Crashes -> Homeclick!
Cette page en françaisCliquez!

UFO crash story of Carbondale, USA 1974:

The story:

November 9, 1974 - Carbondale, Pennsylvania, USA:

A glowing object fell into a small lake outside town. Three teenagers saw it fall at 7:30 p.m. on a Saturday. They observed a yellow-white glow under the water that shifted to a point 25 feet offshore. The boys were kept in a police car for three hours while a number of vehicles with floodlights and cranes removed a disc-shaped object and put it into a van.

The following Monday, a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax.

May 2007 addition: although it is clearly stated in the above line since I opened this brief file in 2003, the case was labeled a hoax, one Mr. Graber, whom I knew as having published previously to have privately investigated the case and concluded that the whole thing was a hoax just like the officials have said and just like I had written, contacted my be email, to tell me that it's a hoax and that my page is "shoddy".

He started by calling me a "phantom ufologist", I guess this was his way of saying that he could not find my name. Firstly, my name does appear on my website when appropriate, for example in the "your reports" section. I have never hid my name whatsoever. Secondly, the reason that my name does not appear immediately to those visiting the website is that in my personal opinion, ufology should not be a mean to get famous of well-known or promote one's ego. I never promoted my ego, I think it is unimportant that my name is Patrick Gross or Hans Muckensturm or whatever, I never sold anything UFO, I don't haunt UFO conferences, gathering, salons, in short: what's the big deal about my name?

But ok, here I go, for Mr. Graber's benefit: my name is Patrick Gross, I am French, I reside at 1 rue des Vergers 68100 Mulhouse FRANCE, my phone in France is 03 89 06 08 81, my email is, I'm 44 as of 2007, I am a professional IT technician, I read and speak French, German, English, I have a "Baccalaureat D", I have two kids, my wife is a brunette, I'm interested in UFO reports since 2000, I should wash the dishes now. What else does anyone want to know about my person? Well, folks, why not just ask me if that's really important to you?

Then Mr. Graeber protested about the reader's email underneath, which I received in 2003, apparently displeased that I don't call it a hoax also, as he apparently decided that what the reporter saw must have been the lantern in the lake too. Weird assumption, actually. Well, I don't call it a hoax because I see no evidence thereof and I don't call it a true story because I see no evidence thereof. This is a story that a reader of this web site wished to tell me, I share it, end of story.

Because I received something between 20 to 50 emails a day related to ufology, not to mention the rest, I did not immediately respond to Mr. Graber's really not so polite email, a few days later he sent a second one, menacing to publish my name in an article that would accuse my "shoddiness". I thus replied that I was sorry for not replying immediately previously, and that he should feel free to publish whatever he felt like about me and my shoddy page. This time, he replied that he would point at "eight factual errors" in my page in a forthcoming article. He would not tell me what these are, he apparently is much more interested in ridiculing errors. But possibly as some sort of chevaleresque gesture of mercy - in his mind - he specified that he would only blame my shoddyness and not publish my name; which is Patrick Gross by the way.


Interestingly, it seems that Mr. Graeber is used to be a bit on his nerves about the Carbondale hoax, if we are to believe (no don't) what I just found here when I looked for his article (I had read his say on the case on UFOupdates a few months ago, see )

Double yawn. Back to the rest of the page, now.

email I received:

Subj: ufo crash site, Carbondale, pa.
Date: 17.08.2003 07:20:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: xxx@yyy [I keep this confidential - site's author]

I was living in the Pocono Mountains in November of 1974. I read the original story in the Pocono Record, published in Stroudsburg, Pa. My parents saw the object that evening. That sighting was near the town of Hawley, Pa, on Lake Wallenpaupack. I can assure you, that it was no hoax. There have been other sightings of U.F.O.s around that area over the years. While I was living there, I had several unusual things happen to me. I met two fellows from Carbondale, back then... that told me they were chased away from the crash site the evening of the event. I think our government has sophisticated flying toys, that they just keep from us, and start the rumors about little grey men. Anyway, thought you might like to know, I remember that quite clearly, and the green haze... floating around after dark... like it had intelligence ...and seemed to follow travelers along the road.

I can be reached at xxx@yyy [I keep this confidential - site's author] Thanks [name kept confidential]

News from Mr. Graber - Received June 3, 2007, answered June 4, 2007:

Mr. Graeber then published his article. A real masterpiece! Here it is with my comments:

UFO hucksters, discontents and hybbyists

"Huckster"? Oooh, an insult.

Discontent? How am I "discontent?" What does this mean?

"Hobbyist"? Does it mean Mr. Graeber is not a hobbyist? Does he claim to be a professional ufologist? Has he got some "ufology degree"? Is there some "Ufology school" where he got a diploma? Since when does this exist?

Oh gee, just in a title, we get an insult, one nonsense, and a whimsical claim.

