UFO Hoaxing: Stephen Darbishire and Alex Birch
Part Two, Alex Birch.
David Clarke and Andy Roberts

From Magonia 75, July 2001

Part Two: The Alex Birch Photograph

In 1962 Alex Birch was one year older than Stephen Darbishire had been when he took the photographs that changed his life. His single black and white picture has since entered the UFO mythology as one of the best-known photographic hoaxes – or was it? Alex’s family were considerably less financially well-off than the Darbishire’s; the Birch parents lived in a modest house at Mosborough, at that time in Derbyshire but actually on the outskirts of the industrial Yorkshire city of Sheffield. Like Stephen Darbishire, Alex had a Catholic upbringing and it is clear that his parents Margaret and Alex senior had an open mind on subjects such as spiritualism and flying saucers.

Alex also had the backing of additional witnesses who initially pledged to stick by the story through thick and thin. They were Alex’s schoolpal David Brownlow aged 12 and an older friend, Stuart Dixon, then 16 years. of age. The instrument of ufological alchemy was a one-year-old box Brownie 127 camera which Alex continues to treasure, despite a recent bid from the Roswell Museum in New Mexico, who wanted to turn it into one of their exhibits. (27)

birch

"The instrument of ufological alchemy was a one-year-old box Brownie 127"

It was a grey Sunday morning in March and the trio were fooling around in a field near the British Oak pub five miles from Sheffield City Centre. Today the pub is surrounded not by trees but by modern housing developments. In uncannily similar circumstances to those described by Stephen Darbishire, Alex was taking experimental pictures with his new camera – snaps of a dog, of Stuart jumping into the air, of a stone being thrown and then, lo and behold… a formation of flying saucers! Five in all, hanging in the air, with dazzling white blobs emerging from their dark saucershaped fuselages. “I got my camera up and took a shot of them,” Alex told the Derbyshire Times. “A second or so later they disappeared at terrific speed towards Sheffield.” (28)

Alex soon became the centre of a whirlwind of publicity. His photo appeared first in the Yorkshire newspapers, then in the nationals during the summer of 1962, whilst the part played by the other two boys faded into the background. Alex’s father and his English teacher Colin Brook, both sympathetic to ET visitations, played a similar role to Dr Darbishire, promoting the pictures and playing heavily upon the naivety and natural honesty of young Alex. His father in particular played a major part in the promotion of the picture to newspapers and UFO societies. In a letter to Flying Saucer Review published in 1963, Birch senior wrote: “…I myself was a non-believer in these objects … [but now] I am firmly convinced that we are being visited by flying saucers of other planets.” (29)

Within months 14-year-old Alex was retracing the steps of his Cambrian predecessor, visiting London to address the inaugural meeting of the British UFO Research Association in Kensington on September 22, 1962. A contemporary, account of the meeting described how the schoolboy addressed a crowd of more than 200 members of UFO societies from across the country “… he seemed dwarfed by the speaker’s stand as he spoke faultlessly for four minutes.” (30)

BUFORA enthusiastically endorsed his pictures following an analysis conducted by one of their ‘experts’, Alan Watts. He concluded his report with the comment: “If we want the truth I would say we couldn’t do better than take these to be fairly normal Adamski-type saucers and argue it out from there.” (31) The editor of Flying Saucer Review, Waveney Girvan went further suggesting the saucer pilots were interested in Sheffield because “if there is life of any sort inside these flying objects it presumably needs water to sustain it …and Sheffield is surrounded by reservoirs.” (32) Predictably, the publicity that Alex’s photo received sparked a major flap in the Sheffield and Yorkshire region during the autumn of 1962 with dozens of others ‘seeing’ UFOs above the city. (33)

But the real highlight of the year was Alex’s visit to the very seat of power – Whitehall. Official interest was encouraged by Alex’s father who took it upon himself to contact the Air Ministry in July 1962. He informed them of the existence of his son’s photograph and said he was “awaiting instructions.” (34) After declining to make a field investigation, the Air Ministry slowly and reluctantly agreed to take a look at Alex’s photo in the face of mounting publicity. Alex and father subsequently paid a visit to Whitehall in a trip sponsored by the Yorkshire Post newspaper.

When the group arrived at the Ministry building the journalist was carefully separated from the Birch family and taken to visit the Public Relations office. Meanwhile, Alex was questioned by the two senior RAF officers whose job it was in 1962 to monitor UFO reports. These were Flight Lieutenant R.H. White of S6 – a predecessor of Nick Pope’s Secretariat (Air Staff) 2A – and a “technical consultant”, Flight Lieutenant Anthony Bardsley of the more shadowy Air Intelligence department DDI (Tech). An internal MoD account described the atmosphere at the meeting as “cordial (andl both Mr Birch and his son were prepared to talk about it [the photograph] at length.” (35)

Mr Birch senior seemingly had another agenda. In Flying Saucer Review he claimed his son was “sick with fear” when the interview began and said the officials “started what I will call a brainwash… asking him wasn’t it any reflection that he saw and what was the weather like, what were the formations of cloud… the questions they must have repeated at least thirty times…” (36)

In the re-telling the length of the interview at Whitehall increased from two hours to three (in FSR) and then to seven hours when recalled by Alex in 1998. He remembered walking up the steps of Whitehall with his father where the pair “met a man in a tweed jacket, flannels and a dickie-bow. We went down long corridors into a room where there were some men and a doctor. They took the negative and the camera and kept them overnight, taking the camera apart. They asked me all these questions for so long I got muddled, telling me they were not flying saucers but Russians,” (37)

Reading the Air Ministry file on the Birch case, preserved at the Public Record Office, it becomes clear that White and Bardsley did not believe the boy’s story but could not say so publically. In an internal memo dated September 24, 1962, released in 1993 under the ’30 year rule’, Bardsley writes to a colleague in S6: “…it is a relatively simple task to reproduce an identical photograph to the one we were shown… the sequence of exposures on the two strips of negatives we saw do not exactly fit the boy’s story.” Bardslev summed up his exasperation: “…perhaps this brief outline of these doubts will assist you in deciding what on earth you can write to Mr Birch.” (38)

After much deliberation, S6 decided on a classic fudge. In a letter sent to Mr Birch senior, and subsequently released by the family to the Press, the Ministry suggested the objects shown in the photograph were “ice particles in the atmosphere” an explanation that was rejected by just about everyone including the editor of Flying Saucer Review, Charles Bowen, who questioned whether the Air Ministry really believed their own explanation, which of course they didn’t!

To many observers, including Alex Birch senior, the Air Ministry statement simply confirmed their belief in an official cover-up. Birch claimed it was this statement that actually led him to believe flying saucers were extaterrestrial “and what is more, the Air Ministry knows also but won’t admit it.” (39)

Alex Birch had his brief moment of fame, and by 1972 the bubble had burst. By that time he had moved home several times but was still pursued by people he describes as “nutcases” and their endless questions about the saucers. Newly married with his first child on the way, continual ridicule led him to phone the Daily Express and admit the ‘flying saucers’ were simply cut out shapes pasted on a sheet of glass and re-photographed. According to his story, his father only learned the truth the day before the newspapers carried the story and begged him not to go ahead with the plan. The Sheffield Telegraph quickly tracked down another of the trio, David Brownlow, who confirmed the whole thing was a joke which snowballed.(40)

And there it stood until 1998 when, in the midst of short-lived UFO revival that accompanied the popular TV series The X-Files, Alex – now in his mid-50s and a successful antiques dealer – courted publicity once again. This time his story followed a familiar route taken by Stephen Darbishire as a result of his 1959 ‘confession’: it was the hoax that was in itself a hoax – the photograph was genuine after all!

“I did become internationally famous but I also faced a lot of ridicule and pressure,” Birch told Pete Moxon of Sheffield-based White’s Newsagency. “I decided to claim that it was a fake in hope that it would all go away and the pressure would be taken off me. But it didn’t work out like that… the UFO fraternity didn’t believe me, and they even called a conference in London and came to the conclusion that my change of story was due to pressure (from the Government!” (41)

Why had Alex waited until 1998 to tell the whole truth? “The reason I’ve decided to let the real story be known now is because I think it is important that the public should know.” Unfortunately. Alex’s two former schoolpals didn’t see it that way. David Brownlow and Stuart Dixon were still resident in Mosborough and both were contacted by the Sheffield Star before Alex was able to speak directly to them. Both men independently dismissed Alex’s new claim, although Stuart Dixon was later to retract his original statement but only after meeting his old friend for the first time since 1962.

Brownlow, however, was having none of it. “It was a hoax,” he told us. “Alex has always run with it more than we have. It was painted on glass. We were just messing around in Alex’s dad’s greenhouse when we had the idea to do it. We were all into Quatermass and War of the Worlds at the time. It was Alex’s idea to take the photo but then his dad and a teacher at the school got hold of it and we all got swept along with the hoax which just snowballed. Itwas an incredible experience and we had our ten minutes of fame, but I just want to forget about it now.” (42)

The most recent, and amusing, revival of the Alex Birch saga came via the pages of Flying Saucer Review. When, in the closing year of the 20th century, Birch’s latest claims reached the grand old man of British ufology, Gordon Creighton could not conceal his delight. The Birch photograph, Creighton assured the dwindling band of FSR subscribers, long dismissed as a schoolboy prank was genuine after all. It had been examined by none other than Kodak, who had pronounced it genuine and it was known also that the British Air Ministry and the Pentagon had received copies of the print “and conducted their own enquiries.” (43) Not only that, when Birch and his father visited the Air Ministry “the main preoccupation of the officials was to get both of them bundled rapidly out of London and back to Yorkshire before the journalists could discover their presence in the city.” In making this statement, he overlooked the fact that Alex’s visit to London had been made possible by the Birch’s own newspaper, the Yorkshire Post, a fact reported in FSR at that time!

Creighton’s obsession with the British Monarchy and his belief that they hold ‘secret knowledge’ of extraterrestrials denied to the public was woven into this latest twist in the tale. “Although I have no proof of this,” he wrote. “It seems pretty likely that Birch senior and his son were also invited to visit Buckingham Palace to discuss their case either with the Duke of Edinburgh himself or with his equerry.” (44)

Alex’s 1972 confession, Creighton added, had “little if any effect” upon what he called “the serious UFO research fraternity” but it clearly impressed FSR’s then editor, Charles Bowen. The implication was that it was not as easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the current editor. Large amounts of energy and money had been put into campaign to ridicule and denigrate witnesses such as Alex who had produced “dangerous photographs” and as a result were coerced or forced to put out “confessions.”

FSR’s editor could not resist the opportunity to pull out the ace from his sleeve, a case which supported his claims about the Birch photos in every respect. “Much has been done to try to destroy the authenticity of the other famous schoolboy photo, the Darbyshire [sic] one of 1954,” wrote Creighton. “But so far as we know, never without any success, and Stephen Darbyshire [sic] never issued a ‘confession’ and still asserts that his photo was totally authentic.” (45)

Like the saucers themselves the stories never stop spinning. For every person who ‘believes’ that Birch and Darbishire captured `structured objects of unknown origin’ on film you can easily find an equal and opposite sceptical view that both photographs were simple hoaxes.

In between there is every shade of belief and tortuous justification such as this example from the LUFORO Bulletin of July 1962. Using the logic of the believer the writer suggests that:

“on a cloudy day in February 1954, one of these objects sought out Stephen Darbishire who had a camera with him, and that in February 1962, on a cloudy day (giving cover) a group sought out Alex Birch who had a camera with him. This is a relationship or a group of relationships and is evidence for the following possibility: after the disbelief that greeted Adamski, how logical of these space visitors to give evidence of their actuality to boys of an age not to be considered quite knowledgeable enough to have fabricated evidence, yet old enough to be recipients of it. Both Stephen Darbishire, at the time, and Alex Birch had the intelligent presence of mind to point the camera, click the shutter, and move on the film. How many adults would have done so well; were these boys selected’?” (46)

Join the dots time. From Adamski to Darbishire to Birch, the saucer neatly squared in just a few words. ‘Objects’ without objectivity, unexplained photographs as evidence of ‘space visitors’, schoolchildren promoted as unconscious harbingers of the invaders. Neither Birch nor Darbishire are teenagers any longer, but they can’t escape from the monsters they helped create. Birch chose to follow his calling throughout his adult life whilst Darbishire retreated as quickly as possible from his creation. Like many others in the UFO cottage industry Alex Birch launched his own website, www.ufo-images.ndirect-co. uk. Yet in the same mercurial fashion as Birch’s sighting, the web site was there one day gone the next.

However, its existence and content gave further clues as to just how deeply Birch’s ‘UFO’ photograph had affected his life and maybe , some clues towards his original motivation. On his “fantastic site for UFO buffs and everyone else,” the web surfer could read about the Birch sighting, see and order copies of the photograph and purchase copies of the Air Ministry report. The experiences of the father have now been passed down to his son, Adrian, who advertises quality hand-crafted wooden models of classic UFOs, based upon those reported by 1950s contactees George Adamski and Howard Menger. It was an uncritical site, designed to market the case and to inform people about the sightings and how Alex saw mankind in the cosmic scheme of things. Echoing the apocalyptic fears expressed by many UFO witnesses and contactees, Birch wrote: “Perhaps we are in the infancy of our species. We peer into the Dark, fearing it, yet seeking within it a reassurance that we are not alone. Perhaps in the black void are beings not unlike us, but maybe wiser, better, who will tell us secrets that will save Us from Ourselves.”

Perhaps. But whether Birch’s ‘dark’, his `black void’, refers to deep space or the deeper spaces of the human mind is open to conjecture. As Diane Purkiss writes in her history of fairies and fairy stories, “The human mind cannot bear very much blankness… where we do not know, we invent and what we invent reflects our fears of what we do not know.” (47) Birch’s evocations from the dark have remained with him since that day in 1962 and now form a mainstay of his world view. Like his UFOs, over the past 39 years he has flickered in and out of the public eye trying to make sense of nonsense, trying to get us to see it his way.

Stephen Darbishire, child artist extraordinary, is now a sought after artist, living in remote rural seclusion. Our afternoon spent with him was more an exercise in semantics and verbal strategy than a witness interview, as the quotes in this article demonstrate. He said he didn’t really want to talk about his experience, but evidently couldn’t bear not to. Darbishire had, by his own agency, been to the heart of the ufological labyrinth and returned safely, able to relax in his farm house kitchen and play games with the past. He was luckier than most. He knew that we knew that he knew. But none of us could say it outright. Birch, on the other hand, was more evangelical, still trapped, still justifying, pleased to pose with the original camera and prints.

In 2001 the problems surrounding Birch’s photograph are no more resolved that in 1962. Indeed, the case is more complicated not least because of Alex’s claims of a lifetime of paranormal phenomena, experiences shared to some degree by his wife, children and other independent witnesses. (48) If the photo is a fake, then is Alex lying about these experiences too? If so are his family also lying? Why would anyone create such a web of deceit around themselves for no discernable reason? Yet what are the alternatives? Questions tumble over themselves in desperation to be asked, but any answers merely beg further questions. Only blind acceptance or outright accusation seem to offer any relief from the tension they created through the cameras lens.

Maybe it’s all as true as both Birch and Darbishire originally claimed, and five strange light emitting objects and one translucent domed Adamaski craft were really, objectively there in the physical sense, visible to the naked eye, trapped on film.

What then? We are still no nearer to divining what either boys actually caught on film. Or maybe – and this is certainly our belief, borne out by the interviews and evidence available – the photographs were both faked. But does that reduce them to mindless schoolboy pranks which got out of hand, or must we look deeper and acknowledge they were the outward expressions of Alex’s saucer-haunted life and Darbishire’s immense artistic and creative talents? These two photographs have taken on lives of their own, shaping the lives and beliefs of many UFO buffs, leading individuals further into the saucerous labyrinth which is ufology.

The parallels with the Cottingley fairy photographs are almost too obvious to mention. Again children – two cousins – were involved and again their stories were accepted by adults who wanted to believe. The two girls corroborated each other’s story and once it had become an article of faith, they found it impossible to confront the ‘truth’. In the Cottingley case it was only 60 years after the event when one of the girls, by then in her 80s, was confronted with undeniable evidence, finally admitted the they had faked the photographs. Even then, the other cousin swore that although most of the fairy photographs were hoaxes they were produced to prove to others the reality of the beings seen at Cottingley Beck. One of the group of pictures, she maintained, did show real fairies! (49)

The Peter Pan nature of childhood can convince us that our beliefs are as objectively real as the world of grown-ups. Or more importantly that they should be real enough for the adult world to see. So why not a little photographic alchemy to help things along, create a`rcality’ of vicarious experience.

Consider also the role of svengali like figures in at least one of the cases we have considered. Whilst the Cottingley Fairies led Conan Doyle, hard-headed contriver of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, up the garden path, Stephen Darbishire had Desmond Leslie. Leslie comes across as a trickster figure manipulating both witnesses and the subject itself, making random links between imconnected sightings.

Ultimately, no one knows the truth behind the Birch and Darbishire photographs but themselves. And, as we’ve shown they are no longer in charge of their own teenage narratives, having had them taken away by the adult world of the media and ufology, cut up and fed back to them so many times that their experiences are no longer their own. The original negatives are long gone and both Alex and Stephen have, by their own admission, intentionally blurred the line between reality and fantasy, asking, at various times for both, to be accepted as the truth. As investigators in these cases we find ourselves caught up in the dilemma that anything we write will also affect what others choose to believe, but won’t change what happened – and is still happening – to either Birch or Darbishire.

