Category Archives: Warminster

MUFORG and MUFOB articles on Warminster in the 1960s and 70s, and some later pieces.

Of Many ‘Things’
Paul Hopkins

Posted on by
Reply

From Merseyside UFO Bulletin, volume 3, number 4, September 1970

lightningsunset

It is now [September 1970] almost six years since the “Thing” came to Warminster. Not forgetting that, as the Daily Mirror once put it, ‘It Started on Xmas Morning’, papers in general had a field day and were for a while seemingly full of such gems as – ‘It’s the “Thing” from Space’, ‘The Thing Probe’ and ‘What shall we do about the Thing?’ Then alas, ‘That THING appears again’, (Daily Mirror, 11/9/65) or as the Express said, ‘The Thing Pops Back Again’. Mind you a little over a month previously the Daily Mirror had reported that the Thing had returned to a town of fear, and with the recent report in FSR (Vol.16, No .4, pp.4-7) it seems that the ‘Thing’ really never left.

With the colossal amount of both sense and rubbish printed in papers and UFO magazines on the subject of Warminster, it is almost needless to say that the area has become almost a shrine to the hardened believer of the space brother cult; to the sceptic an area of interest, and to the scientifically minded researcher an area in which there are still a great many questions unanswered and consequently a lot of scope for experiment and level headed observation.

It is I believe pertinent that in spite of almost six years of alleged activity in the area, the serious UF0 investigator is seemingly no nearer the truth as to the exact nature of the manifestations in the skies above Warminster despite its persistent nature, but then, is this not a characteristic of UFO research ever since the UFO aroused keen interest in the post war years?

Considering the brain power involved in attempting to solve the mystery over a good twenty-five years we are still very much at the starting post. Perhaps the reason why many UFO groups fold up, is that once the novelty has worn off and the frustration of inactivity sets in, the social activities of the group are too weak to hold the group together for any appreciable time or purpose. Surely this process of group fragmentation could be avoided if groups would only take on a subsidiary interest. A project of some nature to keep the group the tight knit, hard working communty it ought to be. Consider the variety of talents and skills to be found in many groups where the members are drawn from all walks of life. There is I believe through this fact, a great potential for inventiveness that could be harnessed not only for the paper work, but also for the construction of scientific equipment of an analytical nature.

It is, I believe, futile to attempt the investigation of phenomena as complex as that occurring at Warminster armed only with a note pad, a pair of low power and often cheap binoculars and perhaps a camera. About all such equipment is liable to achieve is a riotous evening as the antics of the local cretins are related in some smoke-filled bar, or meeting hall. The aim of all good UFO researchers should be good and sound scientific methods by which they should strive to add to the advancement of science, rather than to attempt to knock orthodoxy for six as so often happens with disastrous results and subsequent ridicule by great minds who have based their knowledge on the foundations of past scientific experience.

The derivation of scientific knowledge evolves from old facts and fallacies, experimentateon, observation and consistent results and the subsequent remodelling of existing ideas. Of course genius, flashes of insight and chance play their role, but there is no shortcut to any scientific knowledge or achievement to be found by disregarding present day science as a load of bumbledom to be replaced by some new science, as some of the ‘space brother’ pundits would have us believe. Luckily, the enlightened investigator no longer sees every mysterious crater as being derived through the effects of some equally mysterious alien space creature landing on our planet, but realises that there are other possible natural and artificial causes to be investigated before jumping on the bandwagon of sensationalism, Alan Sharp has shownn in previous writings how such craters can be formed through a variety of agencies: lighting, water, meteorites, or even fencing posts.

Perhaps one of the most recent fields of investigation regarding UFO explanations is that of ionisation which may it is now realised, manifest itself in a variely of forms, and with a variety of effects. The type of ionised air that the UF0 investigator should be most concerned with is highly ionised, that is where the electrons surrounding the atoms of the gas in question are stripped off, the gas becomes neutrally charged and, as far as conduction is concerned, the gas which under normal circulstinces is insulating acts rather like a metal, being able to pass a high current. When the charges (positive ions and negative electrons) within the gas are in equilibrium, then the plasma, as it is called, becomes relatively stable, and thus may persist for some time. Such plasmas may be produced artificially – accidentally, as in the case of overrated high tension power lines – and also by natural agencies.

According to our present day knowledge, the most common occurrence of this phenomenon is through the action of lightning. Considering that a typical lightning discharge from a cumulonimbus cell releases nearly 100 million volts over a path of around two miles long, and passes a current of 250,000 amps, the temperature along the path of the discharge may reach a peak of 30,00O degrees celcius, roughly five times the temperature of the surface of the sun. Under such conditions it is hardly surprising that plasma may form, Luckily the conditions for stable plasmas to form are very stringent since the strike must ionise a packet of air differing slightly from the surrounding air by virtue of some degree of contamination as well a other parameters such as local magnettic and electric field strengths. The degree of contamination can be satisfied by a number of agencies such as methane, ammonia, or even fine dust particles, thus very few lightning discharges result in plasua formation, otherwise each thunderstorm would really be like an aerial bombardment with fiery balls exploding left, right and centre.

A plasma once formed becomes subject to the changing magnetic and electric fields around itself and will thus move accordingly. Donald J. Ritchie, who has made an extensive study of ball lightning (plasma formed through the agency of lightning) observations, concludes that there are probably two main types. The first is a diffuse red ball that fades slowly without doing any apparent harm, and the second is a bright, bluish-white ball that decays rapidly with a loud report, often causing, severe damage to surrounding objects through burning and blasting. The average size for such lightning balls is one foot in diameter, though they may range from one inch to as large as 40 feet. Their form is by no means confined to spheres, but may take on a variety of curved forms amongst which are saucer, dumbell and cigar-shaped bodies. The duration of such lightning balls is between a few seconds to three minutes on average, though lifespans far in excess of these figures have been observed.

Work also done on the subject of plasmas by Drs M. A. Uman and C. A. Helstrom. who aided by a computer constructed mathematical model that could predict the properties of ball lightning, showed that the temperatures within a ball are of the order of 60-100% of that of the sun’s surface, so it is not surprising that an eight inch diameter ball with a 5,000°C centre would glow as bright as a one kilowatt bulb, and would indeed be a veritable headlamp in the sky at night.

Thus the theoretical latent energy of a plasma ball is quite high, and in practicee this certainly seems to be the case from numerous observations of then phenomenon, as well as the odd unfortunate human contact. The movement of such balls often leads the casual observer to assume that they are under some form of remote control: remember reports of the form and antics of the foo-fighters of WWII. Plasma balls have been observed rolling down roofs, along gutters, rising over hedges, passing through houses and even entering moving aircraft.

Another peculiarity of some plasmas is the ability to generate noise. Witnesses may describe it as a buzzing, whirring, hissing, or even humming, though the exact mechanism for such noise production is not yet clear. It is also interesting to note that, some fireballs (meteors) make similar noises. Such noises are also
attributed to flying saucers,.

There is some evidence that plasma balls may be capable of travelling some considerable distance away from the vicinity of the storm, and as far as natural production of these events is conerned, a thunderstorm is possibly not the only agency that can produce them. Some plasmas may be formed at extreme heights in the atmosphere and further research is required into their production before all natural mechanisms are accounted for. What is known for sure is that plasma balls do periodically turn up in strange places without an apparent cause. So don’t get too near that landed flying saucer – it may well fry you in your own fat!

To me it is little surprising that strange objects should be persistently sighted over Warminstor considering the number of skywatchers and nuts concentrated into such a small area by virtue of the tradition of the place which, you may well remember, ‘started one Xmas morning’. For I have one simple recipe for anyone wishing to see some strange aerial phenomenal that is, to sleep during the day and watch by night. If by the end of the first week you see nothing, try again the next week, and again and again. This method works for me and I have seen numerous satellites, even more meteors, a few plasma balls pretending to be flying saucers, and some objects that remain unidentified by all known artificial and natural processes.

I will admit to the strong possibility of alien intelligences observing us by some unknown process of their super-advanced science, but I must object strongly when one reads as I did recently such fuss over a small light moving in the sky, and photographs of the offending luminescence taken under atrocious conditions. So next time you encounter a strange light buzzing your car, or zig-zagging across the sky, is it not better to say – it isn’t a planet, star, or plasma, etc. therefore it is unidentified, rather than it is a UFO because it isn’t lightning, will o’ the wisp, etc. After all, are there not more ‘Things’ in heaven and earth than are dreamt in your philosophy of flying saucers, O space brothers?

 

References

  • HAEREDEL, G. & LUST, R. Artificial Plasma Clouds in Space, Scentific American 219,  5.
  • KALSS, P.J. ‘UFOs Identified’, Science Journal, April 1967, p25.
  • MICHAELIS, E.I. ‘Thunderstorms’, Practical Electronics, 2, 10.
  • New Scientist. UFOs and Plasma, 31, 453.
  • SMITH, ALLEN B. Lightning, Plasma and Balls of Fire, Radio Electronics, April 1967.
  • NEWTON, H. W. The Face of the Sun, Pelican Books (p 17 ).
  • ROMIG, M.F. & LAMAR, D. R.M., 3724. ARPA. Rand Corp.
  • GAMOW, GEORGE. A Star Called the Sun, Pelican Books, (pp.103-107)
  • Flying Saucer Review, 16, 49, pp.4-7

An Account of Experimental UFO Hoaxing. David Simpson and Ken Raine

Posted on by
1

From Magonia 75, July 2001

Introduction

It was interesting to read Magonia 74’s Editorial Notes about the 1970 Warminster photographic hoax, twenty five years after publication of Experimental UFO Hoaxing in MUFOB New Series 2, and we thought that some background information, plus details of a couple of other UFO hoaxes might be of interest for the Hoax Special edition. As recorded in MUFOB [1] the photographic hoax was designed “…to provide those watching on Cradle Hill with a simple visual stimulus, to introduce photographic evidence inconsistent with the stimulus and to observe the effect this evidence had on subsequent investigation, recording and publicity” – in other words to test the investigators who got involved.

The motivation and plan came after about two years of investigation by members of the Society for the Investigation of UFO Phenomena (SIUFOP), which formed in 1967 at a time when such groups seemed to be forming frequently – due the high level of interest in the subject in the mid-1960s. It all seems very naïve now but the society started with about ten members, with an average age around 19 years. Like most of the other groups at the time, its members were aware of frequent press reports which, if taken literally, meant that there certainly were odd things to be seen in the sky – there could not be smoke without fire we believed.

We set about finding and interviewing witnesses, the first near the South Downs in Sussex. They turned out to be interesting but clearly not the most impressive of observers, with stories that got more elaborate with each telling. Nonetheless we still believed, from the sheer number of sightings being reported, that something really was flying around the skies. So strong was this feeling that we decided to spend a night watching the sky from Chantry Hill, a nearby vantage point on the Downs, with a tripod-mounted camera at the ready. Apart from a few satellites, nothing was seen but we appreciated that statistically it might take more than one night to see something! Undaunted by sub-zero temperatures, four members returned the following evening for a second night of watching. Tired but full of youthful enthusiasm, we drove to the same spot.

A sighting!

SIUFOP Newsletter reported [2]: “No sooner had we reached the top of the hill than the driver pointed excitedly to a point of light a few degrees above the horizon. We all saw it. It was a light of a kind that we had never seen before. It moved slowly upwards, across, then disappeared. Two appeared from behind the horizon in the same place as the first was seen, drifting upwards, across, and then darting a little. Up to six were seen dancing around together in a random pattern changing colour from time to time. Time exposure photographs ranging between 5 and 20 seconds were taken. After an hour and a half or so, the dancing lights appeared less frequently and we had run out of film.