(On UFOlogical Opportunists and Online Panderers)

Opportunist? What "opportunities"? What does it mean? Insults again...

In the Magonia Journal No.95, Mr. Rimmer graciously published my article on the “Transformation of UFOlogy” in which I discussed the numerous BUFO online UFO postings which are - shall we say- a bit less than wholesome. In that essay, I focused on the efforts of BUFO’s Mary Sutherland and her pair of Chief Inspector, Clouseau-like Carbondale saucer sleuths Ron Hannivig and Frank Scassellati.

Insults again, not at me, apparently, not my issue then.

However, this time I shall discuss the absurdities of yet another online Carbondale expert...

Now, Mr. Graeber claims I'm a Carbondale expert. Laughable. I just put a few line to summarize what's being told around, no more no less.

... who resides in France...

Ooh that's a shame. I know a skeptical ufologist from Barcelona, Spain. Let's blame him a lot, because he wrote an article about how UFO photographs from Argentina are hoaxes and confusions. Shame! How dare he, when he doesn't even reside in Argentina! And what about Mr. John Rimmer, U-K., writing about USA's Ken Arnold seeing pelicans or whatever, or Barauna tricking photographs on the Island of Trindade, the Atlantic Ocean, where, as far as I know, Mr. Rimmer has not set foot, or did he? Let's blame him, right? Let's call him an "online panderer", right?

But, hey, wait a minute... What about this: "In South America, Antonio Villas Boas was allegedly “seduced” aboard a space “scow” by a perfectly formed, albeit petite, spacewoman who made barking sounds during her extra-species sexual encounter with Villas Boas."

Who wrote this? Must be some South American ufologist, surely! Mr. Graeber would certainly not dare to write with some UFO story from far away like some "shoddy propagandist", right? Not after such a lecture, right?

Wrong. Mr. Graeber actually writes a lot on cases from far away! Wow, c'mon guys, let's stone him!

See: see, the infectious Carbondale mythos has spread across the Atlantic ocean...

Nah! It's a hoax, that Carbondale stuff. Just look at the top of my page, that's what I wrote.

... and this European UFO aficionado appears to be its Typhoid Mary equivalent.

Huh! Now, I'm a "UFO aficionado". What about the discontent opportunist hobbyist?

The proliferation of Internet use over the years, ...

You'd wish the Internet was shut down, huh?

... which once held the promise of being utilized to enhance UFO researching and study - has instead, ...

... Allowed Mr. Graeber to rant pages after pages about a few lines I once wrote on the Carbondale stuff.

So here we are: the net would be so nice and true if it only belonged to Mr. Graeber, I guess?

... led to a glut of error-filled posts and historical falsifications ...

No less! I falsify history now. Wow.

... which are nothing short of a phenomenon in themselves - and equally worthy of study from both a psychological and sociological point of view.

That guy, he'd put me at the lunatic asylum right away I guess.

... Of course, minor errors are to be expected in the writings of individuals who have “borrowed” unverified information from other sites and writers.

Yes, I have "borrowed" what is being said about that Carbondale stuff. I did not "create" it, obviously!

Sure, it's full of errors. As I wrote, it's a hoax, by the way.

These “Tidbits of Trash” are often immediately detected as incorrect dates and locations of the alleged UFO incidents. In fact, it is not uncommon to read about UFO crashes occurring in completely non-existent places like Carbondale, “ New Jersey.”

Sure that's stupid. "Carbondale New Jersey", huh ho. But I can't care less, since my lines above are about "Carbondale Pennsylvania", you see...

While writing nine Carbondale UFO Crash Chronicles entries and other essays on the alleged Pennsylvania Carbondale UFO Crash of 1974.


I came across no less than forty scrapper sites where gross mistakes were posted. -Some were embellished with details which seemed to come directly from the keyboards of amateur science fiction writers - for they’re contents we not part of the original story.

Tell me something new.

Perhaps, I should quickly explain at this point - I was one of three UFO field investigators who were actually present during the 1974 Carbondale incident...

Yes, that's all over this horrible Internet.

... and determined (along with city officials, Dr. Hynek and others)

Stop! Pause!

May I recall what I wrote: "a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax."

...the incident to be a hoax,

Huh ho, a hoax, just like I told you, folks.

... “probably” perpetrated by three teenage boys.

This is quite an unexpected statement by Mr. Graeber. So now it's not a hoax, but a hoax "probably? Gosh! I was quite sure it really was a hoax, and now after all this rant, I get the word "probably" !

an empirical observation of well-documented fact and evidence discovered in the pond. NOT an expression of my belief and bias on the case.

Where the hell did I state anything in the first place about beliefs or bias of Mr. Graeber in the case in the first place? Nowhere. So, this has nothing to do with me.

