Category Archives: Cresswell, Ian

‘Earth Lights’: Further Comments.
Ian Cresswell

Posted on by
Reply

From Magonia 13, 1983

This article continues the debate on Paul Devereux’s book Earth Lights:

John Harney’s original book review is here:
http://mrobsr.blogspot.com/2010/02/earth-lights.html

and Paul Devereux’s response is here:
http://magonia.haaan.com/2010/earthlights/

After reading through the book Earth Lights by Paul Devereux and his article in Magonia 12 in defence of his theory, I suggest that another, more neutral, opinion about it should be expressed within the pages of Magonia.

I found Earth Lights a most interesting and absorbing work, carefully done, with much thought given to it by its author, who I have no doubt is a most sincere and devoted researcher. But whilst I found it fascinating, I also found it frustrating, and sometimes unclear about parts of the theory. I found it frustrating in that the author, whilst getting close to some possible truths about the nature and origin of the phenomenon, allowed himself to drift away from them.

The theory does not seem totally clear because of Paul’s insistence on the main core of the phenomenon being objective, then bringing in very strong elements of a very subjective nature in an attempt to explain the full extent of the UFO phenomenon. If the origins of the two aspects of the phenomenon are different, then why have a link at all? Could there not be some other expression for the shadow content of the reports other than PK manipulation of a plasma light?

The weak link in Paul Devereux’s chain of reasoning lies in the most vital part. The evidence of the cases themselves points away from a tectonic origin. Although the controlled laboratory tests are potentially the most important replicable evidence in support of the earthlights theory, it is curious how little space the book devotes to them. It would also, I suggest, have been better if there had been a wider review of the geological literature to examine the status of geoluminescent effects amongst specialists in the field. Perhaps even a ‘forum’ of geological opinion would have been profitable here?

I was interested in the similarity between many of the examples given in this book, and other forms of natural light phenomena – ball-lightning, mountaintop discharge, and so forth. However, interesting as these phenomena are, their relevance to ufology seems limited, and they cannot be put forward convincingly as a complete explanation for the UFO phenomenon – either objectively or subjectively.

Although I would agree that an electrical phenomenon might be the original stimulus of the ‘main-core’ phenomenon, I doubt that its origin is as proposed by Paul Devereux. He appears to take it for granted that the light effects associated with UFOs are of an objective nature – but although it has been assumed in the past that the UFO phenomenon is of an entirely objective nature, this is by no means proved. If there is an electrical phenomenon involved, might it not come rather from the human nervous system than from the external world?

In The Psychology of Consciousness, by Robert E. Ornstein [1] we find something of possible relevance to our study:

Wilder Penfield, among others, has demonstrated that the experience of vision can also be evoked by electrical stimulation of the central nervous system. Penfield performed brain surgery on patients with epilepsy and, as part of this procedure, electrically stimulated various areas of their brain; his patients often reported conscious experiences without any input at all.

For instance many surgeons have found that electrical stimulation of the occipetal cortex usually leads to the experience of vision. We can understand then that seeing is a process which takes place not in our eyes, but rather with the help of the eyes. It is a process that is constructed largely in the brain, one largely determined by the category and output systems of the brain.

Furthermore, we do not even need the presence of external light to ‘see’. If seeing is a certain pattern of excitation in the central nervous system then anything that produces that pattern will result in visual experience.

One can see this pattern at work with the dream state, where we have a pictorial image which is totally created within the brain, and viewed in a completely subjective manner, without any objective stimulus reaching the brain.

Yet the dreamer watches the events with the same apparent eye of objective consciousness, but in a totally subjective way. The dream is the result of electrical stimulation within the memory cells within the brain, and both the cause and effect of this is entirely within our own nervous system. The subjective has become the only reality, and as such can be said to exist whether or not it has any existence in an objective sense.

If, when Devereux talks of the creation of protoentities from the ‘UFO material’, he is talking of a process within the brain, I would accept it. But to regard this creation as being occasioned by psychokinetic impressions on a geoelectricai plasma is harder to accept than the idea of extraterrestrials visiting this planet.

I also wish that the author had not made such an important point of the localtion of stone circles. The relevance of this to the location of UFO sightings is unclear, very few reports emamate from these areas, although admittedly there are fewer people in these parts of the country to make such reports. Those parts of the country which boast the fewest stone circles are the south and east are by no means devoid of UFO sightings. The factors involved in the siting of stone circles in Britain are unconnected with any possible tectonic activity.

Aubrey Burl [2] states:

This region [eastern and southern - Britain] is a paradox. Covering nearly half of the 121,000 square miles of the British Isles, much of it lowlying, fertile, patterned with slow, wide rivers, some of its territories were the most heavily populated in the country. Yet only 12% of stone circles are located here.

This is partly because much of the prehistoric landscape was avoided by man. Southern Britain presented an illimitable forest of ‘damp oakwood’, ash and thorn and bramble, largely untrodden…

…although this panorama of a widely hostile land is being modified by discoveries of henge and settlement on the heavy clays of the midlands it remains largely true. But the main reason for the scarcity of stone circles in eastern and southern Britain was the presence of alternative forms of building material. Here there was timber in plenty.

Burl concludes by pointing out that although this area has only 12% of the stone circles, it holds well over 50% of the (wood) henges. The distribution of the stone circles is therefore a result of the availability of building materials. Wood henges, which would have the same social and ceremonial function as stone circles were their substitute in the south and east. Their distribution has nothing to do with reactions to geoluminescent phenomena, as Devereux insists.

————————————-

REFERENCES:

  1. ORNSTEIN, Robert E. The Psychology of Consciousness, Pelican Books, 1975.
  2. BURL, Aubrey. The Stone Circles of the British Isles. Yale University Press 1976.

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

Objections to the Birth Trauma Hypothesis.
Ian S. Creswell

Posted on by
Reply

From Magonia 11, 1982

While one must congratulate Dr Lawson for a most original and mentally stimulating piece of theoretical writing  [link here]  on the apparent similarity between relived birth image traumas and the reported observations of abduction percipients, a number of very clear and important objections to this theory come to mind.

Without completely rejecting the general ideas put forward in Dr Lawson’s paper, grave doubts enter the picture, both from the area of psychoanalytic psychology, from other more general sections of psychiatric medicine and from ufology itself. Although not wishing to be absolutely negative, upon careful thought the regretful opinion must be that there is no real basis for assuming that the images involved in close-encounter experiences of the third and fourth kinds are either partly or wholly the result of relived images associated with the so-called trauma of birth.

The results of so-called test situations we find unconvincing and the means by which these were brought to light in general highly unsatisfactory. While by no means denying the possibility that psychological processes are at work here, in fact quite the contrary, what we would rather suggest is that research and investigation is directed down other paths than images of birth trauma or other forms of psychopathology.

Before any particular theory is proved to be factual every part of the content of this group of ideas must be compatible with other valid knowledge and evidence in the area that one is writing about. Some amount of deviation is allowed, as no scientific subject can remain stationary for long periods of time without becoming stale. The very centre of Dr Lawson’s theory of a universal birth trauma is based upon the work of Otto Rank and the psychiatrist Stanislav Grof, a follower of Rank. Their theory of mental imagery reappearing later on in thF individual’s life as the cause of later neurosis and general behaviour disorders has now been almost completely rejected within psychoanalytic and psychiatric medicine. It is now mainly of interest for its historical place within psychological thought and is rarely if ever employed within the treatment of the psychoneuroses. (1)

Rank died in the United States in 1939, and outside America his theories are no longer the subject of discussion, although many of his suggestions have influenced others. Dr Nander Fodor, a New York analyst, makes use of the Rankian theory of the birth trauma, which he claims to have based upon clinical rather than philosophical foundations, in his extraordinary books, The Search for the Beloved and New Approaches to Dream Interpretation. Since nearly every aspect of human behaviour – not excluding constipation – is traced back in these books to the trauma of birth, it is a little difficult to see why they needed to be written at all.

