Merseyside Unidentified Flying Objects Research Group

MUFORG Bulletin, October 1966

——————————————————————————–

Edited by John Harney

COMMENT

More and more attention is being devoted to reports of alleged landings of UFOs and particularly to those in which the witnesses claim some sort of contact with the occupants of the craft. This vital aspect of our subject will, we understand, be examined in great detail in the forthcoming special issue of Flying Saucer Review. It is at present being brought to the attention of the general public by the serialisation of the sensational case of Mr and Mrs Barney Hill, in the American Look magazine and in the Sunday Mirror.

At this stage in the UFO mystery it is of course right that we should concentrate on this aspect, for the reasons we outlined in the August issue of this Bulletin. There are, however, some pitfalls. Mysterious objects seen flashing across the sky at great heights are one thing. They could be flying saucers, but there are many other possible explanations for most of these sightings. They generally excite only academic interest. On the other hand, stories of UFOs and their occupants seen on the ground at close range are liable to generate more heat than light. Remarkably few students of the subject have managed to consider these reports coolly and objectively. When it comes to the possibility of contact with a superior civilisation, it seems there are very few people who do not have some sort of axe to grind.

In his Editorial in the Spring, 1966, issue of BUFORA Journal, Dr J. Cleary-Baker reported: “Not long ago I delivered a lecture to an audience composed largely of Association members, in which I ventured to suggest that the UFOs, or some of them, might be piloted by beings who are ill-disposed towards humanity. One might compare the effect of my observations on my audience to that which would be produced if a vicar climbed into his pulpit one Sunday morning and launched into the questionable stanzas of  ’Eskimo Nell’!”

This deep-rooted desire, by many ufologists, to believe that not only are UFOs real, but that their occupants are friendly and are here to help us has for long stood in the way of any serious investigation or discussion of the more important landing reports by many groups. Time which should be spent in critical examination and analysis of these reports is wasted in enthusing over the fatuities served up by various “cosmic philosophers” and “new-age” thinkers. Some groups even form reception committees to welcome the space people if they should choose to accept this hospitality. (Have these people considered, we wonder, that if our governments were to accept, openly or otherwise, that these people actually exist, that the activities of these committees might be regarded as treasonable?)

Of course, we realise that the “space brothers” theory could conceivably be correct, but so, at this stage, could others. It is important that we should not inhibit the progress of our investigations by taking a particular hypothesis and persuading ourselves to believe in it. A theory that receives too little consideration is the possibility that all these landing reports and contact experiences may be wholly, or mainly, a psychological phenomenon, the precise nature of which is not, at present, fully understood. If this theory were properly developed and applied carefully to these cases, any which withstood the test would assume a new importance and significance. If it became clear that this unpopular theory was entirely unworkable we would be one step nearer the final proof. And if the theory should prove consistent and reliable? — Hard luck!

——————————————————————————–

MUFORG NEWS

New Chairman. Mr J. Harnwell was elected Chairman at the Group’s September meeting.

Northern Conference. Several members attended the BUFORA Northern Conference at Bradford on September 10th.

Skywatch. This year’s Skywatch was marred by bad weather. Some observations are being checked with orbital data on artificial satellites.

1966 Meetings. General Meetings will be held at 8.0 p.m. in the Committee Room at the Free Church Centre, Tarleton Street, Liverpool, 2, on the following dates:- Wednesday, 9th November; Wednesday, 14th December.

——————————————————————————–

RECENT NORTH WEST REPORTS

None received.

——————————————————————————–

BUFORA NORTHERN CONFERENCE

The BUFORA Northern Conference was held at the Textile Hall, Bradford, on September 10th. The event was efficiently organised by the Halifax Branch of BUFORA. To those who have never attempted to organise an event of this nature it may seem a simple task, but in reality there is much unobtrusive work involved. The members of the Halifax Branch well deserve the gratitude of all who attended this meeting.

The proceedings opened with an informal get-together. Displays of UFO magazines and photographs provided useful conversation pieces and coffee was served.

After lunch came the talk by Arthur Shuttlewood of the Warminster Journal, who for two solid hours recounted his incredible tale of events in Warminster. This was followed by a panel discussion. On the panel were Alan W. Sharp, BSc, BEng, FGS, FRAS, J. Leslie Otley, ARPS, Editor of Orbit, J. Cleary-Baker, PhD, Editor of BUFORA Journal, and Stephen Smith, BA, Hon. Treasurer of BUFORA. The Chairman was Malcolm Bull, Chairman of the Halifax Branch of BUFORA.

The main topics which were raised in the discussion were contact claims, the Charlton crater, Warminster and the Oldfields’ “spaceship” film.

An interesting idea emerged during the discussion on contact claims. Stephen Smith said that each claim should be considered in the same way as the police consider a murder charge, which led Dr Cleary-Baker to suggest mock trials of claimants, complete with prosecution and defence.

On Warminster, sceptic Alan Sharp said he had been there but had drawn a blank. What had impressed him was its proximity to an Army range and other local features which might give rise to unusual phenomena. He agreed, though, that there were aspects which deserved further investigation.

Several questions revealed that the Charlton crater controversy is still going strong and that the BBC’s explanation of Mrs Oldfield’s cine film does not satisfy everybody – least of all Mr and Mrs Oldfield.

After the symposium the conference ended with informal discussions. It is hoped that it will be possible to organise such events more often.

——————————————————————————–

WARMINSTER’S CONTACTEE

As the audience settled down to listen to Arthur Shuttlewood’s lecture at the Bradford Conference, no doubt many were expecting merely a sort of roundup of the sightings and incidents which have occurred there. If so, they were due for a shock.

His talk began reasonably enough, with details of some of the better-known incidents which focused public attention on Warminster. He said he had not seriously considered UFOs until September 28th, 1965, when he saw one himself. He attacked the cynics who alleged that the whole business was deliberately cooked up to act as a tourist attraction. He also vented his spleen on the editors of the national newspapers. He claimed that a representative of one of them (not named) had offered him £500 for a UFO photograph, saying that it didn’t matter whether it was genuine or faked.

Then he went on to assert that he had seen 288 UFOs since February and had obtained over 70 photographs of them in the same period. “Witnesses have come to Warminster, knowing we can guarantee a sighting”, he said.

Mr Shuttlewood does his saucer spotting on a hill near Warminster. He claims to have spent every clear night there since February of this year, equipped with camera and telescope, sometimes alone, sometimes accompanied by other sky-watchers. Indeed, a friend of his is said to have sighted no fewer than 322 UFOs. Out of Warminster’s population of 11,000, over 800 are said to have seen UFOs. Sceptics see and are “converted”.

There is much more to it, though, then just looking out for UFOs and listening for the “Warminster sound”. There are the space people themselves. “By next May”, says Shuttlewood, “the whole world will have to believe in the people above.” From what he has heard and “sensed” he is certain they (the space people) can monitor our thoughts. Not content with merely monitoring his thoughts, however, the spacemen have taken to ringing him up on the telephone. They are human and more evolved than us and they are concerned about us. They wear balaclava helmets and they are getting into the habit of hurling themselves in front of motor cars on lonely roads near Warminster. When the shaken drivers get out they vanish. This alarming procedure is apparently intended to convey a message; it means: “Don’t you commit mass slaughter.”

To convert people they sometimes use unconventional electrical methods. However, they are not “extrovert” unless they want to convert you.

They are “the greatest levellers of society”. They are also sincere. Shuttlewood, too, is sincere. “I am as sincere as you are”, he told us.

There was much more – he spoke for two hours. The foregoing is just a brief summary. Some will say we are being unfair to Shuttlewood with our sceptical, tongue-in-cheek approach. But never mind, some other UFO magazine will quite likely print an account describing the lecture as “thrilling and inspiring”. If we may say one thing in favour of the lecture – numbers of members of the audience found it very amusing, but were too polite to laugh out loud.

As a result of the activities of Arthur Shuttlewood, confusion about what really goes on at Warminster has increased. For example, there is the Cradle Hill incident of August 17th. Present were Arthur Shuttlewood, Eileen Buckle, Chairman of BUFORA’s Contact Section, and Philip Rodgers. Mr Shuttlewood alleged that a UFO was seen and landed in a field for a few moments. There are at least two published accounts to date. They give rather different impressions of the incident. One account gives the impression that the UFO was brought down by Shuttlewood flashing signals from a torch and the other suggests that the witnesses were probably mistaken. Other, verbal accounts that we have heard allege that it was cooked up by Shuttlewood, who, with Miss Buckle, was watching a satellite, then suddenly pointed in the opposite direction and chased after the alleged UFO. It seems that only Shuttlewood actually claimed to have seen it land and then only for a few seconds.

