BUFORA Bulletin - No 04 - May 1982

Magazine Overview

Title: BUFORA BULLETIN
Issue: No 004
Date: May 1982
Publisher: BUFORA (British UFO Research Association)
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of the BUFORA Bulletin, dated May 1982, is presented as a publication from the B.U.F.O.R.A. ARCHIVES, with a note indicating it is not to leave the library. The cover prominently features the title 'BUFORA BULLETIN' and lists key contents such as 'BUFORA News', 'Facts About Force Field Craft', 'The Rendlesham Forest Mystery', and 'Book Reviews'.

BUFORA Conference in Edinburgh

The issue reports on BUFORA's National Conference held at the George Hotel in Edinburgh from March 12th-14th, 1982. Approximately 60 delegates attended, braving inclement weather. The conference was organized by Peter Hill and members of BUFORA's Edinburgh Branch and included a bookstall and exhibition.

Key speakers included Jenny Randles, BUFORA's Director of Investigations, who spoke on 'Towards An Ideal Investigation Network,' drawing parallels between ancient man's understanding of atmospheric phenomena and modern challenges in understanding UFOs. She outlined investigation difficulties and BUFORA's guidelines.

Solicitor Harry Harris presented a talk on hypnotic regression, discussing his work with psychiatrists at Manchester Hospital. He shared the case of Mrs Linda Jones, who experienced a 'time lapse' after a sighting and, under hypnosis, recalled being taken aboard a craft for a medical examination. This talk was noted as controversial and interesting.

A symposium focused on the CE case at Livingston, featuring presentations by M. Drummond (Forestry Manager), Sgt. I. Wark (Livingston police), Mr L. Knib (Forensic Science Department), and Stuart Campbell. While the main participant, Robert Taylor, was absent, attendees had the opportunity to meet him the following day.

Mr Hilary Evans spoke on 'UFOs - All In The Mind,' offering thought-provoking ideas on the origin of UFO incidents. The conference concluded with an informal dinner where Leslie Bayer, BUFORA's Chairman, thanked Peter Hill and local members for their organization. Delegates also visited the Livingston site the following day.

Facts About Force Field Craft

Authored by Romeo Ferraro, this section explores the concept of 'flying saucers' as force field craft, originating from Germany in 1938 with Dr. Burchardt Heims' theoretical design. These craft were envisioned to be powered by a magnetic field, defying gravity and traveling at high speeds.

The development of these craft is attributed to Habermohl, Schriever, Miethe, and Italian electrical engineer Bellonzo. It is claimed that a German force field craft became airborne in Prague in 1941, reaching 40,000ft and attaining 1,250 mph.

The article discusses the US Navy's 'Philadelphia Experiment' in October 1943, where the destroyer USS Eldridge-D173 was made invisible using a magnetic field. The experiment reportedly resulted in the ship and crew becoming invisible, teleportation to Norfolk, Virginia, and temporary entry into the fourth dimension. Carl M. Allen (also known as Carlos Miguel Allende) is cited as an eyewitness.

Following World War II, both the USA and USSR are said to have acquired German prototypes and technicians. The Americans, leveraging their experience from the Philadelphia Experiment, reportedly developed controlled magnetic fields and special suits. Secret factories for producing these craft are located in Mount Rainier (USA) and the Urals (USSR), which may explain the Kenneth Arnold sighting.

It is suggested that the magnetic field produced by these craft can interpenetrate matter, potentially explaining the disintegration of Captain Mantell's plane. The purpose of these craft is stated to be interplanetry exploration and the colonisation of Mars. Advancements in nerve impulse study have led to the development of life-like robots for space missions.

Concrete evidence of man-made UFOs is cited from Brazil, where a flying saucer exploded and was found to be made of pure magnesium. Another sighting in Spain involved a UFO with the marking 'H.I.' on its underside. Plastic tubing from a UFO in Spain was found to be produced by Du Pont Nemours for NASA. In Socorro, New Mexico, patrolman Lonnie Zamora reportedly saw an egg-shaped UFO land, from which three robots emerged, and the craft's magnetic field stopped his car.

A UFO that crashed in Spitzbergen, Norway, was reportedly 150ft in diameter, had Russian markings, and was captured by the Norwegian Air Force, composed of titanium alloy.

The article concludes that a race is underway between the USA and USSR for Mars colonisation using these force field craft. It also warns that attempts to uncover the secrets of flying saucers have resulted in individuals being physically eliminated, citing the case of Dr. Morris K. Jessup.