But if Dr Fodor is somewhat lacking – in imagination as to origins, nobody can accuse him of lacking ingenuity in his interpretations. He informs us, for example, that children may start life with a handicap owing to prenatal influences, one of which is the violence of parental intercourse, the memory of which is said to be clearly apparent in the dreams of adult life. The fact that there exist no nerve connections between mother and unborn child does not trouble Dr Fodor, who postulates that communication takes place by telepathy. According to this theory, then, prenatal influences and the trauma of birth play a major part in the formation of character and determine mental health in adult life.

A more scientific exposition of this view has been put forward by Phyllis Greenacre, who believes that constitution, prenatal experience, birth, and the situation immediately after birth together play some part in predisposing the individual to anxiety. She notes that loud noises, maternal nervousness, and similar stimuli increase the rate of the foetal heart and the frequency of foetal movements, and supposes that these may fairly be taken as signs of anxiety. Such ‘anxiety’ is, of course, without mental content, but Dr Greenacre believes that it supplies an organic potential which may influence later anxiety reactions.

Turning now to one of the most highly critical reviews of birth trauma and its possible cause of future neurosis we have to turn to what Freud thought about this very speculative theory, bearing in mind that he had changed his own mind about the theory of birth trauma over the years, as can be clearly seen by reading some of Freud’s works. (2)

In the act of birth there is a real danger to life. We know what this means objectively; but in a psychological sense it says nothing at all to us. The danger of birth has as yet no psychical content. We cannot possibly suppose that the foetus has any sort of knowledge that there is a possibility of its life being destroyed. It can only be aware of some vast disturbance in the economy of its narcissistic libido. Large sums of excitation crowd in on it, giving rise to new feelings of unpleasure, and some organs acquire an increased cathexis, thus foreshadowing the objectcathexis which will soon set in. What elements in all this will be made use of as the sign of a ‘danger situation’?

Unfortunately, far too little is known about the mental make-up of a newborn baby to make a direct answer possible. I cannot even vouch for the validity of the descriptions I have just given. It is easy to say that the baby will repeat its effect of anxiety in every situation which recalls the event of birth. The important thing to know is what recalls the event and what it is that is recalled.

All we can do is to examine the occasions on which infants-in-arms or somewhat older children show readiness to produce anxiety. In his book on the trauma of birth, Rank has made a determined attempt to establish a relationship between the earliest phobias of children and the impressions made on them by the event of birth. But I do not think he has been successful. His theory is open to two objections. In the first place, he assumes that the infant has received certain sensory impressions, in particular of a visual kind, at the time of birth, impressions, the renewal of which can recall to its memory the trauma of birth and thus evoke a reaction of anxiety. This assumption is quite unfounded and extremely improbable.

It is not credible that a child should retain any but tactile and general sensations relating to the process of birth. If, later on, children show fear of small animals that disappear into holes or emerge from them, this reaction, according to Rank, is due to their perceiving an analogy. But it is an analogy of which they cannot be aware. In the second place, in considering these later anxiety situations, Rank dwells, as suits him best, on the child’s recollection of the traumatic disturbance which interrupted that existence – which leaves the door wide open for arbitrary interpretation.

There are, moreover, certain examples of childhood anxiety which directly contradict his theory. When, for instance, a child is left alone in the dark one would expect it, according to his view, to welcome the re-establishment of the intrauterine situation; yet it is precisely on such occasions that the child reacts with anxiety. And if this explained by saying that the child is being reminded of the interruption which the event of birth made in its intrauterine happiness, it becomes impossible to shut one’s eyes any longer to the far-fetched character of such explanations.

I am driven to the conclusion that the earliest phobias of infancy cannot be directly traced back to impressions of the act of birth and that so far they have not been explained. A certain preparedness for anxiety is undoubtedly present in the infant-in-arms. But this preparedness for anxiety, instead of being at its maximum immediately after birth and slowly decreasing, does not emerge till later, as mental development proceeds, and lasts over a certain period of childhood. If these early phobias persist beyond that period one is inclined to suspect the presence of a neurotic disturbance, although it is not at all clear what their relation is to the undoubted neuroses that appear later on in childhood.

Only a few of the manifestations of anxiety in children are comprehensible to us, and we must confine our attention to them. They occur, for instance, when a child is alone, or in the dark, or when it finds itself with an unknown person instead of one to whom it is used – such as its mother. These three instances can be reduced to a single condition – namely, that of missing someone who is loved and longed for. But here, I think, we have the key to an understanding of anxiety and to a reconciliation of the contradictions that seem to beset us.

Where the theory for birth trauma appears to fail as the cause of all future anxiety in a purely psychological sense is that a newborn baby just can’t function in a very developed conceptive-perceptive mode. The newly born infant, we assume, can only experience its environment by way of sensations of different types and sensory impressions of one sort and another, and by no other means. The sense of self is not present at birth to any great extent, with the young child not aware of the fact that he is a separate personality. His outward world is totally mixed in with his inner world. There is no ego state of personality, for this is still to come.

We just don’t know what kind of mental images are present (if any) in the newly born child. This being the case, logically we can’t say what is in the mind of the developing child in the womb either. Therefore to even hint at the possibility that the conceptive contents of the CE (close encounter) reports are nothing more than relived flashbacks to the area of time before, during and after birth on the part of the percipients is just assuming far too much.

Another factor that we are not very happy about is the part that hallucinations are being made to play in this particular theory. If a person is suffering from any of the different forms of sensory hallucinations then he or she is in a state of very serious mental confusion in which the borders of reality become totally obscured. This is mainly a state that is associated with psychoses rather than neuroses (although the line between them can become very thin in certain cases). A person suffering from a psychotic disorder is usually pretty obvious, as hallucinations don’t exist in a state of vacuum but along with other serious symptoms of psychosis.

Hallucinatory states do not occur just once or twice and then never again but rather recur pretty frequently, usually matching in with whatever particular individual delusional element is present at any given time in the mind of those so disturbed. Yet another feature of most psychotic states is that normal life becomes nearly impossible as the person gets more and more out of touch with reality. How many close-encounter percipients can really be classed as being in this particular category?

We are not happy either with the manner in which the comparison material was collected from artificially created situations involving the use of hallucinogenic drugs, hypnosis or sensory deprivation. Just how often are close-encounter experiences of the third and fourth kinds of this nature?

It is not very unusual to see all kinds of strange entities while under the influence of various hallucinogenic drugs. Pain-killing drugs also at times produce hallucinations of a visual nature when patients suffering from serious illnesses are given large amounts of certain kinds of these drugs. To suggest that these people are reliving images associated with the trauma of birth is far-fetched indeed. These people are not psychotic but only display hallucinatory indications when under drugs and not at other times.

In cases of loss of sensory impressions hallucinations frequently occur but, once again, they don’t when the person is again fully aware of his or her external environment. To assume, as Dr Lawson does, that the images assoicated with these particular states and the close-encounter images are all of a birth-relived image state is very hard to accept. It appears more like science fiction than the close encounters do.

andreasson-entity

To suggest that there is any likeness between a human foetus and the type of entity that Betty Andreasson saw during her experiences is taking the imagination to its limit.

