ACUFOS Journal vol 3 no 3

Magazine Overview

This issue of The Journal of the Australian Centre for UFO Studies, dated May/June 1982, is Volume 3, Number 3. It is published by The Australian Centre for UFO Studies, located at P.O. Box 546 Gosford, NSW 2250 Australia, and registered by Australia Post under publication number NBH0448. The journal states that no part of its publication may be reproduced without prior written consent from ACUFOS, except for UFO organizations, and that articles do not necessarily reflect the views of ACUFOS.

Index

The index lists the following articles:

• Editorial: By H. Griesberg & K. Basterfield (Page 1)
• Lunar & Martian Pyramids: Extraterrestrial Intelligence or Geology?: By J. Prytz (Pages 2-6)
• Internal Intelligence Theories Versus the ETH: By K. Basterfield (Pages 6-10)
• Internal Intelligence Theories Versus Common Sense: By F. Gillespie (Pages 10-11)
• The RAAF UFO Files: By W. Chalker (Pages 11-13)
• Bibliographic Notice (plus updates): By J. Prytz (Page 13)

Editorial

The editorial, by Harry Griesberg & Keith Basterfield, discusses a global problem facing UFO researchers, echoing an editorial by Dr. J. Allen Hynek in the INTERNATIONAL UFO REPORTER. They highlight two "laws" of Ufology: the greater the "Strangeness Index" of a sighting, the longer the delay in reporting it, and the second is that many of the best cases come to light by chance or serendipity. The reluctance to report stems from the fear of ridicule, disbelief, and harassment, as well as a natural reticence to be considered a "story-teller" or to recount traumatic personal experiences. This often leads to accounts being shared only with close friends, limiting their circulation. The editors note that this is also true in Australia, where they have personally investigated cases where a witness reveals a past sighting by a friend, which turns out to be a high-strangeness case, sometimes too late for thorough investigation. They find consolation in being able to document such cases for their files and potential correlation with others.

Lunar & Martian Pyramids: Extraterrestrial Intelligence or Geology?

This article by John Prytz examines discoveries made by American and Russian space probes regarding potential artificial structures on the Moon and Mars. Since the 1960s, extensive photographic coverage has advanced comparative planetary geology. While many expected similarities and differences emerged, two unexpected discoveries were photographs of strange towers, spires, or pyramids on the surfaces of Luna and Mars.

These structures, detected by Lunar Orbiter 2 (1966) and Mariner 9 (1971), have received limited attention in scientific and popular press. Researchers like Don Wilson have suspected NASA knows more than it reveals, particularly regarding the Lunar structures' location in the Sea of Tranquility, a site chosen for the first manned landing.

The article compares these structures to terrestrial ones, noting that the Martian ones have been likened to "pyramidal structures." The author discusses various geological forces (wind, water, ice, volcanic action, earthquakes, temperature variations, meteorite blasting) and their differing effects on Earth, Mars, and the Moon, suggesting that terrestrial geological mechanisms would struggle to explain similar features on Luna and Mars. The author posits that either different geologic forces are at play, or the similarities are due to unnatural causes.

Regarding the Martian pyramids, a scientific paper by Gipson and Ablordeppey described "triangular and polygonal pyramid like structures" in the Elysium Quadrangle, with base diameters of approximately 3.0 km and 6.0 km respectively. The height of the largest Martian pyramid is estimated to be over 1 km, significantly larger than the Great Pyramid of Cheops. However, the authors admit they are unsure of the exact causes, suggesting mechanisms like wind-faceting, glaciation, or fracture and tilting of lava crusts, but acknowledge these are speculative. Chandler suggests that given the lack of convincing geological explanations, the possibility of construction by "intelligent beings" should be considered.

On the Moon, Lunar Orbiter 2 photographed strange shadows on the western edge of the Sea of Tranquility, described as stretching from "surface protuberances or monolith structures." These shadows were likened to those cast by the "Washington Monument." While initially considered natural phenomena like rock outcrops, Dr. William Blair, a specialist in physical anthropology and archaeology, analyzed the photograph and suggested that if such a complex were found on Earth, it would warrant archaeological investigation. He noted that the structures appeared "geometrically positioned," with relationships suggesting a basilary system, six isosceles triangles, and two sets of three objects lying in a straight line. Blair also discovered a large rectangular depression pit west of the Lunar monuments. Despite these observations, Blair did not definitively claim artificial origin, but his analysis echoed Chandler's sentiment that if found on Earth, they would be assumed to be built by an ancient civilization.

