JTAP - Vol 4 No 4 - Mar 1987

Magazine Overview

Title: The Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena
Issue Date: March 1987
Volume: 4, No. 4
Publisher: The British Unidentified Flying Object Research Association Ltd.
Focus: Scientific study of unusual aerial phenomena.

Editorial: How Deep Should One Dig? Part Two

S.J. Gamble, Director of Research, continues his editorial on the application of scientific methodology to UFO phenomena. He emphasizes the importance of a collaborative effort in examining observations and theories, contrasting it with the often adversarial nature of conventional science and UFOlogy. Gamble highlights that the previous issue's controversial articles by Roy Dutton (on alien visitations) and Steuart Campbell (on the Livingstone case) generated correspondence, indicating reader engagement. He stresses the need for reasoned discussion and an open mind, cautioning against the 'closed mind' approach. Gamble also touches upon the technical aspects of preparing the journal, mentioning the use of Sinclair Spectrum computers and Brother M1009 printers.

The Anamnesis Project: A State of Progress Report

Ken Phillips and Alex Keul present an update on their Anamnesis method for studying UFO reporters. The project, funded by BUFORA, focuses on percipients, primarily in South East England and Austria. The authors argue that the lukewarm reception of their method stems from a Western technological culture rooted in Newtonian and Descartian philosophies, which struggles with concepts of 'connectedness' and the 'universe nextdoor'. The Anamnesis method aims to investigate the 'Unidentified Witness' by comparing demographic data with census archives to understand if witnesses reside in a previously unknown segment of society. Preliminary results indicate that UFO percipients are psychologically stable, intelligent, artistically motivated, and often possess strong E.S.P. faculties. This finding contradicts earlier studies, such as the Vienna Pilot Study, which the authors dismiss as artifactual. The Rorschach analysis of Austrian and British UFO sighters shows a markedly higher number of developmentally lower (regressive) object-relational contents compared to US normals, suggesting an experience akin to 'visions' when the UFO event is closer.

Future Directions of Research and Investigations

The authors suggest that research and investigations in the UFO field need to modify their approach. While acknowledging the importance of CE II (radar-visual) and multiply witnessed events, they propose a drastic shift in methodology. The future role of research must examine both the instrument and the event, requiring a full technical appraisal and a deep look into the eyes of the witness. Without this, another two generations of UFOlogists may continue to produce meaningless results.

The Cracoe Fell Case

This article, by the West Yorkshire UFO Research Group (WYUFORG), re-examines the Cracoe Fell Case, which involved two off-duty police officers observing and photographing bright lights on March 16th, 1981. The case has been extensively investigated by the Yorkshire UFO Society (YUFOS). WYUFORG clarifies its position, stating it was not involved in the main research but aims to present previously unpublished evidence and clarify a confusing situation that arose between YUFOS, WYUFORG, and BUFORA. The incident involved bright lights with a 'finned' structure observed for about an hour. The article includes conclusions from analyses by Ground Saucer Watch (GSW) and Klaus Webner, which found no evidence of 'objects' hovering between witnesses and the mountains, nor anything in the air between the witnesses and the fell. WYUFORG notes that YUFOS incorporated its analysis into a 'Cracoe Package' which contains extensive research details. The article also discusses the difficulties WYUFORG encountered in obtaining the YUFOS report and slides, suggesting a reluctance from YUFOS to share information that might contradict their conclusions. The farmer's testimony is also mentioned, with WYUFORG contacting Mr. D. Carlisle.

Conclusions

In the context of the fortieth anniversary of the Arnold sighting, the editorial concludes by emphasizing the need to understand the percipient and the signals they transmit through methods like Anamnesis. It advocates for a time-invariant, culture-free apparatus to listen to the mind and express it fully, without interference from UFOlogists' value judgments, while maintaining criteria for essential comparisons. The authors believe that new experiences necessitate a change in method, which in turn changes the man.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical need for rigorous scientific methodology in UFO research, the importance of open and reasoned discussion, and the exploration of new investigative approaches like the Anamnesis Project. The editorial stance is one of advocating for a more scientific, less dogmatic approach to the study of transient aerial phenomena, emphasizing the value of witness testimony and the psychological stability of percipients, while also acknowledging the limitations and potential biases within the field. The journal aims to foster a collaborative environment for research and to challenge existing paradigms.