 

We would also view very doubtfully the apparent similarity between the humanoid and the human foetus. There does not appear to be any real link here at all, which becomes only too clear if one checks out the relevant books on gynaecological medicine. To suggest that there is any likeness between a human foetus and the type of entity that Betty Andreasson saw during her experiences is taking the imagination to its limit.

We can find no confident proof in Dr Lawson’s statement: “It is beyond question that there are extensive similarities between perinatal imagery and UFO abduction narratives, as the presentation of parallels from both areas and an analysis of a prominent abduction have shown”. Dr Lawson’s theory, mainly based upon the work of Grof, fails to explain the category of reports known as CE4, rather it makes an understanding of these human experiences harder to form. It is not a very good practice to take a minor and mainly discarded theory from its original subject and then transfer it into the field of another subject which is itself highly controversial, to say the least.

Dr Lawson’s speculative arguments against multiple witness CE3 and CE4 reports ~, seem to be very strange indeed. Firstly, he quotes Allan Hendry’s excellent book on UFOs, but appears to make the mistake that Hendry classifies CE cases involving multiple witnesses as being very doubtful. It appears to me that Hendry is meaning this to apply to mass sightings of a low-definition variety, which are much more likely to have conventional explanations than ufological ones.

To regard encounters involving more than one person as being due to such causes as multiple hallucinations (I have not yet been able to find out just what this means in a psychiatric sense. I have not come across any cases that feature this unusual symptom of mental disorder in literature dealing with hallucinations), folie a deux, imaginary companions and mass hallucinations (really more like mass hysteria which is due to the spread of rumour and the desire to believe something to be true and which correctly belongs in the study of human behaviour) is bordering on the ridiculous.

To further make the point, as Dr Lawson does, that testimony of this type is no guarantee or proof of an objective event, but rather of its subjective psychological validity for those experiencing it is of course fair up to a point, but if taken too far is again illogical. If this is so then no one should ever be trusted who gives evidence in a court case on behalf of someone else in support of them because of possible subjective motivation.

Dr Lawson’s theory appears to pay very little attention to any sort of physical factor involved in close-encounter reports, dismissing them too casually and seeing no link between the events experienced and the physical factors involved. No doubt a great deal of so-called physical evidence is rather ambiguous and can indeed be open to many interpretations. But to make the sort of statement which follows is going to far:

“The inescapable fact is that no abduction case has thus far presented unambiguous physical or physiological evidence which compels us to conclude that a UFO landed in that spot, or left that mark on the abductee’s skin, or abducted that family. I am speaking not of probabilities or possibilities but of certainties.”

There are a number of close-encounter abduction reports which do appear to have a clear physical result, either to the environment or to the percipient, and other closeencounter reports show the same thing. Just what this might mean as to the nature of the experiences we are dealing with is another matter.

Dr Lawson does not seem to distinguish between close encounters of the third and fourth kinds but tends to regard them as being the same thing, which they may not be at all! There does appear to be, however, a subjective factor present in most closeencounter reports of all types, but I don’t feel that this subjectiveness is at all pathological. Rather, it may be more the result of some natural process of the human psychical structure interacting with the electromagnetic-chemical fields of energy both within the percipient’s brain and the environment to produce a manifestation
which is both objective and subjective in its cause and effect.

Again one must question the validity of Dr Lawson’s contention that in CE3 reports the dominant creature type is humanoid and that it resembles the human foetus, especially such entities as observed by Betty and Barney Hill, and Travis Walton. It is true that there are more reports of humanoid entities than of other kinds, but the latter are not rare and one must have very good imaginative ability to see any likeness between them and the human foetus. What would Dr Lawson make of a report of the fourth kind that involved more than one type of entity, we can only wonder?

No doubt taking the full range of ufological manifestations into account only tends to lead one to conclude that there is more than just a single cause at work here. I am classing only reports (all across the board) that are unexplained, with the cause of unexplained low-definition reports beina different from that of medium reports and so on, with perhaps the cause of the closeencounter cases being something else again. These ufological manifestations can not be put down to images associated with birth trauma. They are world-wide and are reported by all social groups, and are generally not the result of any pathological syndrome of either a physical or psychological nature.

Dr Lawson’s theory poses more questions than it answers, leaving too many strands untied and open. He admits that “a causal nexus between specific events of one’s biological birth and particular images has yet to be established”, and that “we cannot yet explain what stimulates the sequence of visual imagery and events which makes up an abduction”.

Another weakness, we feel, lies in the unproved assumption of Rank and others that the presence of birth trauma elements are universal in their manifestations, that it has always been present, that it is something which sets the pattern for future anxiety. Yet not everyone is affected? If what Dr Lawson writes is correct then we all should be having CE4 encounters, yet this is not so. Nor are the percipients of these strange images repeating their subjective manifestations time and time again, which they should be doing if these images really are the long-lost memories of life in the womb, of birth and just afterwards.

Turning to reports of CE3 and CE4 which involve EM effects. Just how can the birth trauma theory fit in to try to explain them, because a birth memory of great anxiety can not stop a motor car’s engine, put out its lights and cut out radio reception?

Turning lastly to historical factors associated with UFO manifestations and the possible appearance of birth trauma effects, we must pose the question: Why did not the present-day images of CE3 and CE4 encounters occur to the extent they do today, taking as true the age-old and universal nature of the birth trauma?

Why did people see airships, mystery aircraft, ghost rockets, all of which do appear to be prototypes of present-day ufological manifestations, instead of just seeing UFOs and their occupants? There can’t have been all that many airships present at birth to give rise to early infant anxiety, or strange unmarked aircraft flying about in the womb prior to birth to cause pre-birth nightmares to the unborn child!

Lastly, a question: how is it possible for the unborn child in the womb to know just what its own appearance is, in order for this to be later superimposed in adult life as part of a close-encounter abduction experience?

———————————————-

References:

1. Brown, J.A.C. Freud and the Post-Freudians, Pelican Books, 1971, pp. 54-55.
2. Freud, Sigmund. Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. pelican Books, 1979, pp.291-293

*********************

 

 

 

Close Encounters and Dream States
Ian Cresswell & Granville Oldroyd

Posted on by
Reply

From Magonia 9, 1982

Despite frustrating investigators and researchers throughout the past 35 years in their search for the meaning of the UFO phenomenon the occurrence of ‘strange’ incidents has had one beneficial result. If nothing else has been achieved, at least these different manifestations have widened mankind’s field of possible perception and caused some people to think deeply about more than just what UFOs might be or from where they originate. The process of these manifestations and the particular contents of them have caused some people, both in ufology and out of it, to question not only the UFO phenomenon itself but also reality.

Reviewing a number of close-encounter cases, especially of the third and fourth kinds, one can’t help but notice a most unusual aspect in many of these events. On the surface we appear to have a straightforward observation of a physical aerial craft with apparently real entities who make contact with the witness and give every indication that they are just what they appear to be. The percipient fully accepts all that is occurring as being a real objective happening, just as he would accept any other in everyday life.

But there is so often in reports of this type a varying degree of distortion which would seem to somewhat negate the general appearance of what the percipients are supposed to be observing. We note that much of what the entities who are associated with UFOs tell the percipients is out of place, contradictory or just ridiculous and does not seem to make sense. It sometimes almost appears as if whatever intelligence is behind these manifestations wants us to doubt the extraterrestrial theory of their origin and not believe these appearances. In effect it would seem to be deliberately negating itself.