The article concludes that while there is no conclusive proof of alien work, the discovery of these large spire-like stones warrants further investigation, with a desire for more detailed photographs.

Summary and Conclusion of the article:

1. Unusual objects have been photographed on the surface of Luna and Mars.
2. These structures do not appear to have terrestrial parallels from a natural viewpoint.
3. Neither do the Martian and Lunar structures resemble each other.
4. Both sets of structures show signs of regularity and repetition, indicative of artificial construction.
5. Without further information from NASA, no solid conclusion can be made regarding their origin (natural or unnatural) or relation to each other.

The article includes extensive references to books and articles on Mars, the Moon, and terrestrial geology.

Internal Intelligence Theories Versus The ETH

This article by Keith Basterfield argues for the validity of Internal Intelligence Theories (IIT) as an explanation for UFO phenomena, challenging the Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETH) hypothesis. Basterfield states he does not accept that any single hypothesis is the entire answer, but believes that for the majority of cases, IIT has a stronger claim than ETH.

The article examines seven areas where the ETH has faced criticism:

1. Non-contact: Why haven't aliens made open contact? Possible answers include vast differences in intelligence, non-interference laws, or long contact timelines.
2. Interstellar travel: The vastness of space makes interstellar travel seem improbable. However, proponents argue for future technology, long lifespans, "ark" ships, suspended animation, or "snakeholes" in space.
3. High frequency of reports: The sheer number of UFO sightings seems to require immense energy and materials. Explanations include "scout" ships from a base in the Solar System or that the high number reflects our own interest.
4. Variety of vehicles: The diverse types of reported craft suggest multiple origins, not just ETs. The reply is that there is an enormous range of anything.
5. Humanoid entities: Most observed entities are humanoid. One view suggests intelligent creatures require binocular vision, etc., while another posits infinite variations.
6. Violation of physics: UFOs are said to utilize unknown laws of physics, making arguments against them difficult.
7. Crashed UFOs: If technological, advanced craft should occasionally crash. Explanations include perfection, or government cover-ups.

Basterfield then presents how IIT addresses these criticisms:

1. No mass landings: IIT aligns with the idea that there won't be mass landings.
2. UFOs are 'here': IIT suggests phenomena are generated by our minds, not necessarily from distant locations.
3. High frequency: The number of reports reflects our own interest and the human imagination's capacity.
4. Imagination: The human mind is unlimited in creating spacecraft.
5. Simple entities: Minds tend to generate simple entities rather than complex ones.
6. Transcendence of physics: Imagination can easily transcend physical laws.
7. No crashed saucers: Crashes are explained as purely mental events.

The article also addresses areas where IIT faces criticism:

1. "Pure imagination should produce... things concerning ufos, it does not": Basterfield argues that the mind does produce phenomena like hallucinations and fugue states, and that UFO reports may come from a subgroup of people experiencing various psychological states.
2. Flap phenomena: Flaps are explained as periods when reporting becomes socially acceptable, leading to an apparent increase in sightings.
3. Cities vs. rural areas: IIT suggests that certain people or times, perhaps under relaxed wakefulness conditions (like on lonely country roads), are more conducive to these experiences.
4. Day of the week cycles: Basterfield suggests this is not a strong argument and that unknowns reflect available populations.
5. Multiple witness reports: Critics argue that it's unlikely for multiple people to be wrong. Basterfield advises careful examination, eliminating non-independent groups and considering psychological factors like group average and tendency to support each other.
6. International uniformity: The argument that IIT cannot account for international uniformity is countered by the idea of a "grass roots, racial heredity" and common human race symbols.
7. Photographic evidence, physical traces, radar cases: Basterfield reviews these categories, noting that many cases are either not clearly UFO-related, have natural explanations, are based on single witnesses, or are spurious returns that don't survive rigorous review.

Abduction cases are discussed, with Basterfield noting that research suggests psychological causes for single-witness abduction events, and that hypnosis can lead to fantasies.

Psychological reactions like tactile sensations, fear, and paralysis are argued to be explainable by IIT, drawing parallels to nightmares or sleepwalking.

Electromagnetic effects, such as engines cutting out, are attributed to "fallable human witness" creating a "fantasy" through hypnagogic imagery.

Angel hair is dismissed as a myth, with a reference to a previous article.

