1712 Van Court                
Alamogordo, New Mexico
11 February 1958             
Maj. Donald Keyhoe
1536 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Don,

       Am answering your letter for Coral since I have been very close to the Stokes case which seems to he your prime interest at present.
       First, let me say that I feel the Stokes incident is better left along---but not for its lack of authenticity. The reason is Stokes' personality. He is quite excitable arid easily confused under cross-examination. This is largely because he does not have a fluid command of the English language (I have found this to be true of many technically skilled people by the way) and is easily tripped up by verbal trickery.
       The statement that Stokes was hospitalized is nothing more than an hysterical lie. He did finally say that he may have seen a natural phenomenon. When I asked him about this later his response was, "I had to say that. They wouldn't let me alone until I did."
       We talked to Jim at length on the evening of his sighting and feel that it was authentic. He, at this time, exhibited a redness of skin which is hard to account for although it may have been sunburn (in spite ol' two days of cloudiness and rain). He was bubbling over with an excitement that could not be feigned, for Jim is no actor.
       As to the other witnesses, we are quietly checking into this angle. but have uncovered nothing definite except that someone other than Stokes did call an El Paso paper to report the identical incident on the same afternoon. I say "other than Stokes" because his Texas drawl is easily recognized. I am inclined to think that your surmise concerning military silencing is correct.
       If you can give us a little more to go on, we will look into the report of "another sighting" bv Stokes which you mentioned. We have to tread lightly, however, for Stokes is a reticent, disillusioned man these days.

       Local comment on the Armstrong fiasco is that it was a pretty one-sided affair. Menzel elicited the ridicule and scorn he richly deserves. Incidentally, most employees at the Sacramento Peak Observatory (Sunspot. N. M.) who actually work for him personally consider him to be a big fat phony.

       Your censoring was unfortunate from the standpoint that it could make it pretty difficult for you to ever appear on another show of this dimension. Has it occurred to you that it may have been planned too---that you were actually baited into that situation? Why was Edwards so nervous?

       Our local evaluation staff has achieved considerable professional stature recently but unfortunately many of them still prefer anonymity. This may change soon however.

       You have been recommended to receive a pre-publication copy of Coral's book for review purposes Nothing definite has been established concerning a publication date however. My personal opinion is that it will be pure dynamite--and I'm fairly conservative. That gal is a forceful and convincing writer.

       By now you must have received the APRO Bulletin for January, 1958. What I have told you here concerning Stokes is to be considered a confidential addition to what I wrote there.

Jim Lorenzen