Convinced that the film contained images of world-shattering importance we rushed home in the early hours to develop it but were puzzled and disappointed by what we saw. We were expecting up to six line-traces to have been recorded on each image (lines caused by photographing a moving light with a long time-exposure) but the images all looked roughly the same with no more than two line-traces per frame. The lights were only a fraction of one degree above the visible horizon too, much lower than thought. A week later we were back at Chantry Hill, no longer tired or so fired-up with faculty-dimming enthusiasm, and observed car headlights on a distant hill – a hill that had not been visible in the weather conditions prevailing the week before.

To this day the lights can be seen there; they look so obviously like car headlights it is difficult to believe that tiredness and enthusiasm could have warped our observational skills so much. We had converted the simplest of white lights, moving mostly horizontally, into variously coloured, multiple objects moving vertically. Reasonably good photographs had made analysis possible and were it not for them we would still be retelling stories of the strange lights in the sky; if asked whether they might have been car headlamps we would surely have rejected the possibility.

It wasn’t the only time we fooled ourselves either. At around the same period three members of SIUFOP were walking along a dark, frosty, lane surrounded by trees, illuminated only by moonlight and in an area where umpteen odd lights had been reported. They were heading for an interview with a witness but noticed the silhouette of a tall object through the trees to one side. Fully spooked by the circumstances they thought they had stumbled on a landed machine of some sort. Falling over a fence to get a better look they were alarmed to see a red glow at its base and presumed it was about to take off again. They prepared to retreat in haste, although not before taking a photograph with a flashbulb (it was before electronic flashguns were commonplace). The illumination from the flashbulb was enough to identify a sand-washing machine sitting in a quarry; there was also an inhabited workman’s caravan near its base with red curtains in its windows! The photograph is still amusing.

Earlier Warminster photographs

Undaunted – we presumed that others had not been so easily fooled – in February 1968 a party set off for Warminster where, according to reputation, we stood a better chance of seeing the real thing. There we met none other than Arthur Shuttlewood who showed us his collection of photographs, supposedly of lights in the sky over the local hills. They consisted of white lines wandering across a black background; some were single, some dotted and some showed multiple images of wiggly lines.

On returning home we successfully replicated the three broad styles of the photographs. One had resembled the dotted lines produced by photographing tumbling earth-orbit rocket casings as they passed overhead, periodically reflecting light downwards. Most others were clearly not satellites but the second style could be closely imitated using a small neon bulb (similar to those sometimes fitted to the back of 13 amp plugs). Waving it in a dark room, in front of an open-shuttered camera, gave just the characteristics [3] seen in the Shuttlewood collection. The third style of photograph could be produced by moving the lamp slowly in front of a mirror, again in a dark room in front of an open-shuttered camera. This produced three wiggly lines ‘flying in perfect formation’. The first and brightest image was that of the lamp seen directly by the camera, the second brightest image was a reflection of the lamp from the aluminised (or silvered) back surface of the mirror, and a much fainter third image was a reflection of the lamp from the mirror’s front glass surface.

We even developed techniques to help analyse other white-line type photographs. Using an optical microdensitometer [4] made it possible to differentiate between gas-discharge lamps, filament lamps, ‘beam chopped’ lamps and also the nature of their power supplies. Unfortunately we were never allowed to borrow any negatives!

Scepticism set in

We had found out how easy it was for us, and presumably anyone else, to be fooled by simple earthly lights, including plenty of non-car-headlight example [5]; we had seen what we were expecting or wanted to see, and did not observe objectively. Few of our interviewees or other investigators, however, seemed to give much credence to the idea that such misperceptions might be commonplace; there was always a let-out “…but he was a trained airline pilot!” or more commonly “…Ah but you haven’t explained this one…”

Attending lectures organised by the British UFO Research Association did nothing to stem our increasing belief that, whilst UFOs had undoubtedly been observed by lots of people, scientific evidence that they were observations of something unearthly appeared to be non-existent. Most ufologists disagreed with this viewpoint, siding instead with the then fashionable Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis, claiming that there was plenty of good evidence to support it if scientists would only snap out of their pre-conceived beliefs and take the evidence seriously. Several SIUFOP members were, or were training to be, scientists and felt that such views could be put to a scientific test – ufologists should be tested for their observational and investigational abilities. We thought that the best way to do this was to give them something to see and then observe how they investigated the sighting; in other words to conduct a hoax with scientific intention.

First hoax

On 15 July 1968 BUFORA held a National Skywatch, with twenty nine watching points across Britain. One was at Pewley Downs in Surrey; it was organised locally by the Surrey Investigation Group on Aerial Phenomena (SIGAP) and SIUFOP ensured they saw something whose origin was certain. Just before midnight a parachute flare was launched about 3 miles from Pewley Downs in the direction of Godalming. The watchers saw it but no one took a photograph – no one even had a camera ready. Therefore, to be sure that there was at least one photograph of it, David Simpson had to get his own camera out and take it.

Unknown to us, George Hughes, of Amateur Photographer, had been a visitor to the skywatch. He reported [6]: “I wanted to see how such groups carry out there investigations, and to what extent photography was being used. Sadly, it wasn’t; or hardly at all.” Richard Beet, secretary of SIGAP, responded indignantly [7], pointing out that “… a photograph of a red object was taken by a skywatch official, Mr David Simpson”, giving him instant promotion.

On inspecting the photograph Geoffrey Doel, of BUFORA, commented that it could be of a firework. At the following BUFORA meeting, however, the National Skywatch organiser, Edgar Hatvany, dropped this suggestion when he elevated the photograph’s status by proudly waving it saying, “Last year we had a sighting, this year a photograph; next year we will have it in the bag!”

“Last year we had a sighting, this year a photograph; next year we will have it in the bag!”


One year later

In June 1969 SIUFOP went to Warminster, on BUFORA’s next national skywatch day, equipped with some plastic bags and balloon gas (crude helium). The aim was to launch a number of brightly lit torch bulbs and batteries under a single helium-filled plastic bag from Sack Hill, opposite the watchers on Cradle Hill. Our estimate of the bag’s inflated volume and hence buoyancy were not very accurate, however, and it did not take off until we had removed four of its ten battery/lamp packs [8]. It then rose slowly into the sky, drifting silently with the just perceptible wind, crossing the nearby army range at tree-top height.

Even we were particularly surprised by the stunning brightness and spectacular image of the small bulbs against a clear black sky, even when a mile or more distant. (It was in the days before small quartz halogen bulbs were available and we powered 2.5-volt bulbs with 4.5-volt batteries, making the bulbs very white for a short while.) The watchers on Cradle Hill were even more impressed, and it was generally rated the best sighting ever seen there. A second balloon was launched a while later on the western side of Cradle Hill and it drifted much closer to the watchers than the first balloon. Excitement on the hill was electric and emotional. Telepathic communication was claimed with the light bulb, which was said to be as bright as a searchlight and also to be metallic with portholes.

We were all surprised and almost shocked by the reaction. A few simple components had provoked what seasoned watchers were describing as the best sighting ever made. What did that suggest about the credibility of the other sightings in one of the world’s most famous UFO hotspots?

Over the next few weeks we revisited Cradle Hill – it was invariably populated on a Saturday evening – to listen to the gossip. One SIUFOP member had been less than discrete soon after the hoax, letting it be known what had happened. Oddly this explanation was not generally accepted; apparently the objects had changed direction against the wind, so they could not have been lights on a balloon! Also, another sighting was made by three people the following evening where “…the object appeared just like those of Saturday night…” raising the question “Why should any UFO-rigging pranksters hang around Cradle Hill area on Sunday, long after BUFORA members had left?” [9]

BUFORA’s Research Bulletin acknowledged the balloon theory [10] and indeed described it accurately but the consensus was against it.

The Warminster Photographs

Thus we designed a new hoax, to be less deniable, and hence the ‘Warminster Photographs’ came about. In summary, during March 1970 a ground-based purple light was shone from the hill opposite Cradle Hill, a colleague appeared to photograph it, a bogus UFO detector sounded and the film was handed to a stranger who agreed to get it developed. The film had been pre-exposed to show frames of airborne UFOs much stranger than the purple light but they also contained enough serious inconsistencies to allow any competent investigator to question their authenticity. The most experienced investigators in the subject, however, repeatedly pronounced the photographs genuine and failed to spot any of the built-in clues.

At a BUFORA meeting some time later David Simpson publicly pointed out that the case was full of anomalies which probably meant it was a hoax. Ivor McKay and John Cleary-Baker, both BUFORA stalwarts, argued otherwise, confidently pointing out that if it had been a hoax the hoaxer would not have made such mistakes; the very presence of the anomalies apparently made it more certain that the case was genuine. A classical heads they win, tails we lose. John Cleary-Baker then launched Project Warminster and unfortunately asked us if we would investigate the Warminster photographs on behalf of his Project. Soon afterwards he sent signed documents giving us all sorts of authorisations; we didn’t do the job very well.

“The trouble with this SIUFOP lot is they never come down here to see for themselves”

One evening Arthur Shuttlewood was talking to a group of people on Cradle Hill, unaware that we were there; he was moaning about our ‘disbelief’ in the Warminster photographs; “The trouble with this SIUFOP lot is they never come down here to see for themselves” he complained.

Kites

It was satisfying to have confirmation of what we suspected was probably going on but it was also disillusioning to find out just how poorly investigations were carried out. We had, after all, started out by presuming that there may be something in the sightings. We repeated the experiments with one or two more UFO hoaxes – repeating experiments is a necessary scientific practice – using kites instead of balloons, and single (hence easier to lift) bulbs that were coated on one side so they would appear to flash irregularly as they rotated in the wind on a suspension thread. Electronic timers were added to delay switch-on until the apparatus was well clear of the ground (to stop the hoaxer being illuminated!) and we became expert at flying kites in the dark.

BBC Nationwide

In the summer of 1972 there was considerable publicity concerning a forthcoming BBC visit to a skywatch on Cradle Hill. We reverted to balloon technology, albeit much smaller ones than the originals, each carrying just one torch bulb. By then we knew that a single over-run bulb was still an impressive sight at a range of one mile or more against a dark sky. But this time we added photographic flashbulbs to the payload, timed to flash after about 2 minutes.

Two balloons were launched, as usual in complete darkness, about 1 minute apart. The weather was perfect – clear and with just the faintest wind blowing – and the balloons carried their winking lights majestically and in tandem across Salisbury plain. We could see across to Cradle Hill and immediately noticed a row of torches, pointing in the direction of the balloons, being flashed on and off. More torches appeared and they were quickly joined by more powerful lights as motorcyclists upended their machines to use the headlamps for even better signalling.

The watchers were thus looking directly at the little points of light in the sky when one of the flashbulbs was triggered. Presuming this to be a response to their signalling they flashed even more enthusiastically and were rewarded when the second flashbulb ignited shortly afterwards.

The BBC interviewed the watchers who again claimed it to be the best sighting they had ever made, some saying that the UFOs had been communicating with their “random yet intelligent” flashings and that the “explosion of light” was in response to the rows of flashing torches and motorbike headlamps.

“These were obviously lights on a silly little balloon that did not and could not replicate the complex flying pattern seen the week before”

After the story was broadcast, on BBC Nationwide, we owned up and were subsequently given a studio interview alongside ufologist Rex Dutta. We showed examples of the plastic bags and torch bulbs etcetera but he refused to believe that he had been hoaxed and the BBC therefore asked us to stage a re-enactment. This we did the following weekend, albeit in rather poorer weather conditions. On seeing the balloon-suspended lights for a second time Rex Dutta declared them to be nothing like the lights of the previous week. “These were obviously lights on a silly little balloon that did not and could not replicate the complex flying pattern seen the week before”. He had been investigating these things for 19 years and “any fool could identify a balloon when they saw one”.