So, be warned. If your children claim to have photographed UFOs or any other mythical phenomena at the bottom of the garden, or if like Moses they return from the mountains bearing emulsion coated saucer scrolls their lives, and possibly yours, will never be the same again.

We prefer leave the last word to one of the three witnesses to the Birch case, Stuart Dixon, who said in 1999: “I find it far better and simpler to let people think what they want to about that photo. I don’t care anymore”

————————————————————————————————

Acknowledgements:

The authors wish to thank Stephen Darbishire, Alex Birch, David Brownlow and Stuart Dixon for granting interviews. Thank you also to Nick Redfern for copies of the PRO file on Alex Birch and Peter Hough for allowing access to the tape recording of his 1993 interview with Darbishire, conducted with Dr Harry Hudson. We wish to make it clear that the views expressed in this article are not shared by Hough or Hudson.

———————————————————————————————-

REFERENCES:

26. “Alex Birch tells his story,” Flying Saucer Review vol 9/1, 22 (Jan/Feb 1963)
27. Sheffield Star, 9 February 1999
28. Derbyshire Times (Chesterfield), 22 June 1962
29. “The Censors at Work,” Flying Saucer Review vol 912, 7 (March/April 1963)
30. FSR vol 911, 22.
31. Report by Alan Watts in BUFORA case file, 620009 dated 21 September 1962.
32. “Flying Saucers: The evidence runs on straight lines,” by Waveney Girvan, Sheffield Telegraph Weekend Magazine, 1 September 1962
33. See Clarke, Randles & Roberts, The UFOs that Never Were. London: London House, 2000, p 129-30
34. PRO Air 2116918, letter from A. Birch (snr.) to Air Ministry, 2 July 1962
36. PRO Air 2116918
36. Interview with Alex Birch, 6 Nov. 1998 37. PRO Air 2116918 38. FSR Vo19/2, 7
39. Sheffield Telegraph, 6 October 1972 40. Yorkshire Post (Leeds), 5 March 1999
41. Interview with David Brownlow, 3 December 1998
42. File 7824 Project Blue Book, National Archives, Washington D.C. contains a b/w print of the Birch photo and brief details of the 1962 sighting. The conclusion reads: “Insufficient data for evaluation. Negatives not with prints. No request made for photo analysis.” The photo was also reproduced in an article by CIA Chief Historian Gerald Haines “A Die Hard Issue: CIA’s role in the study of UFOs, 1947-90″ Studies in Intelligence, summer 1997, p. 70.
43. FSR vol 45/2 (summer 2000), 9-11
44. “Air Ministry Examines Saucer Photograph,” LUFORO Bulletin, Vol , JulyAugust 1962.
46. Purkiss, Diana. Troublesome Things, Alan Lane, 2000, p.11.
46. See David Clarke and Andy Roberts “Flash, Bang, Wallop – Wot a Picture,” in The UFOs that Never Were, p 136-41
47. See Cooper, Joe. The Cottingley Fairies (London: Robert Hale, 1990) and Sunday Telegraph (London), 12 July 1998.
48. Interview with Stuart Dixon, 6 April 1999

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

Return to Part One: Stephen Darbishire

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

UFO Hoaxing: Stephen Darbishire and Alex Birch.
Part One Stephen Darbishire.
David Clarke and Andy Roberts

Stephen Darbishire and Adrian Meyer [Illustrated magazine, February 12, 1955]
Stephen Darbishire and Adrian Meyer – from Illustrated magazine, February 12, 1955

From Magonia 75, July 2001

UFO HOAXING AND THE STORY OF ALEX BIRCH AND STEPHEN DARBISHIRE
PART ONE – STEPHEN DARBISHIRE

Whenever ufologists turn their attention to the subject of hoaxing within their subject the fundamental gulf between sceptics and believers is brought sharply into focus. Those who choose to invest belief in the ETH and other exotic explanations for the UFO phenomenon tend towards the simplistic party line that, yes, hoaxes exist, but they are few and far between and have little effect on `serious ufology’. Sceptics and more open-minded students of flying saucery are a little more realistic.

It’s perfectly true that as a percentage of investigated UFO cases, known hoaxes represent a tiny fraction. But simple bean counting misses the point entirely. UFO hoaxes may be small in number but those which exist have had a massive impact upon the subject, and have been far reaching in their influence.

Hoaxes are rarely just standard UFO reports. They are invariably photographic or document based. This makes them an easily displayable, marketable media commodity. Whereas a single witness sighting of a brightly lit UFO may only get, at best, a few column inches in a newspaper, a UFO hoax photograph, such as that created by Gordon Faulkner during the 1965 Warminster flap, will receive national media coverage. In turn this sort of exposure can add a stamp of validity (however specious) on to a hitherto disparate collection of UFO reports, turning local a flap into a national phenomenon. And so the cycle continues.

Listing and discussing known hoaxes would be tedious. The information is available in the literature for those who wish to seek it out. Most of you will already be familiar with it, and how hoaxes like Gulf Breeze, MJ-12 etc have affected the subject. One small part of our research in recent years has focussed upon those suspected hoaxes that had a huge impact upon the media and ufology but, more importantly, have continued to influence the witness/perpetrator, We all too often forget that people lie at the centre of the UFO mystery and what happens to individuals who are thrust into the public eye, and how their views about their alleged experience/s change and mutate over the years, is often forgotten or overlooked.

The cases under discussion here exemplify the problem in that they are in the borderlands, being neither 100% proven hoaxes or unequivocally from ‘out there’ but continue to exert a deep influence upon the public perception of UFO mythology. The Alex Birch and Stephen Darbishire photographs are classic UFO photographs, much written about and much speculated upon. Both these cases impacted hard on British ufology. As we will see they impacted even harder on those involved with them. They also give an important insight into the nature of hoaxing and into the heart of early British ufology.

UFO cases come and go, witness names and case details used like happy family cards to justify one theory or to trump another. Classic cases are repeated by rote, the humanity ripped out of them to satisfy UFOlogical obsessions and facts. It’s the frequent cry in Internet rooms such as UFOupdates that sceptics don’t take witness testimony seriously, but how many of these smug internet keyclickers take the trouble to track down witnesses to classic cases and or try to make sense of their stories? We did. Whether there is any sense, whether their stories are true or false only you can decide.

The Stephen Darbishire photograph

Flying saucers arrived in the British Isles in the late summer of 1950, when two popular weekend newspapers, the Sunday Dispatch and the Sunday Express, launched a major media promotion campaign. Both papers competed to serialise the seminal books by Major Donald Keyhoe Plying Saucers are Real, Frank Scully’s Behind the Flying Saucers and Gerald Heard’s Riddle of the Flying Saucers. Behind the scenes, the editor of the Sunday Dispatch, Charles Eade, was quietly encouraged to promote flying saucer stories bv his friend Lord Mountbatten, whom he had served as Press officer during the Second World War (3). Mountbatten, who was at that time a personal believer in the ET origin of the saucers, felt the subject should be taken seriously and wanted to make the public aware of the ‘evidence.’

The Sunday Dispatch played an influential role in creating the first real flying saucer invasion of Britain. The popular newspaper featured saucer sightings prominently on page 1 on a number of occasions throughout the early 1950s much to the chagrin of its rivals, but Eade took great pains to protect the source for his original story that he claimed in October 1950 was “bigger than the Atom Bomb wars.” Partly as a result of this first tabloid-style hype, the Dispatch’s circulation rose from a mere 700,000 copies in the late 40s to 2,400,000 when Eade left the editor’s seat in 1957. (4)

The flying saucers had arrived and the ground was prepared for ever more bizarre and incredible stories. By the autumn of 1953 when George Adamski’s book with Desmond Leslie, Flying Saucers Have Landed was first published the Britain, the public were already primed to accept the incredible (5). It was an era of rapid technological progress and great optimism that mankind would soon be taking steps into outer space. As a result, the British public eagerly lapped up the stories describing military jets outpaced by saucers and puzzled over the photographs taken by a humble American farmer, Paul Trent, allegedly showing a flying disc (again featured on page 1 of the Sunday Dispatch). The next logical step was a story claiming a flying saucer had landed, followed by the first photograph taken in the British Isles. Both events were to follow in the space of little more than 18 months.

“… It had to happen- It has happened. A flying saucer has landed , in the United States!”

This was how science editor Maurice Goldsmith opened the story published in the October 3, 1953 edition of the popular London-bascd magazine Illustrated. Entitled ‘Happy Landings from Outer Space’ the article featured a half-page b/w reproduction of the classic ‘bottle cooler’ photograph taken by US contactee George Adamski at Palomar Gardens, California, on December 13, 1952. The photo it was said, depicted a flying saucer ‘Scout Ship’ 35 feet in diameter, complete with three portholes and three ‘landing spheres’.

Also featured in the magazine were photographs of six flying saucers and a cigar-shaped ‘Mother Ship’ taken on March 5, 1951 and an artist’s impression of the ‘man from Venus’ Adamski claimed to have met near at Desert Centre, Arizona, in November the following year. Goldsmith adopted a tongue-in-cheek stance throughout his extended review of the book and concluded dryly: “…unfortunately, Adamski*s logic is poor and I am prepared to wager that if ever I see life from Venus it will not look anything like me, or Mr Adamski or the being he encountered.” (6)

Many thousands of people read the article in Illustrated, and the follow-ups that appeared in the national newspapers during the winter of 1953-54. Adamski’s photographs and claims were transmitted across the world, and the exciting story of visitors from other planets were the very stuff of schoolboy fantasy. So widespread were the stories that news of the arrival of the flying saucers reached Little Arrow Farm at Torver, in the beautiful surroundings of the English Lake District, during the winter of 1953-54. Little Arrow was the home of Dr S. B. Darbishire, a GP who had retired to run a small farm in the fells below Coniston Old Man (2,575 ft). He had a son, Stephen, then aged 13, an intelligent, creative boy who had displayed a talent for art that he would eventually develop into a career as an adult.

Dr Darbishire had been brought up as a Quaker and his son Stephen says he had “a good sense of humour and a very inquiring mind; he would accept nothing, questioned everything he was told and loved excitement.” More excitement than many people experience in a lifetime was soon to follow. Within six months of the publication of Adamski’s book, Stephen became the first person in England to take photographs of a ‘flying saucer’ hovering near the Old Man.

The story began – as in so many other UFO photo cases – as a result of what Stephen describes as “an accident” of history. On the morning of February 15, 1954, Stephen – then a pupil at Ulverston Grammar School – and his eight-year old cousin Adrian Meyer set off for an expedition on the slopes of the fell below the Old Man armed with an “old fashioned” Kodak box camera recently purchased by his father. To this day, Stephen maintains that at this point he knew “absolutely nothing” about the subject of flying saucers. According to Desmond Leslie’s account the youngster experienced “a nagging persistent restlessness” that fateful morning, as if something was urging him that he must go up the hill behind his home: “…he could not tell why: he merely knew he had to.” (7)

The pair planned to take pictures of birds and other wildlife in a small hill valley on the slopes below the Old Man. Stephen immediately raises doubts about the reality status of the photographs he obtained when, today, he recalls how: “My cousin and I had been fooling around taking pictures… [doing] trick photography and lots of other exciting things with it, double images, ghosts, jumping off rooftops and that sort of thing.”

What happened next is a little ‘out of focus’ – as were the photographs that resulted from this encounter with ‘the unknown.’ According to the story told by the boys in 1954 it was Adrian who first drew Stephen’s attention to something odd in the sky in the direction of the mountain. The older boy was at that moment looking in the opposite direction, towards Lake Coniston when Adrian thumped him on the back and exclaimed: ‘Look what on earth’s that’?” pointing to the sky above Dow Crag. The ‘object’, according to the first published account (in the Lancashire Evening Post, Preston, February 18, 1954) had a silvery. glassy appearance, shining “like aluminium in the sunlight.” It glided towards them from the direction of Coniston. descending until it disappeared behind a piece of high ground, once again coming into view again a few seconds later. It approached within 400 yards of two startled boys, travelling at tremendous speed, and then stopped suddenly and hovered, noiselessly, in the sky.

Stephen told a reporter they could clearly see every detail: “The object was glistening and it was a silvery milky colour. You could tell the outline of it very plainly indeed and see portholes along the upper part, and a thing which looked like a hatch on top. There were three bumps underneath and the centre of the underneath part was of a darker colour. I took the first picture when it was moving very slowly about three or four hundred yards away and then it disappeared from my view as there was some undergrowth in the way. When it came into sight again I took another picture but then it suddenly went up into the sky in a great swish. As it went upwards it tilted and I could see the underneath side more clearly. There was some sort of whistling sound as it went up which I think was the wind.” (8)

Immediately the boys ran down to Little Arrow Farm where they found Dr Darbishire and the family watching TV, oblivious to the events unfolding outside. Stephen recalls how the two excited youngsters rushed into the farmhouse and blurted out how they “had seen something strange … I think I used the words ‘a flying saucer’ and of course evervone fell about laughing and said ‘oh yes. Stephen, you’ve been up to your tricks again.”‘ Stephen’s father, according to Desmond Leslie, “frankly did not believe it” but made his son sit down and write a statement and make a sketch of what he had seen within half an hour of the sighting taking place.

Stephen quickly produced some remarkable and accomplished pencil sketches of a classic Adamski ‘flying saucer’ before his two photographs were reproduced in celluloid. They consisted of two detailed drawings of a ‘Scout Ship’, complete with turret, three portholes and landing gear, almost but not exactly identical to those which had appeared in the magazine Illustrated during October 1953. Other sketches depict the craft at different angles, possibly showing its method of departure. In longhand beneath the drawings appear the words: “Drawing by Stephen Darbishire, aged 13 years, of what he saw, done before the two photographs of the flying saucer had been developed.” (9)

Dr Darbishire delivered the film for development to a lab in Coniston village while Stephen was away, staying with his godmother. When the film was returned the retired GP could not believe his eves. For the final two frames on the film did show a fuzzy, saucer-shaped object apparently suspended above a grassy hillock. Although out of focus, in the best picture it is possible to pick out what appear to be ‘dark portholes’ and three ‘landing domes’ as described by Stephen at the time.

Stephen recalled: “When I came back my father greeted me off the bus at 8 o’clock in the morning and said `right, come on inside.’ He was very agitated and he said I’ve got so and so from the the Daily Mail arriving in half an hour. Before I knew it we had half the world’s press on the doorstep”. What happened next, as they say, is history. Stephen’s story and a reproduction of the clearest photograph, the first in the sequence, was published on page 1 of the Preston-based Lancashire Evening Post. Within days photos of Stephen, Adrian and the ‘flying saucer’ had appeared in the national Press. On February 26, 1954, the Lancashire Evening Post became the first British newspaper to reproduce Darbishire’s sketches and photograph alongside those of the Venusian ‘Scout Ship’ taken by Adamski, having obtained special permission from “the leading British expert on the subject,” Desmond Leslie. Al Griffin of the Post noted how “…we are assured… that Stephen had never seen the Adamski pictures” when he produced the sketch. What the paper described as “space travel enthusiasts, flying saucer fans, scientists, scoffers and sceptics” were all left to draw their own conclusions.

During the media frenzy that followed publication of the photographs, Stephen’s written statement was overlooked. The original, or what is purported to be the original, was reproduced in Leonard Cramp’s book Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer and poses a number of questions. Most important is the sentence that reads: “…Adrian and I were down in a small hill valley so the rising in foreground of photo is due to the position we were in. Some grass is shown under the saucer.” If these words really were committed to paper within half an hour of the experience as claimed and therefore some days before the photographs were developed, how could Stephen know what, if anything, was depicted on the negatives that were, at that point, still inside his father’s camera? Sadly, no one other than the editor of Flying Saucer News felt it necessary to ask this very relevant question at the time. (10)

Equally of interest are Stephen’s words describing the point immediately after the photo was taken: “…just as I had finished the flying saucer (which I now thought it must be) shot off up into the clouds…” A curious turn of phrase for a boy who claimed he had “no knowledge” of flying saucers! Desmond Leslie, who travelled to Coniston on February 23 and was a guest of the Darbishire family for two days. soon dismissed the possibility that Stephen had faked the photographs. During his stay “Stephen never once contradicted himself [or] made a remark or inadvertent slip suggestive of a hoax,” wrote Leslie who was at that time promoting Flying Saucers Have Landed. He saw young Stephen’s photographs as corroborative evidence of Adamski’s outlandish claims. Leslie notes that Stephen did not make any slip-ups when questioned by four hardened journalists and a crew from BBC TV. The boy’s father maintained that he too had cross-examined both Stephen and Adrian thoroughly before deciding to “go public” with the photographs. He said they stuck by their story even when warned about the trouble they could be in if the story was a hoax. He was convinced thcy were not lying.

But the most suspicious statement of all is hidden within Leslie’s attempt to pursuade readers that Stephen had never read his book Flying Saucers Have Landed or even an abridged version of Adamski’s claims: “..he [Stephen Darbishirel admitted he had seen the photograph of the Adamski saucer as published in Illustrated on 30th September [sic] 1953.” (11)

If Leslie’s account is accurate then Stephen clearly had seen Adamski’s Scout Ship photo, published four months before his own photographs showing a similar craft were taken. Indeed, how else could the youngster have produced such an accurate pencil drawing of a ‘Scout Ship’ complete with three portholes and landing gear? Clearly this left just two stark alternatives: either Stephen had seen an identical Venusian Scout Ship as described by George Adamski, or he had reproduced the photograph he had seen in Illustrated and somehow transferred this to celluloid.

