand written notes on them - an Ace, King and Joker.

A photo-copied map showed the 'Grey's landing area', along with notes explaining that the flares in the video were used to help the UFO, which can out maneuver anything on the planet, fly under the radar and know where to land!

There were also 'Canadian Department of National Defense documents' enclosed - which, upon later investigation, proved to be forgeries. These 'documents', it is thought, were designed to look like the official documents on UFOs that Canadian UFO author/researcher Stanton Friedman acquired, via 'The Freedom of Information Act', from the United States Government.

The video - a few minutes long - showed two different angles of what Guardian alleges was an 'alien craft', on the ground.

First, a long shot of bright lights clumped together to the right of the scene and what looked like four red emergency road flares or fires in barrels on the left side of the screen. The second scene showed the same clump of bright lights from approximately the same distance but more to the centre without any flares and the sound of a single dog barking in the distance. The third scene was only three frames long and was a close-up of a a pair of wipers half-way across a very Earth-bound vehicle!

CUFORN pondered what to do with all the Guardian information that arrived in October of '91 and decided, that in view of the season - winter, that they would hold off visiting Carlton until after the spring run-off.
 

Enter Oechsler
At the beginning of March '92, Bob Oechsler (pronounced Bob Ex-ler) an American MUFON investigator - who describes himself a 'former NASA mission specialist' - called CUFORN from his home in Maryland.

Apparently, he too had received a video and documents from Guardian, although when comparisons of the two videos were discussed, his had an additional scene - a somewhat closer one minute shot of the 'alien craft'.

His version also had a couple of minutes worth of the windshield, plus several still shots of the 'Grey Aliens'. The most important difference, however, was that his version of the tape had no audio-track at all - "it seems it was intentionally removed", says Tom Theofanous.

Oechsler had shown the tape to Bruce Maccabee and they agreed that what they saw was a UFO and should be investigated further - and that's why Oechsler called Tom at CUFORN. They agreed they would meet in Carlton, Ontario on May 10th 1992. Tom then called and spoke with Graham Lightfoot, for the first time, and Graham agreed to act as guide for the May meeting.

It transpired that Graham worked for The O.F.A - The Ontario Federation of Agriculture - and knew the Carlton area and its farmers well.
 

The First Visit
On May 10th, Mother's Day, 1991, Torontonians, Tom & Lise Theofanous, Victor Lourenco, Vaughn [LAST NAME?], Drew Williamson, Harry Tokarz and Wayne St. John met with Oechsler, his son and Graham Lightfoot at the motel the Oechslers were staying at in West Carlton, near Ottawa, Ontario.

They all had breakfast together as Oechsler told many, many fascinating stories. Eventually they ended up in Oechsler's motel room to compare their copies of the Guardian video.

"Oechsler, despite being an expert in video analysis, had a great deal of difficulty connecting my video camera up to the TV set in his room so that we could play back the Guardian videos. In retrospect, his combination of technical ineptness and more story telling seemed to be a stalling tactic", said Tom.

They stopped at a spot off Highway 7 near Manion Corners and Graham pointed out the direction from which the 1989 'UFO' had come when it 'crashed', and where the Labanek's house was in relation to where the group was standing.

Oechsler seemed to be stalling once more, shooting video of everything.

Finally, they set off again.

"This time Oechsler took the lead, with me following him and Graham who's supposed to be our guide following me!" Tom says. "I thought at the time that this was pretty odd. How did Oechsler, who supposedly had never been to Canada, let alone this area before, know his way, using side-roads and making the correct turns toward our destination?"

Earlier, Oechsler had asked the Toronto group to check for anomalies on their compasses while they were driving, because the Guardian papers described magnetic changes in certain parts of the area the group was traveling in.

"So, we're driving down a small hill when Oechsler braked suddenly up ahead of us, stopped and came back to our car to tell me that he had found an anomaly on his two compasses", Tom recounts, "now, he had both of his laying in the back of his pick-up on the metal floor where they were bouncing around. His son was keeping an eye on them from the cab. I told him that the three compasses, we were holding in the palms of our hands, in our car didn't waver at all. But, he insisted that he'd go back up the hill, by himself, and check again."

While the rest of the group stood around waiting for Oechsler, Drew Williamson noticed a Stop-sign at the end of a long driveway leading to an abandoned farmhouse with a For-Sale sign on it.

Tom continues:

"I looked through my binoculars at the Stop-sign and saw that it was propped up by rocks. There were other signs around it that read 'Do Not Enter' and 'DND Killing Fields'. The last one had pictographs of tanks, helicopters and weapons on it and appeared to be riddled with bullet-holes.

"So, out of curiosity, we went over to the signs and looked more closely."

"We found tracks left by cars and what might have been four- wheeled vehicles, leading into the property. We felt that perhaps the field around the old farm house was being used for 'War Games' - or maybe even was the location used for the Guardian video."

"Why? Because the terrain was perfect - lots (200 acres) of open field. I also noticed a dog barking up at the house at the top of the hill." said Tom.

This would become significant later in identifying the possible location of the Guardian video shoot.

"Eventually, we continued along Corkery Road. But, when I mentioned to Oechsler that we should be interviewing the people in the neighborhood we were passing, who were out sitting in their front gardens or working on their lawns, he insisted that we look for the 'crash' or 'landing' sites."

Guardian's map described an area about one and a quarter miles square, which consisted of dense, knee-high scrub, and wet, swampland.

The group headed toward it, using a path beneath high-tension power transmission lines that cut across below the southern end of the Labanek's property.

Most of them had great difficulty with the rough conditions and became very tired, annoyed by biting mosquitoes and soaked by the swampy ground. They gave about a half way into the swamp and headed back to the back to the parking lot.

Tom picks up the story again:

"Bob and his son continued to look for the landing site as the rest of us left the swamp in a couple of different groups. Lise, Drew, Wayne and I left first and drove off looking for a drink of cold pop."

"When we got back to the parking lot twenty minutes later, the second group out had left a note on our windshield saying they'd meet us at a restaurant twenty minutes away in Carp. We left a note on the Oechsler's truck windshield telling them where we'd be.

"The first of our group to arrive at the restaurant ordered their food and twenty minutes later the rest of us arrived and placed our orders."

"Thirty minutes later, as Oechsler and his son were walking through the door, I jokingly said: I bet he'll say he found the spot!"

"As he sat down, I asked him what had happened. He smiled and said he'd found the spot."

"I asked how he'd managed to do that when we'd left him a about a mile from his car in a dense swamp halfway to the alleged site and it was getting dark. There simply hadn't been enough time to get there examine the 'site' and get back out to his truck and drive to the restaurant. He just smiled, but didn't answer."

After they finished their dinner, Drew, Victor and Vaughn decided to leave for Toronto.