This issue of the Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena (JTAP), dated March 1987, focuses heavily on the Cracoe Fell case, presenting a detailed account and analysis of the event. It also covers ongoing research initiatives within the UFO community, particularly those associated with BUFORA, and promotes an upcoming international UFO congress.

Cracoe Fell Case: UFO Rubbish?

The lead article, titled "UFO RUBBISH !", addresses the Cracoe Fell phenomenon, which gained attention after two policemen photographed a shiny object on the fell. The Yorkshire UFO Society hailed this as conclusive evidence of alien visitors. However, local farmer D. Carlisle, who witnessed the event, dismissed these reports as 'rubbish'. He explained that the phenomenon often occurred on dull days when the sun caught rocks on the fell, describing it as a 'spectacular' but natural occurrence. Carlisle stated he had seen similar optical illusions before and was present when the policemen photographed the shining fell.

WYUFORG members interviewed Mr. Carlisle on September 28th, 1986. They documented his account, which he agreed with and signed. Although Mr. Carlisle initially described the March 16th, 1981, phenomenon as a sunlight reflection, he, like many Cracoe villagers, believed 'something' was going on. He also mentioned that bright lights had been seen high on Cracoe Fell a few weeks prior to their interview. Mr. Carlisle's view is that the Cracoe Phenomena are the product of an 'uncommon sunlight reflection' on damp quartz-bearing gritstone, something he and others have observed three or four times a year under changeable weather conditions.

WYUFORG emphasizes that Mr. Carlisle had to be sought out for interviews and had never actively promoted his views. They note that his version of the event has remained unchanged since the 1983 'UFO RUBBISH' article. WYUFORG asserts that if Carlisle had been unsure or lying in his 1983 statements, he could have easily declined interviews, concluding that his credibility as a witness is excellent.

The article concludes by stating that the reason for writing was to present the evidence of a prime witness.

Farmer Carlisle's Statement

Figure Two presents Farmer Carlisle's formal statement concerning the Cracoe 'UFO'. He confirms being outside Cracoe police station on March 16th, 1981, and observing lights for about 15 minutes on Rylestone Fell. He states that police officers were present. The weather was overcast with sun outbreaks. He confirms the observed lights were as portrayed in the photograph and in that location. Carlisle reiterates that he, his wife, and son have seen these lights both before and after the event, explaining they appear when the rocks (Yorkshire Gritstone) are wet and the sun shines on them, specifically on cloudy days with sun outbreaks, not on bright sunny days. He maintains an open mind about the UFO phenomenon but believes the lights were simply the sun shining on the rocks. He noted the lights were brighter than usual on that day but saw no structure behind the rocks.

WYUFORG's Perspective and Notes

WYUFORG acknowledges that their article, while presenting Mr. Carlisle's perspective, is not necessarily the definitive conclusion to the Cracoe Case. They feel the facts presented are valid and important, especially as the case was classified as 'unknown'. They question why such facts were not revealed earlier. WYUFORG states they conducted their research and investigation correctly and feel it is their responsibility as 'open minded UFOlogists' to share their findings. They emphasize that UFO cases are not the 'property' of any single group and should be open to discussion.

A "WYUFORG NOTE" advises readers to obtain the "YUFOS Cracoe Package" for further reading, available from YUFOS in Leeds.

Editorial Notes to the Cracoe Fell Case

These notes provide additional explanation to the WYUFORG article. They clarify that WYUFORG is a member group of BUFORA but has no special privilege. The article was produced from a manuscript provided by WYUFORG with minimal editorial interference, as per their wishes. BUFORA's objectives include promoting unbiased scientific investigation into UFO phenomena and disseminating evidence. This article is reproduced in support of these objectives, encouraging open discussion for progress.

Pam Kennedy, MBE

A brief note announces the sad news of the death of Pam Kennedy, MBE, who passed away peacefully on February 16th, 1987. She was remembered for her administrative work for BUFORA and for serving tea at BUFORA meetings.

