This past Sunday 12-MAY-02, Dan Iaria (pictured left) appeared on a radio program in which none other than Jaime Maussan played host. Of course, both were defending the Reed UFO Fraud as being a legitimate case despite the fact that UFOWATCHDOG.COM exposed this fraudulent UFO case in a breaking story on 02-MAY-02.

While both Maussan and Iaria have chosen to not directly communicate with UFOWATCHDOG.COM about their claims, they are once again invited to submit any and all comments about this case directly.

During this recent radio broadcast, Iaria took to the immediate defense of the Reed UFO Fraud by making ridiculous assertions about your UFOWATCHDOG.COM editor and distorting many of the facts in this matter.

The following are excerpets from this recent program with responses from UFOWATCHDOG.COM:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

IARIA: Um, I believe that they have tried many times to basically disspell this case and this is just another attempt to, ah, once again dispell it and, ah, make Jonathan appear as if he does not have credibility. Well, they are saying that he is not going by his real name. His real name is Rutter, not Reed. And this is something that has been known to several other people. We've, some of, some of Jonathan's constituents have known that his real name was not Reed. And...

MAUSSAN: And then why...Jonathan use that name, Jonathan Reed, instead of Jonathan Rutter?

IARIA: Well, it was because he wanted to protect his family and friends and not have their privacy intruded upon or their lives intruded upon. And he felt the best way to protect them was to not use his real name.

The excuse being offered here is the same one that was written about in the UFOWATCHDOG.COM story exposing this hoax on 02-MAY-02:

" "Dr.Reed" supporters, fanatics, the faithful if you will - they will undoubtedly start yelling conspiracy - that this story has been slapped together to discredit "Dr.Reed's" alien encounter in order to cover up the truth. Perhaps we'll now hear that "Dr.Reed" was an alias for Rutter to protect him from the bad guys."

For anyone to accept Iaria's claim that some people have known "Dr.Reed's" true identity for some time is simply ludicrous. The only people that knew who John Bradly Rutter really was were those people involved in this scam, by choice or otherwise, and the firsthand witnesses exposing Rutter's lies.

If Rutter used this alias to "protect" his friends and family, then why have these same people come forward and identified Rutter and exposed his scam? Why, in fact, have they talked about the book Rutter made no secret he was writing about an alien encounter in the early 1990s - a fictional story he told some people he was going to present as factual? Simple, because this alias explanation is yet another convenient lie constructed in order to undermine the fact that this case is a complete fraud. For Iaria, or anyone else for that matter, to argue that the false name was used to protect anyone is as absolutely absurd as is this alien tale.

Since Rutter's whereabouts are accounted for between 1983 to 1998, it is obvious that he never had the encounter in October 1996. Why didn't any of the witnesses know about the alien in the freezer? Surely they would have known about the house being ransacked considering Rutter and his ex-girlfriend lived there during the time he claims the encounter took place, and Rutter's mother lives right across the street. They didn't know about it because it never happened...

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

MAUSSAN: But Jonathan was wrong then, and doesn't Jonathan [...]

IARIA: I don't know if it's wrong or right. It's what he chose to do to protect himself and his family. I don't, I don't think that, uh, I would have handled it that way. But each of us, each of us does things our own way

MAUSSAN: But now they are using this argument to say that he is not a truthful person

IARIA: Well, it's interesting that each person that was interviewed said that they knew him as a doctor of child psychology and it was only until, it was only in 1998 that they began to question whether he was a doctor. And of course that was when his records had already been expunged and he was, had already been terminated from the University of Washington. So it shouldn't have come to a surprise to any of them that they could not find verification for the fact that he was a doctor. For 15 years his ex-girlfriend Barb knew him as a doctor

MAUSSAN: Who was?

IARIA: Barb, his ex-girlfriend. And again it wasn't until 1998 that she began to doubt that because of an investigation that was done by a private investigator who could not verify Jonathan's educational credentials. That we already know his credentials were gone at that point so that should not have made a difference.

