Category Archives: Harney, John

Former editor of Merseyside UFO Bulletin

A Shift of Emphasis.
John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

Originally published as the editorial to Merseyside UFO Bulletin, volume 2, number 2, John Harney’s comments came at a pivotal point in the development of what came to be known as the ‘new ufology’. They signalled a change in the way that MUFOB was to cover the subject, and set a clear challenge to the ‘nuts and bolts’ school of ufology. Perhaps the only addition one would make today is to add “and social scientists” to the final sentence.

Until fairly recently serious UFO research has been aimed at the possibility of proving that some of the unexplained UFOs are intelligently directed vehicles from other planets. The issues were fairly simple. On the one hand the serious ‘believers’,  typified by Keyhoe, held that the interplanetary spaceships hypothesis hypothesis was the only tenable one to account for many unexplained reports. At the other extreme the more thoughtful sceptics typified by Menzel insisted that all UFO reports could be explained as misinterpretations of natural phenomena or conventional aircraft, if sufficient accurate  information were available in each case. Both sides generally refused to take contact reports seriously, leaving this aspect to the cultists.

At one time the elusive UFO itself was the main object of our researches, but now the emphasis is beginning to shift to studies of the witnesses, the strange happenings roported to accompany many UFO events, and the backgrounds against which these events take place.

The kind of testimony which has been piling up increasingly in the last few years — that of reported close encounters with UFOs and their ‘occupants’ — seems to make this shift of emphasis inevitable. For these are the types of encounters which could be expected to produce definite proof of the physical reality of UFOs. But these UFOs and their occupants always get away, and if anything in the nature of physical evidence is found at the sites of the reported encounters, that evidence is generally equivocal, to say the least.

It is thus probable that in future the subject of ufology will increasingly engage the serious attention of psychologists  - and even psychical researchers.

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

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports.
John Harney

Posted on by
1

From Magonia 64, August 1998.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The recent report of a workshop on UFO reports, funded by Laurence S. Rockefeller and given administrative support by the Society for Scientific Exploration was, according to the New Scientist, “… funded by a little-known organisation which has published papers supporting such concepts as dowsing and reincarnation. What’s more, the panel included a physicist who ‘designs’ perpetual motion machines and an engineer who tries to move objects by concentrating hard.” (New Scientist, No. 2141, 4 July 1998)
This gives the impression that the findings of the panel are fit only for the sort of tabloids which bear headlines such as `World War II Aircraft Found on the Moon’ and ‘Space Aliens Turned My Son Into An Olive’. However, almost all of the ridicule which has appeared in the media consists of knee-jerk reactions from persons who have obviously not read the report and have no intention of doing so. The belief obviously subscribed to by such people is that those who waste their time studying UFO reports are, by definition, crazy.
This does not seem to be a very constructive or scientific approach, so let us have a look at the report itself. The purpose of the workshop was to consider physical evidence associated with UFO reports and it took the form of a number of UFO researchers presenting evidence to a panel of scientists. Considering that the panel was looking for good cases supported by physical evidence its members must have been disappointed with what was presented to them. It is admitted that the panel concluded that further analysis of the evidence presented at the workshop is unlikely to elucidate the cause or causes of the reports.
As I read the report I got two main impressions: nothing useful emerged from the presentations and discussions; and the ufologists presenting their data and findings seemed bent on blinding the panel with science, or pseudo-science (in this they appear to have succeeded).
Just because the panel members did not issue a report supporting the ETH or any other scientifically unorthodox explanation of UFO reports, it should not be thought that their deliberations were rigorously scientific. The ufologists obviously took advantage of the fact that the panel members had little time to examine their claims in depth.
One of the cases reviewed is the famous Coyne helicopter incident of 18 August 1973. Readers might wonder what the ufologists had to say about Philip Klass’s assertion that the helicopter crew was fooled by an Orionid meteor. The answer is – nothing. Maybe Klass’s explanation is incorrect, but it is so well known (to ufologists) that there seems to be little excuse for not mentioning it at all.
If you think I am being nitpicking about this, then you only have to look at the large amount of text devoted to the French government sponsored organisation SEPRA (formerly GEPAN). The panel members were so impressed by what they were told of this organisation’s work that they present them in their report as a shining example of what scientific UFO research ought to be.
The notorious Trans-en-Provence case is presented, as interpreted by GEPAN/SEPRA. The reader is referred to three papers by investigators who apparently believe the testimony of the only witness and apparently prefer to link the markings found at the site of the alleged encounter to the possible landing of a UFO. There is no consideration of the theory proposed by Michel Monnerie that the affair was a hoax that got out of hand, or of or of Eric Maillot’s detailed criticisms of the GEPAN/SEPRA investigation of the case. [1]
The panel members, as physical scientists, obviously tended to take much of the evidence at face value, whereas experienced ufologists are aware that many UFO incidents just did not happen in the manner described by witnesses and investigators. They obviously underestimated the enormous bias caused by investigators’ preconceived ideas as to what UFOs are or are not.

The panel’s conclusions included such stunningly obvious ones as “The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple universal answer” and “Studies should concentrate on cases which include as much independent physical evidence as possible and strong witness testimony”.