Research News

Steve Gamble, Director of Research, discusses current activities within BUFORA's Research Department. A Research Committee meeting was held in London on January 3rd, 1987. Projects discussed include:

• Circles Survey: Work continues to investigate the causes of cereal circle formation. Paul Fuller is collaborating with Dr. Meaden on a survey of cereal farmers in Hampshire and Wiltshire, supported by BUFORA and Dr. Meaden.
• Computer Indexing of Reports: Mike Wootten is leading this project, cataloging cases from 1980-1982. Paul Fuller has recoded cases from 1977, Mike Lewis has finished the 1979 cases, and Robert Clarke is working on 1976 cases. Mike Woottem is also compiling data on Italian cases.
• Anamnesis: Work continues collecting control data for this project, with a fuller report by Ken Phillips available elsewhere.
• Computer Survey: This is an ongoing project, with additional forms received. Details are available in the BUFORA Winter Newsletter.

Manfred Cassirer, an expert in psychic explanations of UFO reports, has joined the council and will be writing for JTAP.

Towards a Forum for the Scientific Debate of UFOs and Related Phenomena

Robert S. Digby discusses the upcoming Fourth International UFO Congress in London (July 1987) as a forum for exchanging ideas. He advocates for creating a regular, broad-based international debate on UFO phenomena. Digby, chairman of BUFORA Ltd., has been involved in UFO studies for twenty-two years. He references a previous article co-authored with Steve Gamble that defined 'forum' as a marketplace for public business. Digby questions the current forum for the subject, noting that while many groups hold meetings, BUFORA has always provided regular lecture programs.

He suggests logical steps to extend the field of debate and initiate action rather than passive discussion. Digby outlines key points for organizing the Congress, emphasizing:

• Participatory Nature: Events should include workshop sessions.
• Avoiding 'Passing Trade': Previous conferences have not attracted many people 'off the street'.
• Meaningful Content: Popular speakers and themes that offer nothing new to active researchers should be avoided.
• Diverse Interests: Acknowledging the different 'interest groups' (scientists, ufologists, enthusiasts) and the potential conflict of interest between them.
• Market Segmentation: The UFO market is segmented, with people interested in various theories.
• Depressed Market: BUFORA's membership is proportional to UFO reports, and there has been a low number of reports for several years.
• Non-Partisan Approach: The event should be non-partisan and avoid inter-group competition to encourage wide participation.
• Industry Congress: The event should be geared towards the UFO 'trade' to draw active researchers.
• Mass Public Appeal vs. Popular Material: A balance is needed, but delegates would be unlikely to travel for old 'popular' material.
• Broader Based Participation: Encouraging participation from various quarters.

Digby argues for common international objectives, standards, and definitions to facilitate collaboration. He stresses the need for regular, face-to-face communication to avoid misunderstandings. He also calls for organizing like scientific disciplines, maintaining high standards, and adopting a professional approach to research and investigations. He believes that periodic meetings and international co-operation are essential.

London is seen as an international crossroads, and the decision to base activities there in 1983 was for ease of travel. Digby appeals for support for the Congress, emphasizing that if it is a success, it can lead to regular international meetings every two years or so.

Congress 87 Details

The journal provides details for CONGRESS 87, the Fourth International UFO Congress, to be held from Friday, July 10th to Sunday, July 12th, 1987, at The London Business School. The event is privately organized and not connected to the school. The program is still being compiled, with offers of papers received from around the world. MUFON will also hold a meeting of its European representatives in London.

A list of speakers includes Walt Andrus (MUFON, USA), Jenny Randles (UK), Mr. Odd-Gunnar Roed (Norway), Phillip Mantle (UK), Prof. Alan Tough (Canada), Harry Harris (UK), and Dr. Willy Smith (USA). Seminars and workshops will cover topics such as the Investigators Code of Practice.

Booking information is provided, with various components including day attendance, a Congress Dinner, Film Evening, and overnight stays. Prices are listed, with a discount for booking all three days. Single rooms are limited.