Summary

Our experiences and hoaxes of 30 years ago were very interesting, stimulating and disillusioning at the same time but they also demonstrated to us something useful as well – that human beings tend to see what they want, or expect, to see. Very simple stimuli had provoked an astonishing range of entirely imagined attributes including shapes, sizes, colours, motions and other false effects which tended to grow in order to stop a particular belief being disproved. Most disappointing of all was the low calibre of the investigations being undertaken, partly due to a lack of technical knowledge, no desire to be rigorous and a marked tendency to select only those bits of evidence that most suited a particular belief.

Science and scientists

At the time, UFO sightings were argued to be evidence of extraterrestrial visitations (and still are in some parts of the world). Science and scientists, we were repeatedly told, should be more open minded and look into this possibility. What seemed to be constantly bypassed though was an appreciation of what constitutes a scientific claim. To demonstrate that a scientific conclusion is valid, testable evidence has to be provided and the quality and repeatability of the evidence required is related to the significance of the conclusion being drawn. To conclude that UFOs represent evidence of extraterrestrial visitations is a very significant claim and this requires correspondingly high quality, rigorous and testable data as evidence. But instead we had (and have) a loose array of unrepeatable sightings which, when scaled against the observational uncertainties and investigative confusion clearly demonstrated by hoaxes, come nowhere near to providing adequate evidence.

It is often pointed out that maybe 90% of UFO sightings are explainable if an investigator looks hard enough but that science should concentrate on the unexplained remainder. This is a false argument; the fact that they remain unexplained does not make them better evidence. The point was well illustrated by Alan Hendry [11] in his UFO Handbook. He had good statistical data to show that, apart from them remaining unidentified, there was nothing about the unidentified cases to differentiate them from the identified ones; they had just the same mixture of characteristics.

Non-UFO hoaxes

We were aware that our hoaxes were illustrating the characteristics of an existing subject and in the mid 1970s thought that it would be interesting to measure just how easy it might be to create an alternative self-sustaining myth, perhaps triggered by a few pump-priming hoaxes. A while later crop circle stories took hold and again we were confronted with strangely illogical statements like “this circle is too accurate to be a hoax” from the investigators. Just like ufologists they argued that hoaxers (who appeared to be able to replicate any circle on demand) merely got in the way of serious investigations. We were certainly accused of being involved but can say that we did not think up the idea or participate at all!

Conclusion

Hoaxes have been a useful tool for testing observational skills and the investigational abilities of ufologists. They have clearly illustrated that humans see what they want to see and that the quality of UFO investigations is generally very poor indeed.

——————————————————————————–

Notes and references

1. Simpson, David; Experimental UFO Hoaxing, MUFOB New Series 2, March 1976
2. Simpson, David; SIUFOP Newsletter, 1, March 1968
3. The intensity of the light from such gas discharge lamps increases and decreases in time with the alternating mains voltage powering them – essentially going on and off 100 times per second. The human eye cannot see this cycling but if the lamp’s image is moved quickly across a photographic emulsion it is easily recorded. A tell-tale characteristic of this technique is the ‘bunching’ together of the recorded dots as the arm of the waver changes direction from left to right; the slower the arm movement the closer together the dots become. This bunching was certainly evident in Arthur Shuttlewood’s photographs.
4. Densitomer: an instrument which allowed the optical density of negatives to be measured by scanning a narrow beam of light across them.
5. Including searchlights from a film studio reflecting on clouds, aeroplanes at sunset, being in a car ‘followed’ by the moon, and even a spider’s web unusually illuminated by the sun.
6. Hughes, George; Are Ghost Pictures Real?, Amateur Photographer, 136, 31, 24 July 1968
7. Beet, Richard; Reader write: Investigating UFOs, Amateur Photographer, 136, 34, 21 August 1968
8. The six remaining lamps were suspended close to each other and from a distance appeared to be a single source of light.
9. Arthur Shuttlewood; Root Out These Stupid Hoaxers, BUFORA Journal, 2, 12, Summer 1970
10. John Clear-Baker; Editorial comment, BUFORA Journal, 2, 12, Summer 1970
11. Hendry, Alan; UFO Handbook, New York, Doubleday, 1979

Of Hoaxes and Hoaxing. Paul Hopkins

Posted on by
Reply

From Merseyside UFO Bulletin, volume 3, number 6, December 1970′

This article was published in Merseyside UFO Bulletin nine months after David Simpson and SIUFOP conducted their famous experimental hoax at Warminster. Despite comments and suggestions made over the years Paul Hopkins was unaware that SIUFOP had conducted their experiment when he wrote this piece. The nature of the experiment did not become publicly known until summer 1972, when Flying Saucer Review published an editorial exposing the hoax. A link to David Simpson’s MUFOB article revealing full details of the hoax/experiment can be found at the foot of this article

Wherever there is a mystery or intrigue, or when man hovers on the brink of dicovery, hoxes will inevitably occur. Great hoaxes of the past such as the Piltdown Man have made scientists and authorities ever cautious, with some good reason since their reputation as experts is vulnerable through the mass media. Of all subjects that come under the shadow of hoaxing, the UFO receives more than its fair share, which is unfortunate since it is so easy for both the public and the experts to disregard any evidence in favour of the UFO, and thus to class any number of events as due to the unquestioned activities of hoaxers. Looking at hoaxes, so far the UFO scene is concerned they can be roughly placed into three broad categories. The first, hoaxes perpetrated for sheer amusement and performed in a light-hearted manner. Secondly, hoaxes perpetrated by cranks for a number of devious reasons, such as a genuine belief that they are messengers or ambassadors for alien creatures. Also a need to be accepted as a prominent figure in UFO activity; to create an aura of mystery about themselves, and through sheer insanity. Thirdly, hoaxes by publicity addicts and those that are in the game for personal and financial gain.

There is of course no strict dividing line between one category and the next, and a hoaxer will more often than not cover all three of these categories, but will be heavily biased towards one. In the examination of a hoax one must consider the quality of that hoax as regards the total cost to the hoaxer in terms of time, finance, and possible enhancement or damage of reputation, and on the other hand the total barrage incurred by the hoaxed, and finally the success of the whole operation as far as the hoaxer is concerned. It is the determination of success that is perhaps the hardest factor to assess, since the motives of the hoaxer, or suspected hoaxers have first to be determined, Allowance must be made for the time factor between event and investigation, thus the investigator, in order to initiate his works and to have a reference point from which he may follow a line of investigation, will have to use a great deal of conjecture as regards the personality of any persons connected with the observations.

UFOs are very much transitory phenomena, and even more so when they appear as lights in the sky. From such sightings or claims there is little that the investigator can deduce since he has not only to consider the possibility of a hoax, but also such things as mistaken identity of common objects under peculiar circumstances, or ignorance on the part of the claimant of astronomical objects and atmospheric phenomena. A hoaxer has little to gain from remote observations except perhaps a mention in the local rag, unless the ‘observation’ is an intricate part of a larger hoax, and the hoaxer is relying upon the cumulative effect.

The cumulative effect may operate in a number of ways according to the control the hoaxer has over his situation. Opportunists may operate immediately after a sighting elsewhere so that momentum is added to their own story; while some will rely upon others coming forward with similar stories. The subsequent influx of investigators, gullible tourists (hoping to witness an event) and the lunatic fringe then primes the locality so that a carefully planned hoax may be carried out fairly successfully, since the influx of the differing factions causes confusion to the serious investigator. This, I suspect, is what happened at Warminster. Though such a situation is hard to rationalise owing to its complex nature which often affords some degree of protection to the hoaxer or hoaxers.

Another way in which the cumulative effect may influence a hoax is in the case of a fairly simple ‘class one’ hoax where the hoaxer, seeing that the public — at least some elements of the public — are taking him seriously, carries the hoax a little further. As long as he remains relatively undetected the hoaxing continues until the hoaxer suddenly realises that his fame has spread beyond the confines of his country, and also that some eminent persons are taking a keen interest in the whole affair. The hoaxer is now faced with a dilemma. He must either admit to his wickedness and be castigated through the press, or maintain a front until the whole issue dies away. If we consider the Adamski saga in this context, as a man trapped by his own hoax, then the peculiarities of the story are self explanatory. Certainly the Adamski affair was, and still is, an integral part of a cumulative hoax due to the numbers that jumped onto his band wagon before and after his death. Two of the best known factions (at any rate to me) being the IGAP, USA, and in England the Aetherius Society. Both these societies rely upon the fact that human beings of this modern age are essentially insecure especially in the West where Christianity is slowly dying, and the world is seemingly balanced on the edge of a nuclear holocaust. The new religions centred about Adamski-type space beings fill to some degree this religious void since they provide the security of extraterrestrial guardians of the earth. The appeal of such a religion attracts and fulfils the needs of many people and as such the hoax of Adamski has become a self-proliferating legend.

From the experience of Adamski, it is evident that in order to perpetrate a successful hoax with a long life and the probability of good returns in terms of support and finance one must resort to a contact claim with some mythical or imaginary being bearing a message for mankind. Such were the essences of the claims of Dan Fry, Truman Bethurum and many others. Alternatively one can appeal to man’s aggressive instincts by attributing acts of violence and interference with machinery to visiting aliens. Such claims however do not seem to be as successful as those of friendly visitors.

Each new contact claim, each close observation, and claim of UFO photography presents both a challenge and a burden to the UFO investigator that may extend for several months with no definite result forthcoming at the end of that period. Apart from mistaken identity, one is invariably left with the conclusion either that an extraterrestrial event did indeed occur, or that a hoax was perpetrated and the hoaxer is intent on keeping quiet. (Persons often talk about the ‘men in black conspiracy’, but it seems to me that there is just as much evidence for a world wide hoax conspiracy.)

Those readers who have been to Warminster will probably appreciate my meaning when I refer to it as a hoax-sized town

The point is, in my opinion, that we probably know more about UFO phenomena than the phenomena of hoaxing, and to this end I suggest adding a fourth class of hoax to the three already given. Namely, hoaxes perpetrated for the purpose of the study of hoaxing and its cumulative effect upon people. To suggest deliberately setting up a hoax would no doubt invoke a great deal of controversy in the UFO world. No doubt this has been done before on a small scale. Many amateur photographers fake UFO pictures just to prove that it is easy, for indeed it is. Yet such pictures seldom take the serious investigator in for long. Likewise the more nutty or occult tinged stories. I suggest that there is a case for the setting up of a carefully planned and controlled hoax on a grand scale. In effect it would be desirable to create a second Warminster for the sole purpose of examining the time it takes to get a hoax off the ground, to observe the influx of parasites and nutters, to take account of the total cost, and most important of all, to study witness reactions.

Those readers who have been to Warminster will probably appreciate my meaning when I refer to it as a hoax-sized town. It is too large for its inhabitants to know each other intimately, and yet information would spread fairly rapidly via the various media. Being situated on a main trunk route it has a fairly large itinerant population, especially during the tourist season, Further relevant properties of this town are that it is situated in a region of the country that is deeply imbedded with man’s primitive history. As well as the conventional historians, the area is very much a shrine for those occultists who believe that the Holy Grail is still to be found, or that a new age will dawn with Avebury or Stonehenge at the centre of the universe. The Army encampments naturally add interest and help further the mystery of the area both by their presence and weird activities, especially when it comes to making noises.

In such an area it is little wonder that a hoaxer could, after acquainting himself with the surroundings and the traits and haunts of the local populace (and also accounting for the small influx of new-ageians keeping their vigils) guarantee himself an audience. Thus for an experimental hoax, the investigators would have to find a town that has very similar properties to those of Warminster. This done, their troubles are only just starting, if they are not to transgress in any manner the law. It is a simple matter to make lights appear in the sky at will, providing one has an assistant. A couple of polythene clothes bags filled with coal gas and tied together will lift a small battery and bulb high into the air. Strictly speaking this is illegal, unless you have obtained permission from the Ministry of Defence and also notified local airports.