Graham suggested that the remainder should go talk to the Labanek, and he and Harry left ahead of Tom & Lise and the Oechslers, since Oechsler senior was still eating. The seven of them would meet at the corner by the Labaneks.

"Lise, Wayne and I confronted Oechsler out in the parking lot, where the three of us had gone to discuss the days events privately."

"I asked him what he was trying to pull here. He responded by asking "what's wrong with trying to make a buck?", I answered that there was nothing wrong with making money as long as we didn't compromise our ethics."

"Oechsler came back with: "No matter what or how good the story is, 50% of the people will believe you, 50% wont. All you have to care about is the 50% that will".

"It was at that point", recalls Tom, "that I decided to back away from the investigation for a while to see what Oechsler would do."

They joined the others at Manion Corner by the Labaneks house - Graham had knocked on their door but there was no one home. So, they waited, enjoying a pleasant early summer evening, talking.

The Labaneks didn't get home till after 10 p.m, which the group felt was late to do an interview. Graham and Oechsler would come back the next morning and talk to them

Tom finishes up this part of the story:

"I told Graham about the conversation that I had in the parking lot of the restaurant with Oechsler, after he left the restaurant. Then Lise, Harry, Wayne and I left for Toronto, shaking our heads."

- End of Part One, MUFON Ontario Version -

Back to Contents

Documents Received from Guardian in 1989

Canadian and American Security Agencies are engaged in a conspiracy of silence, to withhold from the world the alien vessel seized in the swamps of Corkery Road, Carp, in 1989.

UFO sightings in the Ontario region had intensified in the 1980’s, specifically, around nuclear power generating stations. On Nov. 4, 1989 at 20:00 hrs Canadian Defense Dept. radars picked up a globe shaped object traveling at phenomenal speed over Carp, Ontario. The UFO abruptly stopped, and dropped like a stone.
Canadian and American Security Agencies were immediately notified of the landing. Monitoring satellites traced the movements of the aliens to a triangular area. (see aerial map) off Almonte and Corkery Roads.

The ship had landed in deep swamp near Corkery Road. Two AH-64 Apaches and a UH-60 Blackhawk headed for the area the following night. The helicopters carried full weapon loads. They were part of a covert American unit that specialized in the recovery of alien craft.

Flying low over Ontario pine trees the Apache attack choppers soon spotted a glowing, blue, 20 meter in diameter sphere. As targeting lasers locked-on, both gun-ships unleashed their full weapon loads of 8 missiles each. All 16 were exploded in proximity bursts 10 meters downwind from the ship.

The missiles were carrying VEXXON, a deadly neuro-active gas which kills on contact. Exposed to air the gas breaks down quickly into inert components. Immediately after having completed their mission the gun-ships turned around, and headed back across the border.

Now the Blackhawk landed, as men exploded from its open doors. In seconds the six man strike team had entered the UFO through a 7 meter hatchless, oval portal. No resistance was encountered. At the controls, 3 dead crewman were found.

With the ship captured, the US Air force, Pentagon, and Office of Naval Intelligence were notified. Through the night a special team of technicians had shut-down and disassembled the sphere. Early the next morning Nov. 6, 1989 construction equipment and trucks were brought into the swamp. The UFO parts were transported to a secret facility in Kanata, Ontario.

As a cover story the locals were informed that a road was being built through the swamp. No smokescreen was needed for the military activity as Canadian forces regularly train in the Carp region. Officially nothing unusual was reported in the area. Although someone anonymously turned in a 35mm roll of film. It was received by the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa. The film contained several clear shots of an entity holding a light. (see photo) At this time the photographer is still unidentified.

The humanoids were packed in ice and sent to an isolation chamber at the Univ. of Ottawa. CIA physiologists performed the autopsies.

The reptilian, fetus-headed beings, were listed as CLASS 1 NTE’s. (Non Terrestrial Entities) Like others recovered in previous operations, they were muscular, grey-white skinned, humanoids.

The ship was partially reassembled at the underground facility in Kanata. Unlike previous recoveries this one is pure military. Built as a “Starfighter” it is heavily armed and armored. In design no rivets, bolts, or welds were used in fastening, yet when reconstructed there are no seams. The UFO itself is made up of a matrixed dielectric magnesium alloy. It is driven by pulsed electromagnetic fields generated by a cold fusion reactor. All offensive capabilities utilize independently targeting electronic beam weapons. In the cargo hold were found ordnance racks containing fifty Soviet nuclear warheads. Their purpose was revealed by advanced tactical/combat computers located in the flight deck.

Threatened by recent East-West relations, and the revolutionary movements within itself, Red China is preparing for the final ideological war. The aliens have agreed to defend China from the free world’s combined military and nuclear forces.

At this time China is arming the Middle East with their own nuclear arsenals, in order that they can successfully take on Israel. Unifying the Arabs under one Chinese command was simple, especially with Israel’s recent “iron fist” attitude toward occupied territories.

The Soviet warheads found in the UFO were destined for Syria. CIA operatives in the Middle East have noticed huge movements of Chinese “technicians” and “advisors”. China is also supplying the Arabs with bacteriological agents, Migs, Hind gunships, tanks, and missile launchers. The use of “Soviet” instead of “Chinese” nukes is part of a disinformation campaign to break up East-West relations after the annihilation of Israel. The Warheads were hijacked from Soviet subs in the Dragon’s Triangle.

A section of alien controlled Pacific once frequented by Russian subs. After losing some 900 high yield warheads and 13 vessels, commanders were ordered to steer clear of the area.

The most important alien-tech find were the 2 millimeter, spheroid, brain implants. Surgically inserted through the nasal orifice the individual can be fully monitored and controlled. The CIA and Canadian Govt have actively supported mind-slave experiments for years. Currently the Univ. of Ottawa is involved in ELF wave mind control programs. A continuation of the CIA psychological warfare project known as MKULTRA, started at the Allen Memorial Institute in Montreal.
 

Using ELF signals transmitted at the same wavelength the human brain uses, the researchers could subliminally control the test subject. The alien implants utilize the same principles except that the whole unit is sub miniaturized and contained in the brain. Fortunately the implants can be detected by magnetic resolution scanning technology. All individuals implanted by the aliens are classified as ZOMBIES.

The ZOMBIES have been programmed to help overthrow Mankind in the near future. When China finishes with Israel it will invade Europe. At the same time Chinese space based bacteriological weapons will be launched at the Arctic. The winds will carry the diseases into Russia and North America. In days 100’s of millions will be dead, survivors will have to deal with Chinese, aliens, and the ZOMBIES.

The aliens want all out war so that human resistance would be minimal, when they invade. They tried this same tactic once before with Nazi Germany. Most of the scientific advances we have today came from German science which was based on alien technology. Had Hitler won the war, the earth would have become a concentration camp in order to depopulate the continents for the aliens.