Correspondence

Use of Computers by BUFORA Ltd:

Paul Fuller responds to a letter from James Danby regarding the use of computers. Fuller apologizes for his 'bombastic style' but defends the idea of purchasing a centralized computer for BUFORA to handle research data and bibliographic references. He argues that the inaccessibility of BUFORA's current reports is a deterrent to researchers. Fuller clarifies that he does not believe computers will 'discover the solution' to the UFO problem but rather offer a more efficient and cheap method of analysis. He notes that BUFORA has only 21 investigators, suggesting apathy among members is a primary reason for the lack of progress.

Editorial Note: Steve Gamble acknowledges his role in upsetting James Danby with the article's tone and style, explaining it was intended to generate responses to a survey. He confirms that information from the survey has been helpful in shaping future computing policy and that points from Paul Fuller's original article have been implemented. The survey is an ongoing project.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently promotes the idea of rigorous, scientific investigation into UFO phenomena. There is a strong emphasis on evidence, witness credibility, and the need for open discussion and collaboration within the UFO community. The journal supports initiatives like the Cracoe Fell investigation and the upcoming International UFO Congress, viewing them as crucial steps towards advancing the field. The editorial stance appears to favor a professional, evidence-based approach, moving beyond sensationalism and encouraging active participation and research. The recurring theme is the pursuit of understanding UFOs through systematic study and open dialogue, while also acknowledging the challenges posed by public apathy and internal competition within the field.

This issue of the Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, dated March 1987, features a significant portion dedicated to correspondence and discussions surrounding UFO phenomena. The content includes critical analyses of published articles, detailed case studies, and experimental findings related to witness testimony.

Correspondence: Global Distribution of Reported Close Encounters

The issue opens with correspondence from Manuel Borraz Aymerich of Barcelona, Spain, addressing T.R. Dutton's article "Global distribution analysis of reported close encounters and other extraordinary events (1868-1973)" published in JTAP September 1986. Aymerich argues that it is impossible to draw any conclusions from Dutton's results alone, citing a serious methodological error due to the lack of contrast data for comparison. He suggests that a control experience would clarify the difficulty of finding similar results within an arbitrary set of uncorrelated events, emphasizing the need for consistent curve matching techniques and tolerances.

In a reply to D. R. Dutton, a correspondent (identified only by 'Dear Sir') critiques the idea of matching UFO incident reports to possible trajectories of alien spacecraft in Earth orbit. The correspondent points out that UFO reports do not necessarily describe objects in Earth orbit and that there was no attempt to select reports describing such orbiting craft. The database is described as a 'rag-bag of assorted objects and stimuli' with no single cause. Geographical coordinates derived from the reporter's location are deemed irrelevant if the stimuli were astronomical objects. The correspondent also highlights that failure to correct times for events outside the UK can lead to significant errors, making data analysis nonsensical, especially when considering satellite orbit times.

Another correspondent, Steuart Campbell from Edinburgh, Scotland, also addresses the global distribution concept. Campbell questions the arbitrary selection of only 24 cases and the basis for this selection. He argues that plotting a great circle (GC) route is made easier with fewer points, but questions how many GC routes can be found by chance among scattered points. He criticizes the lack of explanation for the selection criteria and the consistency of date and time differences for points on a GC. Campbell asserts that an orbiting craft's track is not a great circle unless it orbits in the plane of the equator. He further criticizes the notion of testing against celestial sphere coordinates, suggesting it's more appropriate to test against satellite tracks. He concludes that the idea of a GC route being indicative of alien craft is flawed.

Campbell also dismisses the idea that a UFO event could be explained by a GC route, stating that the orbit and period of a craft would determine its path, and an orbit with a period of 65.4 minutes would lie inside the Earth's atmosphere. He views the concept as 'pseudoscience' and awaits publication with skepticism.

Case Study: Livingston Incident

Robert Moore of East Huntspill, Somerset, writes in response to Steuart Campbell's paper "Livingston: A New Hypothesis" in JTAP September 1986. Moore acknowledges Campbell's factual data and considers his astronomical hypothesis one of the most plausible explanations for UFO phenomena. He expresses a desire to see Campbell's notes on his hypothesis published.