Perhaps realising the problems this admission created for the story Leslie claimed that Stephen maintained “although this saucer picturc [published in Illustrated] had shown a saucer with three portholes in a row, the one had seen had four in a row.” In the drawing he produced immediately after the sighting Stephen drew only three portholes. “but as the saucer went away it turned slightly so that a fourth porthole came into view.” For Leslie that was evidence enough, for he knew that in one of the unpublished Adamski photos four portholes in a row are clearly shown.

“He [Stephen Darbishire] did not know this!” exclaimed Leslie with obvious glee. “This, on top of the other evidence, fully convinced me that Stephen ,vas not only telling the truth but also that he had seen the same saucer (or an identical model) as Adamski.” (12)

In the heady days of 1954, these problems seemed irrelevant. Through accident or design Stephen Darbishire became a national celebrity overnight. His pictures were flashed around the world, and before February was out the inhabitants of Little Arrow Farm had been introduced to what today Stephen calls “the world of sympathetic magic, modern magic” Desmond Leslie was just the first flying saucer believer to visit Coniston to experience the vibes of the ‘Space visitors’. Leslie lost no time in proclaiming Stephen’s photo as “the second of the Adamski type to be photographed in the world” and told the local newspaper: “I am satisfied that Stephen saw what he says he saw… this visit or contact has been expected for some time.” (13)

Before the March was out Stephen had been invited to a saucer-spotters convention in London where delegates scrutinised blurry enlargements of his photograph. He recalls how “it all got rather hysterical and one chap leapt up and said he could see a face in a porthole.”

It was during this visit to London in March 1954, that Stephen and his father were secreted into a car and driven to Buckingham Palace to meet one of the Duke of Edinburgh’s private secretaries. It was claimed the invitation came from the Palace via Desmond Leslie who had contacts at ‘the highest level’. In fact, the Sunday Dispatch got wind of the meeting soon afterwards and reported how Prince Philip had read about Stephen’s sighting in the newspapers “and wanted to know more.” (14)

The Royal Equerry, RAF Squadron Leader Sir Peter Horsley was at that time involved in his own “saucer” study with the blessing of the Duke, and “the Darbishire boys” became the latest in a series of saucer-spotters who were invited to his office to discuss their sightings. In his autobiography, Horsley says he was “impressed by their story and truthfulness” and notes Dr Darbishire “was not relishing the publicitv and notoriety the family were receiving from the newspapers.” Horsley sent a report of the meeting to the Duke, who was in Australia at the time, and asked a professional photographer, Wallace Heaton, to examine the negatives. His conclusion said, in summary: “Yes, they could have been faked but they were so good it would have cost quite a lot of money.” This left the RAF veteran puzzled: how could an ordinary farming family find the money to finance an elaborate hoax and even if they had, what was their motivation? “Was there a wider conspiracy?” he mused. (15)

Stephen Darbishire’s visit to Buckingham Palace was just the beginning of a series of adventures which led him and his family further and deeper into the bizarre world of the flying saucer cult. Visitors called in at the Darbishire family home without invitation, and letters arrived by the sackful including one from none other than Lord Dowding, the Battle of Britain hero – another highly placed saucer believer at that time. In 1959 Stephen was introduced by Desmond Leslie to George Adamski at a meeting held in London during the contactee’s lecture tour of Britain and Europe. Stephen, who was by then attending art school, remained “unimpressed” by the contactee who he dismissed as “mad, mad as a hatter… somewhere else altogether.” It was at this stage, Stephen told us in 2001, that he asked himself: “How can I be involved in this, how can I actually be sitting here with these people?”

The teenager was by now feeling increasingly that he was pawn in other people’s games, that the photo was no longer his property “…all I was being used for was an instrument of verification.” As a result he decided the best way out was to put the word around that his photos were in fact fakes so he could go back to living a normal life.

In a letter sent to UFO author Timothy Good in 1986 Stephen told how “…in desperation I … said it was a fake.” (16) But as Alex Birch and others who followed in Stephen’s footsteps were later to find, the ‘hoax’ declaration did not bring an end to the notoriety – rather the opposite: “I was counter-attacked, accused of working with the `Dark Powers’ … or patronisingly ‘understood’ for following orders from some secret government department.”

While Stephen remained detached from the strange characters and even stranger beliefs that surrounded his experience, he found the biggest impact of all was upon the lives of his parents. Following the experiences of 1954, Dr Darbishire underwent what his son described as “a midlife crisis.” The visitors and attention his family received from the flying saucer movement opened up a whole new world of possibilities and Daibishire senior became drawn into the world of the occult, collecting a huge library of books on a range of esoteric subjects. The workshop at his farm became a laboratory where he constructed strange machines that utilised revolving lights to detect the human aura and effect alternative cures. Similarly, Stephen’s mother was also profoundly affected by the experience and became more interested in the spiritual world.

In 2001 Stephen Darbishire – the artist – prefers to play down the significance of his best known piece of work, growing weary after almost half a century of tiresome questions. Yet the central mystery that eluded Sir Peter Horsley remains: just how could a young boy, who claimed he “knew absolutely nothing about flying saucers” manage to “create” one of most mysterious photographs in the history of the subject’? And if it wasn’t faked, then what exactly did the photograph depict?

“An object,” was the simple but ambiguous answer Stephen Darbishire gave when this question was asked in 2001. What is not in dispute is that Stephen shared his father’s inquisitive nature and creative talents – and clearly his sense of humour too, an attribute also associated with another influential personality entwined within this story, Desmond Leslie. Interviewed in 2001 Darbishire continues to maintain he had never seen Adamski’s photos when he produced his drawings and photographs, contradicting his own statement to Leslie in 1954 that he had indeed seen the pictures that appeared in lllustrated, the year previously.

How likely was it that the 13-year-old living in the early 50s had never heard of ‘flying saucers? Not very likely, it seems. A survey of newspapers published in Cumbria during 1953-54 revealed an earlier saucer sighting, pre-dating Darbishire’s experience, made by three Coniston schoolboys who claimed to have seen a saucer pass over the village as they waited for a bus. Another sighting followed at the village of Askam. (17) Surely a boy with such inquiring mind as Stephen Darbishire had would have heard about these sightings, if not in a newspaper then on the local grapevine, along with the stories about flying saucers widely published in the national media?

Stephen was in fact quoted in the London News Chronicle as claiming a second sighting, just five days after the photograph was taken, of “a cigar-shaped object, again near Old Man” and added “since then I have studied reports of flying saucers and believe in them.” (18) Was it entirely coincidental that the second sighting was of a cigar-shaped craft – of the `Mother Ship’ type photographed by Adamski and published alongside the Scout Ship pictures in that widely-read issue of Illustrated?

Wherever the inspiration for those sketches came from, what can be said about the photographs themselves? Very little, because according to Darbishire both the negatives and all the surviving prints were stolen or borrowed and never returned. Although Stephen remained convinced he had correctly focussed upon ‘Infinity’ before the saucer had appeared,

the “object’ depicted in both photographs is out of focus. The explanation for this curious anomaly suggested at the time was that “the bellows of his small camera were not fully extended.” This theory was disproved when Desmond Leslie experimented with the camera at the place where the photographs were taken, taking a number of exposures using different combinations of shutter speeds and bellow settings. The results suggested the camera was in fact correctly focussed, but Leslie suggested that Stephen had altered the shutter setting by mistake during the excitement of the moment.

The reproduction of the photo featured in most UFO books is in fact the first picture taken as the youngster spun around when alerted to the saucer’s presence by his young cousin. In the second photo, rarely published in the UFO literature, the `craft’ appears partly distorted on its right-hand side, as if the craft’s angles are ‘slewed round.’

It was an effect that a writer in Flying Saucer News explained as being the result of UFOs’ ability to change shape “prior to warping into hyperspace, or another dimension.” (20) This peculiar feature has since been seized upon by Timothy Good as evidence to support the authenticity of the notorious Silver Spring film taken by George Adamski in 1965. In the film the ‘Scout Ship’ displays a similar distortion of its dimensions. (21) On the contrary, there is no good reason why Adamski could have not been aware of Darbishire’s second photo. Darbishire met Adamski in London during 1959 – six years before the Silver Spring film was produced – and would certainly have been shown both photographs taken by the youngster in the presence of his host, Desmond Leslie.

Despite the underlying doubts, believers in the Space People were overjoyed when aeronautical engineer and Saunders-Roe hovercraft designer Leonard Cramp used a method he called ‘orthographic projection’ to demonstrate that the objects depicted in the Darbishire and Adamski photographs were proportionally identical. (22) This should not be so surprising if theobject photographed by Stephen Darbishire was based upon the photograph of the Scout Ship he had seen in Illustrated and so faithfully reproduced in his pencil sketches just half an hour following his ‘sighting’.

So what was the “object? During the writing of his bestselling Above Top Secret author Timothy Good approached Stephen and asked if the experience was genuine. Stephen, then 46 and back living in his native Cumbria, would say only: “It happened a long time ago, and I do not wish to be drawn into the labyrinth again.” (23)

Today he continues to distance himself from the flying saucer buffs who staked so much of their belief system in the authenticity of those two photographs. After almost half a century Stephen’s original account of the Adamski Scout Ship with portholes and turret has been replaced by a description more fitting the preoccupations of the 21st century.”By the time I took the second photo it had gone,” Stephen said. “There was nothing dramatic like people at windows or anything… it looked like a cloud to me and when it first happened I thought ‘that’s a funny shaped cloud’”. The original glistening, translucent metal had become a “preternatural light.” (24)

And what of Adrian Meyer, who despite being the first to see the UFO, faded into the background and never received the attention of his elder cousin? Could he provide the key to what really happened that cold February afternoon in 1954?

“I met him recently for the first time in many years,” Stephen told us candidly. “He wasn’t involved in it really. He just sort of ‘blinked twice.’ He dosen’t remember anything about it and probably thinks we made it all up. He just said ‘that was a load of baloney, wasn’t it’?”

The other major player in the Darbishire photo case, Desmond Leslie, passed away in February 2001. His obituarv described his extraordinary life as rivalling “any fiction by Nancy Mitford or Anthony Powell. with overtones of a Fifties sci-fi movie, and a little Weimar decadance thrown in.” (25) One of his final notes, faxed to Stephen Darbishire, read: “Dear Stephen, how lovely to hear from you again; you know it’s extraordinary that there are still people taking pictures of the old flying saucers… where can they find those 1930s lampshades from, I thought they had all gone out of production.” Stephen said of him: “You never knew with Desmond. He appeared to believe completely, but he also had a great sense of humour.”

Echoing Alex Birch – soon to follow in his footsteps – and many others caught up in the UFO labyrinth through accident or design, Stephen summed up his feelings of that time:

“It was a one-off experience that lasted 30 seconds but the repercussions are still reverberating I don’t have any idea about its significance, except that it was one of these things that happen out of the blue that you are caught up in. It’s just a type of accident.”

__________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

  1. Leslie, quoted in Cramp, Leonard. Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer. London: Werner Laurie, 1957, p. 173.
  2. Interview with Stephen Darbishire, 7 April 2001. All subsequent quotations are drawn from this interview unless otherwise referenced.
  3. Ziegler, Philip. Mountbatten: The official biography. London: 1985, p. 494.
  4. Sunday Dispatch (London), 14 April 1957
  5. Adamski, George and Leslie, Desmond. Flying Saucers Have Landed. London: T. Werner Laurie, 1953.
  6. Illustrated (London), 3 October 1953
  7. Leslie, in Cramp, op. cit., p. 13
  8. Lancashire Evening Post (Preston), 18 February 1954
  9. “Saucers over Britain,” by Waveney Girvan, Illustrated, 12 February 1955.
  10. See “Coniston Puzzle” in Flying Saucer News: Journal of the British Flying Saucer Bureau and Flying Saucer Club, vol 1/9 (summer 1955), 19.
  11. Leslie, in Cramp, p.17
  12. Ibid.
  13. Lancashire Evening Post (Preston), 24 February 1954
  14. Sunday Dispatch (London), 24 March 1954
  15. Horsley, Sir Peter. Sounds from AnotherRoom. London: Leo Cooper, 1997, p. 180.
  16. Good, Timothy. Above Top Secret. London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1987, p.37, 373.
  17. Lancashire Evening Post (Preston), 19 February 1954
  18. News Chronicle (London), 22 March 1954
  19. [to be confirmed]
  20. Flying Saucer News, op. cit.
  21. Zinsstag, Lou and Good, Timothy. George Adamski: The Untold Story. Beckenham: CETI Publications, 1983, p. 171-3.
  22. See Cramp, Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer, Zinsstag & Good, George Adamski: The Untold Story and Flying Saucer Review 10/1  (January-February 1964),13-14.
  23. Good, Above Top Secret, p.373
  24. Interview with Stephen Darbishire by Peter Hough and Dr Harry Hudson, 1993 (?), by courtesy of Peter Hough.
  25. Obituary by Philip Hoare, published in The Independent, 10 March 2001.

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

PART TWO ALEX BIRCH >>>>>>

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

 

Spooklights in Tradition and Folklore.
David Clarke

First published in Magonia 24, November 1980.

…Of purpose to deceive us
And leading us makes us stray
Long winter nights out of the way
And when we stick in mire or clay
He doth with laughter lead us

Drayton’s Nymphidia



Few people today will have heard about the once common phenomenon known generally in the British Isles as ‘Will o’the Wisp’ or ‘Jack o’Lantern’. Prior to the end of the 19th century this rural mystery was a terror familiar to night travellers, especially in the marshy, undrained areas which still remained in many parts of England.

willothewispWill o’the Wisp is known to scientists by its Latin name ignis fatuus – foolish fire – and is variously described as a strong, flame-like light (often first taken for a lantern or the lights of a house in the distance) seen hovering over marshland just after sunset. However, many reliable witnesses have described seeing brilliant Will o’the Wisps dancing over hedgerows, rising high in the air or performing elaborate movements. They often appear to display signs of intelligence – the light is said to recede from an observer who approaches it, or follow him if he retires. This appears to contradict the long-held, but never proven, belief that Will o’the Wisps are caused by the spontaneous ignition of marsh-gas or ‘phosphoretted hydrogen’ in swampy areas.

In 1980 A.A. Mills, a chemist at Leicester University, published a study investigating the possible connections between marsh-gas and Will o’the Wisps. [1] He worked initially on the old premise that the phenomenon was due to ignition of natural gas or methane, perhaps ignited by contamination with phosphine or a higher hydride. Mills experimentally tried to create a Will o’the Wisp in his laboratory by filling a gallon glass bottle with compost, peat, eggs, bone meal and other such ingredients, which were then allowed to incubate at a warm temperature. He collected the ‘marsh gas’ which bubbled off, “but although repulsively odiferous it never displayed the slightest luminosity when allowed to come into contact with air”.

Further, Mills stated that to explain Will o’the Wisp as marsh gas one had to “explain how to achieve natural ignition of an intermittent, disconnected bubble of gas rising through the marsh”. The suggestion that phosphine could provide this natural ignition is a non-starter, as phosphorous is never found in a pure state in nature, and vapour-phase chromatography has failed to detect even parts per million traces of phosphine in marsh gasses analysed in laboratories.

Will o’the Wisp is therefore as much a mystery in our present age as he was to earlier generations. In recent times he appears to have diappeared from the countryside, along with fairies, as marshes have been drained, and as technology has redefined his image for our modern perceptions. We now regard strange lights in the night sky as heralds of extraterrestrial visitors rather than the mischevious sprites, evil spirits and elementals which were once familiar to our ancestors.

In 1855 a writer in Notes and Queries asked if Will o’the Wisp was still to be seen in any parts of the British Isles. He received replies from many correspondents, giving eyewitness acounts of recent sightings. One correspondent replied:

“I have little doubt that the sprite is still to be met with in certain districts of Essex or among the Norfolk Broads… the inquirer might procure a sight of one if he would enquire of some rustic where they most frequently occur. But for this purpose he must know the vernacular name in the district where he lives” [2]

Nearly every country district of the British Isles has its own particular name for Will o’the Wisp and his kind, most of them personalised – Joan the Wad (Devon and Cornwall); William with the little flame (Ireland); Jenny Burntail (Warwickshire; Kitty wi’the Wisp (Northumberland), and countless others. Similar names can be found throughout Europe: irrllchtern, ‘wandering light’ (Germany); feux-follets (France); Fuoco fatuo (Italy); lycktegubbe ‘lantern bearer’ (Sweden) – suggesting a world-wide occurence of similar phenomena. Other names have been given, or related to Will o’the Wisp. Countryfolk and folklorists connect him with Puck, Robin Goodfellow, Friar Rush and other pagan elementals. These traditions are unwittingly continued on bonfire night when children place a candle in a hollowed-out turnip to represent the evil spirit or Jack o’Lantern. [3]

These wandering lights have been known to haunt certain spots for centuries. The folklore of the Scottish Highlands is particularly rich with stories concerning strange lights regarded as omens of death or disaster, and the Gaelic language has several names for them: solus bais, a death light, solus taisg, a spectre light, and teine biorach, “a fire floating in the air like a bird”.

In ‘Ghostlights of the Western Highlands’ [4] R.C. McLagan writes that “there are places which have got their names from the belief that mysterious lights have appeared in their neighbourhood, Thus Creag an T-Soluis, a rock above Cairn near Port Charlotte, has its name from a belief that supernatural lights used to be seen about it. For the same reason another rock down at the shore below Cairn Cottage is called Carraig na Soluis.”