Data aboard the sphere explained why the aliens are so comfortable on our world. They preceded man on the evolutionary scale by millions of years; created with the dinosaurs. Some 675 million years ago an interdimensional war destroyed most of their civilization, and forced them to leave the earth. Now they have chosen to reclaim what was once theirs.

The alien forces with their Chinese and Arab allies will attack within the next 5 years.

Waiting longer than that would make it impossible even for the aliens to reverse the ecological damage inflicted on the Earth by Man.

Back to Contents

Back to Extraterrestrial Technology And Reverse Engineering




 

The Carp Case
(The Guardian Caper)

- The MUFON Ontario Version: Part 2 -

The following morning, Graham Lightfoot, Oechsler and his son met and drove to the Labanek's home at Manion Corners near Carp, Ontario. Graham reintroduced himself and asked Diane Labanek if she remembered him. "Vaguely" she said, and then remembered their conversation about a bright light that had headed towards the swamp at the bottom of her field back in 1990.

When asked if she had seen anything strange since then, she described an event that happened in their field. It seems she was putting her children to bed one night in August 1991 and something caught here eye from the second floor bedroom.

Labanek described seeing what she thought was a fire, or perhaps flares burning at the far end of the field behind the house and as she watched, a 'craft' landed next to the fire/flares.

"After a few minutes, maybe five or eight, the very bright lights on the craft went out - just like you turn off a light-bulb. And soon after, the flares went out. Then some minutes later, a helicopter came and hovered over the area - like they were looking for something" she said.

When she was asked later why she hadn't called the fire department about a 'fire' burning in her field, which was tinder dry in the August heat, she replied,

"I didn't think that anyone would believe and I thought I'd get into trouble!"

On Oechsler's next visit to the Labanek's, she was asked to draw what she had seen. She drew a craft that she described as being silver/grey, with a zigzag design around it, sitting on three blocks which, coincidently, matched a drawing that was in one of the Guardian packages - a drawing that she maintained she'd never seen.

Labanek was able to see an object and details that were over 2200 feet away in the dark and brightly lit from the bottom up. Guardian's video camera, which was closer, couldn't see the 'thunderbolt insignia' around the 'craft' or the three 'blocks' beneath the craft.

The video clearly shows the 'craft' to be red and not silver/grey.

MORE ON GUARDIAN'S VIDEO
In the version of Guardians video that was sent to CUFORN, the Canadian UFO Research Network, the last three frames show a windshield with the wiper blades in an upright position.

• Why would Guardian put those frames that appear to have been shot at night with artificial light, on the tape?

• Were those frames designed to give a clue as to what the craft really was?

In the course of one of many discussions between the investigators, Tom Theofanous asked Oechsler what he thought about the windshield footage on Guardian's video. Oechsler replied that it wasn't a windshield but rather the design on the side of the 'craft'. Tom asked how he'd come to that conclusion? Oechsler replied,

"Well there's Diane's evidence together with my expertise in analysis - that's how."

Oechsler had once again brought up his 'qualifications and expertise', which he seemingly did and still does at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, Oechsler's qualifications on the subject of windshields were definitely non-existent when compared to Tom's - he's been running a windshield repair company for the past seven years!
 

FIELD INVESTIGATOR OECHSLER
Oechsler and Graham went out to the field after their first talk with Diane Labanek.

The previous night, at a restaurant, Oechsler had claimed that he had found the 'landing site' and now insisted that they look for 'evidence'. He spotted an area of grass that had been "dug up during the landing". Graham, who works for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, patiently explained that skunks caused that kind of damage while looking for grubs.

Oechsler's biography touts his experience in dealing with the UFO phenomenon and his expertise in 'field work', an expertise not on display that day. "He seemed not to know what he was looking for or anything much about country nature" Graham observed later.

Oechsler's inexperience continued to make to show as he pointed to vegetation that had "been treated with microwave radiation"! How did he come to that conclusion without using any instruments?

"It's very dry and brittle, so it's obviously been irradiated" Oechsler said.

The 'irradiated' plants were Juniper bushes that always look that way after a Canadian winter - bleached, dried and flattened by heavy snow, probably in much the same way as in Maryland, Oechsler's home-state.

Graham and Oechsler continued to examine what Oechsler was convinced was the landing site. He then asked Graham if he had anything to put samples in. Graham thought that it was extremely odd that an investigator of Oechsler's 'calibre' would show up with no sample containers and handed over some empty film canisters for Oechsler's samples.

On returning to Labanek's house later that day, Labanek told them that her husband Bill had "gone for milk" at around 10:00pm on the evening of the 'landing' and had missed it. Bill Labanek had been doing a 'milk-run' on the night in 1989 when there had been a 'crash' in their swamp.

He didn't seem to be at all concerned about what had transpired on his property on either occasion. He didn't bother to take the time to go look at the spot which his wife said had been a 'UFO landing site'.

Diane Labanek claims to have gone only part way into the field the day after the 'landing', looked briefly in the direction of the 'landing site', didn't see anything, and walked back to the house. She had told no one about what she saw that night until Graham and Oechsler asked her about it.

Why didn't she walk the remaining couple of hundred yards to where this 'amazing event' took place? She says that it was a beautiful summer evening too.

That evening Graham called Tom in Toronto and recounted the days events. They discussed Oechsler and his amateurish approach to the investigation and observed that a pattern seemed to be emerging.

It seemed that Oechsler was incompetent, egocentric and attempting to steer the case and its facts to fit in with his own agenda.
 

HELICOPTERS

As a follow-up to Diane Labanek's assertions about helicopter activity following the 'landing', Investigator Drew Williamson called the Department of National Defence (DND) on May 12, 1992. He was told that the military held exercises every August using helicopters and that they had to get permission from landowners for the choppers to land in their fields. If an emergency were to arise and a helicopter had to land DND would pay compensation for any damage caused.

On July 12, 1992, Graham made a number of calls to various military establishments to get information on helicopter activity. He was told that they don't use flares during landings at night, but do use Chem-Sticks that glow in the dark. Captain Mark Bigoutte said that although choppers were on exercise on August 19, 1991, they were many miles to the west of Manion Corners.

On July 14, 1992 Oechsler arrived back at Graham's place and the next day they went to Uplands Royal Canadian Airforce base and showed Colonel Cajo Brando and Major Norm Patterson the Guardian video - over and over.

Colonel Brando didn't think it was a helicopter and when shown a photograph taken by one of the Labanek children of a Huey Helicopter that Diane Labanek maintained had 'buzzed' their home after the 'landing', he said, "It's not one ours, they were decommissioned (taken out of active-service) two years ago."