From other accounts it seems that Shuttlewood’s usual technique is to point out a satellite, calling it a UFO. Then, when the satellite disappears in the earth’s shadow he directs the observer’s attention to a nearby star and says that the UFO is now hovering. It also seems that he manages to generate a great deal of excitement on these skywatches and impresses people with his charm and apparent sincerity to such an extent that stars and satellites become magically transformed into flying saucers.

There are, of course, a number of unexplained sightings and other incidents in the Warminster area, but to suggest that genuine UFOs are to be seen night after night there is a gross exaggeration. If this were so, the mystery would be practically solved by now. More sophisticated instruments than simple cameras and telescopes would have been brought to bear on the objects. The light from them would have been analysed and full details of their flight characteristics, etc., would be known. There would be a mass of useful data for the scientists to work on. So far there is nothing of the sort.

Whether Mr Shuttlewood has made up the more fantastic details of his story, either to make money, or to enjoy the resulting notoriety, or whether he has got himself into the state in which he honestly believes that all the fantastic things he describes are really happening, readers must judge for themselves. However, anyone who believed every word of his Bradford lecture must indeed be a credulous person. We look forward to reviewing his forthcoming book, The Warminster Sighting, to be published by Neville Spearman Ltd.

——————————————————————————–

TYPE I UFO REPORTS

Colorado, USA Daniels Park, Denver – April 8th, 1966

Six 17-year-olds, three boys and three girls, having an evening picnic in Daniels Park, south of Denver, reported to police that they had seen apparently hovering red, blue and white lights, accompanied by a series of pulsating buzzing sounds which began about 21.30 CST.

The witnesses were eating in a park shelter when the girls reported hearing “footsteps” on the roof. The three boys went to investigate and while they were gone the girls said they saw ” . . . a man, about 6′ 3″ or 4″ in front of the shelter and wearing what looked like a long black or brown raincoat”. When the boys returned the footsteps were heard again and the group decided to leave.

As they approached their car they heard a buzzing sound which seemed to be all around them. It was then that they saw the lights. They got into their car and started to leave. While leaving the park they saw “a black, football-shaped object with lights on both ends, and a large red light on the bottom” following them. (This can be compared with the famous Michigan UFO which was explained away as marsh gas.) Their car engine started to die and the radio, which was on at the time, produced nothing but static. While leaving the park they observed two more identical UFOs about a block away from them. As soon as the witnesses left the park area, the UFO that had been trailing them stopped and slowly floated back into the park. Then the car resumed its normal operation and the radio was normal. They then drove to police headquarters to report what they had seen. The police were reported to have been impressed by their story.

(Credit: IIOUFO – Release R2)

Minnesota, USA Bagley – between 20th-25th April, 1966

A UFO is reported to have flown down the main street of Bagley about the time that the schools were being dismissed for the day. The UFO moved down the street at a very low altitude until it encountered a school bus coming straight towards it. It rose to avoid the bus and continued to the outskirts of the town where it landed. Four beings of small stature got out of the UFO and seemed to do some work on the device. Then they went back into the craft, which took off.

The incident is said to have caused panic in the town among the women and school children in the main street.

(Credit: Het Interplanetair Nieuwsbulletin, September 1966, quoting Saucers, Space & Science (Canada))

Other Reports Some other landing reports have come to our notice since last issue, but most of them either give very few details, or will have already been seen by most of our readers in other publications.

——————————————————————————–

TYPE I UFO REPORTS – INVESTIGATION, RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES

The response to our appeal, in the August issue of the Bulletin, for information on investigation and research into “Type I” UFO reports was disappointing. This seems to indicate that very few ufologists are interested in serious research of this kind.

However, interest in carrying out a determined attack on these reports, in the belief that they are the most significant, is gradually increasing. Also, psychology is being brought in more and more as an aid in evaluating these reports.

A letter from Jacques Bonabot of GESAG (Belgium) raised some interesting points. One of these was the effect of the presence of UFOs on dogs. Several landing reports mention the reactions of dogs. M. Bonabot also mentions some reports from South America which refer to observations of UFOs which seem to give light which does not cause shadows. In this connection it is interesting to note that in an account of the Denver incident (see above) published in the May-June 1966 issue of Probe – the Controversial Phenomena Magazine, one of the witnesses is quoted as saying of the UFO: “The funny thing is, the light did not reflect in my rear-view mirror.”

Does anyone have any ideas on the significance – physical or psychological – of such observations?

——————————————————————————–

THE LEAD MASKS DEATHS MYSTERY

The mystery began on August 21st, when the bodies of two men were found in a hilltop clearing near Niteroi, Brazil. (Niteroi is across the bay from Rio de Janeiro.) Two lead half-masks, for covering the upper half of the face, and strange, partially coded notes were found beside the bodies.

The two men were identified as Manuel Pereira di Cruz, aged 32, and Miguel Jose Viana, aged 34. They were both radio and television technicians. According to an autopsy report they died from stoppage of the heart. There was no apparent cause of this. The men had been dead for about four days when they were found.

A mathematician reported that part of the notes contained only the ohm equation (dealing with the strength of electric current) and the rest was unintelligible.

A number of people came forward during the investigation with reports of an oval, orange coloured object hovering over the top of the hill. One woman reported seeing the object at the time the men went up the hillside. The affair was investigated by local detectives and experts from Rio de Janeiro with the help of troops and the Brazilian Information Service. A weird array of theories was considered including murder, suicide, smuggling, sorcery, spiritualism, attempts to contact the Martians, atmospheric electricity and radio waves. A man who reported that the men had been trying to contact the planet Mars was held by police for questioning. This man was said to have exercised a powerful influence over the dead men and to have owed them money. According to one report, a man and a woman were arrested in connection with the case. The men were said to have had a great deal of money with them when they went up the hillside. The notes found on their bodies indicated that they had “taken orange capsules” and were “waiting for the promised sign”.

When detectives searched Manuel Viana’s workshop they found lead from which the masks were apparently made, and a book on scientific spiritualism, with marked passages referring to masks and intense rays of light.

The police eventually called off their investigations, having failed to solve the mystery. Detective Idovan Ferreira, who led the investigations said: “I have no doubt they died of an experiment with psychic forces, for which they were ill-prepared and which turned out to be fatal.”

(Credit: Liverpool Daily Post, 29/8/66; Liverpool Echo, 15/9/66; BUFORA Newsletter No. 2; Groupement pour l’Étude des Sciences d’Avant-Garde (Belgium))

——————————————————————————–

TRENCH AND THE SKY SCOUTS – JIMMY GODDARD WRITES

I feel I must take you up on a point mentioned in your review of Brinsley le Poer Trench’s latest book. I cannot speak for the other committee members of course, but I would never accuse anyone of “idle curiosity” if they asked me any question on UFOs, either in connection with membership of I.S.S. or otherwise. I would be very surprised if any of the others would either. If they asked for convincing proof of the existence and friendly intentions of the UFO intelligences, I would say quite simply that as yet there isn’t any concrete proof, and quite possibly the intelligences want it that way for some reason. But I think the weight of evidence points unswervingly to the fact of their existence as controlled vehicles, as I’m sure you would agree. The friendliness is another matter of course, and even Brinsley himself has admitted that there are cases which show that some at least of the intelligences are not all that friendly disposed towards us. But we in Sky Scouts are of the general opinion that most are friendly, though it is not an “article of faith” of course. A good number of contact stories have as good a “ring of truth” about them as the hostile cases (perhaps the ones which have not had books written about them have a slightly greater chance of being genuine). I believe the recent “Yamski” case to be true, though this is only a personal opinion, of course.

• Jimmy Goddard is a local organiser of the International Sky Scouts. He is to give a progress report on the Sky Scouts at the BUFORA Annual General Meeting on November 26th. He edits a UFO magazine called Saucer Forum which consists largely of letters from readers, discussing every aspect of the subject. Mr Goddard is well known for his work on “leys”, or alignments of prehistoric points, and his theory of a connection between them and the pattern of UFO activity.