Again, it is not too difficult to make a crater appear in a farmer’s field, and to experimenters I would suggest they try the following method. First obtain an iron pipe, say about five feet long and l½ inch diameter. At one end films a couple or more sharp cutting teeth, and at the other drill a hole to take a tommy bar. Armed with this device and a large hammer the tube can be driven deep into the ground and cores of earth removed by a number of repeated borings until you are left with a fairly smooth straight hole. To add interest you can scoop out several radiating channels from the central hole and make several other interesting depressions round about. Fill the central hole with a finely divided mixture of magnesium, aluminium and tin, (the three supposed constituents of flying saucer metal) insert an igniter wick and retreat. With a high proportion of magnesium in the mixture an extremely hot and brilliant flame will be produced that should attract some attention. Should you have got your timing wrong and there was nobody within the vicinity, then the farmer is sure to come across the desecration of his field some time or other. This is to be preferred since it may give rain time to wash away the tell-tale traces of white ash.

We can now see what the score is. First there is the cost of the tubing. Then several pounds will be required to pay for the cost of filling the bore with an explosive mixture. You will have fallen foul of the law on several counts. For trespassing, and doing damage to a crop, (Remember, grass is a valuable asset to a farmer, let alone barley, oats or potatoes.) and for discharging and possessing explosive materials. As your hoax gained momentum so also I suspect would the number of antisocial acts that you committed rise in proportion.

Which brings us to two points. Firstly a hoaxer most probably has antisocial tendencies. This would explain why so many saucer contactees want to kick, modern science and society in the teeth. They want to be considered apart from the herd, as selected beings often guided by superior intellects from above. Like so many restless ‘students’ they want to give convention a jolt; to have reporters and camera men rushing about on a wild goose chase while they themselves sit back enthralled by their powers of disturbance, while their egos swell. Secondly the hoaxer of a large hoax runs the real risk of being sued or prosecuted. Thus he is often forced to remain anonymous.

With these points in mind the setting up of an experimental hoax is not the sort of thing that should be attempted overnight. Neither should it be set up by an amateur body, since the results are not only likely to be disastrous but also wasted. The co-operation of local bodies would be required, including the police and the local council. Permission would have to be obtained from the Ministry of Aviation if one wished to eject objects into the sky, and so on.

To sum up, a large scale, will organised UFO hoax could provide valuable insight into how people think and react to what they think is an unknown phenomenon. By facing then with artificial UFO situations modelled on past case histories, even though the stimulus is false, the reaction would be the same as would most probably occur under the genuine conditions of a UFO sighting and flap. Then, and then only, will the UFO investigator really know what he is about.

Read the story of the actual experimental hoax at Warminster HERE

 

 

 

Experimental UFO Hoaxing. David Simpson

Posted on by
Reply

From MUFOB New Series 2, March 1976 

Abstract

By examining the effects of a controlled hoax, the reliability and objectivity of UFO experts is analysed. It is concluded that the enthusiasm and credulity of many commentators hinders the scientific appraisal of UFO phenomena.

Introduction

Over the years many thousands of UFO reports have been documented; numerous individuals and UFO organisations have analysed the information, and attempted to correlate sighting data in order to discover a pattern that will help to solve the UFO enigma. However, rarely has much thought been given to the lowest common denominator, the UFO enthusiasts themselves. How do they influence the collection and compilation of UFO data? Are investigators unbiased, thorough and scientific? Although the answers to these questions are of fundamental importance if a realistic understanding of UFO phenomena is to be achieved, most enthusiasts remain intolerant of such questions. Few are prepared to accept the suggestion that gross reporting errors frequently occur, and even fewer that UFO mysteries are often the result of incompetent partisan investigators.

The Society for the Investigation of Unidentified Object Phenomena (SIUFOP) felt that experimental results were needed to continue the debate. It was considered that useful experiments would compare the details of fabricated UFO stimuli with the descriptions given by unsuspecting witnesses. Subsequent documentation by ufologists would then provide a measure of their objectivity and general ability as UFO investigators. From a third-party viewpoint, results of the tests would enable genuine UFO accounts to be assessed more realistically.

The merits of controlled UFO hoaxes have rarely been discussed (1) but I report here, that during its formal existence, SIUFOP embarked upon a programme of such experiments designed primarily to involve those already engaged in the study of UFOs, rather than other members of the general public. Accounted below is one experiment: a UFO sighting created in 1970 that was substantiated with photographic evidence. Flying Saucer Review (FSR) was largely responsible for documenting the case and by reference to their headline (2), this experiment is entitled Warminster Photographs.

The Experiment

Warminster, in Wiltshire, was the location chosen for this experiment because of its high density of skywatching ufologists. The scheme was to provide those watching on Cradle Hill with a simple visual stimulus, to introduce photographic evidence inconsistent with the stimulus and to observe the effect this evidence had on subsequent investigation, recording and publicity.

UFO landing marks were dug and an appropriate area of grass was singed a few feet from the road along the side of Sack Hill, Warminster. At 11.00 p.m. on Saturday 28 March 1970 a light was shone from this position towards a group of ufologists on Cradle Hill, about three-quarters of a mile away. The light was produced by a 144 watt tungsten lamp, roughly collimated by a 4« inch diameter concave mirror and powered by a car battery. A purple gelatine filter was placed in the beam and the entire assembly was placed directly on a car roof. The lamp was switched on for 5 seconds, off for 5 seconds, and then on for 25 seconds. From start to finish, therefore, the stimulus lasted 35 seconds and throughout this period the car and lamp remained stationary. Taking care not to be seen, the car and lamp were then quickly removed.

Amongst the skywatchers on Cradle Hill (who were soon aware of the strange light) were two items of SIUFOP apparatus: a UFO detector and a camera on a tripod. The outward appearance of the UFO detector was that of a typically home-made magnetic field sensor. Inside there was just a buzzer synchronised to sound 15 seconds after the purple light was first visible: this it did.

Whilst the skywatchers were viewing the purple light and noting the corroborating UFO detector, SIUFOP member Mr Norman Foxwell appeared to photograph the light. The film in his camera had already been exposed, however: the latent image thereon having been arranged to show a spurious UFO in a different position, and bearing no resemblance to the circular purple light. The spurious image was superimposed on two 35 mm frames, each showing the night-time street lamp scene familiar to skywatchers on Cradle Hill.

In the first frame the UFO was montaged above the (invisible) horizon and approximately 22 degrees south of the position of the purple light. The second frame showed the UFO still further south by about 8 degrees, below the horizon, fainter and blurred. Neither frame included the location of the purple light. The UFO image was made cigar-sectioned, horizontal and with a circular blob above and below centre. This design was created on an oscilloscope using Lissajous figures.

Headlamps of cars (about three miles away) driving westbound along the main road into Warminster are momentarily visible to the right of Battlesbury Hill when viewed at night from Cradle Hill. Therefore time-exposure photographs taken in this direction often show a white line traced by the movement of cars during the exposure. It was ensured that the background scene used in each montage showed different lengths of line consistent with time-exposure photographs of a few seconds.

Shortly after the purple light had been finally extinguished and the UFO detector had been switched off, Mr Foxwell took two genuine pictures that included, as comparison photographs, part of the aforementioned street-lamp scene. This was to provide future photographic investigators with the following significant clues that the UFO photographs were at least of a dubious nature. Firstly, the images on the prepared negatives were magnified over 10 per cent more than the genuine ones – individual street lamps were easily identifiable and measurement of the distances between them highlights this inconsistency. Secondly, the background scenes used were photographed many months before March 1970 and showed gaps in the street-lamp pattern where two lamps were not working. When the genuine pictures were taken (minutes after the purple light incident) these street lamps had been mended. These inconsistencies had been deliberately used to see if ufologists would critically examine the photographic evidence.

Sketch of view from Cradle hill

Mr Foxwell’s brief was to pass the film from his camera to any ufologist who would arrange for it to be developed privately. This was considered to be the part of the experiment most likely to fail, as encouraging a complete stranger to accept a potentially valuable film may well have been viewed with suspicion. It should be stressed that at this stage Mr Foxwell was totally unaware of the identity of any person or representative group on the hill (apart from three SIUFOP members).

He approached two people and asked where he could get his film developed. The reply was: Don’t know at this time of night . He approached another skywatcher who was the only person attempting to log information and mentioned that he had got a couple of pictures . During the short conversation that followed, it transpired that this person was Mr John E. Ben, who had contact with FSR. He agreed to take the film and about half an hour later it was handed over.

Results

In an experiment of this type, results arrive in many forms: letters, telephone conversations and published articles, etc. Detailed reference to them all would require more space than is available here, and would probably serve little purpose anyway. I have attempted to extract from the records data which in my estimation indicate the nature of the investigation being carried out by the ufologists concerned. On Tuesday 31 March 1970, after having the film developed, Mr Ben telephoned a relative of Mr Foxwell (Mr Foxwell was not on the telephone) and dictated a message. Part of it read:

There appears to be a large cylindrical object with two smaller objects leaving the main sphere. In one photo it seems one of the smaller spheres is still in contact.

Straight away patches of light on a two-dimensional negative were described as three-dimensional objects by the use of the words cylindrical and sphere.

The next day Mr Foxwell telephoned Mr Ben, who described the prints further and sought permission to take them to a meeting of the FSR consultative committee. He added that the top six men from Europe were fortuitously due to attend.

Mr Ben worked at the Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, and the film had been developed by Messrs Stanard and Hazell of their photographic department. During a telephone call on 3 April, Mr Foxwell was informed that they had decided the pictures could not possibly be faked. He was also told that the day after the sighting Mr Ben and his friends had visited the area where the purple light was seen, to look for marks on the ground. They found nothing, not even the landing marks left by SIUFOP.

In further communications with Mr Foxwell, Mr Ben indicated that FSR was very interested in the pictures and would have them examined in their laboratory. On 26 May he wrote:

Mr Charles Bowen of the FSR has contacted me this morning to tell me about your Warminster photographs. I am pleased to inform you that they have now proven the negatives to be genuine beyond all doubt.

The July-August 1970 issue of FSR gave the case its first publicity. (2) The cover illustration was an impression of the purple light painted by Mr Terence Collins, a professional artist who had been with the skywatchers on Cradle Hill. Although the general details of this impression were correct, the size of the object was exaggerated. In fact the diameter of the purple light subtended an angle (to those on Cradle Hill) similar to the nearby street lamps, whereas the artist’s impression showed the purple light subtending an angle about ten times larger than that of the street lamps.

This issue of FSR headed its editorial Warminster Phenomenon and printed two articles reporting on Mr Foxwell’s photographs, the first entitled Photographs from Cradle Hill by John Ben. (3) In his article Mr Ben recalled the sighting back in March that year of what was actually a stationary, grounded light, visible for 35 seconds, and with respect to watchers on Cradle Hill was situated at an elevation of approximately zero degrees:

…at 11.02 p.m. an object was seen at an elevation of approximately 20 degrees in the eastern sky. The object appeared very suddenly as if it came through the clouds and appeared to the eye as a very bright ovoid light, purple in colour with a periphery of white. Two members of my group who observed the object through binoculars both remarked they could see a crimson light in the centre; this was also attested to by witnesses with good vision…

The object remained stationary for approximately 30 seconds during which time Mr Foxwell was able to take the first of his photographs. The object then moved slowly to the right – towards the town – and lost a little altitude in the process. At one stage in the movement it dimmed considerably as though obscured by low cloud. The object continued moving for about 20-30 seconds, and then stopped again. The light then increased considerably in intensity, though we could not be sure if the object was moving directly towards the observation point, or if it remained stationary. At this point the alarm of a detector sounded, and a witness ran to switch it off. After 10-20 seconds the light dimmed and then went out as though concealed by cloud. However we were all certain that the object had not moved once more. The sighting had lasted for approximately 1-1« minutes…

The stated elevation of the object and the duration of the sighting are obvious errors in observation, whilst the reference to clouds is misleading. Perhaps the most interesting part of the report is that section dealing with the movement of the purple light. Instead of noting it as stationary, the description is consistent with the implied movement recorded on the fake photographs. The scenes shown on Mr Foxwell’s photographs did not include the position of the purple light but this fact seems to have gone unnoticed.