They also recommended that there should be formal regular contact between the UFO community and physical scientists. Many of the larger UFO organisations already have physical scientists, some of them very experienced and highly qualified, among their members. Formal contacts already exist between, for example, amateur and professional astronomers, and amateur and professional meteorologists. However, there are very few professional ufologists.
One of the main points picked up by the media was that the panel would like funds to be made available for UFO investigations, with the wonderful French SEPRA as the model of how to implement this suggestion. Whether it would be worth while to pay scientists to go around investigating UFO reports in the hope that data leading to the advancement of science might eventually be acquired, is a debatable question. (There is also the problem of the gullibility of many physical scientists when presented with evidence said to be connected with a UFO event.)
The panel members would have done better if they had heeded the advice given by Dr Condon, who wrote in his report to the US Air Force: “Although we conclude after nearly two years of intensive study that we do not see any fruitful lines of advance from the study of UFO reports, we believe that any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported.” [2]
References:

1. Maillot, Eric and Scornaux, Jacques. ‘Trans-en-Provence: Where science and belief go hand in hand’, in Evans and Stacy, (eds), UFOs 1947-1997, John Brown, London, 1997, 151-159.

2. Condon, Edward U. ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’, in Gillmor, Daniel S. (ed.), Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Bantam, 1969.

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

Second Look – The Galileo Fallacy.
John Harney and Robert Morrell

Posted on by
Reply

From Magonia 23, July 1986

In our occasional SECOND LOOK feature contributors reconsidered an article in a previous edition of Magonia. Here Robert Morrell looks at John Harney’s “The Galileo Myth” which appeared in Magonia 21

inquistionRobert Morrell:

John Harney is to be warmly congratulated for his splendid vindication of the action taken against the scientist Galileo. It was truly shocking that this man should permit his own “argumentative character” and the fact that he was “insensitive” to “other considerations” to dictate his actions. He should have realised and appreciated the fact that only the Church was allowed to act in such a manner. Perhaps he should simply have written his ideas down in a code, as da Vinci did, in a private notebook and so ensured that they would be forgotten until relatively recent times. After all, you cannot have a mere mortal with his puny ideas challenging the accepted tenets of divine revelation, backed by the infallible authority of the Church.

Galileo could thank himself lucky that the Church in her infinite humanity did not burn him at the stake as she regretfully had to do with other upstart scientists like Bruno. He could though have waited, like Copernicus, to publish his ideas when he was near to death and so to allow God to judge whether it was to be heaven or hell.

Mr Harney is quite right to stress that the Church leaders were primarily concerned to protect “the spiritual welfare of millions”, whether they could understand the implications of Copernican cosmology or not, and not mention the erroneous possibility that political and economic power, plus the challenge of Protestantism might have entered into consideration.

Urban VIII of blessed memory may have been a notorious nepotist, so the enemies of the Church charged but surely it was matters spiritual not material which determined his opposition to the cosmological ideas Galileo championed? After all, he had supported Galileo in the past – over a dispute about bodies in water, not cosmology, it is true. As Mr Harney is quite right to point out, when the Domincan father, Tommaso Caccini preached a violent sermon against mathematicians in general and Gallileo in particular, the head of his Order apologised to Galileo – of course, he also promoted Caccini at the same time, but that is another story.

Galileo did not, as is pointed out, reply to, or contradict Tycho Brahe; well, I suppose we can pass over as irrelevant the criticsm in his Discourse on Comets and his extensive manuscript notes in another work (unpublished), and exclude consideration of the ultimate fate of Brahe’s cosmology, which was partially Copernican, though leaving the earth . as the centre of the universe and so wisely deflecting theological criticism.

We might also ignore the fact that Brahe attempted, via  G. V. Pinelli and Frances Tengnagel, to ensnare Galileo into getting him to write a eulogistic biography of Brahe so that the latter could land a plum job with the Holy Roman Emperor. It was unfortunate that Galileo found out about the ruse and tended to ignore Brahe from then on. It is wise to think that this affair played any part in Galileo’s thinking about Brahe, so perhaps that is why Mr Harney so wisely refrained from mentioning it.

It is said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we can see at the present point in time how the unfettered progress of science has destroyed “spiritual welfare” all over the world, allowing heretical such as those published even in Magonia to be freely discussed without penalty on those who preach such error.

Look at the fate of the Anglican Church in Britain and the awful situation the Catholic Church found itself in in France, for was it not the popular acceptance of Copernican cosmology following the publication of Discovery of a World… (1638) and A Discourse concerning a new world… (1640), both written by John Wilkins, an Anglican bishop, believe it or not, in England, and Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle’s Entretierts sur la pluralitie desm (1668) in France, which was to lead to the destruction of the “spiritual welfare” of both nations?

Yes, Mr Harney is right, the Church acted wisely in seeking to curb the free play of ideas. How dare the Galileos of the time demand and expect freedom of thought and expression. The Church has ways to curb such license, as Galileo and others have found.

It is a pity the world has failed to grasp how wisely the Church acted; however there are some commentators, Mr Harney being one, who have recognised the truth and realised that free speech is an insidious evil which the Church has a God-given right to curb.

John Harney replies:

IT IS obvious from Robert Morrell’s's comments on my article about Galileo that he subscribes to the thesis that science and religion are logically incompatible and fundamentally opposed to one another. He thus sees science as winning the battle today, whereas in Galileo’s time religion had the upper hand and was struggling to maintain its position.

This is a thesis which I do not accept and, anyway, the Galileo case can hardly be cited as a good example of it. The controversy took place within the Church, not between the Church and a group of agnostic scientists.