Brando suggested that it may have been an American chopper that had come across the border without notifying Canadian authorities - something which, apparently, happens often.

Later that day, Graham and Oechsler returned to the Labanek's and collected some fifteen soil and plant samples from the supposed 'landing' site. On a radio call-in show, March 30th '93, Oechsler claimed to have collected "over a hundred samples from all over the area"!
 

UNSOLVED MYSTERIES
Oechsler, in a conversation with Graham and Tom expressed interest in getting the case on the 'Unsolved Mysteries' TV show, feeling that it might flush Guardian out. Tom countered that it might be better to further investigate the claims of the 'witnesses' before giving the case national TV exposure.

What neither Tom nor Graham knew at the time, was that Oechsler had already gone ahead and made a deal with Unsolved Mysteries to shoot a segment on the Carp Case in the fall.

In the following three months preparations were made for the shooting of the 'Unsolved' segment with Graham received many calls from and eventually met the TV show's Bob Kiviat and Bob Wise. Oechsler flew into Ottawa in mid October 1992 with the 'Unsolved' crew and interviewed Major Patterson about the Guardian 'Documents'. Graham, feeling as he did about Oechsler's 'slant' on the case was very reluctant to appear on the show and it took many calls from various production people to eventually talk him into appearing.

On November 15, 1992 participants in the Carp segment gathered at General Assembly for the taping. Graham met Bruce Maccabee for the first time and, to use his words, "was not very impressed."

He put his contribution 'in the can' the next day at the Labanek's.
 

GUARDIAN REVEALED
In the course of a meeting on November 19, 1992 Graham learned that a man named Andy Williams claimed that he knew who Guardian was. Graham and Oechsler arranged to meet with Williams the next day in Ottawa. Andy Williams explained that a friend of many years, Bobby Charlebois, had an on-going interest in UFOs and had called himself 'Guardian' over the course of those years. He went on to give details about Bobby Charlebois and his 'interests'.
 

Oechsler, inexplicably, gave Andy Williams much material regarding the Carp case.

On November 22nd, Graham discovered that a co-worker knew Bobby Charlebois well - his sister, Meg had dated the Guardian 'suspect'. Graham talked with Meg and she confirmed that Charlebois was an avid UFO buff and had discussed the phenomenon on many occasions in the past.

Despite having signed an 'exclusive' with Unsolved Mysteries to not do another show until 30 days after their 'airing' of the Carp Case, Oechsler records a segment for 'Sightings' in January of 1993 without telling Graham until after the fact.

Interestingly, Dr. A.J. Quarington a 'witness' participates in 'Sightings' after refusing meet or even discuss the case with Graham and Clive Nadin (the former Director of MUFON Ontario) in the early stages of the investigation.
 

FINGERPRINTS
On February 1, 1993 Oechsler and Graham meet with reporter Lois Tuffin, who also knows Bobby Charlebois well. Oechsler asked her to deliver a large package of UFO material to Charlebois in the hopes of getting his fingerprints. She did so, but the package was returned to her an hour later.

The following day Oechsler collected the package from Lois and took it to the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) to have it checked for fingerprints. There were none and the feeling was that Charlebois had out-smarted them, wiping the package clean. It seems that Charlebois has something to hide.

Diane Labanek, on hearing Bobby Charlebois name said that she had known him "for a while" and that he was a good friend who visited often.

Oechsler asked her to try and get Charlebois' fingerprints from any drinking glasses that he might use. Labanek claimed that Charlebois always wiped them clean.

- End of Part Two, MUFON Ontario Version -

Back to Contents


 

The Carp Case
(The Guardian Caper)

- The MUFON Ontario Version: Part 3 -

On February 4, 1993 Graham and Oechsler went to the Labanek's where Leanne Cuzak interviewed Bob Oechsler and Diane Labanek for CJOH-TV, Ottawa.
During this interview Labanek claimed that "a lot of others had seen the event that had transpired in my field". She didn't, however, seem to recall any names and in talking to many residents in the Manion Corner area, MUFON Ontario has not been able to find any other witnesses to the 'UFO Landing'.

During the CJOH-TV interview that day Oechsler also claimed that he too had received a large number of calls from 'witnesses'. Graham wasn't aware of any calls to the Labanek's or anywhere else other than a few to Oechsler's hotel.

Later that day, Graham Lightfoot and Oechsler met with a couple of high school girls in Almonte, a short drive from the Labanek's. They had called the Unsolved Mysteries Hotline, which again Graham wasn't aware of, to report that they knew who Guardian was. The name they gave wasn't Charlebois'. Oechsler told them who Guardian was. Oechsler, despite avowing not to, was blowing Guardian's cover'.

On February 24, 1993, Labanek told Graham and Oechsler about a sighting that her mother had the previous week. Her mother had seen a 'craft' hovering "not fifty feet from the house" but was too scared at the time to call out to anybody.

Later Labanek claimed that her husband saw a 'craft' around the same spot as the August '91 sighting. There were no explanations as to when or if there were any traces of this second 'landing'.

Apparently, neither of these 'incidents' were of interest to Oechsler and he has only mentioned them very briefly since and only in passing!

If these two events were 'real' why wouldn't he have investigated them too, instead of making such a fuss about the 'evidence' that he'd found nine months after the August '91 'landing'? Labanek's mother's and husband's 'experiences' would have surely produced more witnesses and ground effects?!

Labanek has constantly complained about being harassed by 'low-flying' helicopters that blew shingles off her roof. When close neighbours were questioned by MUFON Ontario investigators about any low-flying choppers they might have observed, they only mentioned the regular Air Ambulance flights that passed overhead and the occasional military or Mountie aircraft. Not one mentioned choppers flying at unusually low altitudes - below the regulation five-hundred feet.

At the time of describing her mother's 'sighting' to Graham and Oechsler, Labanek told of a white helicopter that passed over the house the following day. Subsequent investigation showed that it was a NATO aircraft on a training-exercise and that it too would not have been flying below the standard five-hundred foot level.

Due to the proximity of the Labanek's neighbors it would be impossible for a helicopter to fly low enough to blow the shingles off one house and not be noticed by the residents of neighboring houses.

Labanek had told Graham that she knew nothing about UFOs, nor did she care about them or talk about them with anyone. And yet, when the Unsolved Mysteries show was being taped at her home, one of the 'grips' on the crew setting up a scene (in which Guardian was mailing a video) in Labanek's basement recreation room, found "cupboards containing many UFO books".