It is of interest that there appears to be some relationship in the amount of distortion involved and the close proximity of the observer. The amount of distortion in the observers’ accounts of theirexperiences varies in accordance with the degree of strangeness of the contents of their encounters with, it appears, the most distortion occurring through the percipient being in close contact with the phenomenon, whereas with reports that involve contents of a low strangeness value there appears to be very little or no distortion. This would appear to suggest that the closer the witness is to the manifestations the greater will be the amount of distortion.

circleship

The closer the witness is to the manifestations the greater will be the amount of distortion.

One thing which must be emphasized here is that during the encounter the observer usually still accepts the element of distortion involved in the content of the experience as being totally acceptable and perfectly logical at the time it is occurring. Certain aspects may not make sense afterwards when looking back at what has happened but generally the experience is taken at face value and appears to be very much an objective event. However, the paradoxical cornerstone that casts so much doubt on the orthodox, physical-objective reality of these manifestations may help to cast light on the possible subjectiveness of these experiences and by a twist of true irony may still show that these encounters have an objective existence.

Let us look at another type of human mental functioning and see if we can find some similarities to the close-encounter experiences. For this we wish to turn to a kind of experience that is common to everyone – dream states. These are series of mentally created situations through which the dreamer passes blissfully unaware of their true nature, accepting them fully at face value just as he would any other situation in waking objective reality. In these nightly dramas of the mind he encounters an apparent world of objectivity, with real people, places and events. It is a reality at the time it is happening; to all intents it is the only reality for the dreamer’s mental functioning. It is fully accepted as such and is only questioned when the dreamer wakes up.

In the course of dreaming one becomes aware of a very strong element of distortion and symbolism which seems strange, bizarre and often totally ridiculous when seen in the light of objective consciousness. During the course of the dream state it is seen usually that the dreamer fully accepts all of this distortion, symbolism and illogicality as being a part of the dream reality state. It is usually taken to be perfectly real and objective no matter how contradictory it may be. In dreams the contents appear to negate the reality of the dream experiences but not to the dreamer at the time of the dream.

What is the importance here for ufology and how are these two kinds of experience related? There are two levels of awareness involved here; one is the waking state of awareness; the other is the dream state of awareness. The waking state is said to be conscious while that of the dream state is said to be a subjective state of consciousness.

It is usually held that waking consciousness is more important than dream consciousness and that the contents of the latter are of less importance and value than the former state of consciousness, with the dream state taking over control when the waking state is absent. But what if both states were equal and of equal value? Suppose it was coexistent with waking consciousness? Or what if the dream state was an alternative objective reality in itself?

Is it possible that the contents of both close-encounter experiences and dream states are from this alternative objective reality? And are they either transposed in dream states or superimposed in closeencounter experiences through and on to waking consciousness? Both dream states and close-encounter experiences appear to occur owing to a change in the consciousness level of the percipients.

It would seem from the contents of at least some of the close-encounter cases that they belong to a level of mental functioning other than that of the objective selfconscious level Distortion in these states could occur because of the attempt by the level of objective-perceptive consciousness to interpret them in accordance with the beliefs, views and rules of objective consciousness, when they are originating from another level of consciousness which has its own system of beliefs, views and rules. Perhaps if these contents were to be judged in accordance with their true level of function then the element of distortion would cease to occur.

Similarly, the distortion and ‘oddness’ that occur in the dream state may well arise owing to the waking level of consciousness trying to interpret the events of the dream state in accordance with events, beliefs, views and rules from the waking state instead of understanding them to be contents from another level of consciousness. It would appear that the deeper these contents lie in the human psyche the more liable they are to distortion and symbolism.

One may postulate that close encounter experiences and dream states originate from the subjective part of human consciousness, that they are created by intelligence and objectified through the channel of human consciousness to become an objective manifestation in the case of the close-encounter experiences and an objectified subjective manifestation in the case of the dream state.

Do these kinds of manifestations have any relevance for our understanding of objective reality? What is reality? Does this mean the perception of solid structures in the objective world and our interaction with them? What we call objective reality is very different to what most people would think.

Finally the question we must now ask is: Are the accepted objective states of reality that we all experience when awake and the objectively created dream states one and the same thing in both origin and in their manifestations?

 

The Case of the Liverpool Leprechauns. Nigel Watson

Posted on by
7

leprechauns-1

From Magonia 18, January 1985

Exceptional things were happening in Liverpool during 1964. When the Beatles returned to the city on 10th July for the premier of their first film ‘A Hard Day’s Night’, 150,000 people lined the streets to greet them. A less well known fact is that a few days earlier thousands of children, and curious adults, went hunting for leprechauns in a Liverpool park. 

This incident is of interest because of the rapid spread of the rumour and because it appears that the rumour was restricted to school children, and was especially strong among pupils of Roman Catholic schools in the area. According to the Liverpool Daily Post dated 2nd July 1964, the leprechauns were first seen on the night of Tuesday 30th June. Nobody knew how the rumour started, but one nine-year-old boy told the Post reporter, Don McKinley that “last night I saw little men in white hats throwing stones and mud at each other on the bowling green. Honest mister, I did.”

The centre of this leprechaun activity was the bowling green in Jubilee Park, which is to the east of the city centre in the Edge Lane district. On the second night of the scare, 1st July, the bowling green was so crowded that the police had to clear the park and guard it from the marauding leprechaun hunters who were prone to tear up plants and turf in their search for the little creatures.

A rather bewildered Irish park constable, James Nolan, who had to wear a crash helmet to protect himself from the children’s stone throwing, told the reporter that: 

“This all started on Tuesday. How I just don’t know, but the sooner it ends the better. Stones have been thrown on the bowling green and for the second night running no-one has been able to play. The kids just won’t go away. Some swear they have seen leprechauns. The story has gone round and now we are being besieged with leprechaun hunters.” 

Such was the violence of their search that the police had to set up a temporary first-aid shelter to treat at least a dozen children who suffered from cuts and bruises.

The Liverpool Echo and Evening Express for the 2nd July 1964 described the strange visitors as: “little green men in white hats throwing stones and tiny clods of earth at one another.”

The ‘little green men’ part of the story was possibly inspired by the testimony of a Crosby (north of Liverpool) woman who said that on the 1st July, she had seen: “strange objects glistening in the sky whizzing over the river [Mersey] to the city from the Irish Sea.”

This, apparently, explained how the leprechauns managed to emigrate from auld Ireland, though it was more likely a tongue-in-cheek addition by the editorial staff in order to make a ‘neat’ story. This supposition is supported by the fact that no exact date nor any information about the witness was given, and the local paper for the Crosby district did not report anything of this nature to its readers. It is also worth noting that the leprechaun hunt had already been going on for two days before this report was published, so the newspapers cannot be regarded as the originators of this scare.

However, the newspaper reports could well have inspired or fuelled a second leprechaun panic in the Liverpool area a few days later. Details of this will be given later in this text, but for the time being it is interesting to see that leprechauns were associated with UFOs in the public mind six years before the British publication of Jacques Vallée’s book Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucers. 

The Liverpool Leprechauns could have remained in our files as yet another datum of the ‘damned’ if it had not been for certain revelations published in the 26th January 1982 edition of the Liverpool Echo [3]. In this report a man called Brian Jones claimed he was responsible for the scare when he started to tidy his grandfather’s garden in Edge Lane, which backed onto the park. He wore some clothes suitable for gardening, which comprised a red waistcoat, a pair of navy-blue trousers, Wellington boots, a denim shirt and a woollen hat with a red bobble on it. As he sucked on his pipe, no doubt reflecting upon his sartorial elegance, he saw some children sitting on the ten foot high wall which separated the garden from the park. He heard one of the children say “It’s a leprechaun”.