I won’t bother to go into great detail about the 1974 investigation, or my recently terminated struggle with a Wisconsin UFO group’s leader who desires to “Turn” the Carbondale hoax into a classic UFO crash retrieval and government sanctioned cover-up story.

Can't care less: I'm not from Wisconsin, I didn't "Turn" any hoax into a classic UFO crash retrieval, on the contrary, to me, it's a hoax, not even a hoax "probably" in my opinion!

(If interested in that sad saga, I suggest you read any of the “Carbondale UFO Crash Chronicles Entries” to be found at the “UFO UpDates Archives” or visit any Burlington news site. YAWN!

Read it already before Mr. Graeber's rants about me, but I knew and wrote about the case being a hoax before Mr. Graeber issued these articles. the story with the lantern found in the pound is known since ages, even on my side of the ocean, by a number of the so-called "UFOOlogists" Mr. Graber loves to hate. Hence my few lines and lack of interest in spending too much time on the well-known hoax.

Of course, there’s the rather enchanting posts at “UFOs at close sight” to read over too. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Sure, people can read my answer to Mr. Graeber's rants, whether he likes it or not.

Anyway, I happened to come upon a rather fascinating example of an error-filled posting at “Ufologie- UFOs at close sight” site concerning the Carbondale incident and it contained “Eight Factual Errors” within its first four line paragraph. Here’s what it said - November 9, 1974- Carbondale, Pennsylvania, USA.

So what? That's the summary of the case as it is all over the Internet. My addition is that officials recovered a railroad lantern and battery from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax. And where's the reference to the source of the paragraph that makes Mr. Graeber so angry?

That paragraph was never meant to be more than that, never meant to be more than "The Story". Never mean to be an investigation on this or that detail of the story. There are many heavy documented file on my site, this one is not, was never meant to be. It's there to mention a story, and to specify the stuff about the officials finding a lantern in the lake. I have another example of a similar page, see:


Wow, I didn't do a proper investigation! Look at that!

Surely one of these days an angry man would rant for pages about my "illusions", "shoddiness" and "error-filled posting" on this other "extraordinary UFO crash" I am "promoting" to pervert the young minds with the "UFO pathology", as he calls it in his essays, right?

“A glowing object fell into a small lake outside of town. Three teenagers saw it fall at 7:30 p.m. on a Saturday. They observed a yellow-white glow under the water that shifted to a point 25 feet offshore. They boys were kept in a police car for three hours while a number of vehicles with floodlights and cranes removed a disc-shaped object and put it into a van.”…The following Monday, a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax.” Hmmm, sounds like a rather extraordinary UFO crash story and cover-up doesn’t it?

Er... nope, it sounds more like a summary of a UFO crash hoax to me, doesn't it?

But, just how factually accurate is the account?

It's not really factually accurate, Mr. Graeber: it was a hoax.

Well, there are a number of “fatal flaws” in the fanciful paragraph The first being - the UFO reportedly crashed into a small lake…Not so, the so-called UFO was said to have crash-landed into a man-made pond,

Wow, what a "fatal flaw". Not a small lake, but a man-made pond. No folks, the story that goes on here and there is that a UFO crashed in a small lake, and actually that's all just a hoax.

... which was once part of a coal breaking/cleaning facility ( i.e., a silt pond.)

Mr. Gross might have called this a “large pond” but, it is definitely not a small lake.

I could have called it an ocean if you will. The story as it is told on the net says a small lake. I did not, repeat, not, intend to publish an investigation of that story. But it's a hoax, whether pond, lake or whatever. I did not endorse the story as it appears here and there, I summarized what is said here and there in a few lines and added underneath that a lamp was found and it was called just a hoax by the officials.

2. “Three teenagers saw it (the UFO) fall at 7:30 p.m. on Saturday” Yes, that was what they first reported but,

No "buts"! That's how the story goes.

... one lad latter “confessed” they never did see a glowing object fall to earth.

And decades later, from faraway France, I fancifully summarize the plot and informed my readers: it was a hoax.

The boys merely made up that part of the story after throwing battery-powered railroad lantern into the pond which police had come to investigate. That information has been posted by several individuals...

Yes, that's why I informed my reader: it was a hoax.

... and is generally - or conveniently - ignored by “UFOs at close sight” ...

Ignored? No way. I actually posted Mr. Graeber's entire article just here!

Again: I wrote 3 or 4 lines of the basic plot, informed my readers that it was called a hoax. And posted all the information Mr. Graeber sent me.

"... and other crash proponent sites...

Now, Mr. Graeber starts to show that he can't read. My website here is not a "crash proponent site", absolutely not, never was. Any reader can check this and read my debunking of many such stories!

And I never ever wrote anything about Carbondale being a "real UFO crash" anywhere. A fact that Mr. Graeber "conveniently ignores", as he would put it.

... such as Sutherland’s Burlington UFO and Paranormal Radio. (BUFO) ...

Not my concern.