Q&A on UFOs

This section addresses common questions about UFOs:

• What are they? Force field craft of the USA and USSR.
• Why do they travel silently? They use electro-magnetic fields, possibly ionic engines or cosmic rays.
• What is their purpose? Interplanetry exploration and colonisation of Mars.
• What is their power source? A dark circular band around the centre carries an electrical conductor cooled to absolute zero, providing the magnetic field.

Further points include the ability of these craft to teleport people and objects, defy gravity, become invisible, and teleport themselves. It is noted that crews from UFOs have spoken in various European languages, but not Venusian, Martian, or Jupiterian.

The article questions why extraterrestrial craft would take so long to contact Earth or travel vast distances, and why they are frequently seen near USAF bases, even landing on runways.

It is speculated that details of force field craft may be revealed once Mars colonisation begins. A 'space war' between American and Russian UFOs is mentioned, with an incident in Itaipu, Brazil, where a Russian UFO attacked a fortress. UFOs are also implicated in attacking Russian rockets and kidnapping Avenger torpedo bombers.

Testing of force field craft and space exploration probes is extensive, with Lunar Module testing cited as an example. The article mentions that experimental craft have been tested extensively, and that robot-controlled craft have been involved in incidents like the kidnapping of Barney and Betty Hill and compelling Antonio Villas Boas to mate.

Force field craft are said to perform exceptionally well underwater due to water's conductivity. Both Russia and America are planning military bases on Mars, with the victor expected to dominate Earth. A puzzling feature is that UFOs often display USAF markings, not Martian or Venusian ones.

Finally, the article speculates on ex-President Carter's unfulfilled promise to reveal UFO secrets, suggesting it was an air force secret kept for national security reasons.

Brief Reports

This section contains brief reports of UFO sightings:

• Silloth, Cumbria: A witness saw a round black object traversing the sky at high speed with a long tapering white tail, accompanied by crackling sounds.
• Maidstone, Kent: A witness saw a bright glint in the sky, which appeared as a red ball moving in a straight line.
• Barnoldswick, Lancashire: A witness saw a large white ball surrounded by flames with blue and red projections, moving slowly.

Heidleberg Sighting

This report details a UFO sighting in Heidleberg, West Germany, on November 14th, 1980. Witnesses Miss D. Nurcombe and a friend observed a bright, oval-shaped object hovering over a sports field. The object was described as having two powerful front headlamps with a pinkish glow, a bluish-green light on the left, a red light on the right, and tiny yellow lights around its circumference. It lacked wings, distinguishing it from an aeroplane. The object moved slowly south towards Leimen and was visible for about 10 minutes. The Heidleberg United States Army base reported no radar pick-up, suggesting possibilities like a weather balloon or helicopter, which the witnesses found unlikely due to the object's shape and lack of noise.

Crossword

A crossword puzzle is included, with clues for 'Across' and 'Down' related to UFOs and related concepts. The solution is provided on page 19.

New Editor

This section announces the appointment of John Barrett as the new editor of the BUFORA Bulletin. Barrett is a professional journalist with 20 years of experience and a long-standing interest in UFOs since the mid-1950s. The bulletin's format has changed due to increased printing and paper costs and the recession. The council intends to provide more funds for the publication and encourages members to submit letters, articles, and reports. The editorial chair was previously filled by Arnold West following Norman Oliver's departure. Arnold West's efforts in producing the magazine are acknowledged and appreciated.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the technological aspects of UFOs, particularly the concept of 'force field craft' and their potential origins and applications in space exploration and military endeavors. There is a strong focus on scientific research, investigation networks, and the collection of evidence. The issue also touches upon the psychological aspects of UFO experiences, such as hypnotic regression, and the potential for government cover-ups. The editorial stance appears to be one of promoting rigorous scientific inquiry into UFO phenomena while acknowledging the controversial nature of some theories and experiences. The BUFORA organization itself is presented as a dedicated body aiming to coordinate and conduct unbiased research within the UK and internationally.

This issue of "THE EVENTS OF DECEMBER 31st, 1978" (No. 3, Volume 10 No. 1) features an article by T.R. Dutton titled "Some Further Observations." The issue date is December 31st, 1978, and it is published by BUFORA.

T.R. Dutton: Some Further Observations.

T.R. Dutton expresses appreciation for J.B. Delair's February 1981 article and offers further observations supporting its conclusions. Dutton first addresses the authorities' favored explanation of the COSMOS 1068 booster re-entry for the December 31st, 1978 events. A quick count of 193 listed reports reveals that 126 contained directional information. The majority (75, or 59%) indicated a W-E orientation, 31 (24%) an E-N orientation, and 20 (16%) other directions. Witnesses of W-E events were spread across southwest England and southern Scotland, spanning approximately 450 miles. Crucially, 62 (82%) of these W-E events were reported to have occurred between 1900 and 1903 hours, suggesting near simultaneity. Dutton posits that these witnesses likely observed the same brilliant atmospheric event at altitudes around 80 miles (130km), consistent with the COSMOS explanation if it occurred over Britain at the reported time.