Almost everywhere these lights are regarded as omens of death, particularly in Celtic countries where the ‘corpse candle’ tradition originates. One account describes the candle as a light “seen during the night slowly gliding from the house to the gate of the churchyard and along the church-road, but that by which the funeral processions pass” [5] McLagan notes that:

“In the Isle of Man, on May Eve, many of the inhabitants remain on the hills till sunrise, endeavouring to pry into futurity by observing particular omens. If a bright light were observed to issue, seemingly, from any house in the surrounding valleys, it was considered a certain indication that some member of that family was soon to be married; but if a dim light were seen, moving slowly in the direction of the parish church, it was then deemed equally certain that a funeral would soon pass that way to the churchyard!” [7]

This tradition is similar to that connecting the lights to areas of pre-historic sanctity – burial mounds, stone circles and ancient religious sites’. In Norwegian folklore the little islands off the coast were inhabited by dwarfs, and on festive nights were “lit up with countless blue lights that moved and skipped about without ceasing, borne by the little underground people; and the grave mounds of heroes emitted lamdent flames that guarded the dead and treasure buried with them [4].

A fascinating account of this kind appeared in the popular science magazine English Mechanic during 1919. This described how a correspondent, T. Sington, saw “strange lights… no doubt will o’the wisps” while walking with a friend in the dead of night near the ancient and spectacular Castlerigg Stone Circle near Keswick in the Lake District:

“When we were at a point near which the track branches off to the Druidical circle, we all at once saw a rapidly moving light as bright as the acetylene lamp of a bicycle, and we instinctively stepped to the road boundary wall to make way for it, but nothing came, As a matter of fact the light travelled at right angles to the road, say 20 feet above our level, possibly 200 yards or so away. It was a white light, and having crossed the road it suddenly diappeared. Whether it went out or passed behind an obstruction it is impossible to say, as I have not yet had an opportunity of again visiting the place during daylight. There is certainly no crossroads there. We then saw a number of lights possibly a third of a mile away, directly in the direction of the Druidical circle, but of course much fainter, no doubt due to distance, moving backwards and forwards horizontally; we stood watching them for a long time, and then only left as it was so late at the hotel people might think we were lost on the mountain (Helvellyn).

“Whilst we were watching a remarkable incident happened – one of the lights, and only one, came straight to the spot where we were standing; at first very faint, as it approached the light increased in intensity. When it came quite near I was in no doubt whether I should stoop below the boundary wall as the light would pass directly over our heads. But when it came close to the wall it slowed down, stopped, quivered, and slowly went out, as if the matter producing the light had become exhausted. It was globular, white, with a nucleus possibly six feet or so in diameter, and just high enough above ground to pass over our heads”

Mr Sington concluded his fascinating story by stating his suspicion that the ancient builders of the stone circle had selected this particular spot “owing to some local conditions at present unknown… such lights would have attracted the attention of the inhabitants, who would have attached great significance to them, and might then have selected the site as a place of worship or sacrifice.” [9]

In view of recent research at various megalithic sites by members of the Dragon Project [9] Mr Sington’s idea seems to be vindicated. In Folklore (1894), Mr M.J. Walhouse describe a visit to the marvellous megalithic stone-rows at Carnac in Britanny, where he asked a boy who was guiding him about any local popular beliefs attached to the stones:

“It was not easy to understand him, and I could only gather that on certain nights a flame was seen burning on every stone, and on such nights no-one would go near – the stones are there believed to mark burial places.”[10]

Walhouse adds that:

“in the extreme south of India the Shanars, a very numerous caste of devil-worshippers, believe that waste-places, and especially burial grounds, are haunted by demons that assume various shapes, one after another, as often as the eye of the observer turns away, and are often seen gliding over marshy land like flickering lights. They are called in Tamil pey-neruppu, i.e. devil fires. Riding late after dark over a jungly tract near mountains I once saw what the natives averred was a pey-neruppu; it seemed a ball of pale flame, the size of an orange, moving in a fitful wavering way above the bushes and passing out of sight behind trees; its movements resembled the flight of an insect, but I know of none in India that shows any such light; the fireflies there are no larger than fireflies in Italy.” [11]

Another writer in the same publication tells an interesting story of similar lights observed in another part of India, upon which similar legends were attached.

“I was staying on a tea-garden (plantation] near Darjiling last year (1893) and one evening as we were walking around the flower garden our eyes were caught by a light like that of a lantern being carried down the path which leads to the vegetable garden some 200 feet below. My host sent for the Mah1i who came down from his house, and asked him what business anyone had to be going to the vegetable garden at that time? ‘Oh’, said the man, ‘that is one of the chota-admis (i.e, little men); and on being asked to explain, he said that these little men lived underground, and only came out at night. He did not appear to be very clear as to what their occupation was, but they always walk or fly with lanterns. They are about three feet high, and they will never allow anyone to get near them; but if by any chance one was to come upon them unexpectedly, they would quickly disappear, and the person who saw them would become ill and probably die. They are constantly about on dark nights, sometimes as many as twenty or thirty together, but he and all the natives always gave them a wide berth.

“Whilst he was speaking we watched the light, which apparently left the path, and in two or three minutes flew across to another portion of the hill, between which and the vegetable garden was a steep dip which would take an ordinary individual at least half an hour to descend and ascend the other side; then it disappeared, and we saw no more that night, but two or three times afterwards we saw similar lights, sometimes carried along the paths and at others flying across dips in the hills. We made enquiries from the natives, who all told the same tale; but when we asked other planters they could tell us nothing about them. The light was too large and not erratic enough for any firefly that we have seen in that neighbourhood, more like a lantern than anything else we could think of.” [12]

There can be little doubt that there is a real, objective natural phenomenon lurking behind many of these accounts, which appear to be describing luminous shape-shifting blobs which have a mysterious relationship with certain areas and types of terrain. They appear to interact in mysterious ways with human beings, particularly those undergoing intense emotional excitement – as shown by the phenomena accompanying the Welsh Revival of 1905, or are attracted to the electric fields surrounding human beings out in the open. Although they may appear to possess some kind of rudimentary or mischievous intelligence, this is more likely to be an illusion produced by the observer through some process of perception. It is more likely that the energy from which they are formed is affected by external changes in the surrounding environment – geology, variations in the earth’s magnetic field, changes in air density, etc. These may all contribute to giving the impression of intelligent motion.

In 1967 ufologist John Keel had realised that it was the spookllght sightings, what he described as ‘soft objects’, which “represented the real phenomenon.” He described these sightings as of “transparent or translucent objects seemingly capable of altering their size and shape dramatically.” [13] During his investigations in West Virginia Keel actually had the opportunity of watching them from his skywatch position at Gallipolis Ferry. In The Mothman Prophecies [14] he says:

“Each night from three to eight unidentified ‘stars’ appeared, They were always in the same position at the beginning of the evening and a casual observer would automatically conclude they were really just stars. However, on overcast nights these unidentifieds would be the only ‘stars’ in the sky, meaning they were below the clouds. While the rest of the night sky slowly rotated, these phony stars would remain in their fixed positions, sometimes for hours, before they would begin to move. Then they would travel in any direction, up, down, clockwise, etc, they had a number of curious traits. When a plane would fly over they would suddenly dim or go out altogether. As soon as the plane was gone they would flare up again.”

These strange lights are still with us, appearing at various spots throughout the world, and there is little doubt their comings and goings will add to the considerable amount of folklore already in existence. The lights which have been haunting the remote Norwegian valley of Hessdalen since 1981 display remarkable ghost-like characteristics – playing tag with observers, at times appearing to be gaseous and at others solid; sometimes showing up on radar and at others not. A similar kind of phenomenon – this time a brilliant orange ball of light – has been plaguing the Pennine hills of Yorkshire and Lancashire since the 1970′s, particulalry the Rossendale Valley and the area around Skipton and Grassendale. The fact that both these areas are criss-crossed by numerous geological faults can surely be no coincidence, and adds to the considerable evidence now available which appears to indicate that one of the variables which may explain the creation and origin of the lights – fault lines – has now been isolated.

As regards the recent sightings in the Craven district of Yorkshire, local UFO investigator Tony Dodd, a police officer and alleged witness to over 200 sightings, said in 1983:
“There are strange things flying around at night, but where they come from is another thing. They seem to be more prevelant on winter nights. A lot of the ones I have seen have been way below cloud level. This area has a very high percentage of national sightings. I have seen 60 to 80 of these machines in the last ten years… I feel because this is one of the hotspots as far as sightings go, there are bases located in certain places where they go underground.” [15]

Although Mr Dodd may not realise it, he may have given us one of the most important clues to solve this mystery.


Notes and References:

  1. HILLS, A. A. ‘Will o’the Wisp’ in Chemistry in Britain, 16:69, Feb. 1980,
  2. Notes and Queries, April 4th 1891.
  3. Old drawings and woodcuts showing Will o’the Wisp’s consistently depict the light being carried in the outstretched hand of an imp or hobgoblin.
  4. McLAGAN, R. C. ‘Ghostlights of the Western Highlands’ in Folklore, vo1,8 (1897), pp.203-256.
  5. FEILBURG, H. H. ‘Ghostly Lights’ in Folklore, vol, 6 (1895), p.293.
  6. This connection has become apparent to me time after time during research work. The sightings around Burton Dassett, Warwickshire, in 1923-4, described in Spooklights; a British Survey were seemingly centred upon a pre-Norman church and its holy well, This is one of many examples which could be cited.
  7. Train’s Isle of Man, vol. ii, p.118.
  8. SINGTON, T„ ‘A Mystery’ in English Mechanic, Oct, 17, 1919, pp,152-153.
  9. ROBINS, D. Circles of Silence, Souvenir Press, 1985.
  10. WALHOUSE, M. J. ‘Ghostly Lights’ in Folklore, vol, 5 (1894), pp. 293-299.
  11. In McLAGAN, op. cit. there is the story of a prehistoric burial cairn near Ledaig in Scotland called Carn Bhan which has a legend attached to it that seven kings were buried there. A 70-year-old woman resident of the area told McLagan that “there used to be a large light often seen at the Carn Bhan, indeed I think it is not so very long ago since it was seen there, I have often seen it there myself, it was as large as the light of that lamp”.
  12. Folklore, vol, 6, (1895), pp. 245-246.
  13. KEEL, JOHN A. ‘The principles of transmogrification’ in Flying Saucer Review, vo1,15, no.4, (June-July 1968), pp,27-31.
  14. KEEL, JOHN A. The Mothman Prophecies, Dutton, 1975
  15. Craven Herald (Skipton, Yorkshire), July 21, 1983.


Howden Moor: Roswell Meets Peak Practice. David Clarke

From Magonia 70, March 2000

  • Part One: Secret Truth, Myth and Madness

  • Part Two: A Summary of the Known Facts

  • Part Three: Fantasy and Fact: A Howden Moor Checklist

 


 

“This pattern… with a discredited case being tenaciously supported by an increasingly convoluted set of claims and counter claims has already been well-established in the Fortean world… If the following for such cases continues… it is likely that it is the needs of the audience rather than any persuasive arguments in the cases that keeps them alive…” – Neil Nixon [1]

 


 

Part One: Secret Truth, Myth and Madness

The folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand, in his classic study of `new’ urban Legends, The Choking Doberman, refers to what he calls ‘The Secret Truth’ as a primary theme in modern conspiracy theories. It would, if revealed, cause panic among the population in a manner similar to that which is claimed to have followed the transmission of the famous War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938. Brunvand includes what he calls the most dramatic of the ‘suppressed truth’ stories in his collection under the title ‘the landed Martians.’ This is the seminal claim that a wrecked flying saucer was recovered by the US military at Roswell, New Mexico in July 1947. The ‘landed Martians’ were the bodies of the craft’s humanoid pilots which were subsequently shipped to a super-secret hangar in an isolated desert region of the USA. Those involved in the operation were ‘sworn to secrecy or lied to about the nature of their mission.’ Brunvand realised he was tiptoeing into dangerous territory when he dismissed the ‘evidence’ invoked as proof of the Roswell crash, adding: “I expect that I’ll get some angry mail for suggesting that this might be an area of modern legend” [2].

Hence the folklorist ventures into areas of faith and belief which at the turn of the second Millennium are defended with almost fundamentalist zeal.

As Curtis Peebles observed in his analysis of black project crash sites [3] the rapidly multiplying versions of the Roswell Incident cannot be regarded as evidence of a real historical event involving the recovery of an alien craft and bodies. Instead they should be viewed as an evolving narrative, a myth in the making. One of the dictionary definitions of ‘myth’ is that of a commonly held belief which is fundamentally untrue, or without foundation. Ufological myths are particularly tenacious creatures in the age of the World Wide Web and have a tendency to survive and reproduce themselves like a computer virus. Every day new rumours are transmitted, copied and moulded within the subculture of ufology. Once belief in a mythical event is established, others will seek to replicate its existence elsewhere.

In Britain, a collection of proto-’crashed saucer’ stories dating back to the time of the ‘foo fighters’ were produced by Nick Redfern in the third volume of his UFO trilogy, Cosmic Crashes, in 1999 [4]. Before this title appeared believers in Britain lacked any suitable claims which could be compared with the more detailed ‘crash-retrievals’ reported from the USA. The British Isles are distinctly lacking in the isolated desert regions favoured as the setting for some of the American ‘pickled alien’ stories. As a result a desperate search has been ongoing to identify a contender for status as ‘the British Roswell.’ A number of the incidents listed by Redfern are certainly based upon ‘real’ events, but as Andy Robert’s detailed investigation of the Berwyn Mountains case has demonstrated, their core can invariably be shown to have originated in events of a mundane nature. In this case an earth tremor which coincided with a spectacular display of fireball meteors triggered a police search of a Welsh mountain. The lights of the patrol as they met a group of ‘lampers’ produced an eyewitness account which became the basis of a ‘crashed UFO rumour’ twenty years later [5].

Following in the great tradition of Roswell ‘anomalous incidents’ are now being resurrected as ‘UFO crashes’ thirty or forty years after they occurred, a time lag which allows memory to fog and gives imagination and exaggeration a fertile breeding ground.

As fertile seeds reproducing themselves within the subject, Redfern’s sample will soon become incorporated into the evolving UFO mythology. They will become ‘classic cases’ formed in the image of the ‘landed Martians’ but tailored specifically for the needs of a British audience eager for homespun versions of the ‘dark side’ theories of abduction, back engineering and secret deals between aliens and the Government. As part of this process we should expect the developing stories to absorb the newer beliefs circulated on the World Wide Web by the more fanatical elements of today’s conspiracy mongers. These include the elements added to the developing mythology during the course of last decade: the fashionable ‘Flying Triangles’ and their pilots, the sinister greys with their agenda of animal mutilation and human abduction. The more advanced and psychologically disturbed the storytellers become, the more we hear about implants, crossbreeding and the spreading of ME, AIDS and other horrendous viruses among the alien’s alleged victims.

One of these new stories, although not listed by Redfern, has played a pivotal role in the export of the US-based ‘crashed saucer’ mythology. It has been the subject of heated and vociferous exchanges on newsgroups which have divided ufologists into two camps with fundamentally different approaches to the interpretation of fact and evidence. Cleverly packaged and marketed upon the Internet by its creator Max Burns, it is a claim which has led to schism in British ufology of seismic proportions. The case has highlighted the fundamental dichotomy which exists today between the ‘scientific’ and ‘belief-driven’ approaches to the study of UFOs and illustrated the lengths to which the latter arc prepared to go to promote claims which are, as the dictionary defines myth. ‘untrue …or without foundation.’

Max Burns and ‘the Sheffield incident’

“…I believe the British Government are test flying a 30-50ft triangle around the Northwest of England – probably built with recovered ET technology. These [sic] larger triangular craft are I believe without doubt extra terrestrial in origin. As well as that I will go so far as to say that these triangles are being flown and controlled by the beings known as the Greys’…” – Max Burns [5]

Max Burns appeared suddenly on the British UFO scene during the mid-90s, claiming a long interest in the subject which stemmed from a childhood ‘abduction’ experience. At this time he worked as a disc jockey in South Yorkshire night-clubs and spent his spare time communicating with fellow ‘abductees’ and believers via the rapidly expanding UFO subculture on the Internet. Burns quickly endeared himself to those subscribing to the more paranoid and extreme belief systems with his investigation of what he began to call ‘the Sheffield incident’ and links he claimed to have discovered between symptoms suffered by ‘abductees’ and chronic fatigue syndrome or ME. Unlike many of the other Walter Mitty characters who are temporary attracted to the ufological stage Burns had the confidence to pursue his arguments to the bitter end, even after it became apparent that the weight of evidence was stacked overwhelmingly against him. His answer to critics who questioned his evidence and conclusions was simple: anyone who disagreed was part of the ‘cover up’ or was working for the Security Services. At one stage his plausible and garrulous manner was enough to persuade even cautious members of the UFO community, including the council of the ailing BUFORA, that he had a case to answer.

Late on the night of 24 March 1997 Burns had been alerted to an event on the Peak District moors west of Sheffield which was to become the turning point of his career in ufology and would ultimately prove to be his nemesis. What he was later to proclaim as ‘Britain’s answer to the Roswell UFO crash’ could have been lifted straight from a plot in The X-Files or one of the trashy satellite TV UFO ‘documentaries.’ The so-called ‘Sheffield incident’ – a misnomer as the events actually occurred above Howden Moor – appeared to have all the ingredients necessary for myth making: callers jamming police switchboards to report an unidentified aircraft on a collision course with the hills, military jets skimming rooftops, strange aerial explosions, a massive search operation which found nothing, claims that a cover-up was underway and the run-of-the-mill denials by the authorities.