Back to Contents

Graham Lightfoot Letter Regarding Bob Oechsler

On February 28, 1993 Graham wrote the following to Bob Kiviat, producer of the Unexplained Mysteries segment on 'Guardian':

 

Bob Kiviat, Producer
Cosgrove/ Meurer Productions
Dear Bob,

No doubt you’ve heard from Oechsler that there has been another sighting at Labanek’s... on Feb 17th ‘93. It was Diane’s mother who saw the event at 11:10 pm, very close to the house. She was so frightened that she didn’t call to Diane and no one else saw it. She said the craft was right over the garden which means it was within 50 feet of the house. It hovered there for a short while and moved south over the swamp, in the direction that the 1989 ‘crash’ light was seen. It came back beside the house and then moved off out of sight over the swamp. She described it as having a flashing light on top and lots of light all around it. She pulled the curtains from the window, but didn’t wake anyone else in the house. The next day a white helicopter arrived and flew over the same course.

Oechsler may or may not have told you he is working with the RCMP in trying to get Guardian’s (Bobby Charlesbois) fingerprints. He tells me he is trying to get the RCMP to charge Bobby with a minor charge of forging DND documents to scare him into an admission. This is contrary to Oechsler’s stated intent to Bobby, of not disclosing Bobby’s identity if he wished to remain anonymous.

I am trusting you to keep my comments to you in confidence from Oechsler as I will no doubt be working with him again on this case. I have no problem working with him at arms length, but his methods and rather chaotic behavior bothers me. He has told me that he wants to set up a 24-hours a day, two week watch at the Labanek’s since he feels the sightings will re-occur in the near future. He has no funding for this operation and told me he will seek help from your company in this regard.

This may all be a good idea, but my feeling is that these things will run their course, with or without 24-hour surveillance. In fact I’d hazard a guess that the event is less likely to occur with surveillance.

I’ve heard through the grapevine that the ‘expert’ on the Sightings show claims he doesn’t know who Oechsler is, never met him. It seems Sightings showed the tape to this ‘expert’ and he said he didn’t know what it was. Also MUFON is distancing itself from Oechsler after their credibility suffered with the Gulf Breeze story. It seems Oechsler wants to speak at their annual meeting and they don’t want him there.

Oechsler has a lot of background information and he certainly has a lot of contacts that are invaluable in doing research of this nature. He is persistent in looking for evidence, yet at the same time he often tries to build a case to fit his preconceived story line.

This bothers me.

We have talked about his ego and wanting credit for everything he learns. That’s OK by me. In the Labanek case he used a lot of material that I got for him. The show implied that he found Labanek’s place from the Guardian map. He could have spent weeks looking for the location on his own.
But what bothers me the most is his tunnel vision, that only he can find the answers.

- Graham Lightfoot

On March 4, '93, Oechsler phoned Graham to boast that he had asked the RCMP to apply pressure the Guardian suspect, Bobby Charlebois, by charging him with forging Department of National Defense documents. In actual fact, the only way the RCMP would have paid any attention would have been if a formal complaint was filed by a Canadian Citizen.

What Oechsler didn't tell Graham was that a complaint was lodged by the Labaneks who told the RCMP that they were being 'harassed' by helicopters flying over their property, below the 500 feet minimum set by the Federal Government.

March 8, brought a call from Labanek to Graham. She complained about being 'harassed' by the RCMP. She said that they tried to get her to sign a 'confession' ( her word ) that craft she saw landing in her field on the night of August 18, 1991 was a helicopter! She also claimed that Bobby 'Guardian' Charlebois was also being 'harassed' by the Mounties and had hired a lawyer.

Graham, at the time, was convinced that Labanek was telling the truth and felt that something should be done about her complaints. He called Charlie Greenwell at CJOH-TV in Ottawa and suggested that perhaps the station could cover the story on their local news. A report aired three days later on the 6 O'clock News.

CJOH-TV's news item infuriated Oechsler. On March 29, he blasted Graham for giving the story to a TV station. This puzzled Graham - why would Oechsler take exception to him helping Labanek expose RCMP harassment?

What Graham didn't know was that the complaint to the Mounties was lodged by the Labaneks, apparently at the urging of Oechsler, to increase the credibility of the Carp Case. p A censored copy of the RCMP report on the case, obtained by Christian Page of The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) in Quebec, told a different story.

The Labanek's complaint was actually filed with the RCMP on February 10, 1993! The purpose of the investigation was to:

[Quote from RCMP Report ]

ascertain if sufficient evidence was available to support a prosecution under the Aeronautics Act, Section 534 (2) (b) for flying below 500 feet
ascertain if in fact the object observed was an aircraft
ascertain if the craft observed (by complainant) is a UFO (as per complainant).

[End Quote]

The investigation by RCMP Constable De Haitre, started on February 15, 1993 with interviews of the Labanek's neighbors.

De Haitre found that signs bearing the words 'Defense Canada', 'Killing Fields', and a 'Test Area' sign with a hand-painted tank and 'Air-Wolf' helicopter on it had been seen in a field that later proved to be owned by the Labanek's. Const. De Haitre observed in his report that the lettering-style on the signs was similar to those in the Guardian documents.

Constable De Haitre was told by one of the Labaneks neighbors that another sign had the word 'Nuclear' mis-spelled as 'Nucleear'.

Oechsler then directed his energies toward De Haitre and Canadian Airforce Major Patterson - which created more confusion. Oechsler told Constable De Haitre about finding Titanium at the 'landing site' in the Labanek's field and showed him some of the photographs that he had taken. He also told De Haitre that there were no traces of Strontium, which there would have been had the flares at the 'site' been of the military 'high-heat', type.

Later, in the February/March issue of UFO Library Magazine, Oechsler wrote that he "had the smoking-gun in the pyrotechnical mystery". He now claimed that there was evidence of Lithium Carbonate which is not used in military flares, but rather in "expensive fireworks displays" (or perhaps in roadside emergency flares?). Fireworks that, of course, can be purchased at any 7-11 Store.

Isn't it strange that he would wait a whole year to tell the world the results of his 'tests'?

Oechsler had results of a test that refuted his completely baseless theory about military flares being used at the Carp 'landing site' and didn't publish them for over a year?

And what did he do during that time? He traveled the lecture circuit making money telling people that the flares were definitely military in origin because of the strontium residue that he didn't find at the 'landing site'!

Oechsler tried to cement his relationship with the RCMP. He told Constable De Haitre about his 'witnesses' and his 'analysis' of the Guardian video and suggested that Bobby 'Guardian' Charlebois be charged under the 'Fraudulent Cheque Act' for distributing forged Government documents (the 'Canadian Department of National Defence' documents). De Haitre concluded that no charges could be laid.

De Haitre investigated Oechsler's claims about Titanium and Strontium flare-residue and included the results about the circumstances under which they could and could not be found and where, in the final RCMP report on the case.

Several conversations and correspondence occurred between Oechsler and Constable De Haitre, all of which the Mountie, naturally, recorded in his notes on the case.

