Category Archives: 1970s

Discussing New Directions.
Ron Westrum and Peter Rogerson

Posted on by
Reply

In MUFOB volume 6, number 4, April 1974 (the last before the Great Hiatus) American ufologist Ronald Westrum responded to Peter Rogerson’s suggestions for ‘New Direction in UFO Research’ which appeared in the June 1972 issues.

RON WESTRUM WRITES:

This is a very late response indeed to MUFOB 5:2, which contains a number of proposals for UFO research by Peter Rogerson, who was kind enough to send me a copy. My only criticism of the proposals is that they seem ambivalent about social control of UFO research: on the one hand, almost dictatorial policies are proposed for the “channelling” of such research, and on the other hand, steps are proposed which would remove two sources of social control: editorial opinion in journals and corporate opinions of UFO organisations. Perhaps Peter has not given enough thought to how the channelling he would like to see is to take place.

The creation of a purely scientific UFO journal, staffed by and contributed to by natural scientists with doctoral training, would exempt at least three-quarters of the people now making contributions to UFO journals and would doubtless exclude such marginally scientific types as Peter and myself.

But my real purpose is to suggest that while many of these proposals are good as far as they go, they do not go far enough. I would like to seen:

1) as a minimum, the creation of a real-time communication system, at least on a national scale, whose sole purpose is to report on UFO happenings. Teams of investigators could be dispatched to the scenes of Type I cases much sooner.

2) the use of the United States’ “close look” satellites for surveillance of areas identified by step 1. Anyone who does not understand what a close look satellite can do should acquire Adelphi Paper No. 88 (Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Arms Control, by Ted Greenwood) from the Institute for Strategic Studies.
3) Use of the United States’ various radar surveillance systems, particularly those in NORAD, to keep track of UFO trajectories. At one timer J Allen Hynek proposed a special sub-routine for the NORAD computers for this purpose but, as far as I know, his suggestion has not been acted upon.
4) creation of special air-mobile sensor vehicles, which would have TV, “fast” cameras, infra-red, acoustic and other sensors. Those sensors would be flown in to within twenty miles of Type I areas, but would arrive at the scene under their own propulsion. They would possess a capability of orienting themselves very quickly to ‘sense’, through their various modalities, the UFO itself or residual ionisation, etc, in the air. A special air-mobile team of investigators would then go over ‘the terrain. I believe that the usefulness of UFO leavings decreases logarithmically with the passage of time.

English critics will point out, I am sure, that these suggestions illustrate the typical “Yankee” love of technology. But I nonetheless feel that good sensor data is worth a dozen of even the best eyewitness accounts.

PETER ROGERSON REPLIES

First I would like to thank Dr Ronald Westrum for his interest in my research proposals; while there have been a few private comments on them, his is the first published response.
I will reply to Ron’s points in turn:

1) I don’t really think my proposals can be called dictatorial, as they were clearly labelled as “suggestions for discussion”. We had hoped that others would have been encouraged to come forward and present their alternative priorities; perhaps Ron’s letter will elicit some response.

2) As regards journals the following comments of Carl Grove’s may be of interest:

“The chief difference between UFO and ‘scientific’ magazines at the moment, apart from the obvious difference in technical level, probably lies in the role of the editor. The editor of a journal receives manuscripts and passes them to specialised consultants for examination; they either recommend acceptance or changes which might make the papers more acceptable. Once the author makes these changes, the paper is printed without accompanying editorial comment. UFO editors seem to feel that no paper is complete without their added footnotes or comments”. (Private correspondence)

I agree with Ron that we shouldn’t limit study of the UFO problem to the community of physical scientists, perhaps the ‘scholarly’ community would have been a better description. Of course I did add ‘research workers’ to cover those without formal academic qualifications. I will admit that, now, I would place far less stress on scientific qualifications than I did in early 1972. On the other hand there are many, like Ron himself, whose work is not published in UFO journals, while at the same tine these journals are often filled with very poor material, the absence of which would be no loss to anybody.

3) Frankly, like my colleague John Rimmer, I doubt very much the general value of bureaucratic UFO groups. I hope Ron will agree with me that in such a controversial field, we should not organise groups whose sole purpose is to proselytise in favour of one or other UFO theory. The Society for Psychical Research has owed its long existence and respectability precisely to such a policy of not enforcing some dictatorial party line on its members. Nothing can be accomplished by organisations such as BUFORA, which apparently now seeks to limit its membership to “believers” in the ET theory.

4) Now I will comment on Ron’s own proposals. My main objection to them is that they are very impractical. Ron must know that the introduction of such techniques would require a budget which would dwarf that of the ill-fated Condon enquiry, and that they could be organised only by official agencies. Even if, by some unlikely chance, some official agency did reappear to replace Blue Book, it is extremely difficult to see how it could justify such a massive expenditure to Congress or any other authorising body.

5) Even if cash were available, I do not think it would be a correct procedure to undertake such a massive,, expensive, and probably fruitless operation, unless there was some pressing need, or such a wealth of scientific paydirt that practically any expense would be justified. At the moment evidence of this need, or of any certain benefit, is not to hand.

6) Ron’s proposals, I fear, suffer from the same critical defect as virtually all other UFO investigation schemes, both official and private; that is, they assume the answers before they start asking the questions. There can be little doubt that Condon, with the majority of his team, had decided, well before their enquiry had begun, that UFO reports were just misidentifications of everyday phenomena and that the purpose of the enquiry was to “prove” this predetermined conclusion.

Similarly most civilian UFO investigation societies seek to ‘prove’, often by the most curious mental gynnastics, that UFO reports are generated by spaceships of some variety. Believers and sceptics alike clearly are seeking only to reinforce their pre-existing prejudices, and have few ideas on how an impartial investigation could be conducted. Ron, it would seem, has assumed that the UFO phenomena are capable of being studied by such tactics. This is premature. There is much preliminary work to be done before we can make make assumptions along these lines.

7) I accept the point that lies behind Ron’s concern for instrumentalised data, and the doubtfulness of eyewitness testimony. It is for that reason that my research proposals avoid such dubious matters as compiling identikits of UFO shapes, and concentrate on those aspects of reports (primarily temporal and spatial distribution) which can be isolated from the specific eyewitness details. I would also be prepared to support low cost instrumental studies in alleged flap areas. It is perhaps in these alleged flap areas that real-time studies could be undertaken with profit; such studies should be undertaken by multi-disciplinary teams and would at least provide much valuable sociological information.

8) In general, though, I do not believe that the UFO problem can be taken in isolation and subjected to a series of impressive-sounding technological gimmicks. There are good reasons, I feel, for treating UFO phenomena along with other ostensible spontaneous anomalistic phenomena. All these ‘events’ present similar problems to the would-be investigator – the transitory nature of the alleged phenomena, the absence of unambiguous hard data, eyewitness accounts as the only real source of information, the apparent violation of existing scientific and philosophical paradigms? the atmosphere of superstition and fantastic speculation surrounding the reports.