The Church did not attempt to prevent Galileo from publishing his scientific discoveries and theories; it objected to his assertion that his model of the universe was the true one and that the teachings of the scholastic philosophers – based on the ideas of Aristotle – were false. The Pope and his cardinals were in some difficulty here because of the way in which interpretations of religious doctrines had become entangled with Aristotelian philosophy. However, they did not consider that it was Galileo’s place to untangle the mess.

They were well aware of the new theories and their implications, but their approach was one of great caution. Cardinal Bellarmine expressed this caution in a letter to Paolo Foscarni, who had sent him a copy of his book defending the Copernican system.

He wrote: “Now consider whether, in all prudence, the Church could consider giving to Scripture of a sense contrary to the Holy Fathers and all the Greek and Latin expositors.” And in a later paragraph he wrote: “To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the sun at the centre and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is at the centre and the earth in the heavens.”

Dr Morrell is quite right to suggest that “political and economic power plus the challenge of Protestantism might have entered into consideration”. It would indeed be absurd to suggest that the churchmen of that time (or any other time) were morally perfect and never swayed by worldly considerations. There is no justification, however, for taking the opposite extreme view.

The progress of science today depends very little upon the current state of religious belief and scepticism. However, its progress is hardly “unfettered”, as Dr Morrell suggests, being constrained these days by economic influences, and in some cases by the demands of political, rather than religious dogmas.

Freedom of speech can never be absolute for any individual, as it is always constrained by the need to consider the rights of others and by current ideas as to what is or is not acceptable. These constraints vary from age to age, as do official constraints. For example, modern writers need not be worried about the Inquisition, but they may need to consider the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.

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

 

Objections to the Parapsychological Hypothesis. [1970]
John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Our First Reactions to the Condon Report. [1969]
The Editors

Posted on by
1

From Merseyside UFO Bulletin, volume 2, number 2, March-April 1969

Alan W. Sharp

In assessing the value of the Condon Report the most difficult task is to arrive at some unbiased standard of worth. As a piece of scientific literature it leaves a good deal to be desired, but as a contribution to the understanding of the subject it contains much of general interest and some valuable elucidations of interesting sightings.

The temptation is to follow one of the least troublesome alternatives–uncritical acceptance of Condon’s conclusions, or rejection of the report as a piece of official whitewashing. Neither, I feel, would be correct.

The Committee had what all sensible UFO investigators know to be an almost insuperable task and can claim moderate success in carrying out their brief.

The number of cases investigated was painfully small, but the results were set out quite well. No evidence was found to support the extraterrestrial spaceships hypothesis, but the treatment was incomplete. Some cases were unsolved but most of these were too readily shrugged aside under the amorphous designation of insufficient evidence for evaluation.

All this is just about what one would have expected and the fact that the Condon team did not score 100% success in evaluation of even their limited number of chosen sightings is hardly surprising. Had they done so, the feat would have been
roundly condemned by everyone.

Bearing this in mind, it is obvious that complete success cannot be the correct criterion of the Report. It is also obvious that Condon himself was scarcely justified in making the sweeping assertions contained in his Chapter 1 summary. By and large, however, he is probably not far off the mark in saying that the scientific fallout from over 20 years of UFO research has been extremely small. Nevertheless, it is wrong to suppose that there has been none.

The interesting and valuable chapters dealing with many pertinent natural phenomena should be of considerable value and interest to all investigators of unusual aerial events and, in particular, to those who interest themselves in unidentifiod flying objects.

These chapters comprise the whole of section VI of the Report, from page 559 to page 810, plus a considerable part of Section III from page 51 to page 209, approximately 400 pages in all, out of 941 pages of text. Included in the latter part (Section III) are many analyses of sightings additional to the 59 cases which are described in detail in the 236 pages of Section IV.

Section II, called a ‘Summary of the Study’, includes comment on such facets of the UFO scene as the extraterrestrial hypothesis, intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, visual perception photographs of alleged UFOs, radar sightings, astronautsl sightings, instrumentation and the attitude of the general public.

Of the direct physical evidence which is mentioned in UFO literature, markings on the ground (p 87) and parts of UFO equipment discussed (p 92 et seq.) include the well-known Sao Paulo magnesium fragments, but the conclusion is reached that ground markings are inconclusive and the magnesium was of terrestrial origin. Angel hair is mentioned (p 89) and “space grass” is accounted for as anti-radar “chaff”.

It would be possible but somewhat tedious, to work through the whole report in this manner, but for anyone who is sufficiently interested to wade through such an intensive analysis the obvious course of action is to obtain a copy of the Report and peruse it at first-hand.

I would recommend such a course of action to all readers of this brief review. The main snag lies in the physical difficulty of reading a voluminous paperback, but the effort is well worth while and the 12/6 price makes the New York Times reprint a ‘must’ for all ufologists and many other people besides.

John A. Rimmer

Despite the frenzy of slighted UFO organizations, one conclusion emerges clearly from the Condon Report. The U.S.A. government has no secret evidence that UFOs originate from beyond, upon, or within the Earth. If they did it would have been impossible for the Committee to maintain such a stance of detached boredom. As one ploughs through the thousand-odd pages of the Report one can sense the ennui, and almost hear Dr Condon yawning and whimpering, as the phrase is. On page 548 (New York Times/Bantam edition) we are presented with a moving and dramatic picture of Dr Condon being virtually blackmailed to leave his beloved work on atomic spectra to start an investigation on a “confused and ambiguous subject”, one in which a “truly scientific study…was extremely difficult, if not impossible”.