The facts of the case and the fantasies which have been spun from its meagre strands are summarised elsewhere. It is sufficient to say that the original events stemmed from what South Yorkshire Police concluded were ‘a combination of circumstances that would lead people to believe a plane might have crashed.’ [6] These circumstances involved the sightings of a low-flying light aircraft which coincided with reports of an anomalous aerial explosion or sonic boom created by a military aircraft. At no stage were UFOs ever seriously considered by the authorities as having played a role in these events, although a covert military exercise was certainly suspected as a possible explanation by a number of senior police officers. Mysteries, however mundane, leave a vacuum which is easily filled by the imaginations of UFO believers.

When news of the mystery reached the media, the region soon became the focus of attention from assorted ‘investigators’ who immediately cried out: ‘Cover-up!
Among these early visitors was Max Burns, who seized upon the mystery explosions as a key part of his developing theory which sought to explain what really happened that night. In the short-lived newstand magazine Alien Encounters Burns posed the following question to readers in the summer of 1997: ‘Could this have been the UFO making a crash landing, or a Tornado crashing after being attacked by the UFO?” [7] Soon evidence was being collected to fit the theory: where this didn’t exist it was invented. Testimony and facts which did not support the UFO hypothesis were simply ignored, as passive consumers of the story on the Internet would not feel it was necessary to question Burn’s belief-driven version of events. By 1998 Burns felt confident enough to conclude the case was “one of the biggest UFO incidents in recent years involving a huge Flying Triangle … and evidence of a conspiracy on behalf of the civilian and military authorities to hide the facts from the public …” [8] In summary the ‘Sheffield incident’ had become the Secret Truth resurrected in a new form, suitable for a modern, unquestioning audience.

Burn’s claims did not involve the standard scenario of a crashed ET craft recovered by a covert military operation. Crashed ‘flying saucers’ and their Michael Rennie-like occupants were a thing of the past in ’90s UFO lore. In the increasingly convoluted logic employed to ‘sell’ the case, it was argued that a more fashionable triangular ET craft had been pursued across the Pennines by military fighter aircraft, which were either escorting the aliens or had been diverted from an ongoing exercise to intercept the intruder. A key element of the case were the sonic booms recorded by the British Geological Survey. They suddenly became the ‘evidence’ Burns was looking for. Following his logic, during the encounter at least one of the pursuing Tornado jets was ‘completely destroyed’ or captured as a result of hostile action by the pilots of the ‘triangle’ “because of the use of EM weapons while being in close proximity of the Triangle.” [9]

The ‘lost Tornado’ story has a long pedigree in the history of ufology and science fiction. Indeed, one of the strongest motifs in the UFO crash mythology is the belief which can be summarised as ‘one of ours was lost chasing one of theirs.’ Ever since the tragic death of US pilot Thomas Mantell during the pursuit of a ‘flying saucer’ over Kentucky in 1948 (which turned out to be a high altitude Skyhook balloon) there have been frequent claims of hostile mid-air encounters between the military and ET [10]. The Mantell case and a similar incident involving the loss of a Lightning over the North Sea in 1970 have recently been resurrected by ‘alien investigator’ Tony Dodd in a sensational and breathless account of his attempts to ‘blow the lid’ on the UFO cover-up. In 1987 attempts were made to link the crash of a Harrier jump-jet in the Atlantic with the mystery ‘crop circles’ over which the pilot allegedly flew before disaster struck [11]. The same kind of motifs can be traced in science fiction genre, from the era of War of the Worlds to the gung-ho battles between US pilots and hostile alien invaders depicted in the ’90s blockbuster Independence Day. Coincidentally, Burn’s claims about the ‘Sheffield incident’ appeared in the same year that the BBC screened the low-budget science fiction drama Invasion Earth which ironically began with a dogfight between an RAF Tornado and a UFO along the British coastline.

One of the elements of Brunvand’s ‘Crashed Martian’ folk legend concerns the setting of the alleged UFO crash in an isolated desert region, away from prying eyes. This tradition has also been developed effectively in science fiction films and programmes, in particular The X-Files, and has filtered down into UFO mythology. In the ‘Sheffield incident’ the covert operation took place above one of the few regions of Britain which might actually be termed a ‘desert.’ The High Peak District of northern Derbyshire was an ideal substitute for the arid regions of New Mexico. The story continued the tradition of a covert recovery operation in a remote area where acres of moor hid the ‘the secret truth’ from the public. In this case it was easy for Burns to depict the Dark Peak, above which the ‘incident’ took place, as being miles away from human habitation. Although conditions can be treacherous for those who venture into the mountains unprepared, the Peak District is in fact the most popular National Park in Britain with a staggering 20 million visitors in 1999. Readers of Burn’s case on the Internet will not easily appreciate that the area where the ‘Tornado crash’ supposedly took place is actually within walking distance of Sheffield city centre. The moors themselves, although lonely, are little more than 40 square miles in total area and cannot be described as ‘remote’ in the US sense of the word. Throughout the year the Derwent Valley is thronged with tourists, walkers and climbers who enjoy exploring every inch of the Dark Peak moors, which are sandwiched between two of the most heavily populated conurbations in the north of England. In addition, the region lies directly beneath an international air corridor used by airliners using Manchester’s Ringway airport, and is regularly used for low-flying practice by a number of military airfields.

To overcome these credibility problems Burns had to devise a scenario where he could claim that the police and civilian search and rescue teams had been directed away from the scene of the secret operation which he believes was launched to remove evidence of the Tornado crash. The sighting of ‘a military Land Rover’ and the activities of the ‘Aero Space Intelligence’ were invoked as evidence of the presence of a covert military retrieval team in the area that night. The AIS, according to Burns, ‘look like the CID’ and ‘drive twin-aerial cars during their missions to silence witnesses [12].

The `Tornado pilot’

The most ludicrous evidence of all was that provided by a young man who had been a passenger in a minibus which had been flagged down by a mysterious stranger on a deserted stretch of the A57 Snake Pass near the Ladybower reservoir. The stranger, clearly described as being ‘Asian’ or `Pakistani’ in appearance, smelled strongly of diesel or petrol fumes. He asked for a lift into Sheffield, but this was declined because the bus was full. The witness reported this ‘suspicious’ incident to the police and thought no more of it until he was contacted by Max Burns, who by now was desperate for a ‘breakthrough’ to shore up his collapsing theory. Burns – posing as `a journalist’ – could not believe his luck when the young man, who had since joined the RAF as a trainee night engineer, told how he was now certain the ‘diesel or petrol’ he had detected that night was actually ‘aviation fuel.’

Within hours the shocked engineer found himself being questioned by a reporter from the News of the World to whom Burns had tried to sell his story. He immediately realised his words had been taken out of context to promote a sensational UFO fantasy and demanded the story be dropped for fear of the effect it could have upon his reputation and his new job. It was too late now, for Burns had the initial conversation on tape and armed with this evidence and the subsequent retraction, now had the ‘proof’ he was looking for that a witness had been forced through fear or coercion to retract his statement. Here was clear evidence of the ‘cover-up’ he had suspected all along, for if the story was nonsense why go to all this trouble to stop the witness talking?

In his Sheffield Incident Burns uses this yarn to confidently proclaim that the mysterious stranger was “without doubt the co-pilot of the Tornado jet, who was soaked in aviation fuel and was making his way to the nearest metropolis to alert the military.” Having parachuted from the stricken aircraft, the crewman had walked four miles to the reservoir viaduct before trying to thumb a ride with a passing bus. Not surprisingly, even members of the pro-ETH camp found this claim particularly hard to swallow. Nick Pope summarised the conclusion shared by many when he wrote: “It’s ridiculous to suggest this has anything to do with the RAF, on the basis that a pilot from a downed jet would always stay at the crash site, waiting for the inevitable military search and rescue operation. He’d be wearing a distinctive green flying suit that even a layman would realise was military issue.” [131

The identity of the stranger was in fact already known to the Peak Park Ranger office and to Derbyshire Police, if only Burns had cared to ask. The report was investigated by the force as a possible suicide attempt and patently had nothing whatever to do with a 'crashed Tornado,' except in the imagination of a UFO buff.

In truth, if any military cover-up had been in evidence it would have been obvious to the 141 members of the civilian Mountain Rescue Service who spent more than 15 hours in freezing cold temperatures combing the moors for signs of an air disaster. They found nothing, and saw no one. So confident of his theory was Max Burns that he did not feel it necessary even to contact the MRS Commander Mike France to enquire if any evidence existed to support his theory. Questioned on the role of the Mountain Rescue teams on a live Internet debate on the case, Burns claimed they were 'not in the area of the crash' and had been 'sent off on a wild goose chase by the Government/authorities.' [14] Earlier he was forced to admit he had never spoken to any member of the highly experienced search and rescue teams and had no basis upon which to cast doubt upon their search and rescue skills which save dozens of lives every year.

Burns has repeatedly accused the Ministry of Defence of organising a massive cover-up of the ‘Sheffield incident.’ He claims they have changed their story at least four times in relation to the part played by the military aircraft reported over the Peak shortly before the alarm was raised. In March 1998 and on my behalf, the Labour MP for Sheffield Hillsborough, Helen Jackson, quizzed the MOD in a series of written Parliamentary questions relating to the role of the military in the events {15}. They admitted somewhat reluctantly that a ‘pre-booked training exercise’ did indeed take place above the Peak District on the night in question, with photo reconnaissance aircraft flying as low as 250 feet above the Derbyshire hills. Throughout this saga, the MOD have consistently denied the ‘incident was triggered by jets being scrambled from a front-line fighter base to intercept a UFO. There is no evidence to suggest their statements – provided in response to direct questions in the Houses of Parliament – are anything thing but correct. [16]

In point of fact the RAF regularly use the northern Peaks as a practice ground for low-flying training for its pilots which intensifies significantly during the build up to international conflicts such as the Gulf Crisis. This is in fact a tradition which dates back to the use of the Derwent Dam and Ladybower reservoir by the famous 617 ‘Dambusters’ squadron during the preparation for their attack on the German Ruhr in 1943. Since that time the Dark Peak east of Manchester has become a graveyard for more than fifty planes and their crews who have fallen foul of the unpredictable weather which prevails above this part of the hills. The tragic loss of these aircraft have added to the reputation of the Dark Peak among pilots and rumours have spread concerning a ‘ghost plane’ which has been seen skimming the surface of the reservoir and dams [17].

Sightings of the `ghost flier’ have triggered a series of fruitless searches by police and the mountain rescue service, the latest as recently as the summer of 1999. One Peak Park ranger has revealed how the service receives up to four reports of ‘crashing aircraft’ from visitors to the region on average every year. This information places the 1997 incident into context as one of many ‘false alarms’ caused by low-flying aircraft in this part of the Peak. Rangers and search personnel have become so accustomed to these alarms that they have begun to realise how many of the reports are based upon sightings of real aircraft, both military and civilian, observed under unusual conditions. Visitors unfamiliar with the Peak District often fall victim to an optical illusion whereby aircraft in their landing approach to Manchester appear to be at a dangerously low altitude as a result of the height above sea level of the observer. From the evidence available, there is no reason to suggest that the events of that spring evening in 1997 cannot be explained through a combination of misperception, misidentification and plain wishful thinking on behalf of the UFO myth-makers.

Conclusions?

Fact, common sense and logic are unlikely to halt the development of the Howden Moor mystery into a fully fledged cause celebre of the ‘Roswell’ tradition. Facts and close scrutiny of the evidence may have solved the case to the satisfaction of the majority, but as with Roswell the ‘story’ will continue to live on in mythology. Simply because bizarre claims cannot be disproved, they must therefore have some basis in reality as part of the twisted logic employed by Max Burns and his apologists.

No amount of testimony or evidence will convince those who have made it their mission to defend the preposterous claim that human life was lost as a result of a hostile attack by UFO occupants.

Even if it were possible to account for the safety of each and every Tornado aircraft and its crew in service with the RAF and NATO, it would always be claimed that the ‘loss’ had been cleverly erased from official records by the nefarious agents of the omnipresent cover-up. Already the signs of madness have surfaced among promoters of Max Burns’ theory with the appearance of ever more bizarre beliefs, including claims that drinking water levels ‘fell dramatically’ in the Ladybower reservoir following the appearance of the ‘Flying Triangle’ or that a secret portal to another dimension lies hidden beneath the reservoir complex! The standpoint of believers cannot fail but to lead along a path on which madness and paranoia lurk around every corner. No final conclusion will ever be accepted except one bound up with conspiracy, cover-up and the elusive ‘secret truth.’

Unfortunately, there can be no real conclusion to the Howden Moors ‘crash’; no clean ending which will allow the case to be tied up and neatly filed away. That is, of course, unless Max Burns and his followers can come up with hard physical proof that a Tornado was shot down by a UFO. I predict this will never happen. The carcass of facts surrounding this case has now been picked clean by legions of believers in the literal truth of UFOs and the case now lives on, Jackanory-like, in the tellings and re-tellings of people who have chosen never to concern themselves with the primary and secondary sources of information. They have chosen which pieces of information and whose research best suits their beliefs and prejudices and are blind to the realities of the case. Worse still, I and other rational researchers associated with the case have been demonised as ‘agents of the Government’ in an attempt to divert attention from the truth at the heart of the matter.

The Howden Moors case has, like the Roswell Incident, a life of its own within ufology. All we can do now is chart its trajectory across the ufological landscape, smile sagely and wonder at the capacity of humans to create such a fanciful edifice from so very little.

——————————————————————————-

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Neil Nixon, ‘They’re not all lunatics on the fringe,’ Fortean Studies 6 (London: John Brown Publishing, 1999).
2. Jan Harold Brunvand, The Choking Doberman and other ‘new’ Urban Legends (London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1984).
3. Curtis Peebles, ‘The Hunting of Zel,’ Magonia 69 (December 1999).
4. Nick Redfern, Cosmic Crashes (London: Simon & Schuster, 1999).
5. Max Burns, ‘The Sheffield Incident, A Flying Triangle Incident’ (Internet posting, PUFORI website, 1998).
6. South Yorkshire Police Major Incident log, collated in David Clarke and Martin Jeffrey, ‘The Howden Moor Incident’ (independent UFO Network, 1999).
7. Max Burns, ‘Crash and Burns: Did a UFO crash outside Sheffield?’ Alien Encounters, summer 1997.
8. Burns, ‘The Sheffield Incident,’ op. cit.
9. Ibid.10. Tony Dodd, Alien Investigator (London: Headline, 1999).
11. Jenny Randles and Paul Fuller, Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved (London: Robert Hale, 1993).
12. Burns, ‘The Sheffield Incident.’ The twin-aerial car spotted by Burns belonged to another investigator, Martin Jeffrey.
13. Personal communication from Nick Pope, May 1999.
14. Max Burns on ‘Visitations’ live Internet discussion of the case, June 6, 1998.
15. Hansard, written questions, March 23, 1998; MOD written answers, March 25 and April 7, 1998.
16. Statement by MOD spokesman reproduced in David Clarke, ‘The Howden Moor Incident,’ in The UFOs that Never Were, ed. Clarke, Randles & Roberts (London House, 2000).
17. David Clarke, Supernatural Peak District (London: Robert Hale, 2000).

===========================

The Howden Moor Incident: A Summary of the Known Facts

Emergency services were alerted shortly after 10pm on 24 March 1997 when reports are made to police that a low flying aircraft had crashed into an area of the High Peak moors near Sheffield. Two gamekeepers report hearing a loud aerial explosion at roughly the same time. Police and seven volunteer teams from the Peak District Mountain Rescue Organisation (PDMRO) organise a thorough search of more than 40 square miles of moor centred upon the Howden Reservoir. The operation begins at 11 pm and is called off at 2pm on 25 March.

The search was joined by a police helicopter at 11pm and a Sea King from RAF Leconfield. An Air Exclusion Zone is authorised by the CAA covering a 30 mile radius from the Howden Reservoir to enable the search to continue unhindered. Directed from the ground by the PDMRO, the helicopters use heat-seeking equipment specially designed to detect traces of a fire or body heat. No trace of any crash or wreckage is found. The Sea King returns to base at 2pm on 25 March. It represented the single military asset involved in the search operation.

200 personnel were involved in the ground operation, including civilian volunteers, search and rescue dog teams and police. During the latter stages the moors are visited by dozens of passers-by and camera crews from local TV and radio stations.

As a result of appeals on radio and in the local Press, the police receive more than 40 reports of low flying aircraft from a wide area. Two reports describe what appear to be ‘unidentified flying objects’. One of these describes a triangular-shaped object spotted from a moving train three hours before and almost thirty miles away from the search zone.

South Yorkshire Police conclude the incident was sparked by a series of unconnected events. These included a low flying aircraft and an aerial explosion which led people to believe a plane had crashed. Checks with civil airports found no reports of aircraft missing. The RAF stated that no military aircraft were operating in the area. The identity of the aircraft which triggered the reports remains unknown.

The British Geological Survey recorded a sonic boom in the Sheffield area on two seismographs and one low-frequency microphone at 10.06 pm on 24 March 1997. Checks reveal a second boom was recorded in the same region at 9.52 pm. The BGS conclude the readings are characteristic of the traces left behind in the wake of a military aircraft breaking the sound barrier. Supersonic flights over land are prohibited by the Military Flying Regulations.

One year after the events the Ministry of Defence admit in a Parliamentary reply to MP Helen Jackson that a low flying exercise involving military aircraft DID take place above the Peak District on the night of 24 March, but was completed by 9.35 pm, 30 minutes before the ‘incident’ which sparked the search operation. The planes involved in the exercise were Tornado GRIa photo reconnaissance aircraft from RAF Marham in Norfolk. The Ministry of Defence state in parliament and in correspondence that no reports of UFOs were received from military or civilian sources on 24-25 March. Reports received by South Yorkshire Police were classified as low flying aircraft as this was undoubtedly what they were!