Under these circumstances I feel that a multi-disciplinary nstudy of the scientific and philosophical implications of such alleged phenomena would be of greater value than the, probably fruitless, expenditure of vast sums of money.

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

 

Skywatches.
Janet Bord

Posted on by
Reply

Published as a letter to the editor in Merseyside UFO Bulletin, volume 4, number 3, Summer 1971.

I read with great interest Peter Rogerson’s article ‘The Sun Maiden’ in issue 4:2 of the Bulletin, but it is not about the theme of that article that I am now writing. Mr  Rogerson quotes a statement I once made about the validity of skywatches (“I favour the idea that the watchers have to be … somehow in tune with whatever controls UFOs before they will appear … preferably a small, harmonious group should sit quietly and think about UFOs”) and, at the time, that is what I believed. I am now even less in favour of ordinary skywatches than I was then, and I will try and explain why.

The basic reason for holding a skywatch is to see a UFO; a slightly more sophisticated skywatch wants to photograph a UFO; an even more sophisticated one wants to get instrumented proof on dials and charts that a UFO has passed over. Just supposing that all those were achieved – where does that get us? Even such ostensibly foolproof evidence will not convince those who do not wish to be convinced, and we are left with another bunch of frustrated and embittered ufologists. The experience of the last 20-odd years, since ufology came into being, has surely shown that nothing is gained by concentrating on spotting and documenting lights in the sky; nothings that is, beyond proving over and over again that UFOs exist.

Ufologists (I use this term widely, to include all who are genuinely interested in the phenomenon) do not need this continual proof, and those who are not yet ufologists will become such when the time is right for them. That is, you can lead a horse to water (show a man proof of the existence of UFOs) but he will not drink until he is thirsty (will not believe until his development has reached the appropriate stage). As well as the ordinary layman, this applies to scientists and everyone else upon whom the “scientific” ufologists are trying to force a belief in UFOs.

So all the evidence points to the fact that we should concentrate an the ‘Why?’ rather than the ‘How?’. A conventional skywatch concentrates on the ‘How?’ (if it concentrates at all), and my earlier statement, quoted above, indicates concentration on the ‘Why?’ It is obvious that UFOs are here on Earth for a reasons and the evidence seems to suggest that this reason is concerned with we humans, our past, present and future. The evidence also suggests that we are ignorant and have much to learn, that we could learn if we would only open ourselves to the teaching, but that for various reasons this teaching cannot be given by a ufonaut from a soapbox in Hyde Park or in any other direct way. I will not go into details here; those who have got on to the ‘Why?’ will know what I means and those who have not will understand when they are thirsty enough.

Those who are skywatching in the way I suggested, trying to tune in with the ufonauts, might hope that they will attract a UFO and cause it to land, thus perhaps getting the answer to ‘Why?’. I now think that this is unlikely too, for the conditions would very rarely be favourable for such an event. The UFOs do not often do as we ask them, probably for our own good. But the basic idea is right, solitude, peace and harmony both externally and internally. Contactees are  usually alone and mentally quiet when the UFO lands and the ufonaut steps out to deliver his messages and recent research shows that frequently the contactee is psychic too. Somehow, albeit unconsciously, the contactee has tuned in to the correct wavelength, and everything is right for the contact. The individual has been chosen because he is right for the ufonaut’s present purposes.

And so, although skywatches might be jolly good fun, and help to boost our egos that we are actively doing something to help solve the great UFO mystery a little honest thinking will soon tell us that we are not, and that whatever other values skywatching might have (astronomy, appreciation of nature, etc.), as regards UFO research it is a complete waste of time.

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

 

The Folklore Connection [1977]
Nigel Watson

Posted on by
Reply

From Magonia New Series 8, Autumn 1977

As Roger Sandell has rightly pointed out (1) there is much evidence to show that vehicle stoppages are not unique to UFO lore. Horse-drawn vehicles seem to have been prone to such stoppages as can be seen from the following quote:

“In days gone by the waggoners used to make sure to have a whipstock o’ wicken; and when a witch used to see a waggoner coming wi’ such a whip, she’d say “‘Ere comes the lad wi’ the wicken-tree gad:” and she couldn’t do owt agen ‘im. A witch could stop a team of horses wi’out saying a word, she could, and no one could make ‘em move while she wanted ‘em to; but if a lad wi’ a wicken tree gad just come along and touched each ‘orse it is whip, then the team ‘ud move on. (2)”

Bicycles also could be affected. Near a gateway about two miles outside Listowel, Eire, two IRA men were killed by British soldiers during a skirmish in 1918. Later in that same year, on a moonlit night, two young men were cycling home to Listowel, after having been to a circus at Abbeyfeale, five miles away. The time was about 1 am on a night in June; and Paddy Maloney aged 17, and his friend Moss Barney of Ballybunion, Co. Kerry, were anxious to get home. They had forgotten about the shooting incident, but when they reached the art of the road where the skirmish occurred, something stopped them going any further. However hard he tried Patrick could not ride from the spot. He said:

“It felt as if someone were at back of us, holding on to our bicycles. I felt clammy and moist, and the sense of a presence behind me trying to prevent me from going down that road was very strong. I had the sensation that someone was trying to keep us from running into trouble further down the road. I tried to cycle as hard as I could, but to no avail. Yet, the road was level, with a stretch of wooded section for at least 500 ft. I felt myself weaken, the cold sweat broke out all over me, I tried to tell Moss about my difficulty but found my tongue was paralysed. With a last surge of power I pushed on and finally broke away from the ‘thing’ behind me. As soon as we were out of the wooded section our bikes were free as before. We both jumped off and I started to tell Moss what I had experienced, only to find that he too had felt the same uncanny weight. He too was unable to talk for a while.”

Patricks last comment was “I’ll never ride this road again at night”. (3) More bicycle interference can be found in Haunted East Anglia, a book by Joan Forman. On page 53 she writes:

My father, when a young man was engaged to the miller’s daughter at Legbourne Mill. He was in the habit, when the working day was over of cycling out to Legbourne via Cawthorpe, taking the route by the plantation… He had a reasonably modern bicycle, as cycling was one of his hobbies; in those days modern did not extend to battery powered lamps. Both front and rear were acetylene lamps and had to be lit by hand. One one particular light my father rode his usual journey to the mill. He had turned into the plantation stretch which leads to Cawthorpe and was passing the gateway when his front lamp went out. He dismounted and relit the lamp, climbed back on and was about to move when the rear light went out. He got off the machine again, re-lit the rear lamp and once more prepared to ride off. At that point both front and rear lights were extinguished together.

No doubt the young man was thoroughly alarmed and discontented. As far as he could see there was no earthly explanation why one lamp, let alone both, should go out. Once more he re-lit both lights, jumped on the bike and pedalled hell-for-leather down the lane. Once out of the mysterious gateway both lights remained alight. He came home via the main road through Legbourne village and for several weeks gave the plantations a wide berth.