Having however been inveigled into this vague, airyfairy world the good doctor proceeds immmediately to extricate himself. The four hundred or so pages of scientific padding are not intended for the likes of us. They are there to impress fellow scientists that although the team may be investigating a thoroughly unsatisfactory topic, they are not going to be led from the paths of scientific orthodoxy. Here are solid facts, lots of graphs and formulae. A really good attempt to keep up the tone of the neighbourhood. The actual UFO work (that which is original, and not reprints from earlier reports or papers) is carried out in a methodical and scientific manner, but does not give the impression that anyone is actually interested in the subject. Probably the approach would be the same if the Committee were asked to investigate Magyar vowel-roots in Icelandic.

The chapter “Conclusions and Recommendations” is a splendid example of the nineteenth-century materialist approach to research:

“Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs cannot be justified in the expextation that science will be advanced thereby,”

The argument is that the scientific methods used to investigate UFOs are perfect and incapable of improvement, therefore it must be the UFOs that are at fault, and are inherently uninteresting. Further on in the same chapter Condon writes:

“As the reader will judge, we have focussed attention almost entirely on the material sciences … We have found rather less than some persons may have expected in the way of psychological problems related to belief in the reality of UFOs as craft from galactic or intergalactic civilizations … We do not suggest however that the UFO phenomenon is, by its nature, more amenable to study in psychological and psychopathological disciplines than in the physical sciences.”

In this there appears to be something of the attitude that ‘if we can’t find out anything then neither can these trickcyclist guys’. Again, true materialism, everything can be explained in terms of billiard-ball atoms and steam engines.

One of the conclusions that has generated a good deal of controversy is the recommendation that schoolchildren shpuld be discouraged from reading the ‘wrong kind’ of UFO book. This evinced cries of ‘dictatorship’ from many enthusiasts. However I would regard this as another manifestation of boredom rather than some sinister plot. Possibly it can be seen as part of the educational backlash against current teaching methods. Dr Condon, probably brought up on an educational diet of solid learning, reinforced with such worthy works as ‘Every Boy’s Book of Atomic Spectra’ would certainly look askance at such woolly-minded attitudes to education.

In short then, the Report is one made by materialists bored and rather annoyed with a subject that they cannot get hold of and put in their spectrum analysis equipment. Best parts are chapters 1 and 2 of section V; chapter 3, section VI; and appendix V. Here one or two intangibles are allowed to creep in, although kept carefully under control, The case studies section IV, are the same as all the ones you ever read in Menzel’s books. Section VI is very nice if you like that kind of thing, but it’s got nothing to do with UFOs.

John Harney

The Report of the Condon Committee is currently available as a paperback, consisting of nearly 1,000 pages (“Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects”, a New York Times Book/Bantam Book.

The main conclusion reached by the Panel is that:

“Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science. will be advanced thereby.” (p 1)

However, they admit that:

“Scientists are no respecters of authority. Our conclusion that study of UFO reports is not likely to advance science will not be uncritically accepted by them.” (p 2)

Thus the members of the Condon team fully realize that their report is extremely unlikely to end the scientific controversy on the subject of UFOs.

Apart from the foregoing remarks, the team seem to have been unable to state anything definite about the subject, and’ their attitude to the unexplained sightings in the report is somewhat negative.

There is something very familiar about their style and approach to the subject. All of the comments and evaluations have a distinctly Menzelian air about them. Indeed, Condon bemoans the fact that Menzel’s book Flying Saucers (1953) never achieved a large enough sale to be issued as a paperback, whereas Leslie and Adamski’s Flying Saucers Have Landed (1953) became a best seller. (p 525)

It seems to me that it would be fair to sum up the general attitude of the Project as follows. The vast majority of UFO reports can be explained satisfactorily as misinterpretations of aircraft and natural phenomena and others explained as hoaxes and delusions. There remains a small number of unexplained incidents. In these cases, although it seems that genuine UFOs were involved, it is conceivable that the witnesses were mistaken or lying, therefore they must have been mistaken or lying. In another field of enquiry, the same sort of argument has been used to discredit psychical research.

The Report contains a number of apparently contradictory statements and comments. The most interesting concern allegations of government secrecy concerning UFOs. Condon writes: “We have no evidence of secrecy concerning UFO reports.” (p 5) Yet in the Case Studies, Case 5 (pp 260-266) concerns an incident in 1957 when the crew of a B-47 aircraft encountered a UFO. The Project interviewed three of the crew members but were unable to obtain any information from the Air Force concerning the 0fficia1 reports said to have been made at the time.

The team also remark on claimed UFO events at Air Force bases, about which they were unable to obtain any official information (p 70), quoting one of the cases they report in detail as an example (p 341). This case came to the attention of the Project from a “source considered to be reliable.” However, after attempting to obtain official confirmation or denial of the report, the Project came to the following conclusion:

“Although it is that the report of this incident was never more than a rumor, it is also true that project investigators were not able satisfactorily to confirm or deny that a UFO incident, had occurred. Attempts to investigate the rumor were met with evasion and uncooperative responses to our inquiries by base information.”

It seems to me that most people would tend to interpret incidents such as these as being strongly indicative of official secrecy in operation, although it is only fair to point out that some groups greatly exaggerate the part played by official secrecy in concealment of UFO data.