The second article, ‘The Warminster Photographs Examined’, (4) was written by Percy Hennell FIBP, a photographer and consultant to FSR. He wrote:

Let me say at the outset that there is nothing about these photographs which suggests to me that they have been faked in any way…

Later he draws readers’ attention to the left-hand edges of the UFO shown in his enlargements. Because these edges are more pointed than the right-hand ones he suggested:

…that some propulsive jet may have been operating to move the object to the right.

Both articles noted car headlights in the background scene, but incorrectly placed them on the hill beyond the street lights. Neither author seemed aware that they were to the right of Battlesbury Hill and on a main road.

Charles Bowen, the editor, added a note What the Eye Sees… (5) questioning why the object seen was so different from the image recorded by the camera. He ended his note by quoting an observation made by Mr R.H.B. Winder after seeing the painting:

These colours are reminiscent of the colours associated with ionisation in air.

(Mr R.H.B. Winder BSc CEng MIMechE is listed as a consultant to FSR.)

During September 1970 Mr Ben invited Mr Foxwell to join him and his group at a meeting, to discuss the case further. By this time, I had contacted Mr Ben in my capacity as Chairman of SIUFOP and expressed interest in the Warminster Photographs. As a result, I too was invited to this meeting. It was considered expedient that Mr Foxwell should not attend, but Ken Raine (Vice-chairman of SIUFOP) and I did.

Among those present were John Ben, Terence Collins (the artist) and an independent consulting photographer, Michael Samuels FRMS. Much of the evening was spent trying to establish the positions of the photographic UFO relative to Battlesbury Hill. Ken Raine and I suggested photographically superimposing a twilight picture of Battlesbury Hill (taken from Cradle Hill) on to Foxwell’s pictures. Photographs taken at twilight show the street lamps as well as the outline of Battlesbury Hill. These components would have enabled accurate superimpositioning and placing of the UFO respectively. The position of the car headlights would also have been correctly established. Little notice was taken of our idea: the others preferred to transfer construction lines from one photograph to another. Had our suggestion been heeded, they would have had a reasonable chance of discovering the magnification discrepancy outlined earlier.

A few weeks later Mr Ben told me that they had calculated the length of the UFO to be 56 feet and in the second picture it was 50 yards from the car headlamps.

Dr Pierre Guerin, Director of Research at the Astrophysical Institute of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, presented a Tentative Interpretation of the Warminster Photographs in the November-December 1970 edition of FSR, translated by Gordon Creighton. (6) Initially he cleaned the negatives and then made new enlargements. He stated:

In my opinion there is no question of the object photographed being in any possible way the result of faking…

He then questioned the difference between the appearance of the image on the photographs and the eye-witness descriptions. To answer the question he suggested:

…that the object photographed was emitting ultraviolet light which the eye does not see. Around the object, however, a ruby red halo, probably of monochromatic colour and doubtless due to some phenomenon of air ionisation, was visible only to the eye and in actual fact has made no impression on the film…

If this interpretation is correct, the consequences which we can draw from it are important. As will be known, in a recent issue of FSR (15, 2), John Keel disputed the presence of any solid material object inside the variable luminous phenomena which he calls soft sightings , claiming thereby that the solid phase of the UFO phenomenon is only one of the aspects – and no doubt the least frequent aspect – of the phenomenon in question. The Warminster sightings do indeed appear to furnish us with an example of a soft sighting linked with the presence, at its centre, of a solid object not visible to the eye, but emitting ultraviolet light.

That UFOs can appear, or disappear, on the spot, when leaving or entering our visual four-dimensional space-time is probably true. But it would be rash to assert that they do not always possess a material, solid body right from the very moment that they have penetrated into this space-time. Despite the claims of John Keel, the soft sighting could in fact very well be merely secondary effects of the presence of solid objects, whether or not visible to the eye, in the gaseous medium of our atmosphere. This hypothesis had already been formulated long ago, and the Warminster sightings seem to confirm it.

By January 1971, SIUFOP published its Newsletter No. 19 to which I contributed a characteristically critical article about the Warminster Photographs entitled The Hoax of 1970?. (7) The SIUFOP Newsletter had a reputation for strongly attacking ufologists’ methods and motives so this article was quite in keeping. In it I summarised the published case history and went on to criticise the investigations carried out by Messrs Ben, Hennell, Gu‚rin and others for stated reasons. My conclusions contained the following sentence:

At no stage in its publicity campaign has FSR referred to an investigation of the photographer – the most important person, because without the photographs this would be merely another light in the sky report.

An investigation of the photographer was not referred to because, surprisingly, nobody had interviewed him.

The March-April 1971 issue of FSR carried a surprise headline ‘New Mystery at Warminster’ . Mr M. Samuels (previously met by DS and KR) had recently returned to Warminster with a camera to take some photographs from Cradle Hill in daylight. In his report Unexpected Photographic Effects at Warminster (8) he recounted a high light-meter reading and linked this with a later discovery of a very small, dark amorphous blemish in the sky area on one of his pictures. He wrote:

My feelings now are that some link needs to be found between the facts that the image that was formed on the film appeared during the time of excess ultraviolet radiation – especially as none of the four persons present on Cradle Hill at the time when the photographs were taken remember seeing any object, either usual or unusual, over Battlesbury Hill.

and later:

If we assume that our object was of solid matter, emitting ultraviolet radiation, we find, on consideration, that the solid outline would be broken down by the non-focusing ultraviolet radiation, but would still be dark enough to cause a loss of density on the negative.

Suffice it to point out that an ultraviolet source, like any visible one, would cause an increase in the density of a negative, not the decrease observed.

A total of five articles relating to the Warminster Photographs were published in this issue of FSR. Charles Bowen chronicled Progress at Cradle Hill (9) and printed a contact print of Mr Foxwell’s negative strip, showing the order of the four exposures. The images on this published contact strip are obviously quite small, but anyone with normal eyesight and a ruler can measure the aforementioned magnification error by comparing the distance between the ten street lamps on negative 1 with the distance between the same ten street lamps on negative 4.

In a full-page letter to FSR, (10) Mr S. Scammell did actually suggest superimposing day and night photographs; but he proceeded to do this by measurement, rather than photographically. As a result he concluded that the UFO pictures were taken from a location on Cradle Hill known as Field Barn. They were not; from this location much of the detail shown in the UFO pictures cannot be seen as it is obscured by Cradle Hill itself. From John Ben’s original report he calculated that the object photographed was probably an army vehicle travelling at about 15 mph. He too, incorrectly placed the main road car headlamps on Battlesbury Hill.

In John Ben’s second report ‘Continued Investigations at Warminster’ (11) the car headlamps were placed on Battlesbury Hill yet again.

‘A Further Examination of the Warminster Photographs’ by Terry Collins (12) featured a double-page elevation diagram of Battlesbury Hill. With measurements from the UFO photographs he constructed, with gross errors, the two positions of the UFO and the position of the car headlamps. (The published diagram was 13 inches long and the error in positioning the headlamps was 2 inches.) According to his calculations the main body of the UFO was 60 feet long and 15 feet wide.

In order to record more accurately the true appearance of the purple light, SIUFOP had revisited Warminster on Saturday 13 February 1971. The light was shone twice that evening, once from the original position on Sack Hill, and once from a car moving along Sack Hill. Several ufologists were skywatching at the time. When the sixth supplement of FSR Case Histories dated August 1971 was published it became apparent that one of the skywatchers had photographed our light and submitted the transparency, with a covering letter, to FSR. (13) In his letter, Mr Frank M.G. Morton drew attention to the similarity of this sighting to the cover illustration of FSR, Vol. 16, No. 4. He described the events reasonably accurately in a manner contrasting with John Ben:

The appearances and disappearances of the light in all cases were like a lamp being switched on and off suddenly.

Little more was published in the second year since the start of the experiment, but verbal comments made by various ufologists at lectures etc. gave the impression that this case was becoming a classic reference.

Unfortunately for SIUFOP, June 1972 heralded the end of its control over the experiment. The success of the experiment depended on secrecy and it was therefore regrettable that a friend in whom Mr Foxwell confided was also a friend of Carl Grove, a contributor to FSR. As a result FSR were informed that the Warminster Photographs were faked, although I do not think they knew of SIUFOP’s involvement. Mr Foxwell had changed his occupation and as a result the good communication channels that had previously existed between him and SIUFOP members were lost. As a result much time elapsed before SIUFOP was aware of the extent of the disclosure. Were it not for this, Messrs Ben and Bowen would have received full answers in reply to their subsequent courteous letters to Mr Foxwell. I must apologise for the fact that no such answers were sent.

The experiment was ended after 2« years by the editorial column in the July-August 1972 issue of FSR, (14) headlined Dubious Photographs.

Summary and Conclusions

In any detailed investigation, whether into UFOs or something else, all evidence should be subjected to critical appraisal if it is to be thoroughly understood. Scientific evaluation requires that inconclusive, suspicious, or self-contradictory evidence be classified as such and subsequently shelved. Unless this is done we are left with either a hypothesis made weak and unconvincing by disreputable evidence, or a hypothesis based on myths which add nothing useful to the understanding of our environment. The Warminster Photographs provided a group of ufologists with the opportunity to use such a classification. The inbuilt flaws were easily detectable had the negatives been subjected to a critical analysis.

The vast amount of literature published leads one to the conclusion that the pictures were considered very significant by UFO researchers, yet despite this and their impressive list of consultants, the investigators concerned did not analyse the evidence critically. Not once did they interview Mr Foxwell, yet without his photographs the sighting would have been insignificant. Their statements and actions were often not those of people trying to understand a strange event, but those of people prepared to ignore relevant criticisms in order to support a cause.

In the eyes of many a UFO case takes on an aura of credibility when endorsed by someone of high professional standing like Dr Pierre Guerin. It is therefore disappointing that Dr Gu‚rin should apparently be unaware of the ease with which perfect fake photographs can be manufactured. It should be stated that FSR was not singled out for this experiment: its involvement was pure chance. Charles Bowen, the editor, his consultants, John Ben and most people associated with the case are not archetypal flying saucer fanatics: indeed FSR is considered by many to epitomise dispassionate UFO research. It is therefore unfortunate that when presented with a UFO case of such potential importance, so little was achieved. The sighting took place in England, the photographer lived near London, and his negatives yielded what many considered to be the most convincing pictures of an unidentified flying object ever taken. Knowing this, investigators failed to learn the geographical layout of the sighting area, they failed to interview the photographer and they failed to discover the substantial inconsistencies introduced into the negatives.

The other UFO cases published in FSR often originate in distant parts of the world and are rarely corroborated with scientific data. Is it likely that they have been reported or investigated more competently than the Warminster Photographs? I doubt it.

References 

    • 1. Hopkins, Paul. Of Hoaxes and Hoaxing, Merseyside UFO Bulletin, Volume 3, number 4, December 1970
    • 2. FSR, 16, 4, July-August 1970, front cover
    • 3. Ben, J. Photographs from Cradle Hill , FSR, 16, 4, July-August 1970
    • 4. Hennell, P. The Warminster Photographs Examined , Ibid.
    • 5. Bowen, C. What the Eye Sees , Ibid.
    • 6. Guerin, P. Warminster Photographs, a Tentative Interpretation , FSR, 16, 6, November-December 1970
    • 7. Simpson, D.I. Hoax of 1970? , SIUFOP Newsletter, 19
    • 8. Samuels, M. Unexpected Photographic Effects at Warminster , FSR, 17, 2, March-April 1971
    • 9. Bowen, C. Progress at Cradle Hill , Ibid.
    • 10. Scammell, A.E. A Surveyor’s Criticism , Ibid.
    • 11. Ben, J. Continued Investigations at Warminster , Ibid.
    • 12. Collins, T. A Further Examination of the Warminster Photographs , Ibid.
    • 13. Morton, M.G. Yet Another Photo from Warminster , FSR Case Histories, No. 6, August 1971
    • 14. Bowen, C. Dubious Photographs , FSR, 18, 4, July-August 1972

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank all those members of SIUFOP who helped in the experiment, and the editors of MUFOB for printing this belated report.