The above incident took place in Lincolnshire in about 1925. It is interesting to note that in both bicycle encounters, the incidents took place in gateways connected with violent death. The Lincolnshire plantation gateway was the scene of the murder of a drover who in the 1800′s was killed whilst bringing a herd of pigs from Louth. The gate has since been haunted by phantom footsteps followed by a phantom herd of pigs; and a scarf of mist is said to stretch out from the gateway – whatever the time of year.

References

  1. SANDELL, Roger. The Ghost in the Machine, MUFOB New Series 3.
  2. RUDKIN, Ethel. Lincolnshire Folklore, EP Publishing, 1973, first published 1936. “Gad” is Lincolnshire dialect for a whip; a wicken is a mountain ash.
  3. HOLZER, Hans. Lively Ghosts of Ireland. Ace Star Paperback, 1967. pp. 20-21.

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

Also of relevance to the folklore/UFO connection is this piece, which also appeared in Magonia New Series 8, in the ‘Notes, Quotes and Queries’ column:

The Hull Daily Mail of 10th August 1977r carries on its front page a report from which the following is extracted. (Cr: Derek Shelton)

“Early morning mist gave a 27-year-old police constable a ghoulish expetience while on patrol in East Hull. For, on spotting a sudden bank of fog on the playing fields near to Stonebridge Ave. at about 1.30 am PC David Swift decided to investigate, thinking it could be smoke. But the mist revealed three dancing figures who he at first thought to be drunks playing round. As he got nearer they all disappeared into air leaving a shaken police officer behind them.

“One of the figures was a man dressed in a sleeveless jerkin, and tight-fitting trousers, while the other two were women wearing bonnets, shawls and white dresses. All appeared to be dancing round a non-existent maypole as they each had an arm raised”

This story raises a number of interesting points. Firstly, one will have noted the strange mist, a feature of innumerable UFO and entity encounters, and a stock feature of fairy-lore. It is perhaps this latter which the whole incident most strongly resembles, with the theme of fairy revellers disappearing into thin air as the mortal witness tries to enter tie ring of dancers. The clothes that the beings are reported as wearing are curiously ambivalent, capable of bearing an interpretation both as traditional fairy dress (resembling some of the many Irish descriptions of the Sidhe), and as ghosts of 19th century country dwellers. We await a report from some local historian that tie field where the incident did in fact house a maypole in the last century. The incident will then be ‘explained’ as a ghostly visitation.

Indeed, not the least interesting aspect of the whole business is the way PC Swift speaks of it as a “ghostly sighting”, and neither he nor the newspaper feel it necessary to offer any sort of apologia for doing so, feeling, with justification, that its readers (and PC Swift’s senior officers) will regard this as a perfectly adequate explanation. Certainly it may be more acceptable to the citizens of Hull to believe that their policemen see ghosts, than that they see fairies!

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

More Ghosts in the Machine [1977]
Alan W. Sharp

Posted on by
Reply

From Magonia New Series 8, Autumn 1977

The reported interaction between certain UFOs, and motorised vehicles in their vicinity is no new phenomenon, but the implications are so important that the whole question deserves a far more searching treatment than it has hitherto received.

Needless to say, the subject is fraught with all the usual pitfalls and difficulties which are a normal part of the UFO scene. Namely, a dearth of vital information, with published reports concentrating on the more macabre aspects of the sightings, imaginative embellishments of the story, a desire to provide good journalistic copy and so forth. All of which are an hindrance to understanding, and must be allowed for in any critical study.

Classic examples of the alleged interference of UFOs with vehicles can be found in reports of the Loch Raven, Maryland, incident of 26 October 1958 (1), the events near Levelland, Texas, in November 1957 (2), and the mysterious chase near Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire, on 9 February, 1962, described by Robert Chapman (3) as being “hallowed in saucer lore”.

The interference – for which no causal connection has ever been established – takes the form of engine malfunctions usually amounting to complete stoppage, and partial or total failure of lights and/or radios. Usually conditions are said to return to normal after the disappearance of the UFO, whose ability to effect malfunctions is generally ascribed to some unspecified electromagnetic effect acting on the circuitry of the vehicle. (4)

Unfortunately, the notion of such interference is one which is deceptively easy to put forward, but far from easy to corroborate in the absence of evidence of the type searched for in vain by the Colorado University team, who anticipated alterations in the ‘magnetic signature’ of the car bodies as a result of the intense magnetic flux required to produce the reported effect. Though these findings were important in demonstrating that the cars under test had not been subjected to high intensity internal magnetic fields, the Condon researchers left the matter somewhat in the air by failing to investigate any alternative causes to account for the reported malfunctions. (5) Although in this they were no more at fault than non-official UFO groups who have, in the main, been content to embrace some rather vague “force-field” type of hypothesis.

One might think from reading the literature that auto failures similar to the kinds reported in a UFO context were unknown in everyday life, but any competent garage mechanic or electrician would point out that this is far from the case, and that such failures can and do arise from a multiplicity of causes, non of which has anything to do with the action of mysterious external influences.

Nevertheless, many ufologists obviously consider that a problem exists, and have stated their opinion that the evidence, for what it is, does point to some powerful interaction between the observed UFO and the vehicles in which witnesses were travelling at the time of the sightings, and which are reported to have stopped under unusual circumstances. Bearing in mind the dearth of useful information about the vehicles themselves, we may ask if there are any parameters available which might at least give some indication as to whether or not the reported malfunctions were indeed due to emanations from the reported UFOs, or had some mundane origin?

There are two important items of information which are almost alxys included in these reports: namely the date and time of the occurance. It may be possible that from these clues the ufologist might glean some insight into the matter.
To put this to the test, the writer has compiled a list of all the relevant reports that could be found in six ufological books to hand at the time of writing. The six volumes are:

A. VALLEE.  Anatomy of a phenomenon   
B.  KEEL.  Operation Trojan Horse
C.  CONDON.  Scientific Study of UFOs
D.  LORENZEN. Great Flying Saucer Hoax
E.  CHAPMAN.  UFO
F.  HYNEK.  UFO Experience

From these the following list of incidents was drawn:

REF LOCALITY                        DATE  & TIME         SOURCE 
1   Gueugnon (France)               Oct 14, 1954 19.30   A
2   St Romain, France               Oct 14, 1954 20.50   A
3   TurquensteiN, France            Oct 20, 1954 18.30   A
4   Pouzou, France                  Oct 21, 1954 21.30   A
5   4 miles W. of  Levelland, USA   Nov 2, 1957 22.50    AF 
6   4 miles E. of  Levelland, USA   Nov 2, 1957 23.50    AF
7   Whiteharral, USA                Nov 2, 1957 24.00    AF
8   9m E. of Levelland              Nov 3, 1957 00.05    AF
9   10m. NE of Levelland            Nov 3, 1957 01.15    AF
10  4m W. of Levelland              Nov 3, 1957 00.45    F
11  5m NW. of Levelland             Nov 3, 1957 01.15    AF
12  NE. of Lsvelland                Nov 3, 1957 01.15    F
13  Orogrande, New Mexico           Nov 4, 1957 13.10    E
14  Kearney, Nebraska               Nov 5, 1957 P.M.     B
15  Playa del Roy, Calif.           Nov 6, 1957 Night    B
16  Orogrande, New Mexico           Nov 7, 1957 09.20    D
17  Lake City, Miss.                Nov 9, 1957 01.00    C
18  Carrizozo, Now Mexico           Nov 9, 1957 19.20    D
19  Salvador, Brasil                Feb 24, 1958 03.04   D   
20  Loch Raven, Maryland            Oct 26,,1958 22.30   F
21  Aston Clinton, Bucks.           Feb 9, 1962 03.30    E
22  Colchester, Essex.              Sep 19, 1965 01.30   E
23  Toxsada, Penna.                 Apr 25, 1966 20.15   B
24  North East of USA               Winter 1967 02.00    C
25  Methuen, Mass.                  Jan 20, 1967 18.50   F
26  Leominster, Mass.               Mar 8, 1967 01.05    F
27  Ephrem, Washington              Apr 21, 1967 02.00   F
28  Reading, Berkshire              End Oct 1967 04.30   E
29  Boyup Brook, W. Aust.           Oct 30,1967 20.00    B
30  SE of USA (?)                   Autumn, 1967 03.30   C
31  Cochrane, Wisconsin             Apr 3, 1968 20.00    F

By month the above cases fall thus:

January ... 1            February ... 1
March ... 2              April ... 3
May ... 0                June ... 0
July ... 0               August ... 0
September 1              October ... 6
November... 14           December.. 0

Cases 24, 29, and 30 have been omitted from the total which thus comprises 28 events. The figures show a high incidence of cases in the autumn months of October and November. In fact the situation is even more arresting than appears at first sight, since there is an. even greater concentration in the four week period October 13th to November 9th, inclusive.

If the year is therefore divided into thirteen four weekly periods, starting with the second week in January, the most popular period for these cases becomes “lunar month” 11, and the cases are distributed as follows:

table 1

In order to check whether the result may have been fortuitous, recourse may be had to the International Catalogue of Type I Records (INTCAT) compiled by Peter Rogerson. This has now completed the five-year period from 1950 to 1955, during which incidents involving vehicle failure came in to their own. The INTCAT cases are distributed as follows, using the same four week periods as in figure 2: 

table 3

Four of the events depicted in Figure three also occur in the items listed in Figure 1. Making allowances for this overlap, and adding both sets of data together, a total of 44 events is obtained, of which no less than 30 occupy the eleventh four week period, October 13th to November 9th incluAive, as shown below:

tabole 2

In the case of normal examples of auto malfunctions similar to the types described in UFO reports, there is a peak period in the autumn due to the onset of damp, inclement weather and the shortening hours of daylight, and a second but very much less pronounced increase in the spring, when winter has taken its toll, and when cars which have been little used in the preceding months, once again take to the road after what amounts to a seasonal hibernation. The summer months are comparatively free from such troubles.

The only reasonable inference which can be made of the figures described in this paper Is that vehicle malfunctions in the UFO context are intimately related to the time of year, and in this context this means meteorological conditions and reductions in the hours of daylight, both of which put considerable strain on, amongst other things, auto electrical systems.

References:

  1. HYNEK, J Allen, The UFO Experience. Abelard Schumann, 1972;’ SHARP, Alan W. UFO Evidence in an American Reservoir? MUFOB vol. 6, number 1, July 1973. 
  2. HYNEK, J Allen, op. Cit.
  3. CHAPMAN, Robert. Unidentified Flying Objects. Mayflower, 1970.
  4. In fact the phenomenon is widely referred to by ufologists as the E-M Effect, usually without any further explanation. [JR] 
  5. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Bantam, 1969.

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

Whither Ufology – A Riposte [1970].
Alan Sharp

Posted on by
Reply

From MUFOB volume 3, number 2, April-May 1970

One useful by-product of the multiple editorship of a periodical is the scope which it offers for internecine strife when things get a little dull! The gentle exchange of pleasantries between the Associate Editor and Science Editor of the bulletin is a case in point which in fact serves a useful purpose because it demonstrates a frequently occurring phenomenon in the literature namely that much apparent discord is the result of misunderstanding.

In the article “Advance or Retreat” (Vol. 2, No. 6, Nov-Dec 1969) two passages appeared, viz: “If…the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation disrppears that will be the end as far as this commentator is concerned?” and “The extraterrestrial hypothesis must be staunchly adhered to as the fundamental precept.”

In his counter article entitled “A Look at the Alternatives” (Vol 3, No. 1, Jan-Feb 1970) my colleague John Rimmer disputes these conclusions and decides, quite rightly that even in the acknowledged absence of “les extraterrestres” there are still plenty of interesting aspects (to him) of our subject which can be profitably explored. Whether one wishes o explore these other facets in depth is really a matter of one’s personal tastes and interests.

The big landing “flap” of 1963 illustrates this point quite well, since it provided a great deal of informtion about not alien space vehicles, but meteorology – a subject of considerable interest to the writer in his capacity as a geologist and
astronomer.

Most of those mysterious and much-publicised holes in the ground — the “craters” at Charlton, Cockburnspath etc.turned out to be the results of the discharge of lightning in open country. a subject about which very little was known previously and which owed its further elucidation to its appearance in the context of UF0 investigation. Equally it may be that advances in other fields, of no special interest to the writer, will come about in a somewhat similar manner.

However it does seem to him that all this is becoming too far a cry from the unidentified flying objects which, as indicated by the name of this Bulletin. are the things we are supposed to be investigating.

If they have been investigated out of existence, in any tangible sense, well and good end we must “resign ourselves to the investigation of natural and man-made phenomena and realign our thinking accordingly.” If one wishes to broaden the field to include the realms of the occult and what have you there is no reason why one should not do so, whilst recognising that there are already other organisations in being to cater for such matters. The question is, are ufologists, in fact admitting that they are dealing with fantasies and figments of the imagination — after disposing of human artefacts and natural phenomena?

It would very much appear so if I understand my colleague aright; but it seems rather ironical tc jettison the UFO, at a time when eminent professional astronomers have been converted to the idea of a universe stuffed full of highly intelligent beings.

Proof of this highly interesting state of affairs is, of course, quite lacking.

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

 

 

 

Proposals for UFO Research. [1974]
Ronald Westrum and Peter Rogerson

Posted on by
Reply

From MUFOB vol. 6, number 4.