——————————————————————————–

RECENT BOOKS

OTHER WORLDS THAN OURS by C. Maxwell Cade – Museum Press, London – 30/-

This, one of the latest books to draw attention to the increasing amount of scientific experimentation and speculation on the possibility of life on other planets, adopts a less conventional approach to the subject than most other, similar works.

Those who recognise the author’s name as that of the scientific consultant to Flying Saucer Review will not be disappointed if they hope to see some serious remarks about UFOs. Even so, while professing a proper degree of scepticism and scientific caution, he prefers to regard the sighting of an object over London on August 1st, 1963, as quite inexplicable, even though the photograph and description published indicate that it was a balloon with scientific instruments attached. Certainly there is nothing inconsistent with the sighting of a research balloon in the description given. On the other hand, he writes off the famous Papua sightings as “just too unreliable to qualify as evidence”.

In his introduction the author makes a plea for less bigotry in science and religion, and the following chapters maintain an open-minded approach which makes a welcome change from some of the more strait-laced treatises on the subject of extraterrestrial life. Doubtless, though, this will cause the book to be regarded as beyond the Pale by most of the scientific pundits.

There is an interesting chapter on the history of speculation about life on other worlds, followed by a review of various theories of the origin of life on earth. This leads on to a discussion on the evolution of intelligence and the controversial subject of psychical research.

Most of the other topics are dealt with in other books on the subject, but this does not lessen their interest, as these are fields in which important facts are continually being discovered and theories and opinions constantly changing.

In the last chapter the author expresses some pessimism over the eventual future of the human race if we should ever be taken over by extraterrestrial beings. It may turn out, he suggests, that such beings may be mechanical rather than biological in nature – a race of intelligent robots which gradually took over from their biological precursors. In support of this notion he points out how computers are becoming more efficient and capable of performing ever more complex tasks and he envisages the possibility of this process having been carried to its logical conclusion, somewhere in the galaxy.

This book provides useful background material for ufologists and plenty of food for thought.

STRANGERS FROM THE SKIES by Brad Steiger – Award Books, New York

This very readable paperback gives a number of detailed accounts of some of the more spectacular UFO incidents. The narrative begins with a dramatised reconstruction of an incident which is alleged to have occurred in Argentina in 1963, when a family claimed to have been besieged in their ranch-house for over forty minutes by several UFOs which shone weird beams of “tingling” light at them, while their occupants busied themselves at some mysterious task on a nearby railway track.

Enthusiasts will read of several familiar incidents, including the Papua sightings, the Warminster “Thing”, and the UFO that fell into a river at Iguape, Brazil. Other stories may be less familiar to many – for example the horrifying account of two young Swedes who claimed that the occupants of a UFO tried to kidnap them as they made their way home one foggy night in 1958. The UFO occupants were described as being “like globs of animated jelly”.

Readers are brought up to date in the final chapters with accounts of the Exeter, New Hampshire, sightings of 1965 and this year’s Michigan flap. The book ends by discussing the attitudes of the US Air Force to the UFOs.

This book is especially to be recommended for people who are just beginning to take an interest in UFOs and want an interesting, up-to-date résumé of the subject, illustrated by several good examples of the sort of problems we are up against.

UFOs AROUND THE WORLD – This is the title of a new UFO book, published by the New Jersey Association on Aerial Phenomena. The book includes contribution from Paul Norman, Luis Schonherr, H.C. Petersen, Prof. Hermann Oberth, Edgar Simons and others.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Merseyside Unidentified Flying Objects Research Group

MUFORG Bulletin, August 1966.

——————————————————————————–

Edited by John Harney

COMMENT

Policy

From correspondence received, it seems that MUFORG Bulletin is regarded as one of ufology’s more conservative and sceptical (even sarcastic) publications. It is becoming obvious that most ufologists, whatever their views, prefer UFO reports, investigations and logical hypotheses to comment and even humour. While Mr Hopkins’s hilarious, but sincere, article about the IGAP meeting had some readers rolling on the floor, it was completely lost on others. In order to avoid misunderstanding of our attitude to the UFO problem, it is perhaps best that we confine the funnier aspects to private conversations and correspondence.

We wish to do all we can to encourage serious UFO research and we would be pleased to publish details of serious research projects, investigations and analyses of UFO “flaps”, etc.

We will still continue to make comments, as constructively as possible, on the conduct and attitudes of UFO organisations, but it should be realised that, whatever comments we make, or have made, no personal offence to anyone is, or was, intended.

——————————————————————————–

MUFORG NEWS

Chairman resigns Paul Hopkins has resigned the office of Chairman, having moved to the South of England.

“Spaceship” Film. Mr & Mrs Oldfield are not satisfied with the explanation of their “spaceship” film. They are planning to show it to DIGAP (Manchester). MUFORG members will be welcome to attend.

“Professor” owns up The “Professor of Herpetology”, whom we announced as our latest Honorary Member in the February issue of the Bulletin, has written to admit that he is only 13 years old. However, the Group decided, at their July meeting, that he could remain a member.

——————————————————————————–

PRIME MINISTER QUESTIONED ON UFOS

On July 19th, Sir John Langford-Holt (Con., Shrewsbury) asked the Prime Minister, whether, since the Defence Secretary was responsible only for the air defence implications of reports of unidentified flying objects he would allocate to a department the assessing of their wider implications.

Mr Wilson said he would not.

Sir John said that an enormous number of reports were coming in to the Government from people who were not all cranks. It would be proper for someone in the Government to take a serious interest in them.

Mr Wilson said that they were taken sufficiently seriously when there was adequate information. Many were reports of natural phenomena and those that were not were balloons and so on.

Mr Quintin Hogg (Con., St Marylebone) tried to make a bit of political capital out of the occasion. He asked: “Is it not widely known that these unidentified flying objects are the chickens coming home to roost in the ruins of the Prime Minister’s reputation?”

Mr Wilson replied: “I seem to remember thinking that particular question rather funny when it was put forward by the Member for West Flint (Mr Nigel Birch) some six years ago.” (Laughter)

The foregoing is a good example of the hilarity which frequently greets any serious attempt to draw public attention to the UFO problem.

(Credit: Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Liverpool Daily Post, 20/7/66)

——————————————————————————–

TRENCH INTERVIEW

The person who compiles the “Charles Greville” column in the Daily Mail followed the familiar “Lunchtime O’Booze” tradition of popular journalism when interviewing the Hon. Brinsley le Poer Trench about his latest book The Flying Saucer Story (Neville Spearman, 25/-).

While many of us disagree with some of Trench’s opinions and attitudes to the UFO problem, it must be remembered that he has done much useful work, as a sometime editor of Flying Saucer Review, and in stimulating interest in the historical implications of the UFO mystery. He deserves our sympathy concerning the Daily Mail interview.

Trench is quoted as saying: “One of the things that needs investigation is that flying saucers seem to follow the old pre-Roman leys, or ancient tracks . . . “

“Greville” comments: “It doesn’t explain, of course, whey there is so much activity in the United States. Or was the Roman Empire larger than I thought it was?”

How dim can one get?

(Daily Mail, 19/7/66. Monitor: Miss M.P. Black)

——————————————————————————–

RECENT NORTH WEST REPORTS

FRECKLETON, Lancashire. May 7th — Type I?

Two men, driving home to Blackpool, in the early morning, saw two lights flickering in a field at Freckleton. They got out of the car and saw that the lights were now revolving in a clockwise direction and then discovered that the thing was in the air. They got back into the car and drove on. The object followed them to the outskirts of Blackpool, then vanished.

(The People, 8/5/66. Monitor: Miss M.P. Black)

Note: There is an RAF station near Freckleton, at Warton.

TEMPLE SOWERBY, Westmorland. June –? Monster

Three men fishing in the River Eden, near Temple Sowerby Village, at night, suddenly spotted an “incredible thing” in the water. The creature was described as having large, sparkling eyes, of a red hue. It was described as being “like a bear”, its shoulders protruding above the water as it swam. A fourth man came on the scene. He broke a branch off a tree, making a loud crack, but the monster did not move. The man threw the branch at it, whereupon it made straight for the three anglers, who ran away. No further details have been forthcoming.

(Liverpool Echo, 20/6/66. Monitor: Miss M.P. Black)

LITHERLAND, Lancashire. July 18th — Weather balloon?

Schoolchildren, lying on the grass during the lunch hour, saw an oval, white object, drifting slowly across the sky.

(Liverpool Echo, 19/7/66)

The descriptions given in the Echo report are quite consistent with the sighting of a weather balloon. These balloons are sent up regularly from the radio-sonde station at Aughton, a few miles away from Litherland.