Editorial Note (from MUFOB New Series 2):

We wish to make it clear that until being presented with this report by Mr Simpson, none of the editorial team of MUFOB had any more information about this hoax than was published at the time in FSR. The appearance in MUFOB in 1970 of an article by Paul Hopkins about such an experimental hoax was one of those synchronicities so beloved of Charles Fort!

* * * * *

The Wrath of Shuttlewood

Posted on by
Reply

Vol. 4 No. 5 of Merseyside UFO Bulletin (December 1971) was entirely devoted to an article by Alan Sharp which attacked unscientific approaches to the UFO phenomena. On Warminster, he had this to say, amongst other things:  “Gullibility, wishful thinking, belief in the supernatural and sheer ignorance are prime factors in the generation and acceptance of UFO reports. The new ufologists devote much energy to the encouragement of these human failings,which can be seen in operation at almost any gathering of UFO enthusiasts, but nowhere better than at Warminster where contactee, author and journalist Arthur Shuttlewood has directed affairs for several years and has worked up a fine air of mystery and an enormous collection of spurious sightings have now been generated.”

This provoked the following letter which was published in our next issue (Vol. 4, No. 6). It should surely be regarded as a classic of its kind.

A Letter From Mr Arthur Shuttlewood

shuttlewoodOne notes, with a quiet and understanding chuckle, that Alan W. Sharp looks out from his sacred ivory tower and INSISTS that ufology “must be studied in a logical, objective manner, or not at all.” This has the ring of dictatorship about it. You’ve got to be sharp to out-sharp Sharp, eh? But let’s be democratic.

His vision-restricting attitude, in face of swelling testimony globewide, will get neither him nor more earnest research students anywhere at all as to the true nature of this important subject. It is a matter which – by virtue of numerous facets and aspects that bewilder and befog scientific concepts of today that are universally inadequate in vision – will always defy the approach he advocates – nay INSISTS – must fit his puritanical rather than pure terminology.

I see, too, we are back to scurrilous attacks on personal character and integrity, rather than objective presentation of facts, in your latest abysmally trite issue. Out with the scalping hatchets and carving knives to cripple those whose views (because they have had considerable experience of the phenomena) are more valid, sensible and fair than your own, which are strangled in a one-sided web of ignorance.

Those whom you try to intimidate (and I’m positive we have no fear of a trio of critics, especially armchair variety, of earth, when we dare to walk among the unknown!) are amused and share welling pity for MUFOB content and policy; for they have enjoyed a privilege none of your home-bred correspondents (or so-called editors) have known. At least, they have had more than casual brushes with UFO manifestations and assess them accordingly. Has it ever struck your rather feather-pated attitude that it needs a great deal of moral courage to stick one’s neck out and affirm: “I have seen something inexplicable”? It does need enormous courage, equal to that I knew on the battlefield in the last war, to do this, knowing one will automatically be branded a liar, crank, hypocrite or worse. This courage deserves respect, instead of MUFOB belittling and crude criticism far removed from human decency.

“Those people from the north who are blind to reality” is a description I have frequently heard

Without our experience, such puny puppets of Condon thinking are sunk without trace; and the MUFOB MOB (“those people from the north who are blind to reality”, is a description I have frequently heard) is drowning in deep water with no public interest in their dogmatic and dreadfully dull viewpoints based on personal INEXPERIENCE only.

Anyway, why should we suffer the short-sighted, visionless, prejudiced and self-inflating pontificating of three stick-in-the-mud scribes whose active research in operational fields of practical work is practically nil? A trio whose pompous and pedantic phraseology is boring and lifeless, because it is not chained to links of personal experience? Who on earth do Sharp, Rimmer and Harney think they are; and whom do they represent so bovinely in the face of weighty evidence that shrieks: “UFOs are for real.”? Why do they persist in bedevilling instead of aiding the UFO cause in credibility? We know, of course, but are too polite and gentlemanly to speak so bluntly and cruelly!

What acid-tongued and one-track-minded minority groups like MUFOB fail to appreciate is that their voices are mere squeaks against the leonine roars of the majority. Therefore, they are freaks who cannot understand that statistical weights of evidence are more valid than the infamous Condon report which blew up into nothingness because not one of the “experts” (??!!) had ever seen anything unusual. MUFOB comes into the same abysmal bracket of ignorance.

I say this not unkindly, for I have always stressed one has to see to credit or believe in UFO manifestation.

I could not sink to the intolerance of Sharp, whose constant and petty allusions and sniping about Shuttlewood mistaking a thunderstorm for a UFO have appeared in print so many times with monotonous repetition. Has it ever entered your devious minds that poor old Shuttlewood, knowing full well even at that early stage that MUFOB carried scalping knives everywhere they went to try and kill off valuable evidence at source, said this deliberately in order to get rid of the dragging influence of disbelieving MUFOB MOBsters? Think it over… Look at yourselves for a welcome change and note the many human failings in contradistinction to “judge not lest ye be judged”. You have cast enough stones, but soon they will rebound. Mark my words, uttered without malice aforethought like those crawling over your bulletin like aimless spider-legs!

A feather-brained attitude of mind always fights a losing battle against the better-thinking majority. So wake up! Start to really live (there’s a nice split infinitive for purist Rimmer to grip onto) and go out among your fellow beings in search of that which DOES exist, despite your nagging doubts and at times character-savaging mania.
Yours not unkindly, Arthur Shuttlewood, Warminster

P.S. Happy New UFO Year!

P.P.S. After your next issue, please DON’T send me any more! I want HELPFUL aids, NOT destructive nonsense, in MY search for UFO truths.

 

Disenchantment. John Harney

Posted on by
1

This article on Warminster was published in Merseyside UFO Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 4, September/October 1971

It has always been a tacitly agreed policy of this Bulletin to try to keep in touch with developments at Warminster. We occasionally visit the place, time and funds permitting.

The latest visit took place on 9 October (1971), when your Editor and his travelling companion, Mr Brian J. Hall, arrived by train in the afternoon. Mr Hall had never visited Warminster before, so a conducted tour was undertaken. Our first visit was to Cradle Hill. There was nothing doing up there that Saturday afternoon, apart from desultory Army activity. Someone had provided a litter bin which was placed by the hallowed gates. On it were painted the following embarrassing legends: “LITTER. WE leave no sign we’ve been here, why must YOU?”, “Space junk only”, and “This bin was donated to commemmerate (sic) the invention of time travel, 2026 AD”.

A litter bin, obviously unofficial, but surely the first sign that the UFO aspect of Warminster is becoming popular? By this I mean that holiday visitors to the Lions of Longleat will soon be fitting Cradle Hill into their itineraries as a matter of course.

You see, the Warminster “Thing” is now history. Arthur Shuttlewood has completed his trilogy with publication of UFOs – Key to the New Age and has retired from active participation in local ufological activities.

That evening, suitably fortified, we ascended Cradle Hill again in order to witness the traditional Saturday night skywatch. There was nobody there when we arrived at about 2150. A few minutes later a convoy of cars arrived. Arthur Shuttlewood was conspicuous by his absence. However, the watchers did their best. They seemed hesitant at first and just sat in their cars, or loitered by the gates. We decided to set an example. We scrambled over the gate and strolled up to the Field Barn copse. On the way back we found that the other watchers were emulating our example to such an extent that when we got back to the gate we found ourselves alone.

Eventually we were asked had we noticed a light over there in the sky. Yes, we had. We pointed out to the enthusiasts that if they continued to look in the same direction they would see similar lights again and again in exactly the same position. This was because they were not UFOs, but simply car headlights on a distant hill which was itself invisible in the haze and darkness. This evaluation of the sighting was rapidly confirmed: the watchers were plainly disappointed.

However, they were still working on it – still trying to conjure up the old Shuttlewood magic. Back at the gates, looking at the altocumulus clouds illuminated by the moon, one ufologist declared: “It’s just like the Northern Lights, only the other way round,” (whatever that means). “I know about the Northern Lights”, he added, “I’ve been to Alaska”. This not being strong enough meat for the enthusiasts, there followed talk about the clouds “revolving about a central point”, (they were plainly not) and all the usual nonsense was talked.

It was a good try, but it did not come off. It can never be the same again at Warminster. Shuttlewood has published his findings and wrapped it all up. Sightings still occur and are now being faithfully recorded by Ken Rogers in his Warminster UFO Newsletter. But to no avail. Most copies are sold to the tourists – just another souvenir.
Nothing can bring back the old magic. There are changes every time we visit Warminster and never for the better. It is becoming a town for tourists. Remember the “Farmer Giles Guest House”, for example? In the good old days it catered for lorry drivers and filled up with ufologists at £1 a night. On our last visit it had been tarted up, and so had its prices. And this time it was even more tarted up and calls itself “The Farmers’ Hotel”.

On Sunday morning we went for a walk down to Boreham and passed the famous telephone box in Boreham Field. It was occupied by an ordinary earthman. Either that or the Aenstrians are well disguised these days.

“Great Truths Forming in the Void?” was the title of one of Arthur Shuttlewood’s last articles submitted to the UFO magazines. Well the “truths” have been presented to us. Take them or leave them. UFO sightings continue at Warminster, but they are no longer vested with the old significance. Cradle Hill is now a national monument, just another stop on a conducted tour. Unlike the Longleat Lions, there is no charge for a visit. But for how long?

 

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

Warminster Revisited. John Rimmer

Posted on by
1

An almost lyrical view of the Warminster skywatching scene in the 1960s is presented here in an article which appeared in Merseyside UFO Bulletin, Volume 2, Number 5, September-October 1969.

Some Personal Observations 

Nestling in the valley of the River Wylye the town of Warminster presents an image of England that seems ever stable and tranquil: the old buildings of local stone in the main street, the dark, pipe-smoke matured beams of old pubs, and all around low, gentle, wooded hills, and the rich, summer green farmlands of Wiltshire. Sit in the public bar of one of those pubs, horse brasses gleaming on the panelled walls, and drink a pint of Usher’s Best Bitter. Lean across to one of those honest, weather-worn farmers of stout Wessex yeoman stock, whose gentle, lilting accent sounds with such quiet authority, speaking with generations of native experience of the good earth, the cycles of spring and sowing, the heavy autumnal reaping and the black, fallow lands of winter. Lean over and ask him:

“Have you ever seen a flying saucer?”

“Floin’ saucer, never ‘urd such rubbish. You’ve been talking to that Shuttlewood. ‘E’s doin’ all right out of it. Bah.”

The worn, nut-brown face settles into an expression of utter scorn, and the farmer crosses to the bar for another pint of Usher’s Best. The subject is closed.

Walk up the steep, hedgerowed road to Cradle Hill. Pause at the gate at the top and look around. The lights of Warminster Barracks are visible in the gathering twilight, glimmering in the valley. The town itself is hidden by the tree-crowned shape of Cop Heap. Across the valley the stepped sides of the hill-fort of Battlesbury are silhouetted against the darkening sky. Higher up the hill, past the gate, a rough track leads to a copse. Of evil repute, this copse, a place of sudden, chilling winds and low, fell noises.