This is a very late response indeed to MUFOB 5:2, which contains a number of proposals for UFO research by Peter Rogerson, who was kind enough to send me a copy. My only criticism of the proposals is that they seem ambivalent about social control of UFO research: on the one hand, almost dictatorial policies are proposed for the “channelling” of such research, and on the other hand, steps are proposed which would remove two sources of social control: editorial opinion in journals and corporate opinions of UFO organisations. Perhaps Peter has not given enough thought to how the channelling he would like to see is to take place. The creation of a purely scientific UFO journals staffed by and contributed to by natural scientists with doctoral trainings would exempt at least three-quarters of the people now making contributions to UFO journals and would doubtless exclude such marginally scientific types as Peter and myself.

But my real purpose is to suggest that while many of these proposals are good as far as they go, they do not go far enough. I would like to seen

  1. as a minimum, the creation of a real-time communication systems at least on a national scale, whose sole purpose is to report on UFO happenings. Teams of investigators could be dispatched to the scenes of Type I cases much sooner.
  2. the use of the United States’ “close look” satellites for surveillance of areas identified by step 1. Anyone who does not understand what a close look satellite can do should acquire AdJlphi Paper No. 88 (Reconnaissances, Surveillance and Arms Control, by Ted Greenwood) from the Institute for Strategic Studies, 18 Adam Street, London.
  3. Use of the United States’ various radar surveillance systems particularly those in NORAD, to keep track of UFO trajectories. At one time, J Allan Hynek proposed a special sub-routine for the NORAD computers for this purpose but, as far as I know, his suggestion has not been acted upon.
  4. creation of special air-mobile sensor vehicles, which would have TV, “fast” cameras, infra-reds acoustic and other sensors. These sensors would be flown in to within twenty miles of Type I areas, but would arrive at the scene under their own propulsion. They would possess a capability of orienting themselves very quickly to ‘sense’, through their various modalities, the UFO itself or residual ionisation, etc, in the air. A special air-mobile team of investigators would then go over the terrain. I believe that the usefulness of UFO leavings decreases logarithmically with the passage of time.

English critics will point out, I am sure, that these suggestions illustrate the typical “Yankee” love of technology. But I nonetheless feel that
good sensor data is worth a dozen of even the best eyewitness accounts.  

PETER ROGERSON REPLIES TO RONALD WESTRUM

First I would like to thank Dr Ronald Westrum for his interest in my research proposals; while there have been a few private comments on them, his is the first published response.

I will reply to Ron’s points in turn:

  1. I don’t really think my proposals can be called dictatorial, as they were clearly labelled as “suggestions for discussion”. We had hoped tnat others would have been encouraged to come forward and present their alternative priorities; perhaps Ron’s letter will elicit some response.
  2. As regards journals, the following comments of Carl Grove’s may be of interest: “The chief difference between UFO and ‘scientific’ magazines at the moment, apart from the obvious difference in technical level, probably lies in the role of the editor. The editor of a journal receives manuscripts and passes them to specialised consultants for examination; they either recommend acceptance or changes which might make the papers more acceptable. Once the author makes these changes, the paper is printed without accompanying editorial comment. UFO editors seem to feel that no paper is complete without their added footnotes or comments” [Private communication].
  3. I agree with Ron that we shouldn’t limit study of the UFO problem to the community of physical scientists, perhaps the “scholarly” community would have been a better description. Of course I did add “research workers” to cover those without formal academic qualifications. I will admit that, now, I would place far less stress on scientific qualifications than I did in early 1972. On the other hand there are many, like Ron himself, whose work is not published in UFO journals, while at the same time these journals are often filled with very poor material, the absence of which would be no loss to anybody.
  4. Frankly, 1ike my colleague John Rimmer, I doubt very much the general value of bureaucratic UFO groups. I hope Ron will agree with me that in such a controversial field, we should not organise groups whose sole purpose is to proselytise in favour of one or other “UFO theory”. The Society for Psychical Research has owed its long existence and respectability precisely to such a policy of not enforcing some dictatorial party line on its members. Nothing can be accomplished by organisations such as BUFORA, which apparently now seeks to limit its membership to “believers” in the ET theory.
  5. Now I will comment on Ron’ s own proposals. My main objection to them is that they are very impractical. Ron must know that the introduction of such techniques would require a budget which would dwarf that of the ill-fated Condon enquiry, and that they could be organised only by official agencies. Even if, by some unlikely chance, some official agency did reappear to replace Blue Book, it is extremely difficult to see how it could justify such amassiv© expenditure to Congress or any other authorising body.
  6. Even if cash were available, I do not think it would be a correct procedure to undertake such a massive, expensive, and probably fruitless operation, unless there was some pressing need, or such a wealth of scientific paydirt that practically any expense would be justified. At the moment evidence of this need, or of any certain benefit, is not to hand.
  7. Ron’s proposals, I fear, suffer from the same critical defect as virtually all other UFO investigation schemes, both official and private; that is, they assume the answers before they start asking the questions. There can be little doubt that Condon, with the majority of his team, had decided, well before their enquiry had begun, that UFO reports were just misidentifications of everyday phenomena and that the purpose of the enquiry was to “prove” this predetermined
    conclusion. Similarly, most civilian UFO investigation societies seek to ‘prove’, often by the most curious mental gymnastics, that UFO reports are generated by spaceships of some variety. Believers and sceptics alike clearly are seeking only to reinforce their pre-existing prejudices, and have few ideas on how an impartial investigation could_be conducted. Ron, it would seem, has assumed that tha UFO phenomena are capable of being studied by such tactics. This is premature. There is much preliminary work to be done before we can make any assumptions along these lines.
  8. I accept the point that lies behind Ron’s concern for instrumental data, and the doubtfulness of eyewitness testimony. It is for that reason that my research proposals avoid such dubious matters as compiling identikits of UFO shapes, and concentrate on those aspects of reports (primarily temporal and spatial distribution) which can be isolated from the specific eyewitness details. I would also be prepared to support low cost instrumental studies in alleged flap areas. It is perhaps in these alleged flap areas that real-time studies could be undertaken with profit, such studies should be undertaken by multi-disciplinary teams and would at least provide much valuable sociological information.
  9. 8) In general, though, I do not believe that the UFO problem can be taken in isolation and subjected to a series of impressive-sounding technological gimmicks. There are good reasons, I feel, for treating UFO phenomena along with other ostensible spontaneous anomalistic phenomena. All these “events” present similar problems to the would-be investigator – the transitory nature of the alleged phenomena, the absence of unambiguous hard data, eyewitness accounts as the only real source of information, the apparent violation of existing scientific and philosophical paradigms, the atmosphere of superstition and fattastic speculation surrounding the reports. Under these circurastances I feel that a multi-disciplinary study of the scientific and philosophical implications of such alleged phenomena would be of greater value that the, probably fruitless, expenditure of vast sums of money.