- End of Part Three, MUFON Ontario Version -

Back to Contents

 

Comments on the Second Installment of The Carp Case by MUFON Ontario
Dr. Bruce S. Maccabee, Ph.D.

In the second installment of their critique of the Carp case the MUFON Ontario authors have published the names of people who said they wished to remain anonymous, including that of the "Guardian Suspect" who claims that he is not Guardian. This is bad form if not just unethical. MUFON International should consider disciplinary action.

(Note: the witness known as "Sarah" has a quite a sensitive Canadian government job, which could be "on the line" if her involvement becomes general knowledge.)

(Note 2: no disciplinary action was taken.)

The MUFON Ontario version supports Mr. Oechsler's claim that the primary witness, Diane Labenek was "discovered" in a search of the neighborhood for witnesses to a strange event the previous summer. (It is important to note that she was found in a search of the area. There had been no publicity about the Guardian case and the people who were living in the area were simply asked about any strange event they could recall the previous summer.)

She told of seeing red fires at the back end of her field, of seeing a flying craft land near the fires, of seeing the craft "turn off" and the fires go out, all late one night in August, 1991. The article fails to point out that she recalled all of this before she was shown the video (as documented by Oechsler in his video of the initial interview).

The article claims that there is a contradiction between Mrs. Labenek's testimony and the video. According to the article she said the craft appeared to be silver grey with a zig-zag pattern around it and appeared to be sitting on three blocks, but the video doesn't show the,

"thunderbolt design around the craft or the three blocks" and "the video clearly shows the craft to be red, not silver/grey."

Taking the last statement first, the video shows the fires to be red and it shows white, red and green bright areas (not point lights, but areas) around the lower edge of the craft.

However, the main surface of the craft is seen only in the "close up" portions of the video as a silhouette against the flares/smoke. The surface appears totally dark in the video except where the flashing top light reflects off the upper surface. At that point one sees blue/white light. Thus all one can really say about the main body of the craft, as seen in the video, is that it is reflective. This does not refute her claim that it was "silver/grey."

Regarding the other statements about what the video camera did not see ("thunderbolt insignia" or blocks under the craft), it should be noted that the typical home video camera is nowhere near as sensitive to light as the human eye. Bright lights cause over exposure and dimly lit surfaces are not detected at all. Unfortunately we don't know what the characteristics of the Guardian video camera are, but based on typical available video cameras in 1991 and earlier, it likely had a sensitivity of 5 lux or more. This is enough to create barely useable videos in a dim room.

If the surface of the craft were unlighted or had very dim lighting, and if the blocks were unlighted or very dimly lit, the video camera might not detect them. Consider, again, that the surface of the craft itself made no impression on the video; it was seen only as a silhouette against the flares and flare-illuminated smoke. If we knew for a fact that the Guardian camera was a very sensitive, expensive camera, then we might have a good reason to question the lack of complete agreement with her description.

However, we don't know its sensitivity (and I suspect that the camera was not very good one because the video is quite poor) so we cannot state, as if it were a fact, that there is a contradiction between the video an Mrs. Labenek's testimony.

The article makes reference to "three frames" of the video (taking 1/10 of a second) which, it is claimed, show a windshield wiper "in the upright position."

The article then asks, as if the windshield wiper identification were proven,

"Why would Guardian put those frames that appear to have been shot at night with artificial light, on the tape? Were those frames designed to give a clue as to what the craft really was?"

These questions appear to he rhetorical questions, not designed to be answered, but designed to make the reader think..."aha, a hoax." They make sense only if those three frames do show a windshield wiper.

I have examined the frames in question and also the approximately 500 which follow in the video that Mr. Oechsler received (apparently Tom did not have these frames). The imagery in those 17 seconds shows nearly straight or zig-zag lines of varying brightness and orientation including a bright one which slants upward and to the right from near the bottom of the frame. This, I presume, is the "windshield wiper" (as confirmed by Tom's expertise as a windshield wiper repairman!).

How he would arrive at that identification is a mystery to me. The only similarity is that the slant of the bright line in the video is comparable to the orientation of a windshield wiper blade at rest.

But since windshield wiper blades don't glow in the dark, in order to videotape one in the dark it would be necessary to illuminate it, and the illumination would make apparent other things around the blade, such as the hood of the car/truck, scattered light from the windshield itself, etc.

The recorded image is, in fact, much closer to something that might be described as a "thunderbolt" insignia which, according to the article, Diane recalled but did not appear on the video (?)!

Apparently it did not occur to the Ontario analysts that, perhaps, this portion of the video shows a portion of what Diane called a zig-zag design. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing just what this shows, since there is no verbal description on the videotape.

However, I can see no justification for stating, as if it were a fact, that this portion of the video shows a windshield wiper blade (illuminated in some unknown way that manages to hide all the other things that would be around such a blade!). And then, what about the numerous other thin, dimmer zig-zag lines in the images? Are they other wiper blades?

The article refers to juniper bushes which were flattened in the area of the craft itself. The article claims that this sort of flattening is what happens in a normal winter as a result of the weight of snow. I saw some of those bushes myself after they had had a whole summer to "rejuvenate." Other such bushes were standing up nicely, but these were crushed and dead. If normal snow did this to juniper bushes... there wouldn't be many such bushes in Canada.

And, if this were a result of snow, then why weren't all (or most) the bushes in the field crushed in a similar way... why just in the area of the craft?

Back to Contents

RCMP REPORT

Back to Contents




CARP SURVIVES DEBUNKING ATTEMPT
by Bob Oechsler, Investigations Analyst
RE: CARP: FINAL WORD, O4 APR/AVR 94, Leblanc: O.C.I.P.E.

In order to qualify my response to the rather authoritative commentary published recently by Benjamin Leblanc (Co-director of O.C.I.P.E. near Montreal), it will be necessary to provide some insight into my philosophy on analysis and reporting of UFO case investigations.

First let me establish some basis for authority regarding my qualifications in submitting this report, I have no idea what Mr. Leblanc's qualifications may be as he failed to report any such information in his submittal - CARP: FINAL WORD.

My active involvement in the research and investigation into the UFO phenomenon dates back fourteen years, five years in which I served as the host of what became a nationwide radio broadcast called: UFOs Today. Anyone who spends 250 hours a year chatting over the telephone with UFO specialists and witnesses is bound to get an incredible education.

Add to that another 1,000 hours a year looking at UFO photos and videos in the company of Ph.D. level technologists and you've got a good basis for fundamental analysis training. When you couple those credits with several weeks a year of field investigations, diplomatic and intelligence agency contacts, former NASA engineering credentials, and acclaim as a robotic innovator, you have Bob Oechsler, Investigations Analyst. Biographical Information sheet available via fax

With regard to the CARP / Guardian Case Investigation, I have a particular level of expertise that warrants elucidation under these specific circumstances. My involvement commenced with the receipt of a video tape of a landed craft and some crude, but elaborate, manufactured documents detailing what is on the video and expressing ideological concerns arising out of the history of alien events reported locally over two decades.