In the other direction Salisbury Plain, empty, desolate, with the lonely, lifeless village of Imber and further, brooding, Stonehenge, the awakening point of a national consciousness. Here, one feels, is where it started. Stone Age men grubbed and hunted; Bronze Age kings in barbaric panoply fought deadly futile wars over a few hills; Roman legionnairs saw and conquered; Saxon invaders settled and farmed. Here is the land of White Horses and Dragons, of great earth tombs, and a deep, natural English magic. Look down the lane again. A Land Rover is coming up, three men, soul brothers of the farmer in the pub, look at you. They know why you are there. They come up here to tend their fields. Others come up for only one reason. They know.

“You come up here to see the flying saucers, then? We’ve just ‘ad a message, they’re landing at six o’ clock. Over there.” They laugh, open the gate and drive away over the ridge of the hill.

Night-time now. The lights gleam from the valley. Above, the stars are displayed against the black velvet sky. The last dying glow of the day is fading away to the west, to be replaced by the dim lightening of the sky from some other little town across the hills. A small group of people stand about by the gate, talking quietly. Further down the road some cars are parked, darker shapes against the shadow of the hedge. A sudden noise and a flash of light as someone strikes a match. A brief glimpse of huddled, earnest faces. Someone is carrying a camera: someone is pouring coffee from a flask. Darkness and quiet settles again on this little community. Some more people are walking up the lane, from where they have parked their car. Let us follow them, and move into the heart of this mysterious gathering.

“We were up here a few weeks ago and we saw something very remarkable, coming from over there, just by the golf club. A great shape, opalescent, moving slowly, it went across there, like a sword, moving across, and then it turned upright, and we could all see it so clearly, like we could reach out and take hold of it. Wonderful.”

The voice is Arthur Shuttlewood’s. A voice as soft and gentle and rounded as the hills of southern England, a voice quiet and sincere, that holds the gathering enthralled. As he talks he points out the familiar landmarks: the golf club, Cop Heap, Battlesbury and the copse: the people listen with awe and admiration, fascinated by the strange wonders that this man describes. He is tall, wearing an open-necked shirt and no coat, even in the bitter wind that blows from the north. He has the face of a countryman, a face that expresses the open air, the clean fresh breezes that blow across the acres of ripening grain, as tough and rugged as the open plain, as warm and honest as the tint villages of thatched and whitewashed cottages that wait round corners of the twisting Wiltshire lanes. The little group of people hang attentively on every word, gasping with amazement at some incredible detail of his experiences, or chuckling at some good-natured send-up of a learned, scientific figure.

It is well past midnight now, and the wind blows cold. Coats are pulled tighter, some stamp their feet or jog around to get warm. Another flask of coffee is brought out and passed around, hot, dark, sweet. The moon has set now and the darkness is deeper, stiller. Some lights low down to the south cause a moment of speculation, but Arthur settles the speculation by explaining that it is the headlights of cars carrying brightly for miles from some distant hill. Arthur Shuttlewood has been out on Cradle Hill skywatching, literally thousands of times over the past five years and knows every trick of light, every road and street light. As the night passes some of the small group drift away, walk back down to their cars and in a sudden burst of noise and dust drive off down the lane back to the sleeping town. The others wait, through the long hours of the night; talking, listening, walking around, drinking coffee or eating sandwiches. All the time Arthur is talking, describing his own remarkable experiences, and those of his colleagues.

It is Arthur Shuttlewood above all who is associated with the Warminster phenomenon. Without him the phenomenon would not exist as it does now. It is doubtful if it would exist at all. This statement needs some explaining. I am not stating that Arthur Shuttlewood has invented the mystery, or is keeping it going for his own ends. Those people in Warminster, like the farmer in the pub, who say that he is “doing all right out of it” are quite wrong. Shuttlewood has had no material benefit from his activities. One assumes that as his second book was privately published the first one could not have realised a great profit for himself and his publishers. One member of his small team has severely damaged his health through prolonged skywatching under adverse conditions. The one lasting impression that a visitor gains of Arthur Shuttlewood is his sincerity. He is no fraud.

What then do I mean by stating that the phenomenon is dependent on Shuttlewood? He has conditioned the development of the mystery. Not consciously, but as a result of his own nature and character. In the “purple prose” passages above, I have deliberately exaggerated my impressions of the place and the man. I have in a way parodied Shuttlewood’s own style of writing in his two books. The Warminster mystery has remained so alive after such a (comparatively) long period partly, I am sure, because of the way he describes sightings. Other people see lights. Arthur sees them “coruscating”, “diamond-shot”, “amethyst”, the language of a skilled professional writer. He is not trying to deceive by doing this, it is just his normal, skilled method of writing. The fact that here is a professional journalist involved in the very heart of a ufological event cannot help but give it much wider, more forceful circulation, even though this is done quite innocently, without any deliberate “publicity stunt” aspect.

In his books Arthur Shuttlewood refers to himself as a hard-bitten, cynical journalist. This, with due respect to the man, is not true! He is an extremely sentimental and emotional person, or so it appeared to me on my brief acquaintance with him. On our skywatch he told a story of five little orphans that nearly brought tears to the eyes of some of the people there. I think it does not detract from his sincerity to remark that he told this story in an extremely professional manner. And this brings me to my major point. To be on Cradle Hill, on a skywatch, listening to Arthur Shuttlewood, is a very remarkable experience. He speaks with the smooth assurance of a professional commentator, his voice is carefully modulated to sound clearly over the noise of wind and cars. He is a persuasive, not a dogmatic person. He will point out some minor effect of the light: “There’s a very remarkable thing – it’s just a phenomenon, of course, but we often see things like that up here.” How much more convincing that is than a dogmatic assertion that there is some incredible thing. As he speaks it is easy to fall into a generous, easy attitude of acceptance. It is easy to suspend disbelief on Cradle Hill at two o’clock in the morning after listening to Arthur Shuttlewood for a few hours. I think it would not be too extreme to say that some of the occurrences reported on skywatches at Warminster could be attributed to some mild form of hypnotic suggestion. Cradle Hill at night is a spooky place. Arthur Shuttlewood is a convincing speaker, a sincere convincing speaker whom it is hard to doubt. Almost anything is possible under these conditions. I was quite convinced that it was inadvisable to walk a few hundred yards along the road to an allegedly “strange” copse.

To sum up, then, I would say:

  • Because of the strong subjective and emotional conditions involved, reports of skywatches at Cradle Hill should be regarded with a considerable amount of caution.
  • The Warminster mystery involves no deception on the part of any of the principals. However, the opinions and natures of many of the people involved have resulted in an undeliberate distortion of many of the basic facts.
  • The value of any organised skywatch must be doubted because many of the conditions involved at Cradle Hill are also valid for other locations.

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

The Latest Warminster Landing. Arthur Shuttlewood.

Posted on by
1

We published much comment about Shuttlewood’s skywatching techniques in the good old days. Here, in a report published in Merseyside UFO Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 4, July/August 1969, the man himself reports on one of his skywatches.

shuttlewoodThirteen people were in our skywatching party at Cradle Hill, Warminster, on the evening of Wednesday, 27 August 1969. An unlucky number? Not so far as a dramatic double UFO sighting and landing were concerned, on this auspicious occasion, anyway! Accept or reject the following – that is your prerogative.

My team mates, Bob Strong and Sybil Champion, left the hill at 9.30 p.m., after we had been observing for about an hour. They went off to Starr Hill, midway between Battlesbury and Scratchbury, other well known viewing points locally. The remaining 11 were:
Ex-naval commander’s wife, Mrs Kathleen Bent; her friend Mrs Eileen Keck, of Winchester; Mr Ian Cowan and his wife Kathryn, Bournemouth; American Mrs Gwen Smith, of Seattle; Mr Christopher Trubridge, Gosport; his friend Mr Robert Coates, Yorkshire; an American-speaking visitor who calls himself Diophantes, from Sirius 6 (his own claim, not mine); Mr Julian Butler, Mr John Alford and myself, of Warminster.

At 10.10 p.m. the attention of several pairs of eyes was caught by what Mr Butler described as “a burning bush”, about 600 yards south-west of our vantage point on Cradle Hill. It is a little right of the West Wilts Golf Clubhouse and a few hundred yards short of it, at a point near a long and straggling hedgerow.

Frankly, I suspected it was rubbish being burnt by the farmer, Mr Geoffrey Gale (it is his land); but we all commented how strange that this circular flame should suddenly erupt, without warning, and no smouldering or smoke noticed prior to this by our keen-eyed group.

Chris and Bob immediately tore across the intervening land. Others, self included, climbed the white gate and followed at a more leisurely pace. (Perhaps because we are older?) The burning effect “died” on the ground and we were instantly aware of a large orange ellipsoid that hung stationary over the top of the lighted clubhouse at low altitude – we estimated somewhere around 100 feet at most. It was immobile for a good three minutes, according to my watch.

John said: “It’s far too big and brilliant for Mars, although it’s the same colour.” Julian said: “No – Mars is away to the left, higher over Cop Heap.” And there was no lingering doubt when the object, increasing radiance, started to move to south-east, across Cop Heap and away over the shoulder of Battlesbury towards Starr Hill.
It was huge! It moved slowly, sedately, throwing off a brightful and fitful halo around the main body of the craft.

We had now picked out a second, similar shaped object, much higher than the first, smaller because of this factor and a dull mat white in hue. It was keeping pace with the bright orange UFO, tailing and trailing it. But our attention was abruptly dragged from the visual treat…

I had sped back to the main group of watchers, eager that one in particular – she is over 80 years of age – should see the second and smaller UFO, too. She was so thrilled as I pointed it out, able to view it easily with the naked eye. The others had spotted it and I heard cries coming from the field – and tearing towards us, ashen faced, were Chris and Robert.

They drank hot coffee to recover from shock and shattered composure. Then they blurted out an amazing story. When they reached Kidnapper’s Hole, where the hedge ends, they saw the flame or “burning bush” peter out; and in its place was a tall figure, dressed in a tight-fitting black suit that had a sheen reflected in their torchlight. A gold-coloured “sash” or “bandolier” (the youths’ terms) was around its neck and shoulder, winding around the waist.

Bob is 6 ft 1 in tall. He thought the figure to be a good foot taller than he. Chris confirmed this. Long, dark hair falling to the shoulders, bright eyes – and rather “feminine” features, the lads felt. The figure did not move – but they, overcome by fear, could not approach nearer than about 30 yards from it. Courage and nerves failing, they ran back to the hilltop.

The two were closely questioned by the rest of the watchers while I made my way across the field, bathed in moonlight. I had a torch and was beaming a friendly message in morse code in front of me, to relieve my own apprehension and any felt by the visitor. My knees were knocking, I admit, yet one can never reach understanding of the unknown when fear triumphs over genuine love and concern for all others…

Nothing was seen of the figure from then on. Chris, Bob, Julian and John revisited the spot near Kidnapper’s Hole where it had stood: they all saw the hedgerow, clubhouse, two trees on the skyline; none smelled smoke or ashes.

Perhaps in the general excitement, because one is caught in the thrall of something truly inexplicable and unworldly, one says peculiar things at times like these, which are inordinately charged with human emotion. “I’ve an idea they will be back, but not in the same form,” I recall predicting to the watchers.

Events at around 11.45 p.m., extending to about 1 a.m., on Thursday, 28 August, were probably more puzzling than the earlier sightings and landing. Forming a triangle in themselves, in a perfectly clear sky shot by a full moon’s rays and a myriad stars, three cigar-shaped formations appeared. They were cloudlike, yet having a density and “roundness” to them, quite plasma-like.

One was over Battlesbury, to the east, the two others over the Cradle Hill copse area. Two vanished after a while, then the third – over the copse – broke in half. The bottom portion cut away, separated from the rest, and was transformed into a pyramid shape, symmetrical and of a three-dimensional quality in the atmosphere.
It was at times completely opaque and solid, at others transparent, so that one could see through it and view the interior. It was startling – and provides another facet to the whole subject and significance, maybe, of ufology. The only one of the 11-strong group not witnessing this pyramid was Mrs Bent, asleep in her car after a long journey, a tiring day and night…

Bob Strong and Sybil, meanwhile, watched the two UFOs glide gently overhead from their sighting point near a farm barn near Starr Hill. They curled away east, winking lights seen at ground level by the two observers – Bob is a former RAF bomber crewman – at a spot near the horizon to the east.

