Mandible: An impression of an abnormal jaw; presented to Leonard H. Stringfield (and reported by him in UFO Crash/Retrievals: Search for Proof in a Hall of Mirrors; Status Report VII. The only evidence Stringfield provides is a sketch and photos of the mandible in the book. The mandible is a reconstruction because the "original" was crushed by the Chief of Staff after the reproduction was made in 1979 at the Brown Veterans Hospital. The sketch shows that parts of the mandible are missing and only one tooth remains.¹ However, that teeth were imbedded in the jaw is apparent. The technician's sketch shows 2 positions for the remaining end pieces - the bones which attach to the temporomandibular.

Recent History:

Bill Moore presented me with a xerox copy of a fax imprinted with the date (02/04/1995), the time (17:53), the name of the sender (WDTN TV2 NEWS), consists of 4 pages. The text starts with: "INTERVIEW WITH 'JACK SMITH' ABOUT MANDIBLE"; next line: "(HIS HOME . . . FEB 15, 1995)".

For me there was the immediate problem of the discrepancy in dates. Carl Day remembers a face-to-face meeting "in February 1995" (e-mail to me dated August 28, 1996). Additionally, according to Carl Day's private communication, he has no direct contact with Bill Moore. Therefore, I must assume Carl Day's main contact was with Bob Collins (the original author of the material referring to the mandible now appearing on the Net), and Bill Moore received a copy of the fax from Bob Collins. This is an assumption on my part. To what purpose? I will present this aspect later in the article. Possibly, the WDTN fax is the interview Carl Day sent to Bob Collins for his approval. However, it seems to have been faxed before the interview took place.

Further, what is under discussion in this article is a supposedly untreated "impression" (it is called an impression in all the material I have read) that had been laying around a while. This is my understanding based on the statements of the technician (Mr. Mosgrove) because of the "marks of the bone on the side of it, canals and pit holes; bone pits." I have a great deal of trouble accepting that this "mandible" was an important artifact, because of my background is archaeology. Usually a piece of bone with supposedly historical importance would not be lying around untreated. Yet, the technician describes an untreated "impression."

I have a problem with the dates mentioned in the fax. Wherein, the technician is asked by Carl Day (in the fax interview) to take a guess at the age of the "impression" based on the memory of its appearance many years prior to the 1995 interview. Mr. Mosgrove, without hesitation, states "40-45 maybe 50 years." It is difficult to know if he makes reference to counting back from 1995 or 1979. Let's assume Mr. Mosgrove is counting back from 1979 which would the date the "impression" was made at 1939, or 1934, or 1929. If we assume Mr. Mosgrove is making reference to 1995, then the date could be anywhere from 1945 to 1955. Now remember, this is Mr. Mosgrove retrieving a memory, and is allowing a span of 10 years. Carl Day then pushes Mr. Mosgrove to link the "impression" to "the Roswell Incident." Mr. Mosgrove replies only, "it could" relate to Roswell. It is important to remember that Mr. Mosgrove was fuzzy on the date of the impression. I agreed it is difficult to determine the age of bone just by looking at it. I am sure Mr. Mosgrove would agree with me. However, I find it interesting that Carl Day pushes the date to coincide with Roswell in 1947. It makes this aspect of Mr. Mosgrove's testimony suspect.

The "impression" has teeth. It is only a partial. It is only an impression. It is a reconstruction because the "original" brought in the laboratory by the Chief of Staff had been crushed as soon as it had been used. In the field of archaeology, a bone of historic importance would have been put back into the "well-packed container"1, but this one is crushed. As if, it was of no importance at all.

In Brief:

Yes, there is a second opinion provided by a certified dental technician, Bruce Phillips, who has "studied" Mr. Mosgrove's model. This individual apparently met Mr. Mosgrove years after the October, 1979 event. Mr. Phillips claims the specimen is "not human or is any other species of the anthropoidal family" in his statement to Len Stringfield; and listed as "Personal Opinion" on his letterhead note paper, "I've never run across anything animal or human that compare to the model in question." Mr. Phillips is a dental technician which limits his knowledge to humans.