Much of the Report consists of padding. Some of this padding is very interesting, particularly the section dealing with atmospheric electrical phenomena. However, as most of this material has only an indirect bearing on the question and is already available to UFO researchers in the appropriate scientific textbooks, there seems little if any justification for including it. Worse, little attempt is made to correlate this material with actual UFO observations, although there is some useful discussion on the uses and limitations of radar in the detection of UFOs.

For some very pertinent criticisms of the Report, the reader is advised to consult the latest issue (Volume 15, Number 2) of Flying Saucer review.

There is one use for the report for UFO investigators. It brings together, between one set of covers, information on various types of natural phenomena, many of which could under certain circumstances result in spurious UFO reports. Thus it could help some ufologists to avoid making elementary scientific blunders when evaluating the reports which they investigate.

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

The report is available from Amazon Books. Click on this link:

Final report of the scientific study of unidentified flying objects conducted by the University of Colorado under contract to the United States Air Force (A ‘New York Times’ book)

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

How to be Interviewed.
John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

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

………………………………………………………………………………….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Earth Lights Controversy.
John Harney Replies

Posted on by
Reply

From Magonia 13, 1983

In the previous issue of Magonia (No. 12) appeared a long letter from Paul Devereux which was devoted to attacking my review of his book Earth Lights (EL) which was published in Magonia 11. He seems annoyed that his work did not inspire me to write pages of gushing prose in fulsome praise of it. However, he more than makes up for my ‘bored and dismissive’ review in his letter. Its bludgeoning, rhetorical style may make it a good read but I hardly think that it will convince many of our readers. Let me examine a few of the points he raises.

He says that the UFO study can be divided into two halves: ‘the core phenomenon which is actually witnessed in the skies’ and the ‘visionary, psychological and sociological aspects’. The phenomena which are seen in the skies have various causes (see, for example The UFO Handbook (1)), but Devereux insists that they are ‘somehow tectonically produced’. No doubt some of them are. Those mysterious phenomena known as ‘earthquake lights’ are at present being subjected to scientific investigation with the object of discovering how they are generated.

However, in a recent paper it is stated that such lights are seen only in association with strong earthquakes and the authors cite a study by Chinese researchers who have found that most occurrences are associated with earthquakes of magnitude 7 or greater and none with earthquakes of magnitude less than 5.(2) Devereux, though, claims that somewhat similar phenomena occur on a smaller scale even in the British Isles and generally not associated with any noticeable seismic activity. It seems that the kinds of UFOs he discusses occur near geological faults – any faults, not just active faults. He tells us that his theory is unfolded primarily in Chapter 7, so let me examine that chapter for accuracy of statement and cogency of argument.

It begins with an account of a study of Leicestershire with the purpose of seeing if there were any correlations between ‘the distribution of old stones, meteorological and seismic phenomena, the incidence of UFOs, alleged paranormal events and geological features of the landscape’. (EL, p.169) Accounts of these phenomena, going back as far as 1580, were extracted from ‘the records’, these records not being specified. From his comments it is obvious that he takes these accounts literally, without any thought of who originally wrote them, for what purposes or under what circumstances. Devereux accuses me of ‘sloppy ufology’ but he is obviously guilty here of sloppy history. Let us look at an example.

He quotes from an account of a violent thunderstorm with hail, which occurred at Markfield on 7 September 1659, and which he attributes to Sir George Booth. This account is written in a rather extravagant style which describes the hail as being of the form of ‘halberts, swords and daggers’ and the thunder as the sound of muskets being discharged. Devereux concludes the description of this incident by remarking: ‘Somehow or other, while in formation, some of the hailstones were obliged to follow a blueprint that must have come from the human mind.’

boothWhen I read this account three related questions occurred to me: Why were military metaphors employed? What other events were happening in England at that time? Was Sir George Booth involved in them? After intensive research in my local library, lasting all of ten minutes, I had the relevant facts. (3) Sir George Booth (1622-84) was involved in a plot for the restoration of Charles II and the rising which he organized took place in August 1659. His forces were defeated and he attempted to escape but was captured, dressed as a woman, at Newport Pagnell and taken to the Tower. Although the rising was an apparent failure it did hasten the restoration of the monarchy (1660) and Booth, instead of losing his head, was made a baron, taking the title of Lord Delamere.

…What has all this got to do with a storm at Markfield? Well, the incident of Booth’s capture was the subject of some scurrilous verses entitled ‘The Last Observations of Sir George Booth’ appended to an account of ‘The Dreadful and Most Prodigious Tempest at Markfield in Leicestershire’. So the account of the storm was not written by Sir George Booth but was written about him and the events he was involved in, which explains the military metaphors which Devereux would apparently have us take literally.

Why does Devereux remark that the hailstones in the Markfield storm must have been shaped by the influence of human minds? Well, this obviously refers to the crankiest of the various themes which are developed in EL. This idea – that the substance which forms the UFO phenomenon is directly manipulated by the human mind – is developed in Chapter 8. It seems that UFO material is ‘a very sensitive energy form’ and that information is transmitted to it by the observer ‘by the process we call “psychekinesis” (PK) – the action of the mind-brain’ on external matter’.