So, there was no glowing object which fell from the sky and crashed and settled to the bottom of the pond.

Yes, that's about what the kids told.

A very brief review of the published news accounts and official reports on the incident would have informed Mr. Gross of this fact!

That's really silly. Of course there was no "glowing object which fell from the sky", all there was, was the kids claiming this, and the officials finding the lantern and calling it a hoax. Read again: "The following Monday, a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax."

3.”They (the teens) observed a yellow-white glow under the water that shifted to a point 25 feet offshore.” Incorrect again, the boys said they observed an irregular 5 foot in diameter disc of light “on top” of the waters surface - about 25 feet offshore. They did not mention seeing it shift locations but, it appeared to be in another location later in the evening when the boys returned to the pond. Hmmm. Mr. Gross seems to have worded this rather misleadingly…someone might have gotten the distinct impression the mysterious disc of light was moving about on the pond’s floor.

Nope, Mr. Gross quickly and very briefly summarized what was on the net about that story, and informed his readers: that one was a hoax.

Now, of course, the summary is not very good. Yes, I can understand that whereas the story on the net talk about the object shifting 25 feet of shore, that part was not accurate if the alleged shift was not actually claimed to have been seen when it occurred, but "speculated" by the boys or the author of the Internet story as I picked up.

But you see, my few lines were never meant to be any sort of "investigation" of the story. It is there, in a section on alleged UFO crash stories, as it is published on the net, with this brief additional line in which I inform my reader that the officials found a lantern in the small lake, oops, man-made pond, and called the whole thing a hoax.

4. The disc of light on the water’s surface was not observed moving about under the water. However, the beam of light emanating from the lantern on the pond’s floor may have shifted when the lantern was nudged by police and given the illusion of the disc of light on the surface shifting position. As reported by police, NOT the boys at the scene.

So it may have been seen shifting places after all, right? But here's the terrible truth; I don't care much in this case. I summarized all this in 3 or 4 lines and informed my readers that it was a hoax.

Now of course, I can understand that Mr. Graeber who was there is very proud of knowing all the details, and I don't doubt that he can tell much, much more details on the events that I can, but you see, gentle folks, I don't really give a damn: the lines put there were merely meant to allow the readers to roughly understand which UFO crash story this is about and to let know that the officials found a lantern in the lake and called the whole thing a hoax.

That's what Mr. Graeber calls "promoting a UFO crash". That, is an outrageous claim.

Additionally, the so-called disc of light was not moving about in the pond, the lantern’s radiating beam may have simply shifted as the lantern settled back in to the silt after falling from the police net fitted on the end of a 10 foot pole. All this information was posted and published in numerous news accounts of the day. It also may be found in the official police, CUFOS and UFORIC investigative reports.

So again, it may have appeared to shift at some time for another reason; and still, my page as well as my entire website however had nothing to do with "promoting UFO crashes", as claimed by Mr. Graeber.

5….”a number of vehicles with floodlights and cranes removed a disc-shaped object to put it into a van.” 6. There were no vehicles with floodlights or cranes at the scene during the entire 44 hour fiasco. An examination of published news accounts and Dr.Hynek ’s on-site field investigator’s report will confirm - no military engineers or civilian contractors were observed at the scene with cranes used to lift a disc-shaped object from the water.

So? There are many claims about vehicles and cranes, and in the end, a lantern was found and it was all a hoax.

Moreover, “IF” the alleged object required “Cranes” to lift it from the pond and place it into a van? How does Mr. Gross explain the object being so small and light-weight cranes were needed to lift it?

That's an easy one: Mr. Graeber thinks an object that requires a van must be lightweight and not require cranes. Nope. An object that is put in a van CAN be heavy enough to require cranes.

It just doesn’t make any sense at all….

Yes, it could have made sense. An object, "IF" it requires a van for transportation could be heavy enough to require a crane.

...except to UFOOLogists like Mr. Patrick Gross ...

Ah, insults again. There will be more of those.

... and other self-proclaimed UFO experts ...

Uh? Mr. Graeber's claim is unsupported: he will never find any proclamation of mine about being a UFO expert at all. Nowhere!

This tells a lot about Mr. Graeber's "psychology" versus mine, doesn't it?

... who neither spend time investigating reports,

Mr. Graeber claims I never spend time investigating reports. Ridiculous lie, just visit my website.

... or researching reliable documentation..

Mr. Graeber claims I never spend time researching reliable documentation. Another ridiculous lie, just visit my website.

Hell, they don’t even look over press photos of the event in search of cranes,

Nope, in this case, I did not. I only intended to briefly summarize that there was this story of a UFO crash at Carbondale, that one with the disc in the small lake, er, man-made pond, and it was just a lantern, and that was enough for me. Of course, Mr. Graeber has pages and pages about the story, so he can't understand that I was just not fascinated enough as to go beyond my short summary. Then, he goes into personal attacks, insults, and the rest, as we shall see.

