At the time of his death in 1974, Harold Hogan, a son of John and Bridget's son William, was working on an article about the nature of the universe based on an experience he had in 1967. This is the draft of that article, preceded by and interspersed with some notes to his brother Jack (John Joseph Hogan) of whom he had requested editorial and typing assistance.

"A man needs a little madness, lest he dare not cut the rope and be free." -- Zorba the Greek


     All MS, as you know, should be double spaced (if you feel the article is worth a try).

     Am enclosing numerous quotes pertinent to material. I believe only a part of them should be used.

     Quotes by Charles Lindbergh are from Life Magazine. Would it be better to compress his thought into a few lines (without direct quotes) to avoid running into legal rights to Life's publication?

     Quotes from "Men in Space" offer same problem.

     The one by Marconi is OK as is.

     Quote by Sikorsky is important because he suggests his belief in velocity greater than light. But again, it is a quote from Pace Magazine. Quote by Sir James Jeans also important because it falls in line with the general context of the article.

     Seems to me quotes should be used as hurdle to gain reader interest.

     The "evidence" I present on behalf of what I saw is positioned after my explanation, "Explaining the Cubes". Should it be? Or?

     Explaining "Life's Limitations" near beginning seems very necessary adjunct to whole. But should it follow quotes?

     Title of whole article is tentative: "A Look Outside the Universe". It may not be dramatic enough. Although with space travel, etc.? Here are some other title ideas: "UFOs -- Electronic Images of Life"; "UFOs: Life Energy Coordinates"; "UFOs: Definition of Life": "UFOs: Live Color TV Source Creation"; "UFOs: Mathematical Symbols of Creation"; "UFOs: Super Energy of Another Dimension"; "UFOs: Super Light Energy Intelligence" (used as in term 'supersonic').

     I don't want to use a title that might hurt the credibility of the article, however. Got any ideas? But suppose maybe UFO should be in title to tell what article is about.

     Wish I were able to express my ideas in, perhaps, more earthy manner (modern Shakepearian but as popular as hippie languology). Also, I found it most difficult to decipher 'another world' without adequate words (since such words are not found yet in the dictionary). Writing this, I relied largely on two things: what I actually saw and subconscious promptings (closed circuit communication) -- this plus some up to date 'science' reference -- physics, biology, chemistry, etc.). I did not attempt to explain the proximity of the objects I saw (to my own person) -- that is, why they were in my immediate neighborhood. I tried to interpret what I saw with objectivity, away from the personal angle.

     Sometimes I think that this material is so 'out' that it would not be of interest, but then again I think of the Bible, a best seller that stretches credibility a bit thin all the way from Genesis to the Book of Revelation. Besides, we've already been to the moon. Might as well go a little further.

     My description of the cubes I saw is not exaggerated in any way. Will enclose Paul's version of them (not quite correct). Might get some one to do an air brush for article if worth it -- well, here it is. Best wishes to all.


Instantaneous Position: The Unknown World
                                                    A Look Outside the Universe
                                                            Explaining the Cubes

On Monday morning, January 16, 1967, the following news item appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper:  Mysterious White Light Flickers Over the City.  "Scores of people observed a mysterious white light in the sky over south Seattle Sunday night. Some thought it was a falling airplane. Others believed an airplane was on fire, traveling south over the city . . . an air traffic controller at Seattle-Tacoma airport said what appeared to be a white flare had been observed over south Seattle by personnel at the Sea-Tac tower. Similar sightings were made by tower personnel at Boeing Field and by crew members aboard an airliner in its final approach to Sea-Tac . . . the flare appeared to rise above the vicinity of Beacon Hill . . . the object seen was 'definitely not an airplane', the Sea-Tac controller said."

     The third floor room I occupied on Beacon Hill the night of Sunday, January 15, 1967, was so located that I had nearly unrestricted vision of the sky above south Seattle. I had retired early and was resting, listening to radio station KING, Seattle. I had pulled back the drapes from my large windows in order to see the city and clouds drifting by. I opened one of the windows a little to get fresh air, and lay back again. The time was between ten and midnight (I had no watch).

     It had been raining for a couple of weeks, but tonight the cloud cover was breaking up, pushed by a gentle wind, and there was no rain. The cloud cover was about a half mile deep, wind out of the SW at 10 or 12

     After awhile, I observed a rather odd light effect at several points moving through the clouds. It was a
search light effect with spots of moving light in a dozen or more positions at once. This aroused my
curiosity and I raised myself to a sitting position. The lights appeared to be a half mile away, to the south,