The package arrived postmarked from Ottawa with no return address and only the designation Guardian on the videotape accompanied by a fingerprint. I researched the history of previous claims by the same source which detailed events in the West Carleton township area just 30 miles west of Ottawa, Ontario. The town of Carp is located several miles to the north of the area where the landing reportedly occurred on August 18, 1991.

Since beginning the Guardian video analyses process in February of 1992, I have visited the Ottawa area conducting field investigations and research on at least nine occasions. I have invested almost three months time on location and thousands of dollars in expenses which include costly electron scanning microscope and x-ray analyses of contamination and control field samples collected at the landing site.

Over the course of my two years of investigation into the mysterious Guardian Case, I have consulted on no less than three major network television broadcasts on the case in question and have included in my investigation three top Canadian Government Agencies, RCMP Federal Investigations Unit included. My investigation has involved more Ph.D.. level scientists in varied disciplines that any other case in civilian history to my knowledge.

While I feel confident in certain findings and assessments derived from these efforts, it would be premature and inappropriate for me to offer a 'Final' conclusion.

I cannot even eliminate with 100% certainty that the whole thing was an elaborate fabrication, although I believe it would be an extremely remote possibility.
 

RCMP GRC - INVESTIGATION REPORT: (Commentary)
The investigation conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Federal Investigations Unit was the basis of the report recently filed by Mr. Leblanc of O.C.I.P.E (Organizations de Compilation et d'information sur les Phenonomenes Etranges).

Since the Guardian investigation is a significantly compelling one, I'll confine this rebuttal to the issues raised in Mr. Leblanc's report with specific attention to the RCMP investigation cited. Readers can write to the referenced address for more detailed information on my investigation regarding the Guardian Case.

Although I was intimately involved in the RCMP Investigation following a complaint filed by a resident concerned about the low level helicopter flights in the area and perplexed about the reports of a UFO landing nearby, the RCMP refused my written request for a copy of their final report citing internal regulations. Therefore in spite of Mr. Leblanc's arrogant perplexity at my failure to publish the RCMP report, this was the first time I've actually seen it. Nonetheless, I was familiar with much of the contents and am aware of the identities of most of those interviewed along with their comments. Consequently, I am fully prepared to respond to the arguments raised.

The primary issues raised in the RCMP Investigation centered on the reports of potentially illegal helicopter air traffic operations in West Carleton township. As a result of my investigation on the same issue with the Department of National Defense (DND), the RCMP contacted me regarding my investigation into the videotape of a reported landing of an unusual aircraft on private property. That's how the UFO issue got pulled into the investigation.

When I was contacted by RCMP Constable Dennis De Haitre, he was interested in what information I might have to help in his investigation. I agreed to participate on an information exchange basis which was honored in principle. Cst. De Haitre made it clear to me that his investigation was on thin ice due to adverse public relations concerns regarding the investigation of a reported UFO incident. I indicated to him that my investigation was initiated with the conviction that the event most probably was some sort of military operation.

There appeared to be enough evidence in the video to detect military pyrotechnic flare residue at the landing site. The laboratory results proved negative on required detectable elements and most likely eliminated military involvement. Thus began the scramble at RCMP HQ to come up with a viable explanation for the craft in the Guardian video, namely a helicopter. It seemed to be the optimum solution for them since there were so many reports of helicopters in the area, yet the DND report concluded the object in the video and the helicopters unidentified.

When it became evident to Cst. De Haitre and his superiors that I was prepared to put my technical experts with impeccable credentials up against his experts for a meeting at RCMP HQ, they declined my invitation and terminated the case investigation. Cst. De Haitre scheduled one final meeting with me at RCMP HQ in Ottawa to return some investigation exhibits which were loaned to him for his investigation. During that meeting I was permitted to review a letter in the file from an individual at another Canadian Government Agency.

The letter detailed the author's expertise and indicated that based on several points (which will be addressed in this report) he concluded that the object in the Guardian video was a Sikorsky S-76 helicopter.

The specifics cited from the Guardian video suggesting a helicopter include a presumed relationship between the rapidly strobing blue light on top of the craft which reflects off a curved surface and the masthead light which is a white light shinning "up" through the control rods at the rotor assembly on a helicopter. This is a ludicrous assumption that is easily refuted as the premise for the explanation of the object depicted in the video. The first problem with the hypothesis exists in the RCMP concession that the rotor assembly is operating at 360 to 400 RPM. Any rotation of the rotor assembly would visibly affect the pyrotechnics smoke which is drifting toward the object at 7 to 11 knots, which incidentally matches the meteorological report for the date and time period. No such effect is visible on the video tape.

Another issue associated with the helicopter hypothesis and the rotation of the rotor assembly involves the analysis of the audio track from the Guardian videotape. The RCMP investigation revealed that a sound could be heard on the tape that is consistent with the sound of rotating chopper blades. I retained the services of an acoustical physicist to conduct an audio analysis.

One of several steps involved in the analysis required dubbing the audio track from the Guardian videotape onto a digital audio tape recording (DAT). The sound attributed to the helicopter hypothesis was not on the DAT and therefore it could only be attributed to video noise associated with the bright burst of light coming from the blue strobe. The video noise need not be a product of the audio track in order to be audible.

Frame by from analysis of the Guardian videotape refutes another factor in the masthead light issue in the helicopter scenario. In order to account for the 7-8 Hz oscillation frequency of the flashing "blue" (white shows up white on video, never blue) strobe light in the video, RCMP analysts concluded that the rotor assembly would need to operate at 360-400 RPM.

With the masthead light turned on, the control rods might give the impression of a strobe effect. There are several problems inherent with this theory. The masthead light would have to be of tremendous luminosity in order to match the video image and the control rods not matter how thick could not totally blank out the scatter effect of the constantly burning light. And there is nothing to account for the reflection of the strobe on the lower surface are of the craft. RCMP declined a suggested demonstration with a Sikorsky S-76 helicopter.

The Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation reviewed the Guardian video materials and could find no one who could agree with the RCMP interpretation.

 

SUMMARY
Clearly RCMP would have been better off concluding that the object in the Guardian video was a model constructed for an AT&T Corporation advertising campaign. At least that hypothesis had some eyebrow raising coincidences that proved difficult to accept.

Perhaps they were on the right track in looking in the direction of Sikorsky. After all, the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation was named as a U.S. defense contractor researching electro-gravitics disc programs in the 1950's according to Wright-Patterson AFB Technical Library documents. Maybe the object in the Guardian video was in a new kind of helicopter, without the rotor and blade assembly.