——————————————————————————–

RECENT TYPE I UFO REPORTS

OKLAHOMA, USA On Highway 70, near Texas-Oklahoma border. March 23rd

At about 5.30 a.m. an electronics teacher stopped his car when his path was blocked by a huge “perch-shaped” object, sitting across the highway at a 45 degree angle. Craft was estimated to be about 75 ft long and 8 ft high. Witness stopped his car about 50 yards away from it.

Witness said the craft had four brilliant lights on the side facing him. The craft had one porthole about 2 ft in diameter, and below it a door 4-4½ ft tall and about 2½ ft wide. Witness saw only one landing support but felt sure it had three others. A “human” was checking the underside of the craft with a torch. When witness got out of his car, the “human” crawled up some steps and slammed a door shut. The “human” was about 5 ft 9 ins and was wearing what looked like green-coloured fatigues. He was wearing stripes (presumably on his sleeves, like the chevrons worn by NCOs). He had a light complexion.

The craft was further described as being lit up inside and having a plastic bubble about 3 ft in diameter in the front. Witness said he saw serial numbers on the side, consisting of a letter T over a letter L and the numbers 4768 or 4168.

The craft was observed for 30 to 60 seconds. When it started up it made a noise like a high-speed drill. It lifted off the ground to a height of about 50 ft and then sped away at a speed estimated at about 700 mph.

When first received by ALOOF, this report was not thought to be of great value, but later developments have brought it up for further investigation.

(Credit: Interplanetary Intelligence Report, May-June 1966 and Robert Stiff, ALOOF)

MISSOURI, USA Liberty. April 1st

A woman, who claims to have been sighting UFOs on many occasions since last Christmas, sighted them again on the night of April 1st, while driving in her car. She followed them and saw them land near a farm house. She parked her car nearby and observed them for 2-3 hours. There were two of them. One landed on top of a hill while the other circled. During the time one of the objects was circling, a train passed by and the UFO turned off its lights and flew to the top of a nearby tree and hovered there until the train was gone, then turned its lights back on again. Also during this period the other UFO on top of the hill rose slightly and moved behind the hill. After the train had passed, both objects came to rest on top of the hill, a short distance apart.

Both objects were brightly lit at this time and no shape could be distinguished, although witness felt they must have been oval or egg-shaped. She continued to watch the objects and later glimpsed the shadow of a man or men. She then heard what sounded like two men shouting at one another very loudly in a foreign language. Shortly after this she heard sounds like those of a pig being butchered. (She knew from experience what that sounded like.) She said that these sounds scared her and her mother (who was with her in the car), so they did not approach the objects any closer. During this time one of the objects blinked out and a pint of green light was observed to come from it. She did not see the operators in the flesh, but from their shadows they seemed to be of human size and shape. During the time the objects were seen, bright, star-like sharp points or cones of light, about 18-20 ft in length, were seen to come from them. The objects were estimated to be about as big as a helicopter or a car, and were too bright for any structural details to be observed. Shortly after the shouting and “slaughtered pig” noises, the objects took off and flew rapidly away, with the witness giving chase for a while.

When the incident was investigated, no physical traces were found in the area of the reported landing.

(Credit: Interplanetary Intelligence Report, May-June 1966)

PENNSYLVANIA, USA near Erie. August 1st

An unidentified flying object was reported to have landed near Erie, Pa. The incident was investigated by Air Force Major William S. Hall, of Youngstown, Ohio, who refused to make any comments. Witnesses described the object as “cube-shaped, whitish or metallic in colour”. A teen-age girl insisted that she saw a “formless” creature with a head and shoulders but no legs near where the object was supposed to have landed.

A photograph published with the press report shows a dragging, claw-like imprint in the sand, with three Air Force markers surrounding it.

This incident is to be investigated by the Ohio state office of ALOOF.

(Credit: Robert Stiff, ALOOF, quoting Oklahoma Journal, 3/8/66)

FRANCE, Attigneville, Haute-Marne. March 26th

A 54-year-old shepherd, M. Jean Voilquin, was guarding his sheep at the time of his sighting, which took place at about 1.45 a.m. He saw an object approaching him which he at first took to be a piece of paper, blown by the wind. When it came closer he saw that it was a wheel-shaped object, moving and rotating perpendicular to the ground and just above it. The object followed a perfectly straight course and followed the contours of the ground. The witness had it in sight while it covered a distance of about 500 metres. The sheep were frightened by the object and grouped together as it passed them.

The “wheel” was a milky-white object, with a number of “teeth” sticking out around the rim. The object was about 80 cm in diameter and about 15-20 cm thick. It appeared to be thicker at the centre than at the rim. The “teeth” were bright red. The witness compared them to the teeth of a potato harvesting machine.

The object moved at a speed of about 25-30 km per hour, and passed within about 20 metres of the witness. He noticed that it did not seem to be entirely rigid, because when it came in contact with the ground it seemed to give slightly (as if it was made of some elastic substance).

The investigator of this report (M. Robert Roussel), who works as a reporter and photographer for La Liberté de l’Est, draws attention to a very similar incident, which took place at Puy-Saint-Galmier (Puy-de-Dôme), on May 31st, 1955, at 11 a.m.

(Credit: Phénomènes Spatiaux, June 1966)

——————————————————————————–

TYPE I UFO REPORTS

INVESTIGATION, RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES

We have begun to concentrate on Type I reports for several reasons:

1. There is generally little room for misinterpretation in these reports.
2. Many of them give a great deal of circumstantial detail which can usefully be compared and contrasted with other reports.
3. There are not – so far – an overwhelming number of such reports.
4. Some ufologists feel that these reports must hold the key to the UFO mystery, in that, if properly investigated and analysed they should be capable of being proved or disproved – as objectively real occurrences – to the satisfaction of most reasonable people.

These reports have increased considerably during the past few years, so it is important that we begin to compile catalogues of them, to facilitate proper analysis, before they become too numerous.

One of the main difficulties facing those who begin to compile files of these reports is the question of what to put in and what to leave out. In this field we must, of course be reasonably selective, but it is difficult to be selective without being prejudiced.

The subject of ufology has, during the twenty years of its existence, been bedevilled by prejudice, preconception, obscurantism, the “will to believe” and the “will not to believe”. After twenty years ufologists, amateur and professional, are still floundering helplessly in search of a sensible and consistent working hypothesis with which to deal with the vast amount of data which has been amassed. No attitude or approach to the problem – no single theory – seems to hold up when subjected to careful scrutiny. The opposing attitudes of extreme scepticism and extreme credulity have been shown time and again, to anyone who has bothered to study the subject at all, to be equally nonsensical. The truth must lie somewhere in between.

In order to avoid personal prejudices entering into our investigations we propose, initially, to record all reports of UFOs landing or at a very low altitude and all “operators” with or without UFOs, including contactees. It may then be possible, at the analysis stage, to sort out the genuine reports from the hoaxes, etc., that is, assuming that some of the reports are genuine.

We wish, through the medium of this Bulletin, to do all we can to help the progress of serious UFO research and investigation, particularly with reference to Type I reports. We would like to hear from other ufologists who are working on Type I reports and we hope they will send us details of their working methods and any significant discoveries they may have made, for publication in this Bulletin. We are also willing to publish requests for information and co-operation.

Information and informed opinion on the following questions would be useful to workers in this field, especially to beginners:

1. Which are the best methods to use in compiling card indexes, catalogues, charts, statistics, etc? Do you use a code to classify the chief characteristics of these reports?
2. Which are the most significant details to look for when compiling lists of reports or analysing them, and why?
3. How reliable are the people (amateur and professional) who investigate these reports? Do they tend to put words into the witnesses’ mouths, or to ask leading questions?
4. To what extent are these reports distorted by sensational journalism, translations, national characteristics, etc? Can you give any examples?

There appear to be two main theories about UFOs:

1. The whole subject is a modern myth, compounded of misinterpretations, illusions, hallucinations, rumours, hoaxes, etc.

They are spaceships from other planets.

Some preliminary discussion of these theories may be of interest at this stage. We hope that our readers will contribute their ideas to help us in our search for the best working hypothesis.