Flood-lighted vehicles, military personnel or the downed object of their affection.

What does this mean? What's that about "military personnel" ?

Local press reporters were on the scene continually from about 2 a.m. on the dark early morning of November 10th. That’s only 6 1/2 hours after the boys tossed the lantern in the pond. Does it make any logistical sense that cranes, flood-lights and the Army Engineers were brought in, set up and already covertly working at the scene while the lads were sitting in the police car?

What's that about "Army engineers"? there is no word in my few lines about any Army engineers or military personnel. It seems that Mr. Graeber is extrapolating a lot. Is that how he conducts his investigations?

In fact, by 3 a.m. the boys had been sent home hours earlier. So, what is Mr.Gross attempting to imply with such impossible and silly assertions?

What assertions? I see no assertion, and in particular, nothing about "military personnel" or "Army engineers"!

Mmm. Seems we got Mr. "Accurate Reporting" teaching lessons he doesn't apply...

UFOOLogists just post pure drivel online

Ah, insults.

... and respond to 20 to 50 e-mails a day from unsuspecting saucer enthusiasts around the world whom are unaware of the fact these so-called “experts” lack credentials, lack credibility and lack the common decency to forewarn their readers of their inexperience ...

My inexperience? Nope, I won't forewarn about this claimed "inexperience".

Lack of credentials? What credentials? The infamous "UFO school diploma" I never claimed to exist?

What does Mr. Graeber knows about the content of the email I get and the content of my responses? Does he know? Does he imagine?

Does he claim stuff, or does he ask before making claims?

... and bias.

What bias? The bias of having set up a section about these UFO crashes stories worded "possible", "alleged", and putting up an admittedly brief overview of the claims and a comment about the whole thing being a hoax according to the officials?

There is absolutely no such thing as a UFO expert!

Really? You must be kidding, Mr. Graeber, surely I must have claimed to be a "UFO expert" somewhere?

Just keep on looking Mr. Graeber, so that you can substantiate your claim.

There are no schools of UFOlogy, No accreditation of UFO researching skills and acquired knowledge.

Just look for the evidence that I ever claimed that there are schools of ufology, and accreditations, Mr. Graeber.

Surely, you wouldn't want people to think that this is just one silly claim of yours? surely you have the evidence that I claimed somewhere sometime that there are "schools of UFOlogy" and "accreditations", right? you are a "serious researcher" yourself, as opposed to me, right? Maybe you have this UFO school diploma, right?

There are serious students of the phenomenon, and then there are vocal UFO hucksters like Mary Sutherland, and hobbyists like Mr. Gross.

Of course, Mr. Graeber is not a "hobbyist" like me. He must be a professional, right?

Will he prove his point by producing evidence that his ufology is not hobby but some form of "accredited", or professional or paid or academia-sponsored activity?

By re-writing history, the way they do ...

Nah. I didn't rewrite no history.

I wrote a few lines about that Carbondale stuff, and informed my readers that it's a hoax, and readily published everything Mr. Graeber so kindly wrote about me.

A boo to his claim that I do not publish his say.

... these individuals are better able to bolster their fantasies while justifying their obvious delusions.

What fantasies bolstering? What illusions? Again for Mr. Graeber: that Carbondale stuff was a hoax, I told my readers.

... The same is true of the so-called serious “Nuts and Bolts” UFOlogists

what is that all about? So I'm a "non-nuts-and-no-bolts" UFOlogist now?

It's always interesting to see "serious" "non-hobbyist" ufologist put their little handy ready-made labels on this or that guy.

... whom categorically deny the “possibility” of prosaic and psychological explanations ...

Of course, in his big obsession with the Carbondale hoax, Mr. Graeber issues yet another unsupported claim. In my case, it is simply a big lie of his to claim that I deny the possibility of prosaic and psychological explanations. My evidence? My website is full of those. But Mr. Graeber didn't look at it. It would be too disturbing for his hateful portray. It won't appear in Mr. Rimmer's bulletin either, I guess.

What he just wrote here is quite simply pure BS to me.

... resolving some of the “True and totally mysterious” UFO sighting and experience reports they so cherish and defend.

Again a lie repeated: nowhere did I ever claim the Carbondale UFO crash story to be "True and totally mysterious"; what I wrote was that the following Monday, a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax.

Yes, that's what Mr. Graeber calls "fantasies bolstering" and "obvious illusions" and "cherish and defend" a report.

7. The railroad lantern contained a six-volt heavy duty battery- so, there were not two items recovered from the pond’s floor ( i.e., a lantern plus a battery)

There's a lantern with a battery in it, it seems to me that without a battery the lantern couldn't have produced any light, right? So what is this "factual error" here? Is it that I didn't specify exactly that the battery was inside the lantern? Oh, shoddy me, hang me for this UFOcrime!

