The Reed Files

A classic UFO Watchdog article (c) by Royce Myers, III

Part V


So many names, such an esteemed educational background, incredible stories of saving the lives of children, alien encounters, eluding evil government thugs trying to kill him, being a champion of truth - this is quite an astonishing life to have lived and what an extraordinary man... Well, not really...

JOHN BRADLEY RUTTER was born June 3, 1953 in Seattle, Washington to George Frederick Rutter and Margaret Lucille Rutter. found a King County document showing the direct relationship between George Frederick Rutter and John Bradley Rutter conclusively proving they are indeed father and son.

(Ed. Note: This is a PDF file that revokes a Durable Power of Attorney that the elder Rutter granted his son in the mid-nineties. Granting a Durable Power of Attorney is typical between parents and children and allows the children to take control of a parent's business affairs, including finances, when a parent becomes incapacitated. To REVOKE one is unusual and shows that the elder Rutter did not want his son involved in his affairs any longer.)

Having reportedly resided in the Seattle area his entire life, not much is really known about John Bradley Rutter, except that he appears to have a number of aliases that are reported to include: Dr. J. Bradley Rutter, Jonathan Rutter, Dr. Jonathan Rutter, Jonathan B. Rutter, John B. Rutter, J. Bradley Rutter, J.B. Rutter, and many more including his most recent of Dr. Jonathan Reed. It has been reported that Rutter has more than one social security number for his name(s).

A search for educational records found no college degrees for Rutter and he has been reported to have never graduated from any college. Rutter's parents are divorced and both still reside in the Seattle area. Rutter's brother is still alive and he lives in the Seattle area as well. was not able to contact any of Rutter's relatives at the time of this story.

Rutter supposedly operated a photography studio in the Seattle area, but the business was reported to have gone belly up. He was also reported to have once either worked at or co-owned some type of art gallery, but this information could not be confirmed at the time of this story. Rutter frequents a few Seattle area restaurants. It is reported that one of Rutter's favorite restaurants is '13 Coins' and the staff there know him well as he has been a regular there for many years. Dan Iaria claimed to have visited "Dr.Reed" in Seattle and stated, "Dr Reed was recognized on multiple occasions in my presence by old acquaintances at these places."


So where is all of this "irrefutable evidence' we keep hearing Dan Iaria and others talking about? They sure do seem to think they have it. Well, they don't. Let's take a look at some of the alleged evidence in this case...


Now that the true identity of "Dr.Reed" has been discovered, this alone is more than enough to show this case was indeed a fraud from start to finish. The evidence of real firsthand witnesses and photos from two sources, along with video of "Dr.Reed" during a family holiday...nothing more needs to be said about the encounter because it never happened.


When this hoax first made the rounds on late night radio, Reed and company proclaimed that they had presented 100% of their evidence and that the negatives shown on the Internet were indeed the original negatives. Dan Iaria stated, "These pictures and negatives have been looked at by Kodak. Also, Art Bell had his own professional photographic analyst inspect the pictures, negatives and video. All of these individuals have indicated that the negatives are real and have been in no way tampered with or modified. The video sequences of these same objects further corroborates that the artifacts in these negatives were physical objects...exactly as Dr Reed described."

If this is the case, then why is it that there are no reports from any of these alleged experts? Iaria claims that Kodak examined the film, but he never produces a report of any kind. And what about Art Bell's alleged photographic analyst, where's his report on the video and the negatives?

After discovering a major problem with the film dating, began looking into this claim. While "Dr.Reed" claimed the photos were taken in OCT-1996, the film he claimed to have used was not manufactured by Kodak until after OCT-1996 - a fact confirmed by Tony Edwards, a specialist in Kodak’s Product Information Department. Since the film didn't exist at the time of the bogus encounter, it would be impossible to have taken any pictures.

Iaria then claimed that the negatives they stated were the originals were not. Now they claimed the negatives were 'inter-negatives' - pictures of the original negatives. With that, Iaria said the film dating now matched with the original encounter date.

With this convenient excuse in hand, Iaria's problem was solved - or was it? At one time

Iaria claimed that photographic consultant Bob Shell had examined the film. The only problem with this is that Shell's analysis was limited to what Iaria wanted him to look for. contacted Bob Shell about this analysis and the dating of the negatives. Shell was asked if the negatives that he examined could be inter-negs. Shell stated, "I looked at two of these negs, the same ones on the web site, and saw nothing that would lead me to believe they are copies from slides. I don't buy it. Creative answer, though, and it shows Reed is reasonably savvy about photography."