Another correspondent, T.R. Dutton, also responds to Campbell's paper. Dutton notes that Campbell had previously proposed a 'ball-lightning' solution for the Livingston incident but had second thoughts. Dutton expresses disappointment with Campbell's new ideas, which he finds to be a 'hallucination' during an epileptic fit, possibly triggered by a mirage of Venus. Dutton argues that clear conditions would make the Sun a more likely candidate for such a mirage. He criticizes the 'astronomical hypothesis' (AH), particularly the 'Venus hypothesis' (VH), as a fallback position for debunkers that is often a 'non-starter'. Dutton questions the plausibility of believing a hallucination caused by planetary alignment.

Dutton then delves into the report by the 'victim', Robert Taylor, from BUFORA Case History No. 1, 'Close Encounter at Livingston'. Taylor described an object about 30 feet high, grey, with a dome shape, flange, antennas, and portholes. He also reported two smaller objects emerging from the main object and approaching him. Dutton systematically addresses Campbell's arguments.

Regarding the 'fit' hypothesis, Dutton notes that the witness was not epileptic and had not suffered such an attack before. He questions Campbell's insistence on a fit without new evidence, suggesting Taylor's subsequent medical history is relevant.

Concerning the ground marks, Dutton quotes the Case History stating the holes were 'opened' ground, similar to those caused by lightning strikes. He explains the irregular disposition of the holes by the ground sloping gently to the east and north-east, indicating the object hovered horizontally. Dutton concludes that the marks were caused by the 'mines' (the smaller objects). He finds it remarkable that there were two 'mines', two tracks, and two rings of holes, suggesting a relationship between them and the ground marks.

Dutton refutes Campbell's suggestion that Taylor's trousers were torn by a fall or his dog, noting that forensic examination found no traces of dog saliva or other relevant traces. He supports the Case History's conclusion that the tears were caused by the 'mines' attaching themselves to the trousers.

Dutton argues that the Livingston event cannot be satisfactorily explained by ball lightning, Venus mirages, discarded machinery, or epilepsy. He urges against accepting trite explanations for mystifying events and emphasizes the importance of not impugning the witness's integrity.

Dutton then proposes an alternative interpretation: that the description fits a VTOL flying machine, such as a Harrier jump-jet or helicopter. He acknowledges that the description doesn't fit typical images of such devices (no rotor, jets, or wings), but suggests this might be due to limited knowledge of current technology. However, if informed on the latest developments, and still unable to explain the mode of operation, the possibilities are either a hoax or that the machine is 'not of this world'. Given the testimonies to the witness's integrity, Dutton concludes that if the object was real, it was a product of an alien culture. He qualifies this as a provisional conclusion due to the lack of corroborative statements and the object not being seen entering or leaving the wood.

Witness Observation Experiment

Robert S. Digby presents findings from an experiment on witness perception, noting that in many UFO cases, the witness is the sole source of data, and a vast majority are inexperienced observers. He conducted an experiment where audiences were shown a slide of a 'Flying Saucer' for a timed duration, similar to an experiment by Ken Phillips. The audiences were described as broadly middle class and from the same residential catchment area, with some being male-only and others all-female.

The results indicated that male participants tended to use most of the available space on their drawings but were less engaged, while the female audience found the event thought-provoking and asked 'interested' and 'searching' questions. The drawings by the male audience are shown, with estimated slide durations of 15, 20, and 10 seconds. Drawings by the female audience are also shown, with estimated durations of 10 seconds.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights a critical approach to UFO data analysis, emphasizing methodological rigor and the need for empirical evidence over speculative hypotheses. There is a clear debate regarding the interpretation of specific cases like the Livingston incident, with contrasting views on witness credibility and the plausibility of various explanations, ranging from astronomical phenomena to alien technology. The editorial stance, as indicated by the note inviting Roy Dutton to reply, suggests an openness to diverse viewpoints and a commitment to facilitating discussion within the UFO research community. The inclusion of the witness observation experiment points towards an interest in the psychological and perceptual aspects of UFO reporting.