PK, of course, is that mysterious power which bends spoons, etc., but many people have other words for it, such as ‘fraud’ or ‘sleight-of-hand’. Devereux asserts that: ‘Practical magicians develop their PK expertise by concentrating on a candle flame, as this is matter in a particularly tenuous state susceptible to subtle influences’. This is rubbish. Practical magicians do not achieve their results by using PK, but by spending many hours practising each trick until they can perform it so smoothly and skilfully as to deceive even the most observant members of their audiences. Chapter 8 goes on to develop the PK and related ideas in a somewhat incoherent fashion, with a lot of guff about electromagnetic fields, levels of consciousness, the musings of C. G. Jung, and so on.

It seems that Devereux’s thesis about the human mind’s interaction with the UFO ‘material’ is the central idea of his book, for without it there would be nothing special about seismically generated phenomena as a principal cause of unexplained UFO reports.

To return to Chapter 7 – on his map of Leicestershire, Devereux plotted ‘exceptional’ or ‘abnormal’ meteorological events. As he does not define precisely what he means by an abnormal meteorological event, he is thus free to plot them anywhere he likes and he finds that these events are related to faulting. He speculates that ‘fault areas somehow interfere with the normal cycles of the atmosphere’ and that ‘it could be the unusual electromagnetic fields and anomalies surrounding areas of tectonic disturbance and mineral deposits that affect the atmospheric processes, perhaps through the catalyzing effects of solar and lunar influence’. How’s that for pseudo-scientific gobbledygook!

I would speculate that it could be that Devereux doesn’t know anything about meteorology and is too busy plotting various unrelated and unquantified observations on his maps to have time to find out from one of the many excellent basic texts on the subject, so he just makes it up as he goes along. It isn’t geology which affects the local weather, but topography. This will have some effect on the distribution of thunderstorms and their apparent distribution will also be related to the distribution of population and the distribution of weather observing stations. Violent storms are often highly localized, so some of these may not be recorded if they occur in sparsely populated areas.

I had intended to write a longer article about EL but many of the points I would have raised have already been discussed at some length between Devereux and reviewers of his book in various other British UFO journals. The question of the ‘ball lightning’ photograph is very ably dealt with by Colin Bord elsewhere in this issue, so I need make no further comments on it. As for the possibility that some UFO events are caused by geophysical activity, this seems to me to be worth further investigation and Devereux assures us that such work is actually being carried out by the Dragon Project and the Gaia Programme. I hope that their findings, as they are published, will show a more restrained and rigorous approach to the evidence, and will eschew such nonsense as ‘PK’ and other pseudo-scientific notions.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

REFERENCES

  1. HENDRY, Allan. The UFO Handbook. London, Sphere Books, 1980.
  2. LOCKNER, D.A., JOHNSTON, M.J.S. and BYERLEE, J.D. A mechanism to explain the generation of earthquake lights. Nature, Vol. 302, 1983, pp 28-33
  3. Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. II. Oxford University Press.

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

Dr Stephen Black’s UFO Documentary.
John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

From Merseyside UFO Bulletin volume 1, number 3, May-June 1968

On May 9th, (1968) BBC Television presented a documentary programme on UFOs narrated by Dr Stephen Black, a researcher in neuro-physiology. For this programme Dr Black chose only UFO witnesses he believed to be sincere.

He soon revealed the peculiar subjective aspects of UFO sightings. First was Captain Howard concerning the famous sighting made by himself, his crew and passengers from a BOAC airliner on June 29th. 1954. When Howard had told his story Dr Black asked him how he felt at the time. Howard said that he felt “kindly disposed towards them.” He said he discussed it with other members of his crew afterwards and they agreed that they felt “some sort of bond of affection between us and ‘them’.” Captain Howard described it as a “very strange and powerful feeling”.

Another fascinating interview was with Lonnie Zamora of Socorro, followed by a conversation between Dr Black and Dr Hynek. Both agreed that Zamora saw what he said he saw, Dr Hyneksaid that it was one of the most interesting cases he had come across. There followed an interview with Joe Simonton (the Eagle River case) who claimed to have received four pancakes from spacemen in a flying saucer in exchange for a jug of water. Simonton was “not lying.”

Then we were shown engineer Brian Winder lecturing to a joint meeting of the British Interplanetary Society and Royal Aeronautical Society, at Bristol on the subject of his flying saucer model based on an atomic power source, The camera, also showed us his audience, some listening attentively, others smirking.

We were shown Dr William Hartman an astronomer who is responsible for the investigation of all photographic evidence for the Condon Committee attempting to duplicate the famous Heflin photographs. Hartman pointed out the difficulty of obtaining acceptable photographic evidence, If any particular photograph could be duplicated by faking, then this weakened the arguments in favour of the genuineness of that photograph. He compared the situation to the assassination of President Kennedy, for which event there were many eyewitnesses, photographs and physical evidence, such as bullets, etc, In spite of all this people still argue as to exactly what happened and who really fired the shots, and many of books have been written expounding contradictory thc:ories. Rex Heflin revealed that he was a keen model maker and Dr Black commented that it was quite possible to fake a photograph and then forget about it.

The most significant part of the programme was the discussion of the Betty and Barney Hill ‘abduction’ story. Dr Benjamin Simon, the Boston psychiatrist who examined the Hills, said that he was at first very puzzled by the story. Both gave the same story under hypnosis and Betty described her alleged abduction in great, detail. Dr Simon was baffled until he recognised. the dreamlike quality of the story. In dreams such things can exist, be acceptable and not require a diagnoses of mental disorder. This led him to recall that Betty’s original problem had been nightmarish dreams. It turned out that these dreams and the dreams which she had written down in 1961 (just after their UFO experience) were all the same. Simon felt pretty convinced that the abduction part of the story, at least, was merely a dream.