Realising that his short stature, emphasised by the height of his grandfather’s weeds, and his extraordinary clothing, gave the children this impression, he decided to capitalise on their deluded perception. So he claims that: “I bounded into view, babbling made-up words, I jumped up and down, picked up turfs and threw them at the children.” Not surprisingly the children ran away in a ‘blind panic’.

The next evening he was again in his grandfather’s garden when he heard the noise of a crowd in the adjacent park. Looking over the wall he saw 300 children on top of a covered reservoir which gave them a good view of the bowling green. On seeing him they shouted: “There he is. There’s the leprechaun!” However, the children remained where they were, so for the next hour Brian entertained them by angrily shaking his fist at them and by tossing turfs into the air.

Afterwards he changed his clothes and visited the park to find out the reaction to his leprechaun impersonation. Here he found children boasting that they had seen two leprechauns, although some had to top this by saying they had seen six, or more!

The next day, a Saturday (according to Brian), crowds of children and adults went to the house in Edge Lane in search of the little people. Despite the efforts of the police the crowds did not disperse until after 11 o’clock at night. In the next two weeks children raided the garden in their search for the little people, causing damage to a shed and the garden itself. Things came to a head when Brian overheard two boys saying that they planned to shoot the leprechauns with an air rifle and deposit the bodies in jam-jars to prove to their teachers that the story was not a figment of their imaginations.

At this juncture Brian decided that something had to be done, so for three evenings he put on his leprechaun – act in the garden of an empty house six doors from his grandfather’s home. This did the trick so effectively that within a couple of months the city council had to demolish the house because of the devastation caused by leprechaun hunters.

Is Brian’s belated confession then the solution to the great Liverpool leprechaun panic? More than a brief glance at his statements will show that he simply makes matters more complicated rather than clearing them up. His story is full of contradictions and errors when compared with the contemporary press reports. For a start, Brian claims that the leprechauns were first seen on Thursday and Friday, and that on the Saturday crowds gathered near his grandfather’s home; yet the press tells us that the creatures were first seen on Tuesday, 30th June. Perhaps with the passage of time he just forgot the correct days and dates of the sightings, and just remembered the dates of the newspaper reports?

It seems odd that the newspaper descriptions of the leprechauns do not tally with Mr Jones’s description of his elegant outfit. None of the children noticed his red waistcoat, the red bobble on his hat, his navy trousers or his denim shirt. The ten-foot-high wall is of interest too. It could not have been the most simple thing in the world to climb, either for the children, or particularly for Mr Jones considering his short height and Wellington boots. 

It is also difficult to understand why the children on the second day did not approach the wall in large numbers and scale it in order to catch the ‘leprechaun’. The children of Liverpool are not normally that shy! Furthermore, all the children’s reports speak specifically of leprechauns in Jubilee Park and bowling green: there was no mention of any sightings in private gardens – and many of the children said they saw more than one creature. A search through the two Liverpool daily newspapers for the period covering July, August and September did not reveal any more reports of leprechauns seen in the neighbourhood of Jubilee Park, and no mention of the rather newsworthy event of a house being demolished through the depredations of their hunters. 

For these reasons we suspect that Brian Jones might be mistaken in his belief that he was responsible for starting this panic: perhaps after twenty years two separate events have become confused. 

Whatever the explanation for the start of the rumour, it is noteworthy that it spread very quickly, and generated sufficient interest for substantial crowds, including many adults, to gather in the park. It is also intriguing to see the injection of the UFO sighting into this context, even if it was a humorous attempt at an explanation for the presence of the leprechauns. In addition, the children who wished to insert the entities into a jam-jar remind us of those ufologists who believe (or hope) that the USAF has succeeded in preserving bottles or frozen ‘little green men’ 

No sooner had the Liverpool rumours subsided than a similar scare erupted several miles to the north-east of the city in the overspill town of Kirkby. The Kirkby Reporter on the 17th July 1964 [4] featured the following story, under the headline “Little Folk – and ‘Flying Saucers”‘: 

Flying saucers and leprechauns came to Kirkby last week – at least according to local children. What the connection was the children were not quite sure, but scores of excited youngsters invaded the Reporter offices on Friday, eager to tell they had seen both these things. 

A “strange object in the sky”, which changed the colour of its lights from red to silver, and was moving slowly at first, then very fast, was their description of the flying saucer.

The ‘flying saucer’ faction vied with the ‘leprechaun’ group for colourful descriptions. About eight inches high, with red and green tunics, and knee-breeches, thus the ‘little people were described. And, of course, they spoke with a strong Irish brogue. 

Origin of the wee folk remains a mystery, but so convinced were the children that hundreds of them plagued the vicar of Kirkby (Rev. J. Lawton) by invading St. Chad’s churchyard in search of the little people. At times the numbers were such that the police had to chase the children away. 

In the Liverpool Echo, 13th July 1964 [5] was the first account of scores of children searching the churchyard at St Chad’s for leprechauns. After what was described as two days of hectic activity, which probably began on Friday, 10th July, a relieved Rev. Canon John Lawton told the Echo’s reporter on the night of Sunday, 12th July, that: “The children seem to have been convinced at last that there are no leprechauns.” During the same period, children had also searched the grounds of St Marie’s Roman Catholic School and Mother of God Church, Northwood, Kirkby [5]. 

In many ways this panic seems to have been a continuation of the primary rumours originating in Liverpool. We should note that they could have been influenced by many reports from the general Liverpool area of UFO activity that July, which by their very quantity might have linked leprechauns with UFOs more firmly in the minds of the Kirkby children. Indeed, we might even speculate that the ‘original’ Liverpool rumours were inspired by a report in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Journal (9th June 1964), which may have reached some of the national or regional press. Flying Saucer Review, vol. 10, no. 5, page 18 [6,7] reproduced the following report from that paper: 

Flashes of light … loud buzzes in the night … little green men chasing each other round haystacks … egg-shaped flying saucers … the leprechauns aren’t loose and it’s no Irishman who is telling this tale – just the good people of Felling. For stories are going around Learn Lane Estate that flying spacemen in egg-shaped flying saucers are using the area for manoeuvres. So persistent are the stories that a full scale investigation has been launched by one organisation. 

And the little green men? They were seen by 14-year-old David Wilson. He said: “I saw several small green creatures about two feet high running around a haystack on a farm near the estate.” But not everyone believes the stories. Last night Mr M. Coates, headmaster of Roman Road junior school, denied that he had called a special assembly of pupils to discuss the little green man, or that he had told the children to stay away from the farm. He said: “There is no truth at all in these silly rumours.” 

Obviously Brian Jones could not have been responsible for all of these scares. So if he was not the cause of them, who or what was? In the case of the Liverpool happenings it could be argued that a ‘tall story’ got circulated at a local school and rapidly spread by word of mouth. The stimulus could have been the factors already discussed, or might have been an invented story that came to be regarded as relating to a real event. We must remember that older children are more receptive to ‘fantastic’ ideas and situations which might be regarded as a rejection of the assumptions of their parents and teachers about the nature of reality [8]. 

Freud claimed that fantasies are mental constructs of the imagination, liberated from the constraints of reality, and that: “the motive forces of fantasies are unsatisfied wishes, and every single fantasy is the fulfilment of a wish, a correction of unsatisfying reality.” [9] 

Indeed, we can say that because most of the children attended Roman Catholic schools and (in the Liverpool and Kirkby areas at least) were most likely of Irish descent, their Irish cultural background might well be regarded as a strong influences on the way such wishes might be expressed. Leprechauns play an important role in Irish folklore, and Kathrine Briggs [10] reminds us that the leprechaun was a fairy cobbler who lived underground beneath a fairy hill. Attempts at capturing him always failed. Another legend asserts that a boy with fairy blood in his veins was able to recover treasure from a cave guarded by the leprechaun. 