Remember now, it was reported that Rutter (aka "Dr.Jonathan Reed") owned a photography studio of some kind and he claimed to be an avid photographer.

iarianeg laria interneg

At first, "Dr.Reed" claimed that the negative on the left was 100% original. Later, after a major dating flaw was discovered, "Dr.Reed" and Dan Iaria claimed the negative on the left was a copy (an 'inter-neg') and that the negative on the right was the original. The only problem here is that when 'inter-negs' are produced, they are darker than the original negative. Comparing these two negatives, you can clearly see that the negative on the left is much lighter than the negative on the right - which would tend to indicate that the negative on the left is the original, not the one on the right.

Shell also stated, "When you copy a photo there is loss of sharpness and increase in contrast, neither of which shows up in the negatives."

Iaria stated, "On 05May01, I received the negatives...and I was asked by Dr Reed to have these dated. He assured me that he was absolutely certain that these were originals. And...these had to be retrieved from their location outside the country (which again, was why we didn't use them to start with)." If these were the original negatives, and "Dr.Reed" knew all along where they were at, then why weren't they used to being with? Simple - because they're weren't the original negatives and there was plenty of time for these guys to do enough research to cook up another set of negatives.



One of the pathetic props used in this hoax was the alleged Link Artifact - an alien device that "Dr.Reed" claimed to have recovered during his encounter. "Dr.Reed" claimed that the device would allow its user to be transported to another dimension when invited to do so by the aliens. Dan Iaria claimed that a man name Rudolfo Garrido completed an analysis on the so-called 'Link' and that he found it employed nanotechnology and was extraterrestrial in origin. Iaria also claims that a laboratory in Japan conducted a thorough examination of this item.

Well, if that is the case then where are the reports? Where is all of the credible scientific data Iaria claims to exist? The only thing offered by anyone claiming this cheap prop was an alien device was a lot of talk and eye-candy. No solid evidence was ever offered.

It was reported that "Dr.Reed" told a crowd in Mexico that he would demonstrate the device before a live audience but then didn't. His excuse had something to do with the aliens not inviting him to come along and play or the device had a fungus growing on it...


And what about "Dr.Reed's" UFO (pictured left)? Well, in the video shown the object never moves, it's stationary the entire time and low to the ground. It's quite clear that this was a prop held up with supports. Other photos shown pixelation problems and shadowing inconsistencies that point toward digital manipulation of the object in the photo.





rutter jeep

You may recall that "Dr.Reed" claimed to have used this same Jeep (pictured left) to haul the dead alien from the woods to his home in October 1996. There's just one problem with this claim - this Jeep wasn't in Rutter's possession until 17-APR-1997, a year and a half after his alleged encounter. This particular Jeep was purchased by Rutter's former girlfriend at a used car dealership in Washington called Lynwood Nissan. learned that Rutter's former girlfriend Barb had actually purchased the Jeep from a used car dealership located in Lynwood, Washington. Using this information, was able to obtain a copy of the bill of sale for the vehicle through a third party and confirmed that it had indeed been purchased by Rutter's former girlfriend.

Bill Werner stated that Rutter drove several vehicles, but his most constant vehicles were the Jeep (pictured above) and a 1980s Volvo wagon. Among the other cars Rutter was seen driving were a Jaguar and various other sports cars. What struck Werner as odd was that Reed never seemed to have the cars parked at his home. Jim Smith stated that the private investigator he allegedly hired to follow Rutter had found that Rutter would spend some of his time at night at a west Seattle auto body shop.

mcevoy garageSpeaking of cars, has anyone ever wondered why the license plates associated with "Dr.Reed" are always obscured? It wouldn't be difficult to obtain the registration information from a license plate and to figure out who owns the car and who doesn't. If vehicle info had been obtained and the name Jonathan Rutter began showing up, it wouldn't take long for someone to figure out what was going on.

In the photo to the left, Dan McEvoy claims to be at the home previously owned by "Dr.Reed". This is the home alleged to have been ransacked by evil government thugs wanting to take all of "Dr.Reed's" evidence and the alien away from him. So how is that possible when Rutter was living with his former girlfriend in 1996? Simply put - it isn't possible.

And what about all of the people out there who claimed to know "Dr.Reed"? What about all those people claiming to have investigated this case or to have witnessed "Dr.Reed" use his alleged alien artifact...


The Reed Files - Part VI

UFO Watchdog Home | The Hall of Shame | The Hall of Fame | About Us | | The Paracast | The Paracast Community Forums