Of course the battery was indise the lantern: that's how the lantern produced the light, you see. Sorry that this wasn't correctly stated.

... and deemed to be the instruments of the hoax as implied in Mr. Gross’ poorly worded posting.

As opposed to the very carefully worded posts by Mr. Graeber I guess?

In fact, the only statement of his which “might” be partially accurate concerned the boys being in a police vehicle for three hours at the scene.

The only statement that might be right? wow. So it wasn't at Carbondale, it was not in Pennsylvania, there was no lantern, there was no battery, there was no kids, there was no officials, there was no hoax, right?

Look who's giving lessons about "distortions" and "exaggerations"!

If one considers the fact the hoax was perpetrated at night in the month of November - it makes perfect sense the boys may have been cold but, wanted to see what the dumb cops were doing about the UFO in the pond yarn they had spun.

Mmm. I live in illusions and the cops are dumb. But the world is saved through Mr. Graeber's intelligence I guess.

8. The police may (?) have kept the teenage trio in the car out of the elements and sent them home as midnight drew neigh. The police may also have hoped the boys - whom were known mischief makers - would fess up to perpetrating a hoax before the press blew the incident out of proportion however, the teems didn’t fess up.. The confession would come 25 years later on the anniversary of the incident to Scranton Times Tribune reporters. It was unsolicited and offered by a 39 year old man who was one of the Carbondale teens involved in the hoax back in 1974. The Carbondale police department is quite small, professional, and not at all Gestapo-like. So Mr. Gross’ statement concerning the boys being “Kept” in a police car may be conveniently misleading. (?)

So, if I understand this correctly, the only evidence that it was a hoax was that one of the teens confessed 25 years later according to a newspaper?

Silly me! I was quite convinced that the officials had found a lantern and called the whole thing a hoax at the time.

This prankish UFO event is certainly not of any great historical significance

Ha! You see: Mr. Graeber makes all this big fuss about it, I just wrote a few lines, informing that it was called a hoax. My crime, then? to have not spent any significant amount of time on that one?

... and I do not want my reader’s to think I feel otherwise about it. But, significant or not, it’s still a piece of UFO folklore to the serious researcher and the impressionable minds of young people who read the slanted posts of folks like Mr. Gross,

The people, the "impressionable minds of young people", when they read my summary, will see that it was called a hoax, they will see that I didn't care about it much, that I only write a few lines, as they are much wiser and knowledgeable about my website than Mr. Graeber is, they will not fail to note that these few lines are in no way the sort of file I gather when I am really interested in a UFO case.

... Mrs. Sutherland, Mr. Hannivig, Mr. Scassellati, and many others. ...

Not my issue. I wrote "The following Monday, a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax."

Had Mr. Gross stated off his remarks on the incident by saying the case was deemed a hoax by authorities “before” he spun his web of errors, He would not have set the reader up to believe the incident was a genuine UFO crash and subsequent cover-up. Of course, doing so, would have also taken the sting out of “implying” authorities called the “Whole” thing a hoax. As authorities and field investigators at the scene had “only” deemed the discovery of the lantern in the pond a hoax - no one knew the boys hadn’t actually observed a meteor or bolides at the time of the incident. Moreover, no one knew “they” had committed the UFO hoax. There was a distinct possibility the teens were merely mistaken about the object in the sky and the light in the pond being one in the same thing. (Shame on you Mr. Gross) you obviously didn’t do your homework on the case!

Nope, I did not devote more than a few minutes to this story!

I said nothing about "authorities", and it is really unimportant to me given the very limited ambition of my lines to investigate about the boys seeing a meteor or not. To me, this is a non-important UFO crash story that deserved not more than a few lines, and this:

"The following Monday, a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax."

But Mr. Graeber wants to ridicule ufologists; so he has to try to convince you that these few lines and this one more sentence are supposed to be a demonstration that there was a real UFO crash in Carbondale...


There is no untruth. There is a few lines summary about that story that's being told about a UFO crash there, and a brief line about "a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax."

... errant opinions ...

There is no opinion at all in my few lines. The nearest to an "opinion" in these few lines is "a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax."

If this is wrong, boo as you wish.

... misinformation, distortion of fact, misleading statements and deliberate embellishments are the tools of propagandists

Read again this "distortion of facts" and "propaganda" I wrote:

"a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax."

... not serious researchers,

What about Mr. Graeber's unsupported claim about my so-called self proclamation as "expert"?

Is Mr. Graeber self-proclaiming himself "serious researcher" or what?

... journalists and historians. UFO buffs who do employ these tactics - either consciously or unconsciously - are ideologues, rumor mongers and sensation seekers. They so ardently “Want” to believe the improbable and absurd, they side step inconvenient facts, ignore documentation, denigrate municipal authorities at the scene, and in effect, attempt to re-write history to suit their own subjective wants, needs and desires of the phenomenon.