Pre-1947 reports are explained by IIT, arguing that human minds and their complexities have always existed.

In summary, Basterfield concludes that while a few cases may remain unexplained even after thorough investigation, IIT theories stand up to the facts as well as, if not better than, the ETH hypothesis.

References

The article includes an extensive list of references for both the ETH and IIT arguments, citing various journals, books, and symposium proceedings.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the examination of anomalous phenomena on other celestial bodies (Mars and Moon) and the debate between scientific and psychological explanations for UFO sightings. The journal appears to maintain an open-minded yet critical stance, presenting evidence for potential artificial structures while also thoroughly exploring alternative, psychologically-based explanations for UFO reports. The editorial stance suggests a preference for rigorous investigation and a willingness to consider multiple hypotheses, including those that challenge conventional extraterrestrial explanations.

Title: UFORAN
Issue: Vol. 3, Nos. 2-3-4 (March-April, May-June, and July-August 1982)
Publisher: UFO Research Australia
Country: Australia
Language: English

Internal Intelligence Theories versus Common Sense.

This article, authored by Frank Gillespie, critically examines Keith Basterfield's "Internal Intelligence Theory" (IIT), which posits that a majority of UFO cases can be explained by mind-generated hallucinations. Gillespie expresses tolerance for ufologist colleagues' views but challenges IIT's claim, arguing that the limited evidence presented by Basterfield is insufficient. He states his intention to address criticisms of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) at a future UFOCON and will not dissect Basterfield's paper point-by-point but will highlight valid objections to IIT as a major contributor to UFO explanations.

Gillespie contends that any product of the human mind should correlate geographically and temporally with the distribution of human minds. He argues that IIT is "completely powerless" to explain the pre-1947 hiatus in UFO reports, as no perturbing factor has been proposed that would account for a significant rise in reports of peculiar events after that period. Furthermore, IIT is deemed inadequate in explaining the high proportion of UFO reports coming from virtually unpopulated areas, which is comparable to the number of reports from big cities, a disparity too great to be explained by minor factors like darkness or isolation.

A significant point of contention is IIT's inability to explain nocturnal lights, which constitute the majority of both explained and unexplained UFO reports. Gillespie notes that some of these lights defy conventional explanation. He argues that while "objects and beings, normal objects, weird objects, humanoid beings, bizzare beings" can be conjured by a disturbed mind, "never little lights, just like stars, but somehow different" are predicted by IIT. Establishing that a light is different from a star requires a prolonged observation period and must occur within a normal night sky context, factors that strain the credibility of an IIT explanation, especially given the vast number of cases involved.

Gillespie addresses Keith Basterfield's speculation that group pressures might lead to outright lies in multiple-witness reports. He shares a personal anecdote from a management course where a psychologist failed to demonstrate such group behavior, emphasizing that in normal group dynamics, individuals rarely agree fully on the details of a witnessed event. He posits that the human mind does not typically produce false images accepted as real, and individuals who genuinely report such images might be considered abnormal. If most UFO reports are mind-generated, it implies a widespread, brief lapse into insanity, which Gillespie finds unlikely. He likens it to a microbe affecting only minds and rendering sufferers immune after one infection, suggesting that the pattern of cases should resemble known infectious diseases, which he has not observed. He notes that UFO investigators, who frequently interact with witnesses, do not exhibit a higher-than-normal incidence of UFO sightings, contrary to what might be expected if IIT were the primary explanation.

Conversely, Gillespie acknowledges that if a person hallucinates once, they are likely to do so again. This aligns with IIT's framework for explaining individuals with multiple UFO sightings, many of whom he concedes might be frauds, while others could be considered "nut cases." However, he is unwilling to concede further cases to IIT, believing that spontaneous cures for insanity are improbable and that other theories fit the facts better. He concludes that any logical explanation for UFOs must involve intelligence, and while Basterfield focuses on internal intelligence, statistics suggest its contribution is minimal.

The RAAF UFO Files

This section, by Bill Chalker, details the first direct civilian examination of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) UFO files, conducted over three visits to the Department of Defence in Canberra between January and June 1982. Chalker examined over 1,000 reports and 53 files, primarily "sighting" files from 1955 to 1981, with a few remaining from 1974-75. He also reviewed "Enquiry" files from 1966 to 1981.