The first theory is subscribed to by most scientists and by most people in general. It has often been pointed out, however, that most of the people who have publicly expressed their extreme scepticism have either never studied the subject, or have only a very superficial knowledge of it and are apparently unaware of the nature and extent of the problem. Patrick Moore, for example, gives the impression that he has only heard of the activities of the crackpot “saucer cultists” and seems to be unaware that a number of people, some of them highly qualified, are engaged on a serious study of the subject.

It is also glaringly obvious that the scepticism of many scientists, particularly astronomers, is motivated by prejudice or extreme conservatism, analogous to the case of the people who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope to avoid seeing something which contradicted the astronomical theories prevailing at that time. It is becoming increasingly evident, too, that the publicly expressed disbelief of some scientists, when confronted with questions on UFOs, is not genuine. Some of them have, in private conversations with UFO enthusiasts, shown that they have an open mind on the subject, or even that they tend to favour the interplanetary spacecraft hypothesis. Their public displays of scepticism are merely to avoid ridicule and the disapproval of their more rigidly orthodox colleagues.

These emotional and personal reactions of scientists to our subject do not, however, weaken their theory that all UFO observers are either mistaken or lying. There are many indications that seem to support the theory, but very few UFO researchers have adopted it as a working hypothesis, the most notable one who has adopted it being Dr Menzel. Menzel, though, is rather weak on Type I reports. He seems to deal with them by simply disbelieving them and leaving it at that. In Britain, Mr Alan Sharp occupies the position of “Devil’s Advocate”, from the point of view of the UFO “believer”. His painstaking investigations of craters, purportedly made by UFOs, resulting in his finding perfectly natural explanations for almost all of them, has been stimulating to serious researchers and has, no doubt, prodded many enthusiasts into taking more trouble to make sure of their facts before jumping to conclusions.

It seems the main usefulness of those who pursue the idea that all UFOs can be explained as mistakes or hoaxes is in the elimination of all the false reports, thus helping to clear away the “smoke” so that we can get a glimpse of the “fire”.

The interplanetary or, rather, interstellar hypothesis of UFOs is very simple in essence, but very complicated when we begin to speculate on the implications of it. Variations on this idea are discussed at length in most UFO books. Its one great attraction is that, by assuming the existence of a Superior Galactic Community and by ascribing various abilities, qualities and motives to its members, it is possible to explain practically every phase of UFO activity. It is also possible to extend this hypothesis to give plausible reasons why the reality of UFOs is not, and cannot be, believed in by most people, or publicly acknowledged by their governments at the present time.

Some people have already made their choice between these two hypotheses. Others remain uncommitted. Most of our readers, I think, tend to favour the second hypothesis. In this case it should be possible, by careful analysis of the reports and painstaking on-the-spot investigations, to prove the truth of it. For, if our activities in this sphere are to be of any lasting value, we must be able to convince not only ourselves, but all reasonable people.

——————————————————————————–

“ODD” ORGANISATIONS AND UFO PETITION

Our remarks in the June issue of MUFORG Bulletin, about the M.I.A. Petition and the “odd” organisations produced some reactions, favourable and unfavourable. The letters received have, to some extent, cleared up the points we raised.

An important point was made by Mr Martyn C. Harper, who is the organiser of the Midland Interplanetary Association’s national skywatch. He points out that the reason for M.I.A.’s association with the Cosmic Brotherhood Association is to obtain data on sightings, etc. and that M.I.A. does not subscribe to their policies. This sort of thing, then, presumably applies to other UFO organisations and their various exotic affiliations. There is also the problem that many UFO organisations sport weird titles which may or may not reflect their present policies and attitudes to the subject. It thus seems that the only objective way of judging whether an organisation is “rather odd” or not is by the quality of its published work.

With regard to the UFO Petition, BUFORA has decided to ignore it and their official views on it seem to coincide with those of MUFORG. However, the Secretary of M.I.A., Mr Derek Samson, informs us that ours is the only group that is not taking part in it and that hundreds of extra Petition forms are having to be printed.

——————————————————————————–

RECENT BOOKS

ANATOMY OF A PHENOMENON by Jacques Vallée – Neville Spearman, 25/-

The British edition of this book has at last been published. It was well worth waiting for. It is undoubtedly one of the most objective and important books which has been published on the subject of UFOs.

This book is a great encouragement to those who wish to take part in a serious, rational investigation of the UFO problem. The nature and extent of the problem is clearly set out. Jacques Vallée is the first UFO writer to make quite clear what it is that we are investigating. He points out, in the Preface: “The phenomenon under study is not the UFO, which is not reproducible in the laboratory, but the report written by the witness. This report can be observed, studied and communicated by professional scientists; thus defined, the phenomenon we investigate is obviously real. Our problem is no longer to explain but to analyse.”

Ancient and modern UFO reports and the various theories advanced to account for them are discussed. The author also outlines ideas whereby methods of investigation and the quality of research can be improved.

He also has a few words to say about amateur UFO groups and reviews and he doesn’t think much of them, with one or two exceptions. He states that their only positive contribution has been the publication of sightings.

This work is a real breakthrough in UFO literature and should be required reading for every ufologist.

THE FLYING SAUCER STORY by Brinsley Le Poer Trench – Neville Spearman, 25/-

This is a fairly run of the mill flying saucer book. The author lists important sightings and goes on, in the later chapters, to discuss such things as the reports of crashed UFOs, contactees and the alleged activities of such organisations as the C.I.A. to keep “the truth” from the public.

However, in the last chapter, Trench finally reveals what he is getting at. He is Chairman of a body known as the International Sky Scouts. This organisation welcomes young people as members with the object, apparently, of preparing mankind for membership of the Galactic Community. Trench, you see, is not only convinced that this Community exists, but is watching and waiting for the day when the Earth and its people will be fit to join it. He does not make it clear in his book, though, how he arrived at this definite conclusion, apart from by wishful thinking. I have an uneasy suspicion, though, that any prospective member of the Sky Scouts who, before committing himself, asked for some convincing proof of the existence and the good intentions of these “space neighbours” would be accused of “idle curiosity”!.

New American UFO Books A book by Frank Edwards, entitled Flying Saucers – Serious Business has been well received by serious UFO researchers in the USA. It does not appear to be available in Britain yet. The publishers are Lyle Stuart, New York. A new paperback, Strangers from the Skies, has just been published. It apparently deals with Type I reports. No further details of it are available at present.

——————————————————————————–

Phénomènes Spatiaux. This review, the quarterly journal of the Groupement d’Étude des Phénomènes Aériens et Objets Spatiaux Insolites, deserves a wider readership. It is particularly to be recommended to UFO researchers for accounts of investigations of individual UFO reports. These accounts contain all possible details and thus provide a valuable record of these occurrences for future reference. In short, it is well worth brushing up your French in order to read this magazine.

——————————————————————————–

ANNOUNCEMENT

The Truth About Flying Saucers

INTERPLANETARY INTELLIGENCE REPORT

• Established in August 1957, the INTERPLANETARY INTELLIGENCE OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, (IIOUFO) was organized for a scientific investigation of unidentified flying objects, UFOs.
• Now an international organization with Representatives in 35 Foreign Countries, with 50 United States Offices, backed by a Panel of prominent scientists, we are endeavouring to add what information we can to solve this the mystery of the ages.
• Membership of the IIOUFO is 3.00 dollars a year in the USA. Elsewhere 4.50 dollars. Members of the IIOUFO receive our official publication the Interplanetary Intelligence Report, which is published six times a year and is 8 pages, and an official IIOUFO membership card.
• The duties of IIOUFO members are to report UFO activity in their area and do investigation work for the IIOUFO.
• The Interplanetary Intelligence Report is recognized as one of the leading UFO publications. The IIOUFO welcomes your articles for publication along with your UFO sightings and photographs.
• The IIOUFO was permitted by authorization from the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. to visit and question the Air Force Project Blue Book files at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio in September 1964.
• The IIOUFO was featured by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) special 1½ hour UFO national program of August 21, 1965.
• The IIOUFO was featured in a French Broadcasting System UFO documentary movie.
• The IIOUFO was the only UFO organization to do on the spot investigation during the August 1965 historic wave of sightings.
• The IIOUFO was the organization to bring you the famous Tulsa, Oklahoma photograph taken during the wave on August 2, 1965.
• The headquarters of IIOUFO is in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Overseas mail is handled by Mr Robert Stiff, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

MERSEYSIDE UFO RESEARCH GROUP (MUFORG)

VIEWSLETTER – DECEMBER 1965

Edited by Alan Rawlinson

(Contributions do not necessarily reflect Group policy)

——————————————————————————–

DISOWN THE CRACKPOTS by John Harney

UFO enthusiasts often wonder when the world will begin to take them seriously. The answer is simple. First, they must begin taking themselves seriously. It seems that most of the British UFO organisations consist mainly of people who wish to see their subject investigated scientifically, but they find it difficult to recruit suitably qualified people to their ranks. No reputable scientist wishes to become involved with a gang of crackpots, for this is how members of the scientific fraternity seem to regard the UFO organisations.