Betty denied telling these dreams to Barney and Barney denied being told about them. However, Betty admitted telling the dreams to her supervisor and her sister and it finally emerged that Barney had been at home at the time she was talking about the dreams, so that he could have absorbed some of the details without realising it. A suggestion by Betty’s supervisor that they might not be dreams but reality led to the complete repression of the whole thing, leading to the gap in memory. Dr Simon said, in answer to a question from Dr Black that both of the Hills were deep trance hypnotic subjects.

Summing up, Black said that a lot of apparent movement of lights in the sky might be due to a well-known mechanism in the brain which makes a flickering light in a darkened room appear to move. The eyeballs remain still, the movement is “all in the mind’. Some scientists believe the rate of flicker to be critical and this rate has to be the same as an importantbrain-wave rhythm – about ten times a second. Stars sometimes twinkle at the rate of ten times a second and the hill’s experience with their attention being drawn to what appeared to be a star. However, stars never seem to move as much as UFOs are said to move.

Barney Hill has said that he did not believe in flying saucers, but Betty did, so to some extent suggestion was going on in their home. Both the Hills are deep-trance hypnotic subjects, and such people are only 5% of the general population. Dr Black said that we wished to test as many convincing UFO witnesses as possible for hypnotizability. this was somewhat difficult to arrange, but only six deep-trance UFO witnesses in succession would be necessary to prove statistically a connection between the two phenomena. So far, he had five such subjects and the odds against that being due to chance were three million to one against. Dr Hynek agreed that this discovery was very interesting and required following up.

Dr Black said that deep-trance hypnotic subjects, so far as we know, do not hallucinate spontaneously; they need a hypnotist to suggest at least the beginnings of the delusion. He then asked: “Could flickering light, the way people react in groups and hypnosis all combine to explain UFOs?” He concluded that perhaps some, though certainly not all sightings could be explained in this way. The Captain Howard sighting could not be explained as a delusion as such an explanation in this case would surely involve telepathy!

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

A Recent Skywatch at Warminster
John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

From Merseyside UFO Bulletin, Volume 2, Number 6, November-December 1969

On the evening of January 3, 1970, Alan Sharp and I attended the regular Saturday night skywatch on Cradle Hill, Warminster. The night was frosty, but cloudy at first, with only a few stars visible now and again.

As we reached the gate, we could hear the party of watchers walking towards us down the road from the guardhouse. Mr Shuttlewood car came over and spoke to us and we asked him about the significance of the spot known as Heaven’s Gate, on the Longleat estate. He told us that one of the usual “breaking points” for Cradle Hill UFOs (i.e., the part of the sky in which they first appear) was on a line with Heaven’s Gate. He repeated his opinion that it night be a place where different dimensions meet. (1) It was also reputed to be the meeting place of an all-male coven of witches. Three was some talk of strange smells and atmospheres noticed by observers on Cradle Hill and at Heaven’s Gate.

Eventually most of us, including Mr Shuttlewood, set off up the road to the guardhouse As we passed the copse on our left we were told that horses refused to go near it. We continued to walk for a few hundred yards on to the ranges. On our way back we decided to investigate the copse. An undentified odour was noticed immediately we entered it and after much sniffing, Alan Sharp traced it to a barrn full of hay, just outside the copse. With that little mystery solved we resumed our walk back to the gate where the cars were parked.

By now, the sky was clearing and Arthur Shuttlewood told us to watch the Plough, which was behind us as we walked down the road. We walked on, glancing back now and again, but Arthur hung back and was soon lost to view. Suddenly, when we were about half-way to the gate, there was an outbreak of exclamations from members of the party. A bright, flickering, orange light was seen from somewhere up near the Cradle Hill copse. Most of us saw it. One or two people leapt over the barbed wire fence and raced off in its general direction.

“It’s like somebody lighting a cigarette,” I said. Someone else said it looked like “rapid Morse”.

People shouted to Arthur, asking if he had seen it. An affirmative answer floated faintly back on the frosty air. However, when he rejoined us he said he thought at first that we had seen what he had seen, which was an object moving horizontally across the lower part of the Plough. The object was something like a shooting star, except that it flashed on and off.

Meanwhile, people were scrambling over the barbed wire fence and running up to the Cradle Fill copse. Less energetic watchers strolled down to the gate. I eventually joined the party up by the copse. The sky was quite clear now and many meteors were seen. The strange light was generally agreed to have been someone lighting a cigarette.

We were told that, before we arrived that evening, a strong smell of sulphur was noticed on Cradle Hi11, near the gate. It seemed to be wafting from the direction of the copse and it persisted for about a quarter of an hour. We were unable to explain this odour, as we had also been baffled by the experience of John Rimmer, when he and I visited Warminster last September. On that occasion he became aware of a smell, “like scented soap,’ which he detected on Cradle Kill in an area extending from the gate to about 80 yards down the road. The strange thing about it was that not one of the other people present was able to detect it.

Finally, back at the gate, the skywatch seemed to be coming quietly to a close, as the frost grew more penetrating. Mr Shuttlewood shook hands and said goodnight. Suddenly he turned and pointed: “Look, over therel”

“Where, where?” everyone shouted.