An RAF Police investigation was launched into the cause of the sonic booms. A statement by Air Staff 2(A) at Whitehall said that officers “concentrated their enquiries on whether a military aircraft had been in the area concerned at the date in question. Once they had established that military activity was not involved they made no further enquiries to determine what might have caused the noise”. The MOD said it was “satisfied that on the date in question, there was no threat to the UK Air Defence Region from hostile military activity”.

=====================================

Fantasy and Fact: A Howden Moor Checklist

Max Burns’ case is centred upon the claim that a Tornado fighter aircraft was ‘lost’ with the death of at least one of its crew members during an encounter with an extraterrestrial spaceship over Sheffield and the Peak District on the night of 24 March 1997. Two years after what Burns has called the Sheffield incident he has not produced one single piece of evidence to support his theory. The ‘evidence’ mustered in support of the UFO claims is summarised below, with the facts in italics following each significant point:

There were five witness to ‘an enormous triangle’ over Sheffield and the Peak District. Three of these saw the triangle either being escorted or intercepted by six military jets. The triangle had been flying low to avoid radar detection.
Only two witnesses described seeing a triangle and just one of these reported the observation to the police. This related to a sighting from a moving train more than two hours before the events which sparked the search operation, almost 30 miles away from the scene! The second sighting also took place many miles from the search zone, and the witness is a close female friend of Max Burns. Her observation clearly related to the flight path of low-flying military aircraft.

A further six witnesses saw a ‘glowing orange’ UFO, military jets and ‘unmarked helicopters’. One pensioner who said she observed a cigar-shaped object really saw, according to Burns, the triangle from the side so that it would appear cigar-shaped.
RAF jets were involved in a low-flying exercise above the Peak District between 7pm and 9.35pm which accounted for the majority of the sightings before 10pm. An unidentified light aircraft was operating in the Sheffield area between 9.45 and 10.30pm, sparking the later sightings reported to the police as a plane crashing into the moors. Two search helicopters were flying sorties above the ‘crash’ zone from 11pm and would appear unmarked when seen in darkness!

The first air explosion (at 9.52pm) was not a sonic boom at all according to Burns. In reality it was the Tornado jet exploding as a result of hostile action by the crew of the Flying Triangle. The second boom, at 10.06pm was the UFO escaping from the area (14 minutes later?)
The British Geological Survey and aviation experts conclude that the recordings made that night are the characteristic ‘N-waves’ produced by a military aircraft smashing through the sound barrier (760 mph/1,220 kph at sea level). A senior seismologist gave his opinion the pressure wave was caused by an aircraft, probably a military aircraft, reaching supersonic speed possibly while performing a mid-air turn

The stricken Tornado jet crashed into the moors north of the Howden Reservoir or plunged into one of the nine reservoirs Northwest of the Ladybower Viaduct near the A57 Snake Pass road.
No trace of a wrecked aircraft was found either by the extensive ground search or from the air with the use of sophisticated heat-seeking equipment specially designed to locate fire and body heat from above. A Tornado jet would have left an enormous crater and burning debris scattered across a wide radius of the crash which could not have been missed. Teams of workers from Yorkshire Water checked the reservoirs but found no signs of the telltale wreck-age or oil slick which would have sparked a major drinking water pollution alert.

The co-pilot of the Tornado bailed out seconds before the destruction of his aircraft. Having parachuted onto the moors he walked three miles to the Ladybower viaduct whilst soaked in highly flammable aviation fuel. He was spotted at 11 pm by passengers in a minibus thumbing a lift ‘to the nearest metropolis to alert the military’.
This was the most bizarre theory used by Burns to support his claims. The incident it related to had in fact no connection at all with the ‘aircrash’ mystery. The man reported by the occupants of the minibus was an Asian motorist covered in petrol or diesel fuel, a fact confirmed by Peak Park and police officers. The case was investigated as a possible suicide attempt.

A radar operator with the Royal Signals at RAF Linton-upon-Ouse (North Yorkshire) told a friend early on the morning of 25 March that he had tracked a UFO on his screen over the Peak District for a ten minute period beginning at 9.55pm the previous night. Later he was warned not to discuss the case “as if I do I will be in breach of my national security oath”.
Operationally RAF Linton was closed on the night of 24 March. In any event, the base radar has a limited radius within the immediate area and is used as part of the training of rookie pilots in Tucano aircraft. No one has spoken to the mysterious radar operator other than a friend of a friend of Max Burns.

The Ministry of Defence made an announcement to the media that a Bolide meteor exploding in the atmosphere caused the sonic boom and was also responsible for all the reports of the crashed plane.
The MOD have never made any statement to this effect. Their position remains that the reports of the low-flying aircraft were a matter for the police and that the cause of the sonic booms remains a mystery.

The seven Mountain Rescue Teams were ordered to search a zone four miles from the area where the explosion was heard, and it wasn’t until 9am on 25 March that four men were sent to search Strines Moor, near the ‘crash zone’. According to Burns, the search teams were not in the area of the crash ‘and I don’t think they know any-thing.’ In summary, he claims the rescue teams were deliberately misled while a covert military team removed the wreckage of the Tornado jet from under their very noses.
Burns has never spoken to any of the PDMRO [Peak District Mountain Rescue] commanders to ascertain the facts and has used unreliable testimony from the wife of a gamekeeper who played no part in the operation. The highly experienced team of volunteers from the PDMRO were placed in charge of the search operation by police at midnight on 24 March and it was they who directed officers and helicopter crews from that point onwards, based upon triangulated sight-lines provided by the initial eyewitnesses. The commander, Mike France, said an extremely thorough search of the 40-50 square mile zone, including Strines Moor, was completed without any evidence of a crash being found. None of the mountain rescue personnel, police, fire fighters or media who were present saw any evidence of military activity other than the presence of the RAF Sea King which they had requested for assistance in the search.

An enormous cover-up was launched following the incident, designed to confuse the issue with ‘cover-stories’ (drug runners, ghost planes, Bolide meteors), a ‘dirty tricks’ campaign to discredit Burns himself and a D-Notice to prevent the Press from discussing the case.
The case has been discussed extensively in local newspapers, in TV documentaries on BBC 1 and Granada and on the Internet. No evidence has emerged to support the claim that a Tornado jet was lost, or that UFOs were ever involved in the incident.

Key witnesses in the case have been forced to retract their testimony or have changed their statements as a result of threats from MI5 and their agents, including the author of this article.
Witnesses have not changed their testimony, but have been deliberately misquoted by Burns and his supporters. One witness who Burns claimed had seen ‘a huge triangular object’ hovering over the moors denied ever having made such a statement when approached by two other independent investigators. Another ‘uncorroborated source’ named as having seen the RAF Sea King pulling body bags from a reservoir was never interviewed by Burns. This man denied having ever having made the claim. A third witness told investigators: “UFOs were never mentioned until Max came to the pub and started asking us about it.”

Max Burns was ‘set up’ with drugs planted by the Security Forces or M15 because of ‘what he knew’ about the Sheffield incident.
Burns was found guilty of possession and supply of Class B drugs by the majority verdict of a jury at the end of a four day trial at Sheffield Crown Court in September 1999. Burns did not use the claim that he was set up by M15 in his defence during the trial, but a former friend of the DJ told the jury Burns was ‘obsessed’ with UFOs and aliens.

Sources:

  • Max Burns, The Sheffield Incident: A Flying Triangle Incident. Internet posting, PUFORI website, 1998. Live Internet discussion featuring Max Burns on `Visitations’, 6 June 1998.
  • Lecture by Max Burns to BUFORA in London, June 1999. David Clarke, ‘The Aircrash that Never Was’ UFO Magazine, spring 1998.
  • David Clarke and Martin Jeffrey, The Howden Moor Incident, (Independent UFO Network, 1999).
  • David Clarke, Jenny Randles & Andy Roberts, The UFOs that Never Were (London House, 2000); chapter 2, ‘The Howden Moor Incident‘.

 

 


 

 

From My Pennine Valley Notebook. David Clarke

From Magonia 33, July 1989

In Magonia (August 1988) Peter Rogerson writes that ufologists must accept that as recorders of stories we are in effect folklorists, and this is how our writings may be regarded by historians in centuries to come. He adds that “the dominant folklore in British ufology at the moment appears to be earthlights or spooklights … the powerful appeal of this concept lies in its romantic roots. It is a folklore of open spaces, where tales still survive of the eeriest secrets of wild nature, before TV and streetlights robbed them of their wonder … “ 
 
paperThese words have a particular poignancy in reference to the strange story I am about to relate, for despite the advent of ‘TV and streetlights’ which Peter regards as stripping nature of its wonders, folklore seems to be very much in the making in the haunted areas of the Pennine Hills into which I have been wandering in recent years.

For example, on 27 September 1987 the Sheffield Star, in a front page article entitled “‘Ghost’ sightings on a new road”, described a series of weird happenings said to have taken place on the Stocksbridge by-pass road then under construction by the McAlpine construction company, to the northwest of Sheffield.

“Terrified security guards”, read the report, “called in police and clergymen after seeing ‘ghosts’ on a bypass being built near Sheffield. A sergeant and police constable sent to the area – near Stocksbridge – later said the ‘felt a presence’ as they patrolled … but South Yorkshire police have refused to comment on the incident, or on reports that the Panda car was jolted by mysterious thuds …”

Other than the police, the two other witnesses, security guards Steven Brookes and David Goldthorpe – who work for Constant securities of Mexborough, were extremely disturbed by their experiences. On the morning of 8 September they arrived at the home of a Stocksbridge clergyman, waking him at 7am, apparently wanting to know if the area had once been a graveyard and whether an exorcism was possible. One of them later burst into tears and went into shock, but both agreed to return to work at the bypass.

In an attempt to ascertain the facts behind this peculiar story before it entered the realms of popular mythology (i.e., the columns of the News of the World), I made contact with the police officers involved and arranged to interview them and visit the scene of the alleged ‘happenings’. I have found that obtaining first-hand transcribed accounts from witnesses and visiting the scene of their experiences with them as soon as possible afterwards is the only honest way of conducting a worthwhile investigation into such claims.

I arrived at Deepcar police station on the evening of 1 October 1987 armed with my trusty six-celled flashlight, Geiger counter and pith helmet and, after a lengthy discussion, accompanied the witnesses, PC Richard Walton and Special Constable John Bellamy (1) to the scene of the phenomena in a police Landrover. Although the night was cold, and and extremely windy, the witnesses took me to the unfinished road on the lonely hillside above Stocksbridge and described once again what transpired. I was impressed by the sincerity of both witnesses – who had been subjected to considerable ridicule by friends and workmates, and I am convinced they were telling the truth about a baffling experience.

Although the alleged ‘hauntings’ received a fair amount of publicity in the local press, due to the police policy of refusing to make any comment on the incident it did not make the national newspapers. Shortly before I traveled to Deepcar I was invited to discuss the matter with the police superintendent responsible for the Ecclesfield division at Hammerton Road in Sheffield. He expressed concern about how publicity surrounding the events would reflect upon his force so I was asked not to speak to the press or to use the real names of the witnesses.

The alleged ‘paranormal’ manifestations took place on a stretch of the then uncompleted Stocksbridge bypass road, at grid reference SK 272989. The bypass, which has cost over £14 million to build, was opened in April 1988 and links the M1 motorway with the A628 Trans-Pennine Barnsley to Manchester road. At the time of the incidents the road was in the final stages of construction by McAlpine and this particular stretch on the hillside above the steelworks at Stocksbridge was patrolled each night by two security officers in a Landrover.

Pearoyd Lane is a steep-sided track which climbs from the steelworks in the valley to the villages of Hunshelf and Green Moor which stands at 303 meters above sea level on a ridge of high land above. High-tension electricity pylons straddle the hillside along the length of the new road, running between Barnsley and Rotherham. It was around one of these pylons that phenomena were observed.

It should be noted also that 10 miles to the northeast a low-level UFO was reported above the same length of electricity pylons at Hoyland, near Barnsley on 10 February 1988. Two witnesses here observed a huge black triangular object at a very low altitude with pulsating red and green lights apparently following the course of the pylons between Harley and Wentworth in the direction of Rotherham after 10.30pm. Five other groups of witnesses in the same area independently reported a similar brilliantly lit object at the same time. Investigations ruled out aircraft or helicopters as an explanation. (2)

The scene of the ghostly happenings is isolated and has an eerie reputation locally. There are no houses nearby except a few scattered farms, the nearest habitations being the streets of Stocksbridge in the valley below. In September 1987 as the new road was being constructed the area was out of bounds to the public and the new road was inaccessible to any vehicles except Landrovers and earth-movers. The possibility of a hoax is very unlikely, and no other explanations have been suggested to the investigators.

The story is best told by Police Constable Walton [RW] and Special Constable John Bellamy [JB], the two eyewitnesses whose account is here transcribed word for word:

RW – “Tuesday 8 September. A gentleman called Steven Brookes rang Ecclesfield police station. He works for Constant Securities who subcontract to McAlpine. Some time on either the Monday or the Tuesday night – we’re not really sure – they were driving up Pearoyd lane to check out the section of new road there. There were two of them in the Landrover; and as they’ve driven up they’ve seen the figure of a man standing on the newly constructed bridge. What you’ve got to bear in mind is that there’s no way you can get onto the bridge. You can’t walk onto it, drive onto it. It’s made that way so the kids can’t climb onto it. They’ve stopped the Landrover at the base of the bridge. Brookes has stepped out of the Landrover; his mate has driven round. As he’s put the full beam on the headlights – they’ve noticed at the same time that the beam goes straight through it. Then all of a sudden it was gone.

“He rang us, and of course we were sceptical. We said, ‘Well, what can we do – it’s not a police matter; there’s nothing we can do’. We just left it with them and said we’ll keep our eyes peeled. They rang their boss, Michael lee, and he rang me to ask what I thought. He said ‘They’ve worked for me for a number of years; they’re good lads and they have seen something’. We left it at that until the following morning – the Wednesday.

“Then Stuart Brindley, who’s Stocksbridge’s vicar, rang Ecclesfield to say that the men had been in touch with him, asking if he’d do an exorcism as they were too frightened to go back. It got back to me to sort out. When I spoke to Mr Brookes again he told me that just prior to this they had seen a group of young children playing just down from the bridge, near the new road around a pylon. They’d driven past the kids – this was at 12.30 at night – roughly the same time as before, parked the Landrover, got out and found there was nothing there. They’d examined round the pylon, which is fresh mud, no sign of footprints. They had followed that through by talking to some of the local workmen who were living nearby in caravans, who said that they’d also heard kids’ voices late at night. Now I live very close to the scene, and I wrote that off immediately as sheep. There’s a lot of sheep up there on the bank and at night when they are asleep they make a lot of weird noises.

“The following Friday night – 11 September – I went up there with another Special Constable, [but] it was throwing it down with rain, and we didn’t stop. But on the Saturday night me and John went up, round about midnight. We’d purposely told our other colleagues that we’d gone down to Oughtibridge, so they would not think we were up there for them to set us up! We went up from the Deepcar end and drove to the bridge, and parked roughly halfway between the pylon and the bridge where the two sightings have supposedly been. We parked the car up; we turned all the lights off. It was a clear night, clear sky, virtual full moon; after a while we could see great. We’d got about three-quarters of a mile straight behind us, two hundred yards to the bridge, three hundred foot banking on the right-side, twenty foot banking on the left, so if anyone came near us we could see them.

“We’d been sat there a couple of minutes and up by the bridge I’d already noticed a large container which was like a white-painted pallet box. I’d been looking at this for quite some time and I asked John to look at it to see if anything was amiss. We both the decided that there was something moving across and around this pallet box. We could see a shadow going across it. So I put the full beam on the car, and saw nothing at all. We let our eyes adjust, then drove up. Put the lights on, got out, not a damned thing. We went back exactly to where we were, sat and watched, and lo and behold, there was something moving again around this pallet box. Did exactly the same again, went up and looked – nothing at all. We’d been there now about twenty minutes. Went back again for the third time, to exactly the same spot and decided that it must have been the lights from the steelworks in Stocksbridge below, that were reflecting upon the box and causing the shadows. But on the third time we stopped we both noticed within a matter of seconds that there was nothing moving by this box, which we thought odd, but we didn’t think much more about it.

“We’d been sat there again for a few minutes; it was a nice night, I put my window down, I was sat in the driver’s seat, John was in the passenger seat. Suddenly I had a feeling – not like I’ve ever had before, because we’ve been working nights for a long time – just as if someone had walked over my grave, because I just froze”

JB – “You went cold, didn’t you?”

RW – “And what was so odd I went cold without knowing what was the matter. Then a few seconds after I had another feeling that someone was stood at the side of me, and I turned my head slowly, and I could see that there was something stood by the side of the car. But as I turned quick, there was nothing there. But as I saw there was nothing there John let out such a scream and hit me with his arm, and I looked around, and there’s somebody stood next to the car …”

JB – “Literally next to the car.”

RW – “… all I could see was his torso, because he was stood next to the passenger window. By the time it had registered with me that there was somebody there it had gone. There was no way that anyone could have approached us without us seeing. John was adamant that there was somebody there, because he was looking closer than me. So we thought we’d shout for Don to come and join us, because we thought that if we were going to see it then somebody else was going to see it. So we drove up to the bridge and parked up. We didn’t use the radio signal down in the dip, because the radio signal up here is bad anyway, so we shouted for them to join us. We’d been sat in the car for a few seconds and something thumped on the back of the car. I didn’t know whether it was the back or the sides – it was just that something hit the car. Again there was nothing at all about; we could see all around too well and were out too quick to check it. It wasn’t like it says in the Star, the car didn’t physically shake. When this happened we thought ‘bugger this for a lark!’ and drove back down into the works. We met Don, who was with another two lads and we went back up and sat for five – six minutes, not a damn thing. But what was so weird about it was the way I felt before anything had happened. I knew before anything had happened that something was wrong.