Unfortunately, instead of taking the hint, the saucer devotees react by dismissing them as a lot of arrogant, dogmatic bigots. They have their own demonology, consisting of such people as the Astronomer Royal. Professor Lovell, Patrick Moore and Dr Menzel. One merely has to whisper such names at gatherings of the more perfervid saucerers to produces scenes reminiscent of the hate sessions in Orwell’s 1984.

What steps, then, should be taken to ensure that UFO investigation becomes a respectable pursuit? Firstly, the crackpots must be firmly disowned. This may seem a simple and obvious step to take. However, when a serious UFO investigator does this he is just as likely to be be greeted by denunciation as by acclaim from his fellow researchers. Take, for example, Donald Keyhoe, Director of NICAP. In 1959 he sent a telegram to Gabriel Green, whose Associated Flying Saucer Clubs of America was holding a convention at Los Angeles. In the telegram, Keyhoe told Green to refrain from claiming that NICAP was affiliated to AFSCA and he also deprecated his “carnival approach to the subject of unidentified flying objects”. An observer at the Flying Saucer Convention reported, “It was far and away the biggest collection of raving lunatics ever assembled under one roof.” (1) For thus publicly dissociating NICAP from the “raving lunatics” he was fiercely attacked in the pages of Flying Saucer Review in an article entitled “Keyhoe’s Extraordinary Telegram: An Attempt at Censorship?” (2)

It is essential, I believe, that genuine UFO enthusiasts in this country should get together and produce a journal which confines its attention to scientific analysis of sightings, and theories and hypotheses based on sound reasoning. Such a journal must resist the temptation to give space to the ramblings of cranks and the activities of the saucer cultists, such as that father figure of Japanese saucerdom, Yusuke J. Matsumura and his Cosmic Brotherhood Association. After all, one would hardly expect to read one’s horoscope in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association!

To sum up my argument, unidentified objects are being sighted. The task of the UFO researcher is to identify them. The only way to achieve this is by scientific methods. No UFO researcher should let himself be deceived or sidetracked by rumour, wishful thinking, or mumbo-jumbo.

References

1. Great World Mysteries by Eric Frank Russell, Mayflower Books.
2. Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 5, No. 6.

——————————————————————————–

CHARLTON: A NEW THEORY

In the last issue, you may remember, we published an article on the origin and classification of carters by Mr Alan Sharp. This is how two of our readers reacted to the views expressed in the article:-

“I found Mr Sharp’s article very illuminating. I accept his generalisations. One small question I do ask is: how many of the craters he mentions has he actually visited? I am particularly thinking of the Charlton crater, and am not too happy with his comment about drainage.”

Lionel Beer, Vice-Chairman and Publicity Officer, BUFORA

“I almost agree with Sharp’s crater analysis, but must draw the line at the Charlton one. Was he there? Has he forgotten the mass of substantiating evidence in favour of a more ‘enchanting’ cause?”

Michael Whitford-Walders, Welsh UFO Research Organisation

These are typical of the comments received. In fact, it seems that the majority of readers find it difficult to accept the swallow hole explanation.

We are now able to report that Mr Sharp has also rejected this explanation but he still firmly refuses to believe that the crater was caused by a UFO. After visiting the farm at Charlton, testing soil samples taken from the area, questioning local inhabitants, and making a careful study of all the available evidence, he concludes that it was caused by nothing more mysterious than a flash of lightning. Here is his report:-

“With reference to my article on craters, I have since conducted an exhaustive investigation of the mainland British examples, which is nearing its conclusion. As a result, and somewhat to my surprise, I can say with reasonable certainty that most are due to lightning and only two cases, those at Niton and in Berkshire, are attributable to geological subsidence; with the exception of Dufton, where surface movement took place as a result of heavy rain. Nevertheless, the geological line of attack has proved most fruitful, especially at Charlton where the soil abounds with ferruginous material.

“In all cases attributable to lightning there was a prehistory of sever storms in the locality, and in general the electrical discharge produced local magnetic effects, again as at Charlton. The work, though arduous, time-consuming and expensive has been very interesting and rewarding.”

——————————————————————————–

Fame at last!

At 6.32 p.m. on November 24, MUFORG went “on the air” for the first time. Our Vice-Chairman and Secretary were interviewed by Angus Turner for the Reporter at Large programme which was broadcast on the BBC Home Service. The item was fairly short, but it contained references to our Lake District skywatch, Merseyside meetings and investigations, NICAP, the BUFORA AGM and Member Societies, and Warminster phenomena.

——————————————————————————–

BOOK REVIEW by John Harney

WE ARE NOT ALONE – The search for intelligent life on other worlds,  by Walter Sullivan, Hodder and Stoughton, 35/-

This book, by the Science Editor of the New York Times, covers its subject pretty thoroughly. The merits of the various theories of the formation of stars and galaxies are discussed, for the frequency of inhabitable planets in the Universe depends on which theory is correct.

Two fascinating chapters describe the current, controversial work by biologists on meteorites, of the type known as carbonaceous chondrites. Some biologists believe, as a result of their investigations, that they contain the remains of various life-forms.

Much of the book discusses the question of how advanced civilisations would attempt to communicate, or to draw attention to themselves. Interest in this subject has been greatly stimulated by the famous Project Ozma. Various methods are dealt with, including lasers, and even the modification of a star’s spectrum by surrounding the star with a radioactive element with a short half-life. This would introduce a spectrum line which could not occur naturally, and thus any astronomer in another part of the galaxy would draw the only possible conclusion on studying it.

Majority opinion favours radio as the most likely means of interstellar communication. This attitude is no doubt encouraged by the rapid progress of radio astronomy in recent years. There is much work going on concerning the wavelengths, signal strengths and codes likely to be used by the inhabitants of other worlds and the account of this makes very interesting reading.

Most scientists apparently consider interstellar travel to be impracticable, but one of the notable exceptions is exobilogist Carl Sagan, who believes that such journeys may be common place and that there are many advanced races in the galaxy in constant touch with one another. However, he dismisses all the “Flying saucer” stories out of hand, even though he seriously considers some ancient legends as possible evidence of visits by extraterrestrials.

No doubt most ufologists will find this brushing under the carpet of their favourite subject somewhat irritating. This does not seem to be the fault of the author, though. The book is a straightforward account of the current work in this field and unidentified flying objects apparently just do not come into it. However, it is my belief that patience and a constantly level-headed approach by ufologists will lead to the subject of UFOs eventually becoming repectable. Indeed, the author points out that many of the theories and concepts discussed in his book would not have received serious consideration from reputable scientists only a few years ago.

The last chapter in the book deals with the religious and social implications of any contact with superior civilisations. There is an index and a bibliography for each chapter. This work is written in a style which makes it intelligible to the non-technical reader and is a worthwhile addition to any ufologist’s bookshelf.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

MERSEYSIDE UFO RESEARCH GROUP

NEWSLETTER No. 2, JUNE 1965

—————————————————————————————

CRATERS: Their Origin and Classification

by Alan W. Sharp BSc, BEng, FGS, FRAS

 The following article was specially written for the Newsletter. Some of the suggestions contained in it were referred to very briefly in the March-April Flying Saucer Review, but here you will have an opportunity to study them in greater detail. The article does not necessarily reflect MUFORG policy.

During the vast span of Geological Time, the forces of nature have caused holes to appear on the Earth’s surface, varying in size from minor cracks and crevices to rift valleys and volcanic craters. Generally speaking, the term “crater” is reserved for such of these holes as have a certain regularity of shape, i.e. are more or less circular or oval in plan rather than linear or sub-linear.

In geologically very recent times indeed, man has added craters of his own making to those of natural origin. The former being classified as artificial and being due to such things as the use of explosives, mining subsidence and the occasional descent to ground level of Earth satellite fragments, rockets, etc. From such considerations, a start can be made on a table of crater classification:-

A. NATURAL

• Impact
• Explosion
• Subsidence

 B. ARTIFICIAL

• Impact
• Explosion

Subsidence

Grouping these into classes, we have the following causative agencies:

A.