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

New Directions for UFO Research. [1972]
Peter Rogerson

Posted on by
Reply

I am sure that Peter Rogerson would be the first person to admit that this article, first published in Merseyside UFO Bulletin volume 5, number 2, May 1972, now seems hopelessly naive. Even at the time its demands stretched the bounds of what might be possible. However, it is still an interesting article, and well worth re-reading with the benefir of an historical persepective.

 

It was written at what was probably the last time that the development of a ‘science of ufology’ was even be considered a possibility, and soon even the modest aim of gathering objective data on the majority of UFO reports became almost impossible, let alone re-investigate them, as Peter suggests in proposal one. Peter was not alone in suggesting ways in which ufologists could co-operate in data gathering and analysis, both nationally and internationally, and there were occasional ventures such as BUFORA’s attempts at a committee to standardise ufological terms. Of course, ufologists were, and are, an incurably un-organisable crowd, and jealous of the sources and information, and all attempts at inter-group and inter-personal co-operation have stumbled against someones ego!

 

This is not to say that all of the suggestions are impractical, or have never been attempted. There have been some good attempts at collating historical records, and the Swedish AFU archive is a model of its kind and a reproach to British ufology, which has allowed much of its historical record to be destroyed or dissipated. A great deal of what Peter proposed has in fact been achieved, but usually by individuals rather than organisations. Item 16, for instance, has been achieved in the UK by the efforts of researchers such as David Clarke and Joe McGonagle.

 

Much of the historical research into events such as the 1909 airship and ‘foo-fighters’ has been undertaken by individuals, and the scope of ufology has been widened into the social sciences. However, the idea that ‘ufology’ will ever become a respectable science in its own right was always a pipe-dream, even more so than the dream that the hoard of fractious individualists who constituted the UFO ‘community’ could work together to further that end!

 

So drift back to the hazy, dreamy days of the Summer of ’72, and read what we thought might happen — J.R.

During the 25 years in which the UFO phenomenon has been in the arena of public and scientific debate there seams to have been little concerted effort to determine precisely what UFO researchers should be doing. Too often ufologists seem to have been more interested in propounding dotty pseudo-sciences than in investigating the phenomenon objectively.

What, then, should be done? Here, are some suggestions for discussion:

1. There should be a major effort to document and re-investigate all Type I reports located in both published and unpublished sources, or known through private information. Every effort should be made to determine the precise date and geographical location of each report. Regular catalogues shoulcid be published. These should be brief specific lists in geographical, chronological and other orders, a catalogue of report abstracts in strict chronological order. Continuation catalogues should be published annually, with cumulations every five years.

2. ‘Contact’ reports, ‘MIB’ reports and reports involving psychological, physiological and ‘parapsychological’ phenomena should be investigated by trained personnel or laymen of proven reliability under the direction of specialists, and NOT by untrained or impressionable people.

3. There should be a major co-operative effort at a systematic search for pre-1947 ‘waves,’ involving , if possible, full scrutiny of national and local newspapers, and scientific and popular magazines, starting withflap periods, then other periods, The possibility of obtaining information from elderly persons could be considered. reports should be published in abstract form, with fuller accounts of selected reports, and notes on the social, religious, political and scientific background of the reports. Otherwise reports should be published without comment.

4. There should be a continuing effort to examine, and to place into context, the UFO Phenomenon as a source of mythological data, and as an aspect of folk-lore. The investigation of certain ‘constants’ in mythical, religious and folkloric traditions should be encouraged.

5. There should be an effort made to conduct sociological and psychological study of the modern UFO cults, such as that at Warminster.

6. There should be a sociological and historical study of the social and technological impact of the UFO phenomenon. As an example, research is being conducted into the possibility that the 1913 ‘airship’ wave may have had some effect on the course of the First World War.

7. The local groups, unless they are conducting valid research in which tho majority of the membership is involved, should dissolve themselves. Their active members should meet informally to discuss reports, plan investigation and conduct research.

8. The national organisations should cease to act as bodies with corporate opinions, planning, research etc., and become documentation centres, co-ordinating research, holding central catalogues and files, and library facilities. They should organise symposia and provide resources for publication of research work.

9. There should be a private international co-ordinating body to which both national bodies and individuals would be affiliated. This body would provide both international co-ordination of documentation and research, and a translation service, It is important that neither the national nor international bodies should hold corporate opinions or engage in corporate activities.

10. There is need for the creation of high quality bibliographical services in the field of ufology. These should include a bibliography of all UFO-style reports in the press, and non-ufological books and journals, a bibliography of UFO monographs published to date, an index of important articles in the ufological and lay press, and as complete a list as possible of ufological journals.

11. The creation of a machine-readable general catalogue of UFO reports incorporating all existing catalogues, on an international scale.

12. The publication of this catalogue, with the addition of a legible, standardised abstracts of the reports in the form of a continuous, duplicated publication partwork, to allow for further investigation of reports,

13. The publication of at least one international scientific journal devoted to ufology, aimed exclusively at the scientific community and serious research workers, without editorial comment. The journal should aim to serve as a platform for a11. serious workers, away from the attitudes of the cultists. The ultimate aim should be to publish this journal simultaneously in several major languages.

14. The publication of national journals of a similar nature, either modifications of existing journals (eg Phenomenes Spatiaux, FSR) or new ventures, and the encouragement of the publication of local ‘report’ journals.

15. Rapid and in-depth investigation of all cases involving alleged physical evidence, landing traces and photographs by appropriately qualified experts. In the case of photographs, publication should be delayed until there is good evidence of ‘high strangeness’, and attempts at duplication have failed.

16. Efforts should be made to recover material in official files, accepting any conditions laid down, especially recognising that such material may be made available only to reputable scientists.

17. It should be recognised that the only legitimate activity of UFO research is the scientific investigation of UFO reports and phenomena which may generate them. Such investigations should be impartial, unbiased and covering all aspects of the phenomenon. Investigations which set out to demonstrate that the reports are generated by mirages, alcoholic poisoning, space ships or ghosts do not fall into the definition of research.

18. Make every effort to channel the interest of newcomers to the subject along scientific lines, emphasising that ufology involves much more than standing on hilltops staring at the sky, and like much science involves hard work.

19. Take steps to counter the damage caused by the activities of certain sensationalists, particularly the gentlemen whose lunacies provide much sport to the popular press.

20. Recognise that the subject will only become respectable to the scientific community if research and speculation are conducted in a scientific manner; and that speculation is limited to scientifically valid notions. One _must accept that this speculation will be ultimately futile if the phenomena are not comprehensible in terms of 20th century science. the tendency of writers to throw scientific restraint away and invent ever more fantastic pseudo-scientific cosmoses can only be deplored.

 

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

 

Objections to the Parapsychological Hypothesis. [1970]
John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

First published in MUFOB volume 3, number 4, September 1970

Ufology has always been noted for sharp clashes of opinion within its ranks, but these have generally been between the rational and the irrational, the issues being complicated by the fact that some people are more rational than others. Recently however, many ufologists, disillusioned by the painfully obvious shortcomings of the ETH, have begun to regard the UFO as an essentially psychic phenomenon.