Iaria confirms that the ex-girlfriend is indeed real, confirms the realtionship and that Rutter was still around in 1998 - this clearly shows that no alien encounter ever took place in 1996 and that all of these claims made by Rutter are false. As for Iaria's claim of educational credentials being wiped out - Rutter is not and never has been a doctor of any kind and he does not have a Ph.D in psychology or any other medical licenses. Rutter has never worked at the University of Washington as a psychologist. These are easily verifiable facts.

Iaria claimed an old e-mail address for the University of Washington proved that "Dr.Reed" was employed there. The page has now been conveniently removed from Iaria's website, but you can view a copy here - some images may not load. Iaria claimed that he found the name of Jonathon Reed (spelled with an 'o') at the Internet Address Finder and that this e-mail address absolutely proved that "Dr.Reed" was telling the truth. Iaria also mentioned this on one of the Art Bell appearances, and talked about it quite adamantly. Never mind that the first name is spelled differently, though their excuse was that Rutter spelled his name both ways. This is yet another lie.

Iaria had also posted a page on his webiste - it also is now missing - about how someone had gone into the IAF Database and had tampered with the address. When you search the IAF for Jonathon Reed you will find:

Name: Jonathon Reed
E-Mail: jonathon@homer.u.washington
Organization: see aliendestiny.com-see dates-info here destroyed
Last Update: 04/02/01

The reference to aliendestiny.com at the page was placed there by Iaria. Some other items are now disappearing from Iaria's website - but don't worry, I have a complete mirror of the site saved to prevent any further distortion of the truth in this matter. Of course, it will only be a matter of time before the listing at the IAF is probably eliminated.

_____________________________

MAUSSAN: The case is real.

IARIA: Yes, well, we've looked at the evidence - you, myself, Dan McEvoy. Um, I think the evidence is extraodrdinarily compelling its, and, no one has given any indication of how Jonathan could have done this. In fact, they did not attack his evidence, they just attacked his character. they have yet to make any credible claim against his evidence.

Once again, Iaria is over-inflating his claims. The alleged photographic negatives in this case were shown to be fraudulent, background provided as to the history of "Dr.Reed" was readily refuted, inconsistencies were shown in photos, a straight pin was revealed in one picture of the alien's alleged super-suit, inconsistencies in the length of the alien's neck were shown, sound editing in the video of the alien was found, the alien's neck clearly not moving during an examination when the head of the prop is turned, the bogus "Dr." Harold Chacon being exposed as a fraud, and the list goes on and on.

Combine all of the above with the fact that Rutter's true identity has been exposed and what you get is a poor attempt being made by Iaria and Maussan to steer people from the biggest piece of evidence in this case - the simple fact that the man who claimed to be "Dr.Jonathan Reed" is a liar. He was never a doctor, people around him were never killed because of an alien encounter, his house was never ransacked as he claimed and he was never on the run in the time frame he claims to have been.

Iaria mentions investigator Dan McEvoy as having viewed the evidence - however, Iaria has now also removed the page containing the information of the alleged investigation done by McEvoy. Again, a copy has been saved and you can view it here - some images may not load.

In this investigation, it is alleged more than 30 people were interviewed that knew "Dr.Reed" including university professors, former students, coworkers, and family of "Dr.Reed". So, if "Dr.Reed" isn't his real name, then why are all of these people claiming to have worked with or studied with a "Dr.Jonathan Reed"? The answer is simple - they never worked, studied with or taught "Dr.Reed" or John Bradley Rutter becuase neither of them ever attended UCLA, San Diego State University or the University of Washington and neither of them worked at the University of Washington.

Another intersesting assertion made on this same page by Iaria that has been removed from Iaria's site is this portion directly quoted from Alien Destiny.com. Again, this page has been removed with no explanation:

__________________________________________________________________

"In the picture to the left, Dan McEvoy points up to the tall tower where Dr Reed worked. Dr Reed is no longer welcome in this facility and if he is spotted by the security guards, they will casually walk up to him (curiously enough sometimes addressing him by Dr Reed) and "remind" him that he is not permitted in this facility.

The only time we were accompanied by Dr Reed at the Medical Center, a security guard showed up and confronted us shortly after we arrived and escorted us all the way back out to make sure that we left the building."