Yawn again. Read again:

"a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax."

Now it becomes really funny:

Re-writing history is an easy past-time and goes something like this: “In May of 1940, liberating German Army forces marched into Paris with throngs of joyful French citizens tossing flowers in their path. Cheering the “Bosch” as they drove out the tyrannical French Government along with it’s oppression of religion, freedom of speech and control of the French economy - including its lovely wine vineyards. In time, envious American Industrialists and British bankers funded the fanatical “Vichey French” patricians who sabotaged the efforts of the friendly Germans who were sent to rebuild the long-crumbling French society. In the end, the American and British Imperialists vanquished the small German contingent, and many young French women were forced to shave their heads lest the over-sexed American troops think them to be attractive.” While the above nonsensical example is obviously completely false, extreme and distorted - it is no more twisted than recent “conspiracy tales” of the World Trade Center buildings being imploded by American and/or Israeli agents, a guided missile - not a high jacked airliner- striking the Pentagon building on 9/11 and the federal building at Oklahoma City having collapsed because of shoddy construction - rather than succumbing to a terrorist bomb. Are you aware that some of the same conspiracy writers of this tripe, like Ronald T. Hannivig of BUFO promote themselves as “ Investigative Journalists” too? If the above error-filled, distorted and false example of the horrible German occupation of France in 1940-44 angers you and causes you to feel a bit disgusted- perhaps so much so, you wanted to scream out “This is all a damn collection of lies!” Then you have some idea of how I feel when I read posts by Sutherland and Gross.

You see, folks?

Now, Mr. Graeber, an angry man, wants to project his anger on me! Nope, I'm not angry at this nonsense, I'm just sorry when I read such utterly silly comparisons, and I'm just not surprised at all at all the emotions. I think emotion should get out of ufology.

But also now, Mr. Graeber invents ridiculous nonsense of his own and tries to convince that this is my nonsense!

That's what he calls being a "serious researcher"?

Now I'm supposed to be a "conspirationist", I'm supposed to be a 9/11 conspiracy buff!

This guy purely and simply invents what he wants the people he attacks to be like.

A serious investigator? Now I totally doubt it!

Although you and I probably were not living in France during the Nazi occupation, never-the-less, we know my example is a complete falsehood. However, I was present and investigating at Carbondale, PA in 1974 - Mary Sutherland, Ron Hannivig, Frank Scassellati and Patrick Gross were not - yet they have the colossal nerve to attempt to write authoritative posts on the incident ...

Now it becomes ridiculous. I wrote "authoritative posts" on Carbondale???

I just wrote a few quick lines and that the following Monday, a railroad lantern and battery were recovered from the lake and officials called the whole thing a hoax!

Mr. Graeber has really has lost it!

One more step with his nazi stuff and he'd get a Godwin point, by the way...

... without thoroughly researching, without a proper investigation and with out objectively examining all official report the data.

I never intended to! I don't give a damn about it, it's a hoax, that's it!

I have tons of case files on cases that I went deep into, but I simply did NOT DIG INTO this one because I think it's WORTHLESS, a HOAX, and I wanted to briefly let the people know that it was a hoax according to the officials, who found a lantern, and I told this long before Mr. Graeber came up with his "UFOupdates" articles!

Moreover, these same individual’ s would dare to question the integrity of those community safety-conscious authorities, many civilian volunteers and UFO researchers who were there and assisted in the resolution of the matter.

I have never ever questioned the integrity of the officials who found the lantern and understood tat it was a hoax.

But now, yes, I do totally question Mr. Graeber's "lessons" here. More on that later.

Moreover, my grandson’s French teacher asked his class (on December 7) Could anyone tell him who attacked Pearl Harbor and the date of the historical incident? The response from 70% of the students was “The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor in 1965 or 1967”. So, you see, young impressionable and ill-informed minds might be particularly susceptible to the invalid remarks of online, or should I say “Onlie” UFOOLogists .

The nerves of this guy!

Now he blames me because some US school kids don't know their history!

What next?

Did I bomb Pearl Harbour?

By the way: Mr. Graeber does not know that, but I was a school teacher too. Rather than mocking the kids or calling them impressionable ill-informed minds for the purpose of some agenda, when they didn't know something, I actually taught them something.

I contacted Mr.Gross about his error-filled posting on the Carbondale incident - and present both my messages and his replies for your consideration: (Insert e-mail exchanges and subsequent Post at Ufologie: UFOs at close site)

Not really inserted. Mr. Graeber wrote me a very aggressive email, etc. and now it comes to the point where he blames me about US school kids not knowing who bombed Pearl Harbour, calls me a liar, etc, etc.