 

road

Something thumped on the back of the car – I didn’t know whether it was the back or the sides. When this happened we thought ‘bugger this for a lark!’ and drove back down.

JB – “Virtually it went from my side of the car to your side of the car at the same time … As Dick was looking out of his window I was just gazing up into the banking, and I just turned to Dick and shouted and there was this chap just stood there, next to the car. It was really weird.”

[Investigator] – “What was it wearing? How did you know it was a man?”

RW – “I don’t. We could only see part of it at eye-level through the window of the Vauxhall Astra. It definitely formed the impression of being a person, to me a man”

[Investigator] – So you saw his face as well?”

JB – “For a split second his face, yes. And to me it looked like he had got some kind of a cravat on, and a waistcoat. It looked like something out of Dickens’s day. But I looked again and tried to focus and it was gone”.

RW – “All I saw was a ‘V’ on his chest, I couldn’t say it was a waistcoat. It was light clothing, I could see it in the moonlight …”

Neither of the two witnesses could account in any way for what they had observed, and after considerable local inquiries we were unable to find any logical explanation. There are no records of similar reports in the same area in the past, and there was certainly no graveyard or anything of that kind upon the site. However we did ascertain that the Pearoyd Lane area has a local reputation as a weird place, and that a recluse who lives in a house on the hillside had at around the same time reported seeing a similar group of what looked like small children dancing around electricity pylons and a workman’s caravan in the middle of the night.

The possibility of children from Stocksbridge or nearby villages climbing in pitch darkness onto the dangerous and unfinished road appears unlikely, and is not accepted by the witnesses. After the appearance of the report in the local press, hoards of teenagers and curiosity-seekers descended on the area from surrounding towns and held nightly vigils on the windswept hillside, but nothing further was reported.

PC Walton told us that

“We’ve had a lot of people coming forward who have seen some things. They’ve only come forward because somebody else – as they say – has admitted it. Some people have seen something like a monk flying about. He’s been seen far and wide at Finkle Street, towards Wortley, all up and around there. PC Walton also added that “A few years ago when I was at Ecclesfield, most of the lads I used to work with over there have seen strange lights over Greno Woods. A lot of people here, nightwatchmen and guards at British Tissues have seen the coming over Wharncliffe Woods. We don’t even make a record in the logs [as] our people see so many weird things on the night patrol that it’s not worth it”.

As well as the sightings of ‘apparitions’, another police contact informed us that in about the same week as these reports, two officers on patrol at Lodge Moor, a remote area on the western outskirts of Sheffield, had observed a group of brilliant lights moving at low level in the area of the Redmires Reservoirs. Despite making diligent inquiries we were unable to trace these witnesses and thus this story must remain anecdotal.

More interesting is the story of a motorist from Manchester investigated by peter Hought of MUFORA. His experiences took place on the night of 19 September, one week after the sightings at pearoyd lane. He reported seeing, whilst driving past Langsett Wood on the moors outside Stocksbridge, a cluster of powerful red and white pulsating lights which appeared to be attracted to a circular object apparently hovering fifty feet from the ground amidst a plantation of fir trees. This sighting is still under investigation.

Eddie Bullard (4) writes that folklore and UFO lore share the same sort of evidence; in both cases it is “overwhelmingly anecdotal … [with] the verbal testimony of narrators describing extraordinary occurrences”. The fast-growing UFO mythology is undoubtedly the most extensive paranormal belief system at work on modern culture, comparable to the complex belief system of the fairy otherworld in the Celtic countries of western Europe. In the Stocksbridge case above, common folklore motifs can be identified in the eyewitness testimony, such as the ring of dancing fairies who disappear into thin air, as well as the assumption that a ghost has appeared due to a burial ground (even though one never existed).

In the Welsh countryside the Tylwyth Teg were once regarded as a race of spirits who “would form a ring, would dance and sing out on the mountainsides”, but disappear when approached. According to W. Y. Evans-Wentz (5): “They were generally supposed to live underground, and to come forth on moonlight nights to dance in circles in grassy fields. As aerial beings they could fly and move about in the air at will.”

MUFOB in 1976 (6) carried a story from the Hull Daily Mail which described the weird experience of one PC David Swift who saw, whilst on patrol in the early hours of a August morning in east Hull ” a [strange] bank of fog” on playing fields near Stonebridge Avenue. On investigating further “the mist revealed three dancing figures who he at first thought to be drunks playing around. As he got nearer they all disappeared into thin air, leaving a shaken police officer behind them.” One of the figures was described as “a man dressed in a sleeveless jerkin, with tight fitting trousers, while the other two were women wearing bonnets, shawls and white dresses. All appeared to be dancing around a nonexistent maypole as they each had an arm raised.”

In his work on folklore, Tales of North Wales, Ken Radford (7) tells of a similar story of a ring of dancing figures which shares motifs with the sightings at Stocksbridge, which took place at Bodfari, a village besides Offa’s Dyke in the old county of Denbighshire in the late 18th century:

“One afternoon in summer some children were playing in the field nearby called Cae Caled [when] they saw several misty shaped dancing together under a tree.The dancers were no taller than the children themselves. To the sound of strange music they whirled and reeled. They had long flaxen hair and their clothes were scarlet flecked with gold. For a while the children watched in wonder. Then as the dancers moved nearer, they became afraid and ran towards the fence. The last to reach the stile was a young boy who turned to see one of the strange folk close behind. The face was grim with piercing eyes; quite the most unusual complexion he had ever seen. The boy just managed to scramble over the stile as his pursuer reached out to seize him.”

Ufologists, like folklorists, compare texts for patterns and similarities, for instance in regard to the abduction experience, but too often conclude that because these similarities exist, they must provide evidence for the objective reality of such reports. Folklorists such as Eddie Bullard would point out that “every UFO report claims to describe a real event, but truth and fiction, reality and belief are indistinguishable in [such] narratives”. The Stocksbridge report was interpreted by the police and press in terms of ghostlore due to the particular circumstances under which it occurred; in another context the humanoid figure observed by the two police officers could just as easily have become a ‘UFO occupant’.

As to the observed reality of the experiences detailed above, perhaps the most interesting and significant statement made by PC Walton relates to the scene of the events at Pearoyd Lane: “We were sat directly below a big radio mast were we where; there’s all kinds of energy around there. If I’d been there alone I’d have put it down to me scaring myself, but the two things that concerned me was the feeling I had, and the fact that john and I saw it at the same time. How on earth it got from one side of the car to the other in a split second I don’t know”.

References
1. Both of these names are pseudonyms, at the request of the witnesses.
2. See UFO Brigantia March/April 1988, p.27; May/June 1988, p.10.
3. ‘Shout’ is a term used to describe making radio contact with nearby police patrols.
4. BULLARD, Eddie. ‘Folklore Scholarship and UFO Reality’, International UFO Reporter, vol.13, no.4, July/August 1988, pp.9-13.
5. EVANS-WENTZ, W. Y. the Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries, Colin Smythe, 1977.
6. MUFOB; new series no.5, autumn 1977, p11.
7. RADFORD, Ken. Tales of North Wales, Skilton and Shaw, 1982, p.56.

 

Why Cracoe Fell; Part Two. David Clarke

cracoeTHE CRACOE PHOTOGRAPHS RE-EVALUATED

In March 1986 Andy Roberts, editor of WYUFORG’s journal UFO Brigantia, was asked by Paul Devereux to write a piece for the ‘Earthlights’ back-cover spot in the Ley Hunter, on the Cracoe case. Andy replied that he would obtain all the relevant data on the case (including YUFOS’s Cracoe file and Nigel Mortimer’s data) and if the evidence indicated that ‘earthlights’ were a probable solution to the case, would write the article.

Andy wrote to YUFOS enclosing £5 for their Cracoe file advertised in Quest (YUFOS’s journal) as on sale to anyone interested. The request was denied as ‘you would not agree with YUFOS’s conclusions’. YUFOS later explained this, claiming that as they were the investigating body only they were qualified to make any written comment on the facts of the case!

Nigel Mortimer had now returned to active ufology and announced his intention of following up his original line of enquiry into the Cracoe case, asking for support from WYUFORG, which was granted. In the June 1986 edition of UFO Brigantia, he gave his version of events and questioned YUFOS’s attitude towards other UFO groups, including the refusal of documents and liaison. He asked why Mr Carlisle’s belief that reflections were the cause of the phenomenon had been ignored by YUFOS; described his own observations of light reflections in the Cracoe area, and also questioned YUFOS’s statement that it took ‘three hours’ of hard walking to reach the fell summit. According to Nigel the fell can be reached by ‘a pleasant half-hour stroll from the roadside‘. The exact area, give or take a few feet, is quite approachable by anyone who is not frightened of heights! This has been proved by members of WYUFORG on at least three occasions.

YUFOS were not aware of Nigel Mortimer’s article until a review of it appeared in Jenny Randles’ magazine Northern UFO News, whereupon Philip Mantle wrote for a copy. By this time (August-September 1986), having failed to obtain the Cracoe file from YUFOS openly, Nigel Mortimer asked a relative in Doncaster to write to YUFOS for it, alleging a UFO sighting on the fell as a reason for her interest. A copy was sent to her immediately. Although YUFOS regard this action as evidence of WYUFORG’s ‘total deceit and dishonesty’ it is obvious that Nigel would never have had to resort to these means to obtain the report if it had not been denied to him in the first place without good reason.

YUFOS responded to Nigel’s actions by adding a cryptic comment at the end of the July-August 1986 issue of Quest (printed in September). This read: ‘BUFORA in disgrace? YUFOS/QUEST reveals the shameful actions of a BUFORA investigator, and questions the future of this once proud group.’ In a heated telephone call on 26 September between Nigel Mortimer and Mark Birdsall (of YUFOS), Birdsall told Mortimer that he had no business writing about a case he had no part investigating, and ‘advised’ him not to write anything further on the case. Furthermore, in an extraordinary meeting of YUFOS’s executive committee on 28 September it was agreed that the group would have nothing further to do with Nigel Mortimer, Jenny Randles, WYUFORG or BUFORA, whom they regarded as ‘not serious researchers’!

By this time (early October) WYUFORG investigators had decided to return again to Cracoe Fell in differing weather conditions in order to see for themselves the reflection — said by the farmer to be visible at certain times of the year in dull weather — and hopefully obtain photographs of their own. At the same time WYUFORG editor Andy Roberts engaged in a lengthy postal debate with Philip Mantle (YUFOS’s Overseas Liaison Officer) over the Cracoe case. Mantle disagreed, but in a reasonable fashion, with WYUFORG’s conclusions and said that the next issue of Quest would ‘leave you and your colleagues in no doubt that the Cracoe photographs do not depict light reflections’.

In early October Nigel Mortimer and Martin Dagless received a number of anonymous letters, postmarked from Leeds, showing a picture of an ostrich with its head planted in the ground and a caption reading ‘WYUFORG — Nigel Mortimer’. Another anonymous letter consisted of a plain piece of paper merely containing the words ‘GO SEE YOUR DOCTOR!!!’. Other letters were received from YUFOS investigators alleging incompetence in WYUFORG’S investigation and calling them ‘a disgrace to British ufology’!

By a stroke of luck, Andy Roberts was passing through Cracoe at 1400 hrs on 11 November 1986 and, looking at the fell, saw ‘a bright white strip with a smaller white “blob” at the side [standing] out.. .from the surface of the rock’. This was obviously the much-vaunted ‘Cracoe UFO’, and although he did not have his camera with him at the time two other witnesses saw the same reflection.

On 15 November Andy returned to the base of the fell with his camera and a zoom lens. Again, the phenomenon appeared on the face of the fell, possibly brighter on this occasion. Ten photographs of the effect were taken from within yards of the spot where the original photographs had been taken in 1981. When these new photographs were developed, and the resultant image enlarged to 16″ x 12″ (the same size as the YUFOS photographs) the true nature of the Cracoe ‘UFO’ was apparent. The two images — from 1981 and 1986 — were the same. Both were of the same dimensions and positioned similarly on the face of the fell. The only difference between the two is that the YUFOS photographs of the reflection are much brighter than those taken by WYUFORG. This is hardly surprising considering the  number of meteorological conditions which need to be met to produce the ‘dazzling’ effects reported in 1981.

WYURG informed Philip Mantle of their new evidence, and Mantle agreed to come along and see the photographs for himself. WYUFORG also sent one of their slides to Klaus Webner. Webner replied on 4 December 1986, stating:

‘The Cracoe ‘UFO` photo case is unmasked, Your slide does show the same phenomenon under controlled conditions! The intensity of the light is not so bright as it is to see on the Cracoe photos but the position of the reflection is absolutely the same! Your slide is evidence that a harmless reflection on this sloping area of rock is responsible for the huge UFO headlines in the newspapers, [It is] self-evident the images on the Cracoe fell photos [were] the results of reflections and self-evident the statement of the farmer is important, In my opinion the whole Cracoe Fell case is nonsense! YUFOS had published it in newspapers as a ‘UFO case’ and now they have not the courage to say that in reality nothing has happened in 1981,’

WYURG did not visit the fell again until 26 December 1986, when the reflection was visible. Andy Roberts took a further 36 photographs. Two days later Martin Dagless saw the effect for the first time from Cracoe village. These new photographs show quite clearly that the phenomenon is caused, partially at least, by sunlight as the image faded and came back into view several times as the weather conditions changed. On 28 December the fell was climbed by Roberts and Dagless and, despite a strong wind and a  shroud of mist, the exact area producing the light reflections was found. This is Andy’s account of their discovery:

‘At close quarters the piece of rock responsible for the anomalous effect bears no visual relation to what is seen and photographed at a distance, The effect is caused by light (not direct sunlight) reflecting off a piece of gritstone rock which is at an approximate angle of 25 degrees, The surface of the rock is worn smooth, unlike the surrounding gritstone, and is a drainage surface for the peat bog which adjoins it, Furthermore, the surface of the rock was partially covered with an unknown species of white lichen, To one side of this piece of rock a larger piece of upright gritstone stands, next to which was a smaller angled rock with the same surface features, The dimensions of the larger area were 15′ x 10′ and the Smaller area 2′ x 2′, When viewed from a distance this gives the effect of an incandescent white strip of light with a smaller “blob” to one side.’

Despite being informed of these facts Mark Birdsall, in a letter of 6 January 1987, states:

‘…this section of the fell has come under the microscope of the Research Division and some eleven investigators, All I can add is that the photographic material in the possession of YUFOS appears to negate this elongated rock as the culprit, Whichever way one interprets the case we have nothing more than three spherical orbs of light in front of this rock, Indeed one of the photographs (never released) depicts a red-orange sphere in front of one of these white-coloured spheres, A shadow is most certainly visible on the underside of the orange sphere. As a very objective research group, we would certainly put forward any possible potential for the case (if one was forthcoming ) … after considering all the data we feel there is a great potential for this section of rock being back-highlighted from these spheres.’

In effect, he is saying that on the morning of 16 March 1981, a real ‘UFO’ decided to land on, or hover in front of, the exact position of the fell which produces a natural light reflection! Clearly this is nonsense. The colouring observed on the photograph can just as easily be explained by the white light being broken into a spectrum by the weather conditions. The GSW analysis did state that ‘digital densitometry reveals that there are three major areas of higher density, within the larger AI and to the unaided eyes these appear as near-rounded objects’.

 

“To allow reports which are for the benefit of serious researchers to be sent to your group at this time will conflict with our current attitude towards your group”

 

However, by late December YUFOS had gone into print in their September-October issue of Quest attacking and abusing WYUFORG, Nigel Mortimer, Jenny Randles and BUFORA for their ‘scandalous actions’. For thirteen pages of the magazine Mark Birdsall launched into a tirade of spurious and fabricated ‘facts’, saying for example that WYURG had openly accused YUFOS and the police witnesses of having lied about the case. It must be said that there is little in the issue dealing with the actual case itself, and although Philip Mantle had informed WYURG that the article would ‘leave you and your colleagues in no doubt that the Cracoe photographs do not depict light reflections’, no new evidence was presented to prove their case.

Furthermore, YUFOS announced the publication of a new report on the Cracoe case, written entirely by Mark Birdsall, entitled Cracoe: The Evidence. Although WYURG again requested a copy of this report they have been informed by YUFOS that ‘to allow reports which are for the benefit of serious researchers to be sent to your group at this time will conflict with our current attitude towards your group’.

The report is 200 pages long, and is being sold at £7.50. This ‘new’ report says very little more than what has already appeared in Quest (1985), and in the original ‘Cracoe File’ (which, although it has been sold for several years by YUFOS, is admitted by Mark Birdsall in a letter to be ‘very brief … poorly written … masses of connecting data and relevant information were omitted’

Mark Birdsall states in the introduction to the new report that it has been written to ‘negate incredible statements’ by other groups, and to ‘increase the possibility that a UFO was seen’. Although farmer Carlisle is mentioned in the new report several mistakes are still apparent — including the Grid reference and the statement that the phenomenon appeared on lime-stone rocks. The report concludes that ‘there is evidence that a UFO was seen on the fell’ and that the explanation of sunlight reflecting off ice or snow residue was unlikely due to the moving cloud cover, the fact that the sun was not shining directly on the fell and the orientation of the fell itself. In reality the sun on the morning in question was shining obliquely onto the rock face and moderate rainfall had occurred on the days before the event.