Summaries of "Unusual Aerial Sightings" (UAS) for 1978, 1979, and 1980 were made available, providing RAAF Defence Department summaries from 1960 to 1980. During his May 1982 visit, Chalker had to sign a confidentiality statement regarding witnesses, clarified with the Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI) to apply only to events where witnesses reported non-public details.

Chalker was able to create a detailed summary of RAAF reports from 1955 to 1959, providing a comprehensive listing up to 1980. He was denied access to only 3 files from a series titled 'Investigation of Flying Saucers Policy,' which ostensibly contained policy documents rather than sighting reports. However, he found the first file in this series to be a mix of miscellaneous documentation. The DAFI Intelligence Liaison Officer (ILO) later allowed him access to parts of these files after vetting.

A significant discovery was a 1954 "Report on 'Flying Saucers'" by H. Turner, M.Sc., from the Australian Scientific Liaison Office in London. This report included a tabular summary of RAAF 'flying saucer' reports from 1950 to 1954. Turner's report concluded that the evidence presented by the RAAF reports tended to support the conclusion that "certain strange aircraft have been observed to behave in a manner suggestive of extraterrestrial origin."

Chalker aims to provide a comprehensive picture of RAAF involvement in the UFO controversy from 1950 to 1981, based on the Turner Report (1950-1954), personal summaries of RAAF files (1955-1959), and RAAF UAS summaries (1960-1980).

Further DAFI file searches are ongoing to uncover other files, particularly those related to the 1950s. Information on many previously unknown incidents was obtained, including a 1956 close encounter at Tambar Springs, a 1957 radar and visual event in Tasmania, a 1958 daylight sighting at Julkuraka, a 1959 close encounter at Burren Junction, a 1960 USAF aircraft UFO encounter near Cressy, and a 1959 daylight disc sighting in Hobart.

Detailed information was also gathered on "classic" cases such as the 1959 Risdon, Hobart daylight disc, Papua sightings (including the Gill report), the 1960 Cressy sighting, the 1963 Willow Grove 'EM' case, the 1964 Groote Eylandt 'EM' case, the 1966 Tully landing, the 1968 Heyfield landing, the 1971 Tooligie Hill "trace" case, the 1972 Mauraduc Road CE, the 1973 Kimba "entity" report, and the 1980 Rosedale landing.

A preliminary report on this work has appeared in the UFO Research Australia Newsletter (UFORAN) in three parts, and further articles are planned for 'Omega-Science' and a national UFO conference in Hobart in early 1983. These articles will be circulated to various UFO publications. A more extensive treatment of the RAAF's involvement is planned for when the research is completed.

Bibliographic Notice

John Prytz is seeking bibliographic references from general Australian "newsagent" journals and magazines for his "ACUFOS Bibliography Service." The aim is to integrate these references into a master ACUFOS document bibliography due in early 1983. Details required include author(s), title, journal name, date, volume/issue number, and page numbers. Prytz is particularly interested in Australian content and requests that newspaper references, overseas citations (except New Zealand and PNG), or references from highly specialized journals not be submitted. He can be contacted via mail at P.O. Box 1703, Canberra City A.C.T. 2601, Australia.

ACUFOS BIBLIOGRAPHY SERVICE: Bibliography Updates

This section provides a list of recent articles related to Artificial Intelligence:

1. Lewis, T.G. "What Computers Cannot Do." Byte, Jan. 1980, pp. 100-112.
2. Michie, Donald. "The Social Aspects of Artificial Intelligence." In Jones, Trevor (ed.), Microelectronics and Society. Open University Press, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, England, 1980, pp. 115-143.
3. Roberts, Steven. "Artificial Intelligence." Byte, Sept. 1981, pp. 164-178.
4. Simon, Herbert A. "Studying Human Intelligence by Creating Artificial Intelligence." American Scientist, May/June 1981, pp. 300-309.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical analysis of psychological explanations for UFO phenomena, particularly Internal Intelligence Theory, and the presentation of empirical data from official government files. The editorial stance, as represented by Frank Gillespie's article, is skeptical of purely internal explanations for UFOs and favors theories that acknowledge the possibility of external intelligence. Bill Chalker's detailed report on the RAAF UFO files underscores a commitment to investigating official records and uncovering historical cases, suggesting a belief in the significance of documented UFO events. The inclusion of the ACUFOS Bibliography Service highlights an interest in broader scientific and technological developments, such as Artificial Intelligence, potentially as they relate to or contrast with the study of UFOs.