The parapsychological hypothesis has the great attraction that it can encompass practically any occurrence which seems to be either physically impossible or outrageously improbable. UFO entities can be compared with reports of ghosts and fairies; physical effects can be attributed to psychokinesis or teleportation, practically every one of the more bizarre effects reported in connection with UFO events has its counterpart in occult lore, as Ivar Mackay has recently pointed out. (1)

We all realise though, that to most scientists the findings of the psychical researchers are unacceptable. Many people think that this is merely because of conservatism and prejudice, a simple reluctance to accept any facts which appear to contradict or to transcend the basic laws of physics. This is a very comforting thought to students of the mysterious and the unexplained but unfortunately it is only partly true.

The real reason why psychical phenomena are not generally accepted as real is simply because the parapsychologists have so far been unable to provide rigorous, irrefutable proof of their assertions, that is, proof which can be put to the test of controlled, repeatable laboratory experiments. Indeed, most psychic researchers are quite aware of this problem. Like ufologists they hope to gradually vin the confidence of the scientific community by conducting more and more painstaking research, and collecting as much information and evidence as possible. They thus hope to win over their opponents by the sheer accumulation of data, even though each observation and experiment, if examined separately, is open to question, As the psychologist Robert Thouless has writton:

“It is sometimes supposed to be the main task of those interested in parapsychology to convince the rest of the urcrid (ot at least the scientific world) of the reality of parapsychological phenomena. I think this aim is a mistaken one that is liable to divert psychical research into unfruitful channels. All that is necessary is that the scientific world shall know that there is sufficient ground for belief in the reality of paranormal phenomena to make this a worthwhile field of research activity.” (2)

Note the use of the word ‘belief’ in the above paragraph. In spite of all the energy and brain power brought to bear on the subject since the late nineteenth century the reality of psychic phenomena is still a matter of faith or personal conviction rather than established, demonstrable fact.

So far as UFO research is concerned it can of course be argued that the ufologists should generally confine themselves to merely collecting data about UFO events, and passing it on to the appropriate experts for evaluation. In fact though, practically every UFO investigator has a working hypothesis and he tends to look for evidence to support that hypothesis, while ignoring or not noticing details which seen to him to be irrelevant.

Thus John Keel digs up reports of witnesses being visited by mysterious strangers, whereas other investigators never think to ask witnesses if they have had any unusual visitors. The final version of a UFO report, then, tends to be coloured by the theories and prejudices of the investigator, So Keel’s findings plainly support the parapsycholcgical hypothesis, Keyhoe’s findings strongly support the ETH, and Menzel clearly demonstrates that the whole UFO business is an an elaborate popular delusion.

As interest in the parapsychological hypothesis grows, opponents of ufology will argue that in apparently abandoning
accepted methods of research, based on the principle of physics and psychology, ufologists will not deserve to be taken seriously, as they will never be able to convince anyone other than them solves of the validity of their claims.

References

1. Mackay, Ivar. UFOs ‘and the Occult – 1, Flying Saucer Review, vol. 16, no. 4, p.27
2. Thouless, Robet. Experimental Psychical Research, Penguin Books, 1963

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

The Death and Life of British Ufology. [1970]
John Rimmer

Posted on by
2

From MUFOB volume 3, number 3, June-July 1970

MUFOB/Magonia had always been sceptical about the value of formally organised UFO groups, as this now rather dated and self -referential article demonstrates. Ufology has taken rather longer to die than we though was likely when it was written. My plea for ufology to be conducted “through correspondents, journals and temporary ad-hoc working groups” has been fulfilled, if you read it as “through e-mail, blogs and Internet discussion groups”. J.R.

Ufology in Britain is dead. The UFO phenomenon is not dead – yet. It manages to struggle on against a torrent of public apathy. The shadow of Condon lies long over the land. But the people it seems to envelop deepest are the ufologists.

British ufology is in-groupy, gossipy and sterile. With the exception of FSR, (a beacon in a dark and hopeless sea [at that time, Ed.]) and about two other journals the magazines offer stale re-hashes, endless reprints and trivia. Many are becoming simply receptacles for snippets of space-news from the national dailies, or the Novosti News Agency. Some of those that are worth reading are only so because of the hilarious lunacy of their editors. Reading the average British ufomag produces an alarming sense of deja-vu. The sane [sic., Ed. See comments] articles and names crop up constantly. Mr Albert Figgis, besides being editor of ‘Trivia — voice of tha 21st century’, is secretary of BUFLOP, president of DRIVEL (1) and Director General of SMERSH. An article printed in journal A is reprinted, usually without acknowledgement, in paraphrase, in journal B. If acknowledgement is given it is usually in the form of sycophantic back-slapping from one member of an in-group to another.

The in-groups how they flourish. There’s the Warminster in-group. A classic, this. Any attempt to take any kind of disinterested look at the vastly over-rated Warminster affair is greeted with a broadside from the big guns: vicious personal attack, ‘I am fed up with snide comments’, ‘this small minded carping’, ker-pew, Enemy critic sunk without trace, sir. Why does this in-group not realise that no Golden Tablets have been handed to anyone at Warminster and that there is room for other interpretations besides theirs? They may be right, God help us, but until such time as they are proved right, will they not allow an criticism of their briar-patch?

Then of course there’s the Scorriton in-group. Not aggressive these, just tedious. A few years ago they had their moment of glory, and they are loth to let it pass. An understandable human reaction, but why should it be inflicted on the rest of us? Then there’s the BUFORA in-group. Very interesting this one, It should be required study for organisational psychologists. The plots and counterplots are Machiavellian. I find them fascinating, but I am the sort of sadist who finds self-destruction fascinating. To the average ufologist, however, the great BUFORA saga is rapidly rivalling Jackie Onassis or John Lennon as one of Time magazine’s Bores of the Year. Yet the BUFORA people are all honourable men, why do they behave in this way? Chiefly, I think, because they have run out of ideas. Because they are sterile, devoid of any new ideas, incapable of adjusting a way of thinking. This loads to pomposity, a deep, self-assured feeling that any criticism is the work of an inferior intellect. This leads to pompous letters that are usually good for a laugh.

As someone once remarked about something else, the British UFO scene is a vast wasteland. The little local groups are sad, lost in the wilderness, held together by camaraderie, a feeling of obligation and little else. Their meetings consist of an elite lecturing each other in turns, repeating the same tired bromides and listless cliches. There is no life in these groups, witness their constantly pathetic appeals for funds. Surely anybody genuinely interested in ufology as a hobby or a serious study would not be loath to pay out money in pursuit of their interest. The average British ‘ufologist’ has no compunction against spending a small fortune on gardening, budgerigars, motor cars or wrought iron hall tables, but ask him to spend three and six on train fare to a meeting, or give a sub. of a pound or two to keep a magazine going, and watch him howl. MUFORG was one of the few honest UFO groups. When it was dead it had the decency to lie down and not inflict a spectacle of suffering on us.