Perhaps a touch of professional protocol might be advisedly exercised by Mr. Leblanc regarding his commentary following his publishing of the RCMP report. He evidently has not done enough research on this case to offer academic conclusions. He certainly did not bother to contact me for comment upon receiving the RCMP report, in fact he didn't bother to send me a copy of his submittal nor alert me to its posting. Every single assertion made by Leblanc is wrong. Comments in the RCMP report that he attributes to me were actually made by the Guardian suspect who has refused even simple methods of proof that he is not Guardian.

Is it possible that O.C.I.P.E. is really an organization whose objectives are to debunk UFO cases? Consider the following factual scenario. O.C.I.P.E. collaborated on an investigation involving a report from Guardian regarding a 1989 event which he called a UFO landing in the swamp. The investigation correspondence was published as a crash and probably a "hoax" in Leonard Stringfield's July 1991 Status Report VI.

The problem with the assessment is that their investigation located three independent witnesses who triangulated a UFO sighting and other details that matched precisely with the Guardian report. To my knowledge they didn't even bother to spend $12.00 Canadian to obtain dated before and after aerial photos of the area available from Energy and Mines. I have great difficulty giving credence to any individual or organization publishing articles with the title: FINAL WORD.

The RCMP investigations report does have some merit in retrospect. They provided a resident with a video camera who recorded a helicopter dive bombing the residence of one of the eye witnesses to the UFO landing reported and videotaped by Guardian. I personally inspected the roof area where shingles were clearly blown off. The fact that the helicopter was attempting to intimidate the witnesses was overshadowed by the fact that DND declined to confirm identification to RCMP.

And the revelation by one resident that odd grass formations, ten feet in diameter, have been observed for years is an interesting oddity that seems common in areas of UFO activity.

The Guardian videotaped UFO landing investigation has proven to be a very complex endeavor. Confirmation of the landing site with gross physical effects and elemental deposit anomalies, multiple independent eye witness accounts, and meteorological and topographical consistencies all tend to support the analyses and authenticity of the Guardian video.

Will we ever know for sure what landed in the fields of West Carleton? Perhaps the answer will never be proven to everyone's satisfaction, but many will go away dazed by the testimony of a Canadian Government Official who claims to have been taken aboard a craft that night in August of 1991 at the site where Guardian filmed his video. The witness passed two lie detector tests administered by a Canadian polygrapher trained by the U.S. military. The story is one of intrigue that involves telepathic dialogue with nonhuman entities and extraordinary identification details of the entities depicted in the Guardian video.

Anyone wishing more detailed information on the Guardian Investigation can write to me at the address below. If you would like a videotaped report of the summary of my findings including a complete copy of the Guardian video, send a postal money order in U.S. funds in the amount of $35 to [-CENSORED-].

Examine the evidence, review the findings and evaluate the analyses before drawing your own conclusions; that is, if one can be reached within our self imposed limits of reality.

Cheers ...

Bob Oechsler,

Investigations Analyst

Back to Contents

THE RUTKOWSKI SUMMARY
February 9, 1993

Here's the REAL info about the Guardian case.

A few years ago, several UFO researchers including myself received a package of info from an anonymous sender. Included were several supposedly authentic documents, map and diagrams concerning a crashed saucer near Carp, Ontario, which is near Ottawa. The documents alleged that both the Canadian and US military covered up the crash, which included recovery of alien bodies, saucer, etc.

Investigations by Clive Nadin, Christian Page, Leonard Stringfield and myself showed that this was in all likelihood a hoax, and a pretty poor one at that. The docs were badly contrived amateur jobs with numerous spelling mistakes. In one long, tedious section, the docs warned mankind about a threat by Red China to Jews and how the White Brotherhood was working somehow to keep the military in line, etc.

Clive and another researcher went to the site indicated on the map and found NO indication of anything. Local residents knew nothing about the movements of "heavy equipment", as the docs alleged, and there had been only a few minor NL sightings during the past number of years. Later, blurry Polaroid photos were received by several researchers. These showed nothing but patches of color, and were accompanied by more ramblings about the White Brotherhood.

I notified the RCMP about the packages. It was determined that the sender mailed the items from somewhere in Ottawa/Hull, specifically the downtown Ottawa post office. The RCMP were interested in the items because of their similarity to hate literature. The video came later. Oechsler was only one of several people to get it. He obviously thinks it's real.

Okay, the video LOOKS good, and he somehow found a witness, whose story matches exactly the video image, who saw something during the year in about the same area. But putting it into the context of all the other stuff, the case looks very bad.

Now, of course, if someone fingers the Guardian, then the UM segment will have been worthwhile. But as a UFO case, forget it!

The docs have been reprinted in a few ufozines, including my "Swamp Gas Journal" and, I think, the Cambridge UFO newsletter. Len Stringfield has copies, and so does Christian Page.

They both have written about the case as an obvious hoax.

Chris Rutkowski

rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada

Back to Contents




THE OECHSLER RESIGNATION

As of September 1st 1994, I will be retiring from UFO research and investigations.

My tenure in UFO research has in some ways been very rewarding, especially the many close friendships that I've developed and enjoyed over the years. In many other ways the effects of my involvement have been quite debilitating, especially to my family.

I don't like what I've seen this phenomenon do to otherwise concerned rational people, including myself. The malicious libel, slander, distortion and unchecked fabrication that runs rampant in the UFO field is destructive and counterproductive. My belief is that UFOs are indeed real and that the management and spokespersons for ufology suffer greatly from egocentricity and self-importance when the evidence is clear that few really care much beyond the novelty.

Therefore, I've decided to extricate myself from this eternal abyss and return to the family life that I've sorely neglected.

My final effort over the course of the summer will be dedicated to writing and publishing the truth of the matter regarding the guardian UFO Landing investigation in the Carp area of Ontario, Canada. My archives and research will be turned over to a private research institute where my work will continue. The institute is dedicated solely to unmitigated academic discourse and scientific research. The institute wishes to remain anonymous at this time.

After September 1st, I will not accept any orders for UFO materials which I have made available to assist in my research costs. For those of you who have maintained an interest in my research efforts, I thank you sincerely for your support and encouragement. It is because of you that I regret that this decision has become necessary.

My final opinion is that there is no mystery to the UFO phenomenon, the real mystery involves the sociology of how it affects and polarizes those drawn to it. This may be the best reason for government secrecy. There is a great need for comprehensive change in the attitude and management of the current UFO organizational approach to UFO study if the subject matter is ever to receive and retain the attention of serious scientific professionals.

My final recommendation for those seriously interested in the potential scope and possible origins of the UFO Phenomenon is to read "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku (1994).

Farewell all of my friends, colleagues and antagonists, good luck in all your endeavors.

Signed:

Bob Oechlar (sic)

Back to Contents