• Meteorites
• (a) Volcanic explosions   (b) Lightning
• (a) Volcanic subsidence    (b) Collapse of cavities of subterranean erosion, the burrows of animals, caves and similar voids

 B.

• Artificial meteorites
• Bombs, shells, blasting
• Mining and tunnelling. Excavation generally, if of crater form

In addition to these, one must add the strange human category collectively known as the “hoax”, which may be subdivided into the hoax for amusement, the hoax malicious and the hoax for gain, not to mention sundry disturbances of the soil which scarcely merit the appelation crater.

Bearing this classification in mind, it becomes immediately apparent that many UFO craters fall into the latter category and should not be described as craters at all. This appears to apply to the Dufton Fell case, for instance, although here the geological context may still be significant.

It is worth remarking here that meteorite craters may contain vertually no meteoritic material if the energy released at impact is sufficient to vaporise the impacting mass. Drilling in the Arizona meteorite crater, for example, has not been successful in locating a large body of meteoritic material.

Swallow holes and solution cavities in limestone and other calcareous rocks are not the only results of underground erosion by water, since the normal effects attributable to surface erosion can occur where underground streams run through the enlarged cavities – such as faults – in non-soluble rock.

Percolating water can remove the “cement” from arenaceous rocks such as sandstone, producing a crumbly residue with marked lack of grain adhesion. Sand itself is subject to the phenomenon of slumping due to change in the interstitial water content. This is true of most unconsolidated sediments.

From the above brief summary, it can be seen that there is plenty of scope for crater formation without having to introduce UFO intervention and indeed none of the British examples which can be fairly described as craters (UFO variety) need an other-worldly explanation, Niton included.

To take specific examples, Niton is quite clearly a case of subsidence into a smooth-sided cavity of subterranean erosion. This explains naturally the apparently miraculous disappearance of a large volume of earth and rock. It was not there in the first place!

The recent Berkshire craters have been diagnosed independently (Reading University) as due to subsidence into solution pockets in the chalk sub-stratum.

The Charlton crater exhibited a symmetrical pattern of surface indentations which accords well with drainage into a central cavity. Here again, as at Niton, we are near the contact between the Upper Greensand and the Chalk.

Flamborough Head, another crater locality, is also a prominent Chalk feature, whilst Dufton Fell, near Penrith, lies in the famous Alston lead mining district in the local Carboniferous Limestone and adjacent strata. Mines in this area have been worked since Roman times and Dufton itself was intensively prospected much more recently than that, at a time when the Lake District was a hive of metalliferous mining industry.

The Carboniferous Limestone everywhere, from the Mendips to Scotland abounds with mine workings, pot-holes and caves, many of which are world-famous.

However, with forty sheep lost at Dufton, the possibility of a little rustling seems on the cards!

In Scotland, Sanquhar lies on the fringe of the Leadhills mining district, also worked by the Romans, and, in addition, marks the southernmost limit of the Scottish coal mining area. The Lammermuir Hills, to the North East of Leadhills, comprise crater locality in similar geological formations to those of the Sanquhar district.

The sum of coincidence is too great to be ignored and, I suggest, the British craters must be seen in their true geological framework rather than in the enchanting context of visitations from outer space.

——————————————————————————–

Although the Newsletter is normally produced for circulation among MUFORG members, it is felt that this issue may also be of interest to our fellow researchers in other Groups. If any readers would like to comment on the crater article, they are welcome to do so, as it may be possible to include a selection of crater views in our next issue. Please write to A. Rawlinson, Liverpool, 4.

Mr Sharp has also been doing some checking on Dr Bernard E. Finch’s sighting on page 28 of the current Flying Saucer Review. According to him, there’s not the slightest doubt that the object referred to in the report was Mars. He noticed that it is usual to indicate movement relative to the stars, but Finch’s arrow points the wrong way. Another criticism is that the Moon is shown in the wrong quarter. Full Moon was on February 15, two days earlier, so the Moon was two days after Full. In the report, it was shown at about five days before full. Over to Dr Finch . . .

——————————————————————————–

AF SECRETLY WARNS PILOT OF DANGER

(Reprinted from the NICAP UFO Investigator)

In a startling report just received, a former Navy pilot has revealed an AF warning that he might become seriously ill after three UFOs closely circled his plane. During an interview with an AF major at Kirtland Air Force Base, strict secrecy was imposed on the pilot. Except for his wife, who had to be prepared if he were suddenly stricken, he was ordered not to tell anyone about the encounter or the radiation hazard.

The pilot, who served in the Navy in World War II, is now a service engineer for a large tool company. He has a BSc degree in mechanical engineering. He uses a private plane in business; to date he has logged over 6000 flying hours. Following is his report of the incident which occurred on August 13, 1959:

Flying a Cessna 170, en route from Hobbs to Albuquerque, NM, he was holding a course of 313 degrees, at 8,000 feet altitude. Suddenly he was amazed to see his Magnesyn electric compass revolving instead of indicating the course. Thinking the Magnesyn must be “haywire”, he looked at the standard magnetic compass. “It was spinning so crazily I couldn’t read it”, the pilot reports.

A moment later, he was startled to see three oval-shaped devices in close echelon formation pass directly in front of the Cessna. They were grey in colour and identical in shape – like two bowls face to face (one inverted on the other) but with bottoms rounded instead of flat. The pilot estimated their diameter at about eight feet, but they could have been considerably larger. Since the UFOs were circling the plane at nearly 250 mph, no other details could be noted, except that they left a short, wispy trail.

As the strange objects circled the Cessna, the Magnesyn compass continued to revolve, precisely indicating the UFOs’ bearing. Holding the same tight formation, the unknown devices finished another circle, passing in front and then disappearing to the rear. The Magnesyn then came to rest near its original heading, and the standard magnetic compass finally stopped its “crazy spinning” and returned to normal.

Upon landing at the base, states the report, he was “hustled to an office and interrogated for about two hours by an AF major – the UFO officer at the field”. Then came the statement that “raised the hair on the back of my neck”. The major told him that “if anything unusual happened, if he had any unusual illness in the next six months, to get to a government hospital right away”. The AF, the major said, would take care of him.

Some years ago, Capt. E.J. Ruppelt, former Chief of Project Blue Book, confirmed that AF instrumentation had recorded high radioactivity when UFOs passed over the test area. Also, several apparently genuine cases of illness from UFO radiation are on record.

In the case of the former Navy pilot, the fear injected by the AF warning kept him and his wife in a state of apprehension until six months had passed, and he decided the AF was wrong to conceal the facts.

——————————————————————————–

“MYSTERY OBJECTS IN THE SKY NEARLY ALL EXPLAINED” (?)

From the Liverpool Daily Post, May 24

During 1964, a total of 532 unidentified flying objects were reported by the USAF or other observers and were investigated. But these objects, which USAF authorities in Washington describe as any aerial objects which the observer is unable to identify, have usually an intelligible explanation. The majority, after investigation, were found to be missiles, space satellites, meteorological balloons and searchlights playing on low clouds. Birds, aircraft vapour trails, fireworks and anti-radar silver foil dropped by aircraft also accounted for some UFO or flying saucer reports.

Thought he Air Force claim that these objects do not pose a threat against the US, that they are not anything beyond present day scientific knowledge and that they do not originate from other planets, nevertheless since 1947 the Air Force has investigated 8,908 sightings.

(Our own Government would most probably arrive at the same conclusion but why doesn’t it reveal the number of British sightings that have been investigated?)

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

MERSEYSIDE UFO RESEARCH GROUP

NEWSLETTER NO. 1 – FEBRUARY 1965

An astronomer of repute peers through his telescope and sees something. If his account of what he sees is in agreement with the account of orthodox scientists, it is accepted. He may be deceived. He may be seeing something that does not in any way fit in with conventional theories, so that (to reconcile it with his own orthodox conceptions of reality) he does not tell the truth in his account of the phenomenon. But his account is accepted: First, because he is an authority; second, because what he says fits in with conventional astronomy. Note that he may have no witnesses – he is just an astronomer of repute making a statement which will be believed because he says it.