Face it: The average ufologist wants to go to a group and hear someone telling him about the space people. If he’s over twenty-five he wants to hear about the nice space people. If he’s under twenty-five he wants to hear about the nasty space people. The last thing he wants to do is study and investigate, or pay out any of his easy earned money so that others can.

Even the investigation is limited. If you accept, as most do, that the UFOs are space craft there is little you can do except panic and wait for them to announce themselves, And most people are doing this very well indeed. Peter Rogerson pointed out in the last MUFOB that the much derided ‘Armchair Ufologist’ is in reality a vital part of any progress we may be making. It is the Armchair Ufologist who sifts through reports and books, on UFOs, ghosts, occultism, sociology, et aland offers balanced speculation. It is the serious researcher like John Keel who uncovers new and controversial data, who complements the work of the A.U. It is the average British Ufologist (who has probably never heard of John Keel or read FSR) who is too busy running up and down hills flashing lights to be able to do any constructive thinking.

As Lenin once remarked about something else: “What is to be done?” The answer of course is that there’s precious little that canbedone. It is impossible, not to mention probably illegal to go around and forcibly shut up the various bore-ins, (If one diddthis of course there would be the danger of closing off the rich in of unconscious humour that the more crackpot elements occasionally reveal, As a lover of lunacy in all its forms this, to me, is a very real danger.) The only course that seems in any way feasible is to cultivate an attitude of elegant detachment and turn one’s interest as much to the phenomenon of ufologists as to the phenomenon of UFOs.

This, whilst cathartic to the ego, does little to aid and revivify the ailing body of British Ufology. I can only offer a counsel of despair. Any serious ufologist must eschew the groups, nationalor local, and work through correspondents, journals and temporary ad- hoc working groups. The local societies are just rag-bags of assorted characters with no guarantee that any of them are capable of any constructive thought. The so-called nationalsocieties are basically local societies for anyone living within reach of a London Underground station.

British ufology needs at least one other journal of the quality and stature of FSR, not as competition but to provide an additional outlet for original research, It needs at least one person as controversial as John Keel both for the original ideas he would produce and the reaction he would hopefully spark off amongst other ufologists. It is unlikely that either of these two events shall come to pass. What is more likely to happen is that the same old faces (‘Yesterday’s Men’, to coin a phrase) will drag on until, hopefully, a new generation of whiz-kid ufologists turns up to save us from this sad, sorry but often painfully hilarious plight. Hopefully.

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

(1) DRIVEL — Direct Research of Interplanetary Vehicles and Extraterrestrial Landings, the North London group founded by Desmond O’Connor (not the other one) and Albert Figgis. Active in the late sixties and early seventies, it was wound up acrimoniously after an unfortunate incident involving its attractive secretary Marlene Plinth, the treasurer Geoffrey Stoat and a jar of Marmite, caused it to be barred from using the Reading Room of Dollis Hill library for its monthly meetings.

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

How to be Interviewed.
John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

This editorial by John Harney gives useful advice on dealing with the media, which is probably as valid now as when it was first published in MUFOB volume 3, number 2, April-May 1970.

………………………………………………………………………………….

Whenever there is an upsurge of UFO activity ufologists everywhere suddenly find themselves in demand for press and radio interviews. Some ufologists are cranks, of course, and their confidently expressed inanities reinforce the popular conviction that all ufologists must be equally batty7 if not more so.

What of the rest of us, though`? We sane, thoughtful people, unused to the glare of publicii:yy, who become shy and inarticulate when confronted with microphone or reporter’s notebook? How can we can avoid making fools of ourselves when faced with, say, a radio commentator who is looking for a funny item with which to round off his feature programme? There is only one ways We must try to think of all the trick questions wo may be asked and prepare ourselves in advance, A resulting interview may then go something like this:

INTERVIEWER: Tell me, Mr —-, why do you believe in flying saucers? (This, of courses is the “When did you stop beating your wife?” type of question: you must deal with it firmly.)

UFOLOGIST: I neither believe nor disbelieve in flying saucers. I merely find the subject to be extremely interesting and think that many UFO reports are worthy of unbiased investigation. (The Interviewer is disappointed. No scope for hilarity there. However, he persists, probing for a weak spot.)

INTERVIEWER: But surely you must have some theory you are following up; you must believe something about them? (Note the word “believe” being dragged in again. He wants you to say “I believe ….” If you say those words carelessly he is halfway to having you written off as just another nut.)

UFOLOGIST: There are a number of interesting theories and speculations concerning the real nature of the UF0 phenomenon. The theory that flying saucers are spacecraft from other worlds is attractive, although it has many weaknesses I’m sure you will agree. On he other hand the theory – strongly advocated by Dr Menzel – that all UFO reports can be explained in terms of misidentifications of natural and man-made phenomena, hoaxes delusions, etcetera, does seem rather inadequate to deal with well-documented, multiple witness cases of UFOs seen at close quarters. However, qualified psychologists and medical men have begun to take an increasing interest in such reports and their findings indicate that most of the witnesses are psychologically well within the range of what may be termed normality, and are thus not likely to be susceptible to delusions or hallucinations or to be the perpetrators of childish hoaxes. (The foregoing should be delivered rapidly anald confidently, in the Patrick Moore style. It will then carry conviction, even to those who haven’t understood a word of it.)

INTERVIEWER: Ah; Then perhaps the UFOs are psychic phenomena, like ghosts and poltergeists? (Don’t panic, you can easily deal with this one.)

UFOLOGIST: It is true that many ufologists are of the opinion that this is a line worth following up, however we must realize that by combining the two highly contentious studies of parapsychology and ufology we are hardly likely to reach any generally acceptable conclusions in the foreseeable future.

The Interviewer may then ask you to discuss a particular sighting, If he does, choose a goods recent local report and give the names of the witnesses. The Interviewer can hardly dismiss them as liars and lunatics; they may sue him if he does. in winding up the interview, he may make a last effort to discredit you and achieve the desired chuckles from his listeners. He may ask:

INTERVIEWER: Some people say that the earth is hollow and that the flying saucers come from the inside through holes in the polcsa Now, what do you think of that? (Easy. Just say:)

UFOLOGIST: Well, look, if it’s crackpots ynu want to interview I can give you some names and addresses…

INTERVIEWER: Er, well, er, Mr —-, thank you.

Now that you’ve got the general idea I’m sure you will be able to develop it further for yourselves and be prepared for all contingencies. Some of the old stagers amongst ua are not expecting the next major flap until sometime in 1972. If they are right you have ample time to make yourselves word perfect and I look forward to hearing and reading of your triumphant encounters with the mass media.

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