Our gaze was directed to Battlesbury Hill where we made out a faint light twinkling just above it. Mr Shuttlewood and some others thought it was noving up rather rapidly. Perhaps it was the same thing as a rather puzzling object which had been seen in the same direction during a BUFORA skywatch last June? However, the light soon shone out clearly and steadily and Alan Sharp quickly identified it as the star Arcturus.

Mr Shuttlewood conceded this, but it certainly seemed to some of us that it rose rather rapidly at first over the crest of Battlesbury. As the star rose higher, the group of watchers broke up and drifted away down the hill.

—————————————

1. Arthur Shuttlewood. ‘The Latest Warminster Landing’, Merseyside UFO Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 4, July-August 1969/

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

 

Search For Physical Evidence:
Part Four: The Charlton Crater
John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

From Merseyside UFO Bulletin, volume 4, number 6, Winter 1971

There have been relatively few cases of alleged physical evidence of UFOs in Britain, and of those few the Charlton Crater is by far the most notorious examlple. Serious attempts to provide rational explanations for the occurrence have been consistently ridiculed by the UFO enthusiasts who apparently prefer to believe that the phenomenon was produced by the landing of a flying saucer.

In July, 1963, a crater about 1 ft. [0.3m] deep, 8 ft. [2.4 m.] in diameter, with a hole in the centre about 3 ft. [0.9 m.] deep was found on the boundary between a potato field and a barley field at Manor Farm, Charlton, Wiltshire (near Shaftesbury, Dorset). The crater was discovered by farmer Roy Blanchard, according to Robert Chapman (1), or by a Mr Reg Alexander, according to Leonard Cramp (2). Take your pick.

It is not clear from the various accounts just how the crater came to receive such wide publicity and close scrutiny from military and scientific experts, journalists, ufologists, and assorted cranks and publicity seekers. The incident which seems to have attracted the attention of the national news media and Members of Parliament was the arrival on the scene of an Army Bomb Disposal Squad. These gentlemen found no bomb, but did detect metal, which was in fact magnetite, naturally occurring in the soil of that area.

Unfortunately the sensational publicity accorded to the affair did not provide a suitable atmosphere for rational, scientific investigation. A lump of iron ore recovered from the crater by the Army team was pounced on by Patrick Moore, who hastily pronounced it to be a meteorite.

The issue was further confused by the arrival on the scene of a gentleman calling himself Dr Randall, who purported to be an ‘Australian austrophysicist’. This character assured the gentlemen of the press that the crater was caused by a flying saucer weighing about 600 tons [540 tonne], with a crew of about 50, and originating from the planet Uranus. Still further confusion must have been caused in the minds of interested observers when the newspapers printed these inane drivellings of ‘Dr Randall’ apparently without taking the trouble to consult the appropriate reference books in order to determine his bona fides.

Questions in the House of Commons eventually established that the crater was not caused by a bomb or a meteorite and, so far as the authorities were concerned the matter remained unexplained. Ufologists immediately took this as a licence to indulge in wild speculations about flying saucers and their alleged electromagnetic effects and “G fields”. Much was also made of the fact that the magnetite in the soil in the immediate vicinity of the crater was found to have been magnetised. Much was also made of the alleged complete disappearance of potato plants at the site of the crater. (3)

The Charlton Crater, among other similar occurrences, attracted the attention of Alan W.Sharp who, as our readers well know, does not believe in spaceships from Uranus or in fairies or Father Christmas either, for that matter.

Mr Sharp at first thought that the crater may have been caused by subsidence, but later revised his opinion and suggested that it was probably caused by a lightning strike. This would explain the magnetic effects observed by investigators. In a review of Leonard Cramp’s Piece for a Jigsaw Alan Sharp wrote:

“A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the Charlton occurrence but in point of fact this was a classic example of the type of ‘crater’ ascribable to the strike of lightning on open ground. It displays radiating surface marks, removal of material and a central hole. It was preceded by a violent thunderstorm accompanied by strong winds and was in an area of considerable storm damage to crops. The lightning struck the ground where there was evidence of a local elevation of the water table and produced detectable magnetic effects in the magnetite bearing soil, similar to those recorded at Cockburnspath in Scotland.

“The strike occurred at a point on a previous field boundary where a large iron straining-post had once been embedded in the ground and secured by metal stays. The disappearance of plants was by no means complete, as had been alleged by one person, according to Mr Bealing, the Shaftesbury photographer whose photographs appeared widely in the Press at the time. Captain Rodgers of the Army investigation team, also reported the finding of plant remains at the site.” (4)

The lightning explanation certainly seems the most logical one in the circumstances, but it has been totally ignored by British ufologists, who prefer to indulge in bizarre speculations about flying saucers and their “anti-gravity” propulsion systems. The Charlton Crater affair is a particularly interesting case in that study of the literature on the subject shows up the irrational and unscientific attitudes which prevail among British ufologists, even including those who are intelligent enough to know better.

References

1. Chapman, Robert. Unidentified Flying Objects. Arthur Barker Ltd., London. 1969.
2. Camp, Leonard G. Piece for a Jigsaw. Somerton Publishing Co. Ltd. Cowes, Isle of Wight, 1966.
3. Ibid., p, 184,
4. Sharp, Alan. Book Review, “Piece for a Jig–Saw” , MUFORG Bulletin, February, 1967.

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