Can this legend, or some thin remnant of it, have been the reason why the children so vigorously sought to discover the leprechaun? Or was the rumour just an excuse for vandalism and some excitement? As with most aspects of folklore, and ufology, such rumours can be generated and sustained by a multitude of purposes and reasons.

In this case we have attempted to outline some of the difficulties involved in arriving at or accepting any ‘face value’ explanation of a set of rumours which consist of a psychologically and sociologically complex pattern of behaviour. 

Although these rumours were short-lived (although the newspaper accounts which gave this impression may be false. It is difficult to guess how long such rumours may continue to bubble beneath the level of media attention), the same urges for excitement and change from old ways of viewing the world can also be expressed by young people via pop music. It may be that the blossoming of ‘Merseybeat’ at that place and time was a manifestation of urges not far removed from those which brought the Liverpool Leprechaun into ‘reality’. 

REFERENCES:

  • 1. Liverpool Daily Post, Thursday, 2nd July 1964.
  • 2. Liverpool Echo, Thursday, 2nd July 1964.
  • 3. Echo, 26th Jan. 1982.
  • 4. Kirkby Reporter, Friday, 17th July 1964.
  • 5. Echo, Monday, 13th July 1964.6. Journal (Newcastle), 9th lung 1964.
  • 7. Flying Saucer Review, vol.10, no.5., p.18.
  • 8. See for instance ‘Enigma Variations’ in Fortean Times 33, or the articles on Paul Bennet in MUFON New Series 11 and 12.
  • 9. FREUD, 5. (1900) ‘Creative Writers and Day Dreaming’ in Creativity, P. E. Vernon (ed.), Penguin, 1970.
  • 10. BRIGGS, K. A Dictionary of Fairies.

 

Alternative viewpoints on the Liverpool Leprechauns by Granville Oldroyd and Ian S. Cresswell

We feel that there is a very real danger of making the mechanisms at work behind Liverpool leprechauns more complicated than need by be the over-use of complex sociological theories when more simple and easy to understand explanations are near at hand. We would rather suggest that the more likely cause behind this series of events was rumour which very quickly spread within the restricted confines of school, playground and neighbour-hood, which got out of hand and spread to other groups of children within the Liverpool area, before finally becoming just another silly season story and dying out. Word of mouth is one of the quickest ways of spreading such stories.Regarding the deeper psychological motivations behind the spread and belief of this story, there are many possible factors which could have played a part, but we see limits to this line of thinking. It is hard to see just what the significance the ‘Merseybeat’ mania had on the leprechaun rumours, and we doubt that the rumours were merely an excuse for malicious damage. It is also difficult to accept that the rumours were solely ‘wish-fulfilment’, or to put the incident down to an adolescent rebellion against the acceptable viewpoint of the adult majority. 

There often appears to be a fertile ground in which the seeds of rumour may be sown. Perhaps in this incident it was the Roman Catholic background of many of the children, and the real possibility that the largest group of them were of Irish ancestry. This being so, the initial story of the leprechauns would strike a responsive note in their cultural background. This does seem to be more likely that any belief in a link between leprechauns and UFOs.Perhaps this whole incident may be called a modern day fairy story, which in the fullness of time could have become a local legend. Indeed, have similar rumours been responsible for the corpus of fairy belief, a ‘mere rumour’ being handed down over the years? This may not be as strange as one might think, as rumour has often been shown to be the agency for the production of eye-witness accounts to events which have not taken place. 

Last Words, by Nigel Watson

In reply to those comments, I would agree that it would be nice to dispense with “complex sociological theories”, but by calling the collective behaviour of the type displayed by the children involved in the hunt for leprechauns ‘just’ a rumour does not help us very much. We have to find out why this rumour had such a powerful influence. Certainly the Roman Catholic background of the children could have been an important factor, but that does not exclude the possibility that wish-fulfilment or rejection of concensus reality, boredom or mischievousness, were not equally significant factors.I was not attempting to show that ‘Merseybeat’ had any direct influence on the leprechaun rumours. My intention was to show that at approximately the same time and place there was a blossoming of popular music which, for the performers and audience, was a vehicle for the expression of emotions which are normally kept under check. 

Common to both the leprechaun rumour and popular music trends are the “spontaneity, transitriness and volatility. It is these properties rather than the irrational behaviour of individuals under the sway of collective forces or the pressures of ‘group influence’ as such that set the phenomena of collective behaviour apart…” [K. & G. E. Lang, 'Collective Dynamics: Process and Form', in Human Behaviour and Social Processes, RKP, 1971] 

Obviously, we could argue about the causal, functional and cognitive aspects of the leprechaun hunts for several more pages without resolving the matter. Instead, I hope that we can examine some of these issues in more detail in futures studies of phantom airship and UFO ‘panics’. 

Final Last Words by John Rimmer. 

On the basis that this is not a private fight and anyone may join in, I would like to add one or two comments as a Liverpudlian who was living just two miles away from the events described, but regrettably remained blissfully unaware of them, I think both sides may be overplaying the question of the religious background of the children involved. Certainly, Liverpool has a high proportion of Roman Catholics, the highest of any major city in the UK, as a result of the massive Irish immigration during the nineteenth century. Although it would certainly be probable that any group of schoolchildren in Kirkby would be predominantly Roman Catholic, this would not necessary be the case in the Edge Lane district (unless, of course a Roman Catholic school was specifically mentioned in the account). Although most Liverpool Catholics are of Irish origin, it must be remembered that most such families were, by the time of these events, fourth or fifth generation immigrants, and it is a matter of considerable doubt just how commonplace folk tales and legends of Ould Ireland were around the firesides of Liverpool in 1964.I think the point raised about the Merseybeat phenomenon is valid. This had a tremendous social effect in Liverpool, not just restricted to teenagers. In many ways this was a period of massive social change in the city, which has yet to be adequately charted by social historians.

 

What Dreams Might Come. Ian Cresswell

Posted on by
Reply
From Magonia 16, July 1984.
Ian Cresswell examines the subjective nature of close encounters, and their similarity to dream and trance states.

While it has been assumed by many ufologists that the nature of the UFO phenomenon is of an objective nature with perhaps an element of subjectivity involved in some of the cases, the content of the close encounter experience seems to fully negate this belief. At first, this opinion may seem to be a fair possibility, going by the general appearance of the phenomenon; but not when these experiences are taken apart and certain strange inconsistencies start to appear, along with distortion, and other aspects that don’t make sense within this framework. Perhaps some people involved in our subject haven’t understood the extent of subjectivity present in the UFO phenomenon – especially with the close encounters.

I have made the decision to concentrate on C.E. cases because they seem to offer the most as far as contents and complexity are concerned, leaving us in the position to accept the experience as genuine or not, rather than also study the rest of the UFO phenomenon which could well be reports of many different things not necessarily connected with the close encounters.

One thing that I must make clear at the start is that I consider most of the close encounters to be genuine in as much as that the percipients are convinced of what they have experienced. The phenomenon is a reality – this is no longer in doubt. There will be only a small number of hoaxes in these cases and an equally small number that can be put down to psychosis.