Let us look at a completely different approach, one the posits a staged event. Not uncommon when it is related to the field of UFO (which for my own purposes also includes mind control). Just for the sake of argument, and maybe you will need to take my word for it if you are not familiar with the literature surrounding mind control, several things would have needed to take place before the "impression" was "presented" to the target individual. 1) A suitable target would have been search out, and a profile on the individual mapped out; 2) a presentation piece would have been designed and manufactured; 3) an appropriate, yet easily controlled environment would have been checked out as unobtrusively as possible; 4) depending on the nature of the staged event, hand picked, trusted officers would have been chosen, and briefed on a need to know basis; 5) all aspects of the staged event would have been rehearsed ahead of time, if this was the first time for everybody; if this was a team with expertise in presentation, only a conversation discussing the choreography of the event would take place. The time was carefully chosen, all personnel not participating in the event would be moved/sent out of the environment. Most important, the leader of the psych team would have instructed the event team leader in the key symbolic events (sub-routines or sub-events) to be implanted in the environment/target individual. The key symbolic events that could easily be triggered in the future, whenever it was deemed necessary.

Therefore, one afternoon in October of 1979, a Chief of Staff approaches one of two people left in the laboratory and asks this technician to do him a favor - make another impression of a mandible he is carrying in a "special" container. It is assume by the technician to be a supposedly historically valuable artifact even thought it is untreated with a type of resin coating. He based his judgment on the level of the personnel involved. It is a quick-fix impression, and the technician states he has "32 years of experience now", and again in another part of his testimony "and 22 years then." (I found this to be an inconsistency in the technician's memory.) After the impression is made, the "original" is crushed in the "hands(?)" of the Chief of Staff so that all(?) evidence is destroyed. Yet, the technician gathers up the pieces (from the wastebasket?) and takes them home to be reconstructed. Let us assume that Mr. Mosgrove made the reconstruction as close as possible to the way he remembered the original being. The target has now involved/aligned himself with the event in a personal way, i.e., setting himself up to be easily triggered at some future time. That future time comes during a television program presenting information on "the crash at Roswell", on a major channel during primetime viewing in 1990. Mr. Mosgrove decides to contact Stanton Friedman. Mr. Mosgrove then sent Friedman a sketch of the mandible which Friedman showed it to a dentist, his comment to Mosgrove was that "his story was interesting", and that was the last Mr. Mosgrove heard from Friedman.¹

May I point out, that the same TV program discussing Roswell triggered not only Mr. Mosgrove, but many other people. All of these individuals began contacting investigators with unheard of stories about UFOs and abductions. I find this the most interesting part about that TV program; i.e., the triggering effect it set off in hundreds of people. I have thought that it be interesting to determine why it was important that these individuals be triggered at just that moment? What was going on in the "real "world?

I think I understand why Friedman did not pursue this story. There are too many unknowns, and some of the people who could validate - for example, the other technician who was in the laboratory with Mosgrove - are not named, and if they are still around are not willing to comment. All of the factors provided prove nothing. Nothing matches. Teeth are never mentioned by abductees who have come into contact with the type of "alien" I believe there is being made reference to - the "greys." No match there. Remember in 1979 not many people had come forward with descriptions of the occupants of the UFOs in most, if not all, of the literature at the time.

Which leads me to my final point: In light of the recent hoax perpetrated on the Western world, I refer to "The Alien Autopsy" and other fallacious links to what is called "The Roswell Incident", we should begin to track the periods of time between when these events where evidence of so-called "alien contact" are presented. We should look at what is happening in real world events which might require a diversion of high magnitude, such as "black" projects which need to be tested in the open skies. This discovery would provide proof of the systemic mechanism driving these hoaxes/false investigative directions. We should instead of assuming that because the event/object is anomalous that it is "alien." Truly, this becoming a very naive point of reference for investigators. I wonder when we will learn the lesson.

All of which brings me back to the 1995 meetings with Bill Moore. In addition to the above analysis, it is my opinion that I was being utilized as a "test market" (to see how the "reconstructed event" would fly) for several items - "the mandible" being one of them.

I think most of the "evidence" that is presented is a staged event to control and study human responses in targeted groups, or cover-up covert research/testing that needs to take place in the greater environment, i.e., outside of the closed laboratory environment. I suggest a two-fold reason for the staged events: 1) the information garnered from the very small UFO test group is utilized on the public at large to control informational flow and response; and 2) as a cover for "black ops" of various types by various agencies. These staged events are perpetrated by a group - picked for their various "talents" - who manufacture, distribute the information/artifact, and control the outcome. This group has a couple of different names, or there are a couple of different groups. This group attempted in 1995 to see how I would react to several items. I did not respond as a true believer, but as an analyst searching for real facts. I thought the mandible was a dead issue. Someone thought otherwise.

1. UFO Crash/Retrievals: Search for Proof in a Hall of Mirrors; Status Report VII, Leonard H. Stringfield; February, 1994

©1996 Kathy Kasten