__________________________________________________________________

Interesting that they allege security guards would call Rutter "Dr.Reed" - interesting because we now know this whole story is a fraud and that "Dr.Jonathan Reed" is in fact John Bradley Rutter. Also, how is it that anyone could have talked to "Dr.Reed's" closest living relatives, which were claimed to be his aunt and uncle, when Rutter's mother, father and brother all live in Seattle?

Let's not forget that Jaime Maussan and his assistant Daniel Munoz stated they also interviewed people claiming to know "Dr.Reed."

_____________________________________________________________________________________

MAUSSAN (pictured left): What has been the reaction in the United States to these attacks?

IARIA: well. overall I believe, uh, that it's been supportive. People here have, see it for what it is, and that is an attack of his character and not an attack of the evidence itself. We haven't see it, we have not seen a negativae reaction. Uh, the people that didn't the people, the people that were that didn't believe the case still don't believe the case. But the people who still believe the case still believe it. we've received many, many e-mails in support of jonathan and they know this attack on him is what we call frivilous. it has no foundation.

Attacks? Frivilous? Hardly. This is why webpages at Iaria's website are now disappearing and former supporters have withdrawn from the case completely. Iaria claims to have not seen any negative reaction, but there has been plenty. No serious investigator gives this case any credibility. Based on the hard facts presented by UFOWATCHDOG.COM, no one should give this case the time of day let alone a shred of credibility - this includes those people that claim to have investigated this case. It is simply amazing that anyone would continue to support this case. Of course, you have to ask yourself why Iaria and Maussan would continue to support at all - after all, doesn't Iaria claim that all of his reasearch has shown this case to be 100% true in all aspects that he has investigated? Isn't Maussan supposed to be an experienced investigative journalist?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

IARIA: Jaime, you yourself have seen the creature the video of the creature and you saw the creature blinking. The people in this attack tried to claim that this was a child in an alien costume and you and i have both seen the video and we know there is no way that could possibly be a child in an alien costume. I think you can tell just looking at the way the creature blinked, becuase the eyelid closed from all the way around the eye. not just from the top, but all the way around.

MAUSSAN: Like a reptilian.

IARIA: Yes. and the, um, the pupil was slited as you saw. So, you know, I think that, ah, if they're going to claim that this was a child in a costume, they would have to somehow account for the fact that the eyelid doesn't move the way a normal human's would have. And, you know, uh, we've seen this. There's absolutely no way that could be anything even closely resembling a child in a costume. I don't believe that could even, there's no conceivable way.

Iaria needs to get the facts straight. UFOWATCHDOG.COM has never claimed that the alien prop appearing in this viedo is a child nor have any of the witnesses. The fact in this matter, not an attack as Iaria would like you to believe, is that Rutter made an alien costume for a cousin of one of the witnesses. The account is that Rutter made an alien costume and dressed a child in to see what it would look like and Rutter also took pictures. This is during the same time frame that Rutter was talking to a relative of one of the witnesses about trying to pull off his fictional alien encounter as real.

As for the so-called blinking sequence that Iaria zealously defends as the ultimate piece of evidence, FX expert Steve Neill has already stated that the alien in the video is a sculpt, a poor one at that. Also, Iaria's claim that the red-eye effect shown in one alien photo only occurrs in nature is again false. You can read all about the red-eye effect here. Again, no one has ever claimed that the bogus alien Rutter has is a child in a costume. Once again, Iaria appears to not have the ability to get the facts in this matter straight.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

MAUSSAN: Now tell us who is Royce Myers.

IARIA: He is someone who has been attacking this case since 1999. I can tell you that Jonathan was first contacted by Royce Myers in late 1999. Myers wanted Jonathan to turn over all of his evidence to him, he wanted Jonathan to turn over his evidence to Royce Myers so that he could conduct his own personal investigation on it and decide whether it was true or not. Jonathan for reasons of the simple fact that he did not even know who this person was decided not to cooperate with him. And I believe that Myers was offended because Jonathan would not cooperate with him. And so he then began to claim this case was not real and he tried everything in his power to try to convince others, even to the point of lying to us about the reality of this case.