Although the official YUFOS stance is still that the case is ‘unexplained’ (and they have ‘excommunicated’ members of WYURG, even to the extent of ‘banning’ them from their public conferences!) the team leader on the ground research into this case, Philip Mantle, has now admitted in writing — after seeing the photographic evidence in UFO Brigantia — that the case is solved.

Sadly, the co-ordinators and executive committee of YUFOS have proved themselves unable to discuss this case in a reasonable fashion and still refuse to admit that the new evidence at hand explains the original sighting. In Cracoe: The Evidence Mark Birdsall is still using Klaus Webner’s photographic analysis to support the UFO status of the case, which Webner now believes to be explained.

Throughout this whole affair I have watched as an independent observer as WYUFORG presented their evidence in a decent and orderly manner. YUFOS have never answered properly any of the very reasonable questions put to them in relation to this case without resorting to personal attacks upon the character of the questioners. A meeting I attended as an observer between YUFOS and WYUFORG ended in chaos when Graham Birdsall, president of YUFOS, turned up uninvited and threatened physical violence towards Martin Dagless and Andy Roberts, having to be restrained from carrying out his threats by his brother. A full account of this incident can be read in UFO Brigantia No. 24 (January-February 1987) and a full statement from myself is available regarding the scene I witnessed.

CONCLUSION

As the case stands in February 1987, it is now explained and should no longer be classified as a ‘UFO’. Nigel Mortimer, Andy Roberts and Martin Dagless of WYUFORG should be congratulated for exposing the truth about this case, and not attacked for it. The events of 1986-7 raise many important questions which still need to be answered before the case can finally be ‘closed’. But I do not want to say any more here as I believe I have presented enough evidence for unbiased readers to make up their own minds.

I would like to make it plain, as would the members of WYUFORG, that no one is questioning the integrity of the original witnesses in 1981, or any of the facts in their statements. They admittedly firmly believed that what they observed was a UFO — but many thousands of witnesses have just as firmly believed that other natural phenomena had an exotic origin.

In the Cracoe case, however, human perception is merely a side issue, and what WYURG have been contesting is the photographic evidence which has now undeniably been explained by a combination of unusual natural factors at this particular location.

The case, although now explained, is only one of innumerable cases reported from the Pennine area in recent years. I do not believe that the demise of this case proves that nothing unusual is happening in the skies over the area (even Mr Carlisle believes UFOs are regular visitors to the Craven Hills), it merely shows how wary ufologists must be before accepting on face value ‘classic’ UFO cases. All serious researchers must be vigilant and willing to accept a solution to a case when one is forthcoming If not then the UFO evidence becomes a jumble of useless data which merely adds to the myth and can prove nothing.

David Clarke

 

Why Cracoe Fell; Part One. David Clarke

cracoeThis account of the extraordinary story of the Cracoe UFO photographs begins on a remote hillside in Yorkshire and ends in furious claims, counter-claims verbal abuse and physical violence!

From Magonia 26, June 1987

SETTING THE SCENE

I am writing this account as an independent observer of both the main protagonists involved in the birth and demise of the Cracoe, north Yorkshire, UFO case. As a BUFORA investigator in the Yorkshire area I have watched the presentation and propagation of this case by it proponents, the Yorkshire UFO Society, and the counter-investigation by the West Yorkshire UFO Research group. The sequence of events between 1981 and 1987 is so complex that the following can only serve as a summary of the documentation from WYURS’s case file, and from YUFOS’s published case reports, and from their respective magazines, UFO Brigantia and Quest.

The Pennine Hills of northern England have experienced many waves of UFO activity. At least every years since 1973 reports of brilliant lights and glowing disc-shaped objects have emanated from the hills and moorland between the Rossendale Valley in Lancashire, the Yorkshire Dales and the High Peak of north Derbyshire. Two major UFO investigation groups have been active in this area – the Yorkshire UFO Society (YUFOS) founded in 1981 by two investigators from Contact UK, Graham and Mark Birdsall; and the West Yorkshire UFO Reaserch Group founded in 1983 by Nigel Mortimer, a BUFORA investigator.

It was YUFOS who originally investigated the Cracoe sighting and subsequently released a report (the ‘Cracoe File’) giving details of the photo analysis conducted into a series of six photographs taken by wirnesses at the time. According to Mark Birdsall in his report Cracoe: the Evidence published late in 1986,

” … the [Cracoe] incident is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence regarding the UFO phenomenon ever aquired in the UK”.

On Monday 16 March 1981 a layer of thick cloud covered the Yorkshire Dales at 2000 feet altitude. Although the weather was cool and free from precipitation, it had been raining moderately during the previous week and snow had been noted 24 hours previously. A slight 9 knot wind was blowing, and occasionally the sun broke through the cloud cover for a minute at a time.

Cracoe village is situated a few miles north of the market town of Skipton, surrounded by the fells and valleys of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. ‘Cracoe Fell’ is the name give locally to only one part of a large rock outcrop designated as Rylestone Fell on Ordnance Survey maps, which runs north – south at a height of 1600 feet above sea level. The surrounding area has experienced a lot of UFO activity since the late 1970s, numerous police officers being amongst those reporting incidents, especially around Carleton and Elslack Moors to the south of Skipton.

At approximately 1055 hrs on the morning in question, the wife of a police officer living in a police house in Cracoe village opposite the Fell looked out of the kitchen window and was astonished to see a series of brilliant lights. They were positioned against the Fell loverlooking Cracoe village to the south-east. She immediately called her husband and they watched the brilliant lights for a while, before calling another off-duty police officer. These three witnesses described seeing “up to five distinct white coloured orbs” situated 50 feet below the Fell summit.

They noted that the central light of the formation seemed to be the brightest, as well as a separate ‘blob’ of light to the left of the formation.Through binoculars one of the officers described seeing a “triangular shaped fin” behind the central light, as well as a “long tube shape of white light”. The whole barrage of lights, said to be so bright that on “occasion [he] had to turn his eyes away” was estimated to be 40 feet in diameter. A “distinct haze” was noticible between the lights.” At 1115 hrs. the officers telephoned police sergeant Tony Dodd at Grassington, who at the time was a local UFO investigator although he did not arrive on the scene until the lights had disappeared.

At 1130 hrs. the observers were convinced that a UFO was hovering in the air beside the Fell, and they then proceded to take six 35mm colour photographs of the lights through the open window, one of the shots (the fifth) using a zoom lens. These photographs constitute the main evidence from which the Cracoe controversy has arisen.

During the observation (which lasted one hour) two jets passed over the Fell, once at 1125 hrs and again at 1205 hrs after the lights had disappeared, this time passing low over the spot where they had been. These jets were part of a NATO exercise (in which helicopters were not involved) taking place that morning. However the authorities denied that they had anything to do with the lights.

Another witness saw the lights along with the police. He was Mr D. Carlisle, a Cracoe farmer. Although the police witnesses were convinced that what they saw could not be explained as a natural phenomonon, Carlisle dismissed the lights as sunlight breaking through the clouds on dull days, and reflecting off the millstone grit.

At this stage it would be helpful to give the statements of the three primary witnesses. The first is by PC Derek ingham, made on 21 March 1981:

On Monday March 16th 1981, I was in the kitchen of my house when I saw three bright lights on the rock face. I looked at the lights with my binoculars but was unable to get a clear view, as if I was looking straight at car headlights. The lights were in a line, but there appeared to be a smaller light just to the side of the main light source. I saw a shape at the back of the lights but was unable to make it out. Sometime around 11.30 a.m. two RAF jets flew over the area, first one then another, flying very slowly. there is no water on the rock face to give a reflection, and to the best of my knowledge mo metallic deposits. At around 11.55 a.m. the lights dimmed and became bright on several occasions. I have observed the Fell every day at the same time, the light source has not reappeared. I have also spoken to several village residents who state that they have no knowledge as to what might have caused the lights.

Second is the statement of PC Steve guest, made on 28 March 1981:

Please see account [above] which I totally agree with. I remained in the house during the entire incident until ther lights disappeared. I am a keen amateur photographer and took the pictures between 11.15 a.m. and 11.40 a.m. The lights appeared just below the top of the Fell, they were hovering. The array of lights varied in intensity and after one hour they vanished. there was no concrete shape yet the colour was the same an magnesium lights, they were brilliant. I found the lights unusual because on the Fell (which is very steep) there is nothing to stand the lights on. The terrain makes it impossible to duplicate such an effect.

Finally the statement given to WYURS by the farmer, D. Carlisle on 28 September 1986. His testimony is crucial to the interpretation and explanation of this sighting, but even though he is mentioned in the local police report and in a newspaper story of 1983, YUFOS sted in 1986 that they “rule out the farmer as a vital witness”. It must be noted that between 1981 and 1986, the time when YUFOS investigated and promoted this case, not once did they mention anywhere in their magazine, case reports, or public lectures, that a witness existed who believed the lights to have a mundane explanation.

I was present outside Cracoe Police Station on the 16th March 1981. I observed the lights for not more than 15 minutes. The lights were on Rylestone Fell [note correct term for Cracoe Fell]. People present were Tony Dodd (a police sergeant), D. Ingham (policeman). The weather conditions were overcast with outbreaks of sun. The lights observed were as portrayed in the photographs and in that location. I have seen these lights both before and after on several occasions, as have my wife and sone. The lights appear when the sun shines on the wet surfaces. It does not occur on bright sunny days, only on cloudy days with outbreaks of sun. My attitude towards the UFO phenomenon is one of an open mind and in my opinion and the lights I saw were nothing else than the sun shining on the rocks. On the day in question the lights were stronger than I had seen before. I did not notice any structure whatever behind the lights.

THE YUFOS INVESTIGATION

—————-

Not once did YUFOS mention anywhere that a witness existed who believed the lights to have a mundane explanation

—————- 

Although articles relating to the Cracoe case, and naming the witnesses, had appeared in the local paper The Craven Herald following the sightings in 1981, YUFOS did not go public with the case until the summer of 1983 and by this time the officers involved had requested total anonimity (they hoped the case would go no further). YUFOS had the six photographs developed by a ‘police contact’ in Hull. He concluded that they showed “a series of bright lights against the Fell … far brighter than the Fell and surrounding areas”.

Two slides and a negative were then sent for analysis by an expert at Leeds University who suggested that the policemen had been looking at a physical object which was “tilted back towards the Fell face … at an angle of thirty degrees”, and that the blobs of light were on the underside of the object. Slides were sent to contacts in London where the image was enlarged 80 times. Here it was said that the ‘fin’ could be picked out behind the lights. However, nowher in YFOS’s reports is documentary evidence given to back the above conclusions.

By 1982-3 YUFOS had decided to send the photographs to independent analists in America and West Germany, and at the same time work in the Cracoe area was carried out by members of YUFOS’s field investigation team led by Philip Mantle

YUFOS investigators placed markers on the fell, and on instructions from observers in Cracoe village plotted the exact location of the ‘lights’. The team also ruled out the possibility that the lights could have been mom-made (i.e. markers for the NATO exercise) due to the inaccesibility of the steep rock and the fact that the police observed no-one.

In a trip up the adjoining section of the fell in June 1981 Philip Mantle and his team discovered ” … hundreds of dead trees … it looked like a mini version of the Tunguska fireball event.” YUFOS stated that samples of this damage analysed at Leeds University “were found to have been burned by a severe heat source placed quite close for only a few minutes … not consistento to a lightning strike or a normal fire”. No documents were given to back up these claims, and the evidence now at hand indicates that the damage could just as easily have been caused by a forest fire. In their 1986 report YUFOS admit this is the probable explanation for the tree damage. Nevertheless this has been associated with the Cracoe Fell sighting during public lectures given by YUFOS. [Including one given to the 1986 Anglo-French UFO Symposium at Hove, attended by Magonia editors - JR]

By 1983-4 YUFOS had received the results of the analysis carried out by Ground Saucer Watch (GSW) of Arizona, and by the independednt West German researcher Klaus Webner, into the Cracoe case. Although YUFOS have claimed that in particular GSW’s computer techniques lend support to the UFO designation of this case, the facts clearly show that both of these analysts conclude that the photographs do not show a solid object, and that the light was probably caused by some sort of light reflection.

GSW state: “the shape is both irregular and non-symetrical” and that “there is no photographic evidence that the image is structured … computerised data suggests that the AI [anomalous image] is tenuous in nature and is either light producing or light relecting”. They conclude that “there is no evidence that the AIs are ‘objects’ hovering between the witness and the distant hills”, and that explantions of “natural landscape, i.e. limestone rock formations or water reflecting sunlight are plausible … the densitometer readings reveal that the AI is not as bright as the sky, but is contrasted due to the surrounding darker area”. Although computer scans failed to pick out other areas of rock/sunlight reflection on other parts of the rock face, they did find areas of residual snow which could possibly have reflected sunlight.

Webner’s analysis, based mainly on distance factoring, states:

I have found no movement of the light spots, so they must have a stationary source (consitent with a reflection) … I have found no evidence that there was anything in the air between the Cracoe Fell and the witnesses … I have found no evidence of a flying or flyable object … no shot shows the appearance or disappearance.

In the original Cracoe File Mark Birdsall writes that: “It is quite obvious that these results relate very closely to the original analysis offered by GSW, the original police report and the resulting investigation by Tony Dodd”. This statement does not stand up to scrutiny, for the original police report implies that something solid was present and Webner’s (as well as that by GSW to an extent}, does not. None of the analysts picked out a fin or any kind of structure behind the lights.

The GSW alanysis is described as ‘sparse’ in the Cracoe File, and as regards Webner: “using all [his] figures, options and comments, we feel nothing is based on proper scientific analysis”!

One of the reasons for the confusion above is the fact that many of the data supplied by YUFOS to the photo-analysts were inaccurate and misleading. Many of the estimates given, e.g. the distance between the observers and the lights and the estimated diameter of the ‘object’ are contradicted by the photographic analysis. The distance given by the police and cited in the original Cracoe File was three-quarters of a mile: a reference to a map shows the true distance is nearer two miles! (admitted by YUFOS in their 1986 report). Both Webner and GSW conclude that the spot causing the light is very small in surface area. Webner concluded originally that the diameter of the object was under one meter (corrected by YUFOS to five feet taking into account the true distance). YUFOS had concluded that the size of the object was around 40 feet in diameter.

Also contradicted by the GSW analysis is the initial statement by the witnesses that the lights attracted their attention due to their ‘dazzling’ brilliance. GSW conclude that the “AI is not as bright as the sky … the photograph does not support ‘three very intense white lights’” GSW’s discovery that “evidence of snow is obvious” on other sections of the Fell face also contradicts the statement of the YUFOS investigators that no snow or ice was visible on the Fell (however YUFOS add in 1986 that “there was of course the possibility that small snow particles had formed in the cracks of the rock face”)

The case reports released by YUFOS are riddled with similar errors of omission and commision. Both distances and directions given are very vague (no grid reference is given in the original file, and the one given in the 1986 report is inaccurate – the correct map reference approximated by WYURS is GR 965576, sheet SD 85/95), so that a person unfamilar with the Cracoe area would only be able to find the place mentioned with difficulty. YUFOS states over again that the phenomenon was observed on ‘limestone rock’, when in fact it was observed on quartz-bearing millstone crags. All the rocks of the area are basically limestone, but layers of rock at the tops of the fells are composed of resistant caps of millstone grit. This rock glistens when wet (it had been raining several days previous to the sighting), and is known to retain moisture for length periods.

Despite all these inconsistencies YUFOS conclude ” … there is certainly a great deal of evidence both scientific and circumstantial which supports the UFO theory … YUFOS feel that information … at least partly supports the structured image theory”. Clearly, these statements are nonsense. None of the independent scientific analyses found any ‘structure’ behind the lights or any evidence that the lights were three-dimensional.

Nevertheless, in the summer of 1983 the story was carried by the local and national press as confirmed evidence of UFOs in the Yorkshire Dales. At one point YUFOS were offered £500 by the Mail on Sunday to admit that the photographs showed ‘aliens from space’. Although YUFOS admitted that ‘they didn’t disagree with this’, to their credit they refused the offer.

During the burst of publicity surrounding the photographs those who had perhaps been convinced by YUFOS’s statements might have missed a small item which appeared in the Skipton newspaper, the Craven Herald on 2 September 1983. This was a report on the beliefs of the Cracoe farmer, D. Carlisle.:

Reports that a shiny object on Cracoe Fell was conclusive proof of alien visitors to earth have been dismisses as ‘rubbish’ by a local farmer. Mr D. Carlisle said the phenomenon often occurred on dull days when the sun caught rocks on the fell. “It’s quite spectacular, but that’s all there is to it”, he explained.

Although YUFOS had not mentioned this item in their reports of the case prior ro 1986, it was obtained by Nigel Mortimer of WYURS, through the usual press-cutting channels shortly afterwards. He decided to look into the sighting on behalf of BUFORA, WYURS and NUFON, and contacted Mr Carlisle for his story. The farmer confirmed his belief that the lights were a reflection, and his story has never changed from that interpretation.

Nigel also visited Cracoe Fell and saw unusual shimmering light reflections caused by the lights of Threshfield Quarry opposite. He soon ruled these out as the explanation (they were never turned on during the day) although it did demonstrate that unusual reflections could be observed in the area. However, in 1986 Mark Birdsall maintained that YUFOS investigators had visited the area more that 90 times and over 600 slides had been taken, but “no unusual light reflections of any kind were observed even in bright sunlight”.

Throughout the period 1983 – 1986 YUFOS lectured widely, claiming the photographs showed a UFO, and used them to boost their status within ufology and their claims to ‘Britain’s leading UFO publication’.

Continued in part two >>>