Now take the case of someone who is not a notability or an “authority” – he is just an honest-to-goodness human being. He may be characterised by his honesty and goodness, but he is a nobody all the same. He peers through a telescope, or looks at the sky without one. He sees something. He has no theory or hypothesis in his head – no pre-existent pattern into which he will try to fit the phenomenon he observes. He just sees it, does not attempt to explain it, gives a truthful account of what he saw. Who is going to believe him? If he sees something inexplicable by conventional science, something which he cannot explain and which in his honesty he makes no attempt to explain, he is either a liar or a fool, suffering from hallucinations. Now let us suppose that (unlike our hypothetical astronomer) he has witnesses – plenty of them. The first thing the newspapers will want to know is “Was there an authority among the witnesses?” It will not matter if ten, twenty or fifty Smiths, Browns and Robinsons saw something inexplicable to conventional science: the incident will be explained as mass-hallucination or mass-hysteria.

A crowd of observers is not enough. A town’s population is not enough. (You will recall cases where flying saucers have been seen by thousands – over some of the world’s cities.) I often wonder how many authorities Science requires before it can accept phenomena as “real” and “genuine”?

Unconventional, but right

We need not be depressed by the conventional scientists’ emphasis on “authority”. The long history of humanity abounds with instances of pioneers who have been right and the “authorities” wrong, while their ideas were unconventional – and whose ideas, and the credit for them, have been quietly taken over by Orthodox Science with the passing of the years.

If we are to get anywhere, we should explore new avenues and change our methods of presenting the evidence. We should insist on a reversal of the universally held belief that “Who says it” is more important than “What is said”. The nature of the evidence is the important thing – its consistency, its relationship with other evidence, its contribution to the best possible explanation. The integrity of the observer is but one factor in any calculation of the value of the evidence. Nor is it an infallible factor. A man of integrity may have prejudices, or he may be ignorant of the phenomena he observes. An astronomer is not necessarily an authority on UFOs. A man of doubtful integrity may be telling the truth.

Evidence must be considered without prejudice; for or against the observer, or for or against any particular theory.

(From a Flying Saucer Review article by the late Arthur Constance)

——————————————————————————–

MUFORGazine?

At the last meeting, several members expressed interest in producing a magazine. Since then, Marlene Black, our enthusiastic Treasurer, has compiled a list of suggestions for the first issue.

1. An article on the next skywatch in the Lake District. Possibility of inviting members of other groups to come along. 2. Parts required for ECOBALT. 3. Merseyside sightings – if any. 4. Book Reviews. 5. Film Reviews. 6. Astronomy Section – giving details on the positions of the planets. 7. An article on Detectors. 8. Gossip Column – miscellaneous items of news. 9. Swap Column.

——————————————————————————–

The following report was sent to the Group by a Cheshire woman:-

I am glad to be able to put down on paper to someone who may believe what I saw in the sky one night. It might sound a bit fantastic, but I swear every word is true.

Well, in the Spring of 1945, I had gone to bed early and not drawn the curtains. I fell asleep, but woke up at 2 a.m. for no apparent reason. I opened my eyes and looked out of the window, and to my horror I saw what I thought was a plane on fire from end to end, and it was right over my little back garden, and seemed very low in the sky.

I was so scared that I jumped out of my bed and ran down stairs, and in my haste, I ran out into the back garden instead of the front, which I had intended. Well, I looked up at this terrible thing. I had a very good view of it, as it was right over my head and, as I said, very low, nearly touching the roof of the house.

I gazed at it for quite 2 or 3 minutes and then realised that it was not moving – it was perfectly still. I will describe it. It was cigar shaped, of metal red colour from end to end, and it had about 3 rows of little windows. When I say metal red, it was the colour of the bars in an electric fire when it is lit. Well, as I watched this thing, I forgot where I was and would have stood longer, only to my horror, it STARTED TO DESCEND ON ME, coming straight down, not dipping at all, just the whole thing coming down.

I screamed and ran in the house, and when I could find the courage to look out again minutes later, it had completely vanished. Now, that happened many years ago, but it is as fresh in my memory as if it happened last night. I have no witnesses, as I was alone at the time. I have told several people, but I don’t seem to be believed, but it is the truth and nothing but the truth. Please do not publish my name and address. My husband would not like it.

P.S. I had such a good view of this unearthly thing that I could see that the windows were oblong and not square. Even writing about it has made me feel afraid.

——————————————————————————–

NEWSCAST

Recent items in the Daily Express have been fascinating.

January 18. STAR-GAZER: Stone-age drawing found in Soviet Central Asia at Uzbekistan shows a cosmonaut-like figure wearing “something similar to a space helmet with antennae and carrying a contraption for flight”, says Tass.

January 27. ‘VOICE’ IN SPACE: WASHINGTON, Tuesday. – Two satellites with antennae nearly a third of a mile long are to be launched within three years to pinpoint mysterious radio signals received on earth.

January 30: Alarmed by flying saucer reports, the citizens of Augusta County, in Virginia, organised an armed hunt for Martians this week after three boys reported seeing a little green man walking around. Now Sheriff John Kent – declaring “this thing has gotten completely out of hand” – has outlawed all saucer hunts.

January 29: Flying saucers are harmless. That is the latest and considered opinion of the United States Air Force, which keeps a close watch on “unidentified flying objects”. The Air Force does not deny that life may exist on other planets. But they say: “There is no reason to believe in any of the 8,908 cases investigated that we are receiving visits from outer space. Nor is there any reason to believe there is any evidence of technological developments or principles in the universe beyond the range of present-day scientific knowledge on earth.” (Cuttings supplied by Marlene Black)

Thanks are due to Mr Harry Bunting of DIGAP for this cutting from the Manchester Evening News.

January 28. MYSTERY OF FALLING FIERY STAR: Today, a star fell on Abbotsbury Street, West Gorton, Manchester, and then vanished. At least, that is what it looked like to 60 year old Mrs Beatrice Hardman when she looked out of her bedroom window today. “There were two bright yellow objects in the sky, and they seemed to collide. One of them fell down on the roof opposite, No. 11, and split into three balls. Two of them rolled along the roof over No. 13. They glowed brightly for a minute.”

But there were no marks or debris left on the roofs of the terraced houses and no sign later today of any mystery objects. Weather experts and Jodrell Bank scientists can give no explanation for the “falling star”. “It could have been a fireball – a kind of lightning – but there were no thunderstorms about and anyway, these are very rare in winter,” said a weatherman.

——————————————————————————–

THE NIGHT SKY in February

PLANETS: Saturn is in the early evening sky, low in the west, but may be seen as a first magnitude object at the beginning of the month about 25 degrees below and a little to the right of the square of Pegasus. Jupiter dominates the evening sky when there is no Moon, but continues to decline in brightness with increasing distance. Jupiter’s satellite Europa will be eclipsed on the 6th at 6.22 p.m. until 8.51 p.m. and again on the 13th. Europa will disappear in Jupiter’s shadow at 9 p.m., reappearing at 11.30 p.m. On the night of the 9th, Jupiter and the Moon almost at first quarter will be near each other in the sky and will make an interesting spectacle. Mars is very bright in Virgo and increases almost a whole magnitude in brightness this month as it approaches the Earth. For telescope observers, the northern hemisphere of Mars is tilted towards us at present, and it is Spring there. Unfortunately, Mars is more distant than on some occasions and its image in the telescope is small.

The distant Uranus in Leo is now in the sky all night, but is only of magnitude 5.8 – just about naked eye visibility. The faint planet Neptune in Libra rises about 1 a.m. Venus and Mercury are too close to the Sun to be visible. (Reprinted from Liverpool Daily Post)

——————————————————————————–

THE DIDDY PEOPLE MYSTERY

(Daily Post, January 25)

Liverpool’s great Leprechaun Mystery has been solved. It was only nine months ago that reports of “little people” started pouring in. They were seen in parks and playing fields around Liverpool. Scores of children scoured the parks, invaded bowling greens and hunted among shrubberies in an effort to catch a glimpse of the little men from Ireland. At the time no one knew how the leprechaun mystery started.

But the man who thinks he might have the answer to the whole business is the man from Knotty Ash Towers – Ken Dodd. “Just before all these rumours started, I did an item on television. We used a special technique by which the cameras were able to ‘diddify’ people. It was rather like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. We arranged everything so that television commentator Bill Grundy was reduced to about four inches on the screen and I described him as a diddy man from Ireland – a leprechaun. Immediately afterwards, there were all sorts of stories about leprechauns being sighted by people all over the place. Children were running around the parks and gardens looking for the little men,” says Ken.