Here we go again, Iaria is not reporting the facts in this matter. I began investigating this case in November 1998 when it first went public. I never talked to Rutter directly as Iaria has claimed and never asked them to turn over all of their evidence. I simply asked for access for scientific evaluation.

I did however talk to Chris Fine, the "business manager" for Rutter and cohort Robert Aria (aka Robert Raith). During that interview with Fine I asked if they would be willing to have their evidence analyzed and that I could have a scientific evaluation completed. Fine stated she was not interested in having anything analyzed, even after I offered to sign a non-disclosure agreement and told her that a positive analysis would only booster the credibility of their claim. I offered to meet with her or anyone else involved in this matter and Fine gave the excuse that it would not be possible to contact Rutter as he was on the run from the evil government agents that we now know were never after him.

As Fine kept declining analysis of their supposed evidence and said that their party was "not interested in engaging in any debate", coupled with the fact that Fine's interest in our conversation peaked dramatically when I mentioned a movie producer I know, I began having serious doubts about the case. After investigating the facts, I publicly stated that the case was a hoax. I was never "offended" as Iaria states. The only thing that offends me about this case is how these clowns could keep parading this fraudulent UFO case around as the real deal with a straight look on their faces.

As far as anyone "lying" about the "reality of this case", the only reality here is that Rutter has lied about this case from day one and many of the facts regarding this fraudulent UFO case were omitted by those that want you to think this case is real.

___________________________

IARIA: He actually said that Robert and I, Robert Raith [his real name is Robert Aria] and I, Jonathan's coauthor, were the same person. Then when he found out that we weren't, he said that we were related somehow and Robert Raith and I aren't related, not even distantly related. So he has told a lot of lies in order to convince people that this case is not real, many of them you already know of. He told some lies about you and your group.

MAUSSAN: Can you tell us what were those lies aobut us.

IARIA: Yeah, well, I can tell you what I believe was said was that Rodolofo and you were not, ah friends that you were constantly at battle with each other. They said at one time you and Rodolofo were enemies of each other.

MAUSSAN: But he never mention, he never prove anything.

IARIA: No, he never, never really attempts to prove anything. He just, in fact he usually says 'it has been suggested that this is the case' and he says it that way because then he can basically say anything without having to prove it.

Apparently Iaria is seriously fact-challenged as he can't get his story or the actual facts straight. It was never claimed as a fact that Aria and Iaria were related nor was it ever claimed Iaria and Aria were the same person. Someone simply pointed out the the similarities in their last names. At no time has it been reported as fact that the two were related. Here's what was exactly written about this at UFOWATCHDOG.COM: "Some have suggested that Dan Iaria and Robert Raith (aka Robert Aria) are actually related and are in on the con together, although there is no actual proof of this as of yet." This is a far, far cry from what Iaria claims was presented as fact. Iaria is attempting to divert attention by claiming UFOWATCHDOG.COM is engaging in character assassinations, rivalries and politic non-sense. The fact here is simple - this scam has been exposed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

UNKNOWN PERSON: Is he a real person?

IARIA: Is he a good person? I don't...

MAUSSAN: No, real, real.

UNKNOWN PERSON: Does he exist?

IARIA: Yes, well, I believe he does exist because I have met at least two people who have claimed to know him. I have never seen or met this Royce Myers in person myself. But I can also say if you go to his site you will notice that he says negative things about every single case that is a, uh, prominent case. He will have something negative to say about it. Every, every single case. And if he has nothing good to say about anyone related to the paranormal, then you have to wonder what he has even involved himself for.

Once again, Iaria demonstrates why he is not a competent UFO investigator. If he was then he would have known about my background in this field regarding my investigations of cattle mutilation and crop phenomenon cases. I only have negative things to say about people that continue to misrepresent the truth behind their alleged alien encounters - especially those attmepting to profit by lying whether that profit be financial or personal. I also have negative things to say about people claiming to be investigators that are obviously not competent enough to know a scam when they see one...

Once again, direct comment on this case from Dan Iaria, Jaime Maussan or anyone else associated with this case is welcome.