Ground-to-air communication between earth base and craft? We can only surmise and theorise on this possibility. But 13 witnesses of the two objects – noiseless and gliding slowly until they spun at swifter speed upward – are far better and more convincing than one poor soul on his own.

The area around Kidnapper’s Hole (the name has an ominous ring to it, yet the landing there was open and probably coincidental) showed one small patch of burning the following morning. Even so, it did not appear to be recently caused, and no rubbish had been ignited there for days.

So – back to square one in the giant jigsaw puzzle of the Great and Spectacular Unknown that these craft constitute? Not quite… This sighting and landing were in keeping with sundry strange incidents around Warminster over the past five years; especially the singular case of the “flying sword” UFO and “phoenix bird” sighting that hovered overhead for three minutes, amethyst in colour until duck-bobbing away, when it changed to crimson. These stories, true and with witnesses present, will have to “keep” for the time being.

We are inclined to believe, from available evidence that has steadily accumulated on the local UFO front, that there exists at Heaven’s Gate, on the Longleat Estate near Warminster, a point on our earth where a “window” or “gate” exists that allows two dimensions to converge, meet and – who knows – even communicate. What our scientists would term a “time warp”, in effect. More of that anon…

Of one thing we are sure: although I am an Essex man, reared there and born in Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, Warminster is a place which will be remembered for many years. It could be that – whatever is designed to happen in future – it will be a focal point of any big cosmic operation affecting our planet. May I leave you with a sobering thought?

If any big power on earth developed a metal that cannot be detected by radar, resisting and not affected by radio waves, this would create the biggest threat yet to present world peace. It would further heighten nuclear buildup dangers. It just might be that such a metal has been perfected – and near future years will prove much.
But we can be quietly confident that a greater intelligence from a different dimension on our earth, in concert with extraterrestrial travellers who are more enlightened in universal knowledge, will be keeping a wary eye on these threats – and could even neutralise the launching of nuclear warheads onto unsuspecting peoples in the next decade.

No bets taken – but it is worth thinking over, carefully…

 

A Visit to Warminster. John Harney and Alan Sharp

Posted on by
Reply

This article annoyed some believers, but Charles Bowen thought it sufficiently interesting to reprint in Flying Saucer Review.

It appeared in the June 1967 issue of MUFORG Bulletin.

We arrived at Warminster on the Saturday afternoon (27 May) and soon discovered that there were other ufologists staying there that weekend, including Nigel Stephenson, Ken Rogers, Jimmy Goddard and a party of NICAP/GB members.

That afternoon we learned that the NICAP/GB party had claimed to have sighted two, reddish cigar-shaped objects the previous night from a vantage point on Battlesbury Hill. This sighting took place, we were given to understand, in fulfilment of a prediction obtained during a sort of table-turning session. As we were not present at these events and have no further details at the time of writing, we have no comments to make on them.

During the Saturday afternoon and evening there was talk of a general expectation that “something big was going to happen” that night. We did not share this feeling, so the reason for it remains obscure to us.

shuttlewoodArthur Shuttlewood and his friend, Bob Strong, had organised a skywatch for the Saturday night. Apparently their intention was to take advantage of the Army ranges being open that weekend and to make an excursion to the deserted village of Imber. We joined the convoy in Warminster at the appointed time and soon perceived that some sort of argument was going on. It was not made clear to us just what the trouble was, but it seemed that Arthur Shuttlewood or Bob Strong thought that there were too many people in the convoy and, presumably, it was thought that the UFOs would be put off by the presence of a relatively large number of skywatchers concentrated in one group.

The leading cars in the convoy drove off unexpectedly and were soon lost to view, so the rest of us decided to drive up Cradle Hill, which was near at hand and as good a place as any for observing UFOs, by all accounts. Arrived at the top of Cradle Hill, we found that the rest of the party had gone there after all. A great argument was taking place: apparently some proposed to stay at Cradle Hill and others wanted to go to Imber, and among those who wanted to go to Imber there was disagreement over which route to take. Also, various wild rumours were being bandied about, one of them being that “the Army would shoot Shuttlewood if he drove on to the ranges”. The whole business was very confusing and we would hesitate to pin the responsibility for this muddle on to any particular person or persons.

Eventually some of us left Cradle Hill and drove up to the ranges. When we reached the guardhouse, Shuttlewood and his friends were already there, having taken a short cut. We then followed some cars across the range to Imber and drew up about half a mile beyond the village to commence skywatching. The sky was rather cloudy and only a few stars were visible. Nothing unusual was to be seen for a time until one of us noticed a flash of lightning on the horizon in an easterly direction. The flashes continued to the east and south east. No thunder was heard, so the storms must have been a long way away.

The other cars went away, one by one, so we finally returned to the guardhouse to see if we could learn if Mr Shuttlewood was having any luck. There were several cars parked there when we arrived and we were told that Shuttlewood had got quite excited when the lightning commenced and said that it was definitely not lightning, but a manifestation of the “Thing”. He had then driven off into the night, hoping to view it at closer quarters.

After some time Shuttlewood’s car returned and he was soon giving the most extraordinary descriptions of what, to us, was merely lightning (1) produced by distant thunderstorms. His car then drove off. We remained a while longer and left at about 1.30 a.m., when it began to rain.

Shuttlewood’s reactions to the display of lightning did nothing to diminish our scepticism concerning many of the UFOs allegedly seen during Warminster skywatches. If ordinary lightning can be transformed when seen with the “eye of faith”, into something out of this world, one might perhaps be forgiven for supposing that other phenomena, both natural and artificial, are regularly being misinterpreted in similar fashion during such skywatches.

However, when this was suggested, in a review of Mr Shuttlewood’s lecture at last year’s BUFORA Northern Conference (2), great indignation was aroused. The opinions expressed in that review were based on information received from people with experience of skywatching at Warminster. For example, one report received from a reliable source (3) was an observation of a certain, very well-known ufologist pointing at a star and calling it “a definite UFO”.

That weekend there was some discussion about a report by Arthur Shuttlewood and Bob Strong of  a landing at Starr Hill. An account of this alleged incident had been published in the latest issue of SUFOA. (4) We learned that since this incident, different groups of enthusiasts had been to Starr Hill and had investigated a house from which “strange” lights were said to emanate. Some said the house was deserted and some said it was not. So, on the Sunday (28 May), Alan Sharp visited the place in question and found it to consist of a settlement of several farms and about a dozen workers’ houses. It was discovered that the “deserted” house was merely not regularly lived in by the owner, who has a place elsewhere, but employees keep an eye on the premises and he pays visits. The rest of the dwellings in the vicinity are occupied.

The owner of the nearest farm to the east of the “deserted” house was interviewed and he said that he had never observed anything odd in the vicinity. he regarded the stories of strange lights, etc., with tolerant amusement and seemed to regard the Army as the source of genuine “unknown” observations. Various startling UFO incidents are said to have happened in the vicinity of a copse known as Colloway Clump. We visited this area and Alan Sharp enquired at New Farm, only a few hundred yards away from the Clump and in full view of it. The farmer and his son said they had never seen anything unusual in the vicinity of the copse and suggested that some well-known locals were overworking their powers of imagination. They also said that of all the people who had been poking around in the vicinity, not one had approached the farm for permission to investigate. A visit was made to one of the houses where strange noises (the “Warminster Sound”) have been heard. The occupants were interviewed and samples were taken from the garden and the gutters. By all accounts, these reports of strange noises appear to be genuine. Some people have attempted to explain them away as being due to the activities of helicopters, but this theory is unconvincing in view of the descriptions given. On the other hand, it would seem to be somewhat rash to accept the popular notion that the noises are due to the activities of alien space craft before other possibilities, such as atmospheric electrical phenomena of an unusual nature, have been adequately explored.

On Sunday evening we learned that Mr Shuttlewood claimed to have had a “contact” that afternoon. Apparently, one of the “Aenstrians” telephoned him and Shuttlewood told him something to the effect that he would have to see him in the flesh if he was to be absolutely certain that the “Aenstrians” were not just hoaxers and slammed the phone down. A few minutes later there was a knock at the door and a spaceman was duly admitted. This being had a very high forehead and blue lips and had one or two things to say, including the prediction that a third world war would break out shortly. The apparition was also seen by other members of Shuttlewood’s family.

Earlier in the day, Alan Sharp had been treated to a demonstration, by a sceptical Warminster resident, of the technique of making local calls from a coin-box phone without putting any money in the box. The reason for this demonstration was Shuttlewood’s statement that the space people claimed to telephone him from a public box, but he never heard any money going in. (6) However, Mr Shuttlewood’s latest claim would seem to dispose of the necessity of studying the technicalities of the telephone system. At this stage there is no useful comment we can make on the new contact claim.

Later that Sunday evening we went skywatching on Cradle Hill, accompanied by Ken Rogers and Nigel Stephenson. It was a clear night and we saw one aircraft, four meteors and a satellite, but no UFOs.

To sum up, then, the strange noises which originally drew attention to Warminster were almost certainly genuine observations. Also it would appear that there have been other observations in the area which are worthy of further investigation. However, there can be little doubt that the majority of UFO reports from Warminster are spurious. Our own experiences and a careful reading of published reports indicate that many ufologists seem to leave their critical faculties at home when they go to Warminster.

Notes and References

1. According to the Daily Weather Report of the British Meteorological Office (No. 38538, 28 May 1967), lightning, but no thunder, was reported during the period 2100-0300 GMT on the night of 27-28 May at Boscombe Down. A glance at the midnight (GMT) reports from other stations revealed that thunderstorms had been widespread in the southern half of the British Isles that evening.

2. “Warminster’s Contactee”, MUFORG Bulletin, October 1966

3. Private communication to the editor

4. Barry W. Woodgate, “Return to Warminster”, SUFOA, March/April 1967

5. We hope to publish more about these observations in a future issue of the Bulletin.

6. Arthur Shuttlewood, “The Warminster Mystery”, page 187

***

 

 

Warminster’s Contactee. John Harney

Posted on by
Reply

Several members of Merseyside UFO Research Group attended the BUFORA Northern Conference at Bradford on 10 September 1966. Arthur Shuttlewood was the main speaker and John Harney wrote the following review of his lecture, which was published in the October 1966 issue of MUFORG Bulletin.

shuttlewoodAs the audience settled down to listen to Arthur Shuttlewood’s lecture at the Bradford Conference, no doubt many were expecting merely a sort of roundup of the sightings and incidents which have occurred there. If so, they were due for a shock.
His talk began reasonably enough, with details of some of the better-known incidents which focused public attention on Warminster. He said he had not seriously considered UFOs until 28 September 1965, when he saw one himself. He attacked the cynics who alleged that the whole business was deliberately cooked up to act as a tourist attraction. He also vented his spleen on the editors of the national newspapers. He claimed that a representative of one of them (not named) had offered him £500 for a UFO photograph, saying that it didn’t matter whether it was genuine or faked.

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

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

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

To convert people they sometimes use unconventional electrical methods. However, they are not “extrovert” unless they want to convert you. They are “the greatest levellers of society.” They are also sincere. Shuttlewood, too, is sincere. “I am as sincere as you are”, he told us.

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

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

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

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

Whether Mr Shuttlewood has made up the more fantastic details of his story, either to make money, or to enjoy the resulting notoriety, or whether he has got himself into the state in which he honestly believes all the fantastic things he describes are really happening, readers must judge for themselves. However, anyone who believed every word of his Bradford lecture must indeed be a credulous person. 

***