Surprisingly, one of the first things that made me doubtful that there was an objective basis for these accounts was the large number of cases that have been reported from around the world. It seemed much too large a sample, and too wide a variety of types of craft and individuals, if physical objects were involved. A smaller number of cases and types would have been more convincing – what is involved here is more than just different descriptions of the same object or entity. Even individual cases with more than one witness produce different descriptions of the same events – more than one might expect from human error in descriptions. Similarly, there are innumerable cases where events lack witnesses, even in densely built up areas.

Many of these incidents appear to be dream-like in their appearance and contents. On the surface there is a pattern that so often emerges: one of apparent physical craft, with extraterrestrial occupants. Although the ‘plot’ seems correct, the script isn’t and the actors don’t seem to know their lines, judging by the nonsense they spout. So often in these cases objects will appear or disappear from nowhere; entities will appear through the walls of a craft rather than a doorway; objects will land on soft ground, yet leave no markings.

Some ufologists have tried to argue that these distortions and inconsistencies can be explained by the conscious will of the entities in an effort to confuse us as to their real identities, but this argument is merely indulging in intellectual somersaults in order to keep the phenomenon on an objective basis.

What the percipients are experiencing is a distortion of objective reality; they are perceiving a series of images superimposed on objective reality

I suggest that what the percipients are experiencing is a distortion of objective reality, and they are perceiving a series of images superimposed on objective reality, and indistinguishable from it. The origin of these images is subjective, and so is the process by which they emerge into consciousness. They occur outside the conscious will of the witness; they don’t cause them to happen, they can’t imagine them into being, because they occur spontaneously on a seemingly selective basis.

From the standpoint of psychiatry these images would be considered to be of an hallucinatory nature because the percipients are seeing something not objectively there. But this does not seem to be a satisfactory position, because largely the witnesses are not psychotic, and the hallucinations – if such they can be called – are clearly not pathological in nature. Although something is occurring on a subjective level it is no less real than something happening on an objective level: the images of objectivity are built from sensory data that is decoded in the brain.

Too often the unconscious is regarded as a dustbin with little of value in it, but its contents are far more than things which have been repressed because the conscious part of the psyche can’t face the truth. We can imagine the psyche like the proverbial iceberg, the unconscious being the seven-eighths underwater. We hold so very little at any given time in our conscious state, but within the depths of the unconscious lies a complete history of all that has happened to us on both a personal and racial level, and all that has occurred on the objective and subjective level.

It is from this combination of both conscious and unconscious that our night-dreams are made. I feel the images of close encounters are of a similar combined process, with more emphasis placed on that imagery that has never been conscious. Dreams are hallucinations, but are not pathological – or we all be psychotics: It appears that in the dream state we have the nearest comparison to the close encounter experience, both being formed out of subjective images that take on their own ‘reality’ when they are taking place.

It is said that dream states are very much like psychotic states, with the inner imagery continuing over into waking life. Schizophrenia appears to be a conscious dream state, but with one fundamental difference: in the dream state the sense of self and its relationship to the dream world is intact. The contents of the dream may be strange and bizarre, but they are still usually accepted as being real events at the time they occur, and it is only on waking their nature is revealed. In schizophrenia the sense of self is lost, and so are its links with other people, and the environment.It is not just a case of splitting away parts of the personality, but rather a total shattering of it. The schizophrenic believes in the reality of his hallucinations and delusions, and not just at the time they are occurring. This does not match the UFO percipient, as he accepts as reality subjective images which may happen only once in his life, with no further pathological reaction. He is perfectly aware of the rest of the environment and his links with it. The UFO event is the odd thing out and does not belong with the rest of the images of objective reality.

Although the dream state is very much like the close encounter it would not be true to say that the latter is a conscious dream, but their origins, and the process of becoming manifest within consciousness are the same.

Although the dream state is very much like the close encounter it would not be true to say that the latter is a conscious dream. But their origins, and the process of becoming manifest within consciousness are the same – this is the reason so many of the factors against the causation being objective stand out so clearly. The fact of distortion involved in these images is due to their unconscious nature, and has nothing to do with external events. The distortion of objective reality is because the origin of the images is different from that of the perceived state of the witnesses normal levels of consciousness. They only appear to have an independent existence because they are not a product of the conscious human mind.

A number of other factors involved in the process of manifestation also cause distortion in both dream-states and UFO encounters. The use of symbols instead of the actual object, and a symbol of a different type to that meant, causes a great deal of distortion. I am using ‘symbol’ in the sense of a subjective image portraying the contents of the unconscious. The same type of distortion can be seen with the process of ‘condensation’ which is the combination of a number of separate images to form one composite image.

Another factor found in both dream-states and close-encounters is ‘scene-jumping’. The perceived images suddenly change instantly into something else, apparently against all logic.

Before leaving the area of dreams and close-encounter experiences, there are three more subjective experiences worth considering. The first two can be classed together for convenience – hypnogogic and hypnopompic states. The former is the perception of dream images before falling asleep; the latter the perception of such images upon awakening. Their origins and processes of manifestation are the same as for dream states. Although technically, in psychiatric terms, regarded as being hallucinatory in nature, they are not pathological. They are just subjective images. These states are particularly relevant to ‘bedside visitor’ [or 'Old Hag' - Ed.] types of experiences reported in UFO contexts.

The other state I wish to look at is that of the ‘waking dream’. This is often just a single image, or occasionally a series, which breaks through the usual barriers of ego-consciousness to appear in the form of visual images that are superimposed on the environment with no apparent difference at first being noticed. These states are again hallucinatory, but not always pathological in nature. I say ‘not always’ because these states can occur with over use of narcotics or alcohol, or during periods of sleep deprivation. But they can also occur when a subjective image arises with enough associated emotion to drive it through the usual barriers of consciousness to manifest as an objective experience. These are often wish-fulfilments. During the non-pathological appearance of these images there is no loss of self and no loss of contact with the percipient’s surroundings.

It is of great significance that so many of the close encounter abduction cases have come to light because of hypnosis, often following a series of nightmares or a loss of memory following a UFO sighting. I feel that these cases do not argue the case for any objective event having taken place. In the hypnotic state a person will bring forth a series of images which are by now all subjective, regardless of whether they once had occurred in an objective state. In the hypnotic state reality, whether objective or subjective, is regarded as the same, and truth, fantasy and myth are all intertwined. The hypnotic subject will still be able to relate to it, and still feel very aware of self in these trance remembrances.

Regressed memories of this kind are no sure proof of the of the reality of the experiences, but they could well be evidence of its subjective ‘reality’. Consider if a person had a dream during which he encountered a grounded UFO and its occupants, which develops into an abduction scenario. Upon awakening,
like most dreams this is forgotten. But because of the high level emotional energy connected with it, it is likely to return to consciousness one way or another; usually in small remembered sections. Then under hypnosis the dream is brought back fully, and understood as a memory of an objective event of a physical nature.

We have seen how dream and other related states do throw light on the true nature of close encounters.

There is one more state of trance which I would like to suggest is of importance to our understanding of CE cases – that of somnambulism. In its classical psychiatric sense this means the carrying out of physical motor activities, often of a complex nature, while asleep – commonly called sleepwalking. At first glance this may not appear to have much relevance to our field of study, but I would like to draw attention to an important study by C.G.Jung; ‘On the psychology and pathology of so-called psychic phenomena’, first published in 1902, and can be found in the collected Works, volume 1: Psychiatric Studies. Although connected with hysteria, I feel the case is important because of the type of material coming out of trance cases, and the light it throws on the mechanisms involved in ‘paranormal’ activity.In view of the length of this case-study by Jung, I can only give a short summary, and then an extract from it. The case involves a young girl known as ‘SW’, fifteen-and-a-half years old, whose family and near relations manifested many unusual activities, often of a parapsychological nature, which would be of interest to ufologists.