This document comprises pages from The Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, specifically the March 1987 issue, Volume 4. The journal focuses on research and investigation into unidentified flying object (UFO) phenomena, aiming to apply scientific analysis and evaluation methods. It serves as a forum for scientists and researchers to present ideas, discuss findings, and analyze statistics related to UFOs and related phenomena.

Contents

The issue includes several key articles and sections:

• Editorial: "THE ANAMNESIS PROJECT - A STATE OF PROGRESS REPORT" by Stephen Gamble.
• Article: "THE CRACOE FELL CASE" by Ken Phillips.
• Research News: "TOWARDS A FORUM FOR THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE OF UFO'S AND RELATED PHENOMENA" by Steve Gamble.
• Congress Update
• Correspondence: "THE WITNESS AS A SUBTLE AND COMPLEX INSTRUMENT OF OBSERVATION" by Robert Digby.

The journal also lists BUFORA PUBLICATIONS available for purchase.

The Anamnesis Project & Witness Observation

Pages 125-128 delve into the complexities of witness testimony. Page 125 features drawings by female audience members, illustrating their estimates of how long a UFO slide was shown. These drawings, described as 'tiny' and 'timid,' are presented alongside a table (Table One) comparing estimated UFO observation times between male and female groups. The data shows variations in time estimates, prompting a discussion on the reliability and interpretation of such 'soft' data.

Page 126 continues this discussion, highlighting the potential for investigators to become excited by similarities between observed phenomena and known objects, leading to confirmation bias. It questions how to definitively determine the 'real thing' when dealing with subjective witness accounts. The article emphasizes that while physical evidence is crucial, much of the available data is non-physical or 'soft,' requiring consideration from fields like psychology, history, statistics, sociology, anthropology, and folklore.

Pages 127-128 further explore the concept of 'soft' evidence, defining it as the psychological and sociological processes involved in experiencing a UFO event and reporting it. Four levels of analysis are proposed: the witness, the report, the phenomenon, and the myth. The focus is on the witness level, examining their psychological profile, perceptual abilities, and personality. Sociologists are interested in the report level, looking at societal factors and biases. Historians and statisticians examine the phenomenon level, often documenting UFO waves. Social anthropologists and folklorists analyze the myth level, focusing on symbolism and cultural needs. The author notes that research at the witness level can be conducted today and finds the results disturbing, suggesting a reliance on witness data in the absence of other evidence.

Scientific Debate and Methodology

Page 126 introduces a discussion on the importance of a structured approach to analyzing non-physical UFO evidence. The author expresses a desire to examine approaches to dealing with witness data within its overall context, rather than in isolation. A lecture given in Stevenage is mentioned, where the question of what would prove UFOs are real was posed, with the author humorously suggesting landing a vehicle in Hyde Park for the Prime Minister to inspect.

References and Publications

Pages 127 and 128 list numerous references to published works on UFOs, including articles from Journal TAP itself, as well as books and reports by authors like J.A. Hynek, Jacques Vallee, and David Haisell. The journal also promotes BUFORA PUBLICATIONS, offering a list of available titles such as "Mystery of the Circles," "UFO World '86," and "Congress '79 papers," with prices and postage information.

Journal Information and Submission Guidelines

Page 128 contains important announcements: the journal is finishing Volume Four, a new lecture season starts September 5th, and a congress is mentioned on page 113. Page 5 provides detailed "Aims and scope of the Journal," emphasizing its role in scientific analysis and discussion of UFO phenomena. It outlines guidelines for contributors, including manuscript preparation (double-spaced, A4 paper, abstract), illustration requirements, table formatting, and reference citation style. The editorial board reserves the right to seek advice from referees and to accept, revise, or reject manuscripts. It also notes that opinions expressed are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of BUFORA.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical analysis of UFO witness testimony, the challenges of interpreting 'soft' data, and the application of scientific methodologies to ufological research. The journal adopts a stance that encourages rigorous investigation, scientific debate, and the integration of various disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and anthropology, to understand the complex phenomenon of UFOs. There is a clear emphasis on moving beyond mere speculation towards evidence-based analysis, while acknowledging the limitations imposed by the nature of the available data.