But it gets worse:

Re-writes of history abound in the cyber-world of Saucerdom and dumber. One finds stories on the Vatican’s ExoPloitical dealings with ETs,

If Mr. Graeber was a decent person and the serious researcher he claims to be, he would have read my article on the subject in my "UFOstupid" section:


But he didn't. He rather goes around insulting people he knows nothing of, in his haste to attack them as crackpots!

... Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower viewing a crashed saucer site, ...

If Mr. Graeber was a decent person and the serious researcher he claims to be, he would have read my articles on the subject of many such UFO crashes stories:


Etc, etc!

But he does not research, he makes claims. Ufologists must all be idiots and liars, I must be an idiot and a liar!

.. and self-proclaimed UFO/Paranormalists chasing “orbs”

If Mr. Graeber was a decent person and the serious researcher he claims to be, he would have read my article on the subject of orbs here:


But he does not research, he makes claims. Ufologists must be dumb, I must be dumb!

... and “Portals” in world-wide fields of dreams. It’s a computerized voyage through drivel and complete nonsense. Grownups behaving like wide-eyed children fanaticizing about imaginary playmates, ghosts, hob-goblins and pixies. Only in this case the bulbous-headed Gray creatures are a wee bit taller but, just as improbable. What is it about the UFO phenomenon which compels otherwise normal people to so carelessly go out on a psychological limb, discard their common sense and veracity - and in so doing, “entice” others to follow them? When facts are ignored, rejected and distorted “Truth” is not to be found in the finished product. If the opinions are those words of UFOOLogists, they are things of little or no value - except, as an example of UFO folklore and rumor. In extreme cases they may also be considered as being symptomatic. Perhaps Mr. Gross - the Carbondale whiz kid of 186 rue de Dornach, Brunstatt. - will ponder these thoughts as he’s merrily washing the dishes tonight? I will not bother to discuss the absurdity of the e-mail Mr. Gross proudly posts from an un-named source in the Pocono Mountains concerning the Carbondale incident. Doing so would be just more of the same. Yawn. Goodbye, until we met again, so long, bye-bye, farewell, see ya later, Auf Wiedersehen and Au revoir. P.S. Oh yes, Mr. Gross before I forget to mention, my name is GRAEBER, that’ s with an “E” (which replaces the umlauts above the “A” in German and Austrian) NOT GRABER, that’s a very well-known Venetian blind manufacturer in Germany. Matt Graeber-May 30, 2007

So here we are: this guy is obviously full of spite and hatred, judges people in a snap on the base of a few lines that he distorts such as to make believe they tell exactly the contrary of what they tell.

I respect a person's anonymity, my own decision, and he distorts that into "an un-named source". He knows "The Truth", right? Aliens, that's "improbable", of course. Can't be. It's a pathology. It's for the money. I pervert the youth. He would rant about misspelling his name! Gosh, another crime against history I made... Yes, I am sorry at that, I apologize to Mr. Graeber and the poor US school kids and it was not meant as "UFO crash propaganda" I swear. But really, if we must split hair, what about Mr. Gräber's "Bosch"? Aha, gotcha: it's "Les Boches"! You see, "Bosch" is a well-known tools manufacturer in Germany. By the way "Gross" means tall, and "Gräber" means graves. And it's not "Vichey", it's Vichy.

He would lecture me about German - which I actually use half of the day! Blames me for US school kids lacking knowledge about Pearl Harbour! Claim nonsense about "UFOlogy schools"! Claim that I am "anonymous" when I never was! Insults me and ufologists in general over and over again, calls this "serous research"! Associates every possible crap to my name, nice use of ad hominem tu quoque, and get this all proudly published in Mr. Rimmer's Magonia bulletin.

A serious researcher? Even though I do not share his general view on ufology and the UFO issue in general, I had actually thought he was a serious researcher when I read his posts about Carbondale on the UFOupdates at the time he posted it, but now I've seen a very different side of the man. I do think he is sincere, but I also see that he is in some sort of "holy war against the aliens" in which he is under the control of his emotions, which make it aggressive and uttering insults and hasty, unsupported and repeated generalizations about people he doesn't know at all and doesn't even try to understand correctly. To him, ufologists are "in" just for the money or the glory and other bad motivations, they are all "UFOfools" and they all suffer a "pathology." Of course, all UFO sighting reports are either lies or errors in his opinion. So, he resorts to insults, grotesque exaggerations, character assassination. This is a very invalid behavior for someone who wants so obviously to be perceived as a serious researcher, and it can also lead to all sorts of bias and errors in his own investigations. Insults and quasi-maniac focusing a mere few lines and insistence to absolutely want to distort them into some sort of "propaganda" that should explains all sorts of "evils" is just gross exaggeration and lack of fair appreciation of people's work. By being confrontational, attacking intentions whereas a polite invitation to change the details of my tiny summary that are ill-worded, and uttering ridiculous false claims and insults, his case for he Carbondale hoax - and again, it IS a hoax to me - is actually disserved.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on June 4, 2007