The girl was ‘normal’ apart from a rather reserved manner which occasionally gave way to displays of exuberant joy. She heard about ‘table-turning’ from some friends in July 1899 and soon took part in it. It was discovered that she was a good medium, with communications of a serious nature taking place through the spirit of her dead grandfather.

Then in August of the same year her first somnambulistic attack took place. During this she became very pale, sunk down to the ground or onto a chair, closed her eyes, became cataleptic, drew several deep breaths, and began to speak. In this trance state she copied the voices of her dead relatives. Gestures and actions accompanied the words. These attacks, at their height, went on for about eight weeks, during which time numerous personalities spoke through her, answering questions put by the people present with Jung.

The general level of these massages was superficial and at times childish, whilst others appeared complex and intellectual. Sometimes during the attacks the girl’s eyes would be open, at other times closed. Although in a sleep-like trance she could walk around the room and perform complex physical motor activities, unaware that she was doing so.

If reported today instead of 1899 these events would almost certainly have been interpreted in a ufological context

In these trance states – which she took as being totally real – she was often taken by her ‘spirit guides’ to other parts of the world, to see relatives to see relatives and other people. During one of these trance-trips something happened which I think holds great significance for the understanding of close-encounter states:

“For instance, she once returned from a railway journey in an extremely agitated state. We thought at first that something unpleasant must have happened to her; but finally she pulled herself together and explained that ‘a star-dweller had sat opposite her in the train’. From the description she gave of this being I recognised an elderly merchant I happened to know, who had a rather unsympathetic face.

“Apropos of this event, she told us all the peculiarities of the star-dwellers: they have no godlike souls, as men have, they pursue no science, no philosophy, but in technical arts they are far more advanced than we are. Thus flying machines have long been in existence on Mars; the whole of Mars is covered with canals, the canals are artificial lakes and are used for irrigation. The canals are all flat ditches, the water in them is very shallow. The excavating of the canals caused the Martians no particular trouble, as the soil there is lighter than on Earth. There are no bridges over the canals but that does not prevent communication because everybody travels by flying machine.

“There are no wars on the stars, because no difference of opinion exists. The star-dwellers do not have a human shape, but the most laughable ones imaginable, such as no-one could possibly conceive. Human spirits who get permission to travel in the beyond are not allowed to set foot on the stars. Similarly, travelling star-dwellers may not touch down on Earth but must remain at a distance of some 75 feet above its surface. Should they infringe this law, they remain in the power of the Earth and musttake human bodies, from which they are freed only after their natural death. As human beings they are cold, hard-hearted, and cruel. SW can recognise them by their peculiar expression, which lacks the ‘spiritual’, and by their hairless, eyebrowless, sharply cut faces. Napoleon I was a typical star-dweller.” Psychiatric Studies, pp. 34-35.

There are many other interesting parts of this case study and I can only mention a few of them in passing. A ‘metaphysical chart’ was given on the nature of reality; a great deal about reincarnation and the past-lives of SW. The main period of activity was about eight weeks, with a steady decline over the next six months, until she was finally caught trying to fake physical apports during a seance. From this it would appear that as subjective images started to dry up, SW began to create, her own effects; a pattern similar to several close-encounter witnesses who have faked physical evidence to prolong the phenomenon after an initial genuine encounter. If reported today instead of 1899 these events would almost certainly have been interpreted in a ufological context – the imagery is identical.

I should add that Jung considered the case was a result of hysteria, and that SW’s experiences, although hallucinatory in their nature, had been conscious parts of the ego-state which had become unconscious, then returned, along with other types of internal unconscious imagery to form subjective image-visions of a non-psychotic nature.

In passing, I would also like to refer to another case of around the same period, that has been brought to light by Flournoy in his book From India to the Planet Mars published in 1900. This is the Helene Smith case, and again we have a young girl and a situation of trance-like state of consciousness. Through automatic writing she produced what was said to be the Martian language, but was later shown to be a mixture of French and Sanskrit, with pseudo-linguistic products of her own. This was not done consciously, but the girl was a victim of her own subjective nature. These cases show that today’s events are by no means unique, only the form has changed slightly, and, of course, our interpretation of it.

What we appear to be dealing with in the close encounter experience is something like the somnambulistic state which affects consciousness, to induce a state of semi-consciousness in the person under-going this experience. In this state subjective imagery, mainly from the unconscious, replaces the other ego-complexes to produce a trance state in which automatic behaviour still takes place.

Consider a driver going home on a lonely, deserted stretch of road. There is little to do but relax. It is dark, so there is little to see, and attention begins to drift, and turn to reflective inner thoughts, or else the driver will fall into a peaceful state of mind rather like the state just before sleep. These are the conditions in which the classic close-encounter or abduction occur – a bright light just above the road, a strange sound, and the light takes on the shape of a disc-like object. The car engine stops dead. Small entities emerge from the ‘object’ and approach the car. Suddenly the object vanishes in a flash, at the same time the car engine starts up on its own. The incident is over, and another CE III is recorded.But is this a physical event, is the car stoppage the result of a physical effect on the cars electrical system? I would rather postulate that the driver has experienced something that is totally subjective, in its nature and in its process of manifestation as a series of images imposed on objective reality.

Typically, the light is the first sign of something about to occur as the percipient falls into a different level of consciousness. Although still conscious and aware of his surroundings, the imagery that is being formed is doing so in the same manner as during a dream state, or during a somnambulistic state of trance. Then, as the state gets more trance-like the witness automatically (and thereby unknown to his conscious self) stops the vehicle.

The images become more solid and more complex as the elements from another level of functioning flood through the barriers that have now been broken between the percipient’s conscious and unconscious. The encounter is now the most important aspect of the percipient’s conscious field. As the trance state then begins to lose power, the images vanish, and as they do so the witness again starts up the engine. The incident is over, leaving the driver with no conscious memory of having controlled the car.It is interesting to see how large a part the presence of light plays before the start of all these subjective experiences. It is a light of a subjective nature.

Something very strange is taking place within the psyche of man, the dark side of the moon is becoming visible.

It may be important that the vast majority of these incidents take place during the hours of darkness, as with the coming of darkness the normal states of consciousness begin to alter, the mind is more receptive to subjective imagery from the depths of the unconscious. It may give rise to a state in which the dream has become a total reality for the percipient, as with Jung’s patient ‘SW’, their reality is accepted without question.

Something very strange is taking place within the psyche of man, the dark side of the moon is becoming visible. That which was invisible is now being manifested. Magonia is alive and well, functioning within the depths of the human unconscious.

But what is the nature of the intelligence behind this production of unconscious imagery? Can it be of archetypal origin? An archetype is a primordial unconscious image that is common to all people as part of the collective unconscious. This is why any subjective image of this nature could be experienced by more than one person at a time. Jung did not regard man as being the creator of these images, but that in some way we are the projection of them.These images seem to be of a purely subjective nature, having no place within the conscious ego-state. They appear to have been with us throughout history, with new ones being added with the passage of time. The close encounter experience and the images that are associated with it may signal the emergence of a new series of archetypal images centres around the theme of alien vehicles and occupants.

But is their original human one, or something much deeper that subjective myths and images only mirror? This is not a question that can be really answered by science working on an objective level, but one that can only be answered subjectively – an area that depth psychology appears to best give us an approach to.

What we are dealing with is not the product of pathology, but at the same time is some-thing very different from ‘objectivity’. Even at this state of our knowledge the answer can only be speculative.