Dutton notes that the re-entry speed of a satellite (17,000mph/27,400km/hr) is slower than that of most meteoric objects (50,000mph/80,500km/hr), which could explain the apparent slowness of the observed object. Differences in color could be attributed to temperature changes experienced by the decelerating object. While this explanation seems neat, Dutton's glance at the distribution pattern of events on the map provided with Delair's article prompted him to reconsider.

Drawing on his previous studies of UFO "madness" and significant events over a century, Dutton tentatively concludes that these events are consistent with a highly-organized surveillance of the planet by "non"-terrestrial agencies. He asserts this based on the distribution of Close Encounter (CE) events, which suggest well-established orbital tracks followed by artificial spacecraft in retrograde motion. Such vehicles, he argues, would not be easily confused with man-made craft or meteoric manifestations.

Dutton illustrates his point by drawing lines on a map corresponding to relevant tracks, noting that the distribution of December 31st sightings remarkably follows these lines, even if not perfectly superimposed. He explains that the displacement of the SSE-NNW band of points from track 30 is not unreasonable given an orbital origin. He also finds it significant that witnesses of objects moving SE to NW observed them to the east of their positions, implying the UFOs were closer to track 30 than the observers. While E-N transits correspond to retrograde satellite motion, Dutton emphasizes that this is not a basic requirement, as CE studies indicate objects often wander.

In summary, Dutton suggests that while the December 31st events might be explained by meteoric occurrences or satellite re-entry, the selective distribution of eyewitness locations is consistent with historical UFO precedents. He proposes that simultaneous aerial manifestations occurred on tracks 15, 24, and 30, witnessed some distance from the objects' paths. He questions whether intelligently-controlled UFO activity occurred under the cover of a predictable re-entry.

UFOs - No Cover Up

Viscount Long, Government defence spokesman, stated in a House of Lords debate in March 1982 that there had been no "cover up" over UFO sightings by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). He assured that the MoD's interest was limited to identifying potential USSR or other unidentified aircraft breaching UK defence systems. He confirmed that since 1967, all UFO reports have been preserved, with earlier reports destroyed after five years. Since 1978, 2,250 UFO sightings had been reported and examined for defence implications. Sightings over the past four years were: 750 in 1978, 550 in 1979, 350 in 1980, and 600 in 1981.

A reply by BERNARD DELAIR

Bernard Delair responds to various opinions expressed in the BUFORA journal regarding his previous article on aerial phenomena over Britain on December 31st, 1978. He expresses dismay at some questionable opinions and arguments that distort his text, potentially conveying a false impression of authority to new readers.

Delair champions the right to express opinions but hopes that emotive subjects like ufology involve carefully weighed opinions supported by data. He argues that failure to do so leads to subjective opinions and premature interpretations. He criticizes contributors like Messrs Rimmer and Campbell for leveling objections at him, suggesting they have fallen into the same trap. Delair explains that his article accurately presented observational data as relayed by eyewitnesses, recording shapes, directions, and other details precisely as reported. The accompanying map objectively reflects this data. He states he did not feel compelled to alter the data to fit preconceived notions about meteors, satellites, or UFOs. He simply recorded reports and drew conclusions, asserting that no one is obligated to accept these conclusions, but the original evidence should not be rearranged.

Delair notes that Messrs Rimmer and Campbell seem anxious to identify the sightings as known or identifiable phenomena. He clarifies Mr Campbell's misinterpretation of his conclusion, stating he wrote that it was "possible to further conclude that the objects were of alien or extraterrestrial origin," not that he concluded they *were* of that origin. He emphasizes this was a deliberate phrasing to indicate possibility, not a semantic quibble.

Delair addresses the claim that there was no public consternation, stating that 75% of telephoned sightings at Contact International (UK)'s Wheatley headquarters were from people who were plainly excited or worried, some near hysteria. He argues that it would be remarkable if only these callers reacted this way, suggesting the pattern was typical. He finds it unscientific to conclude otherwise without available data.

He explains that his long analysis depends on the reliability of reports and witnesses. While witnesses have limitations, they saw the phenomena. Individually, reports may not be strong, but collectively they are remarkably consistent. The inclusion of professional observers like policemen, airline pilots, and retired meteorologists, whose descriptions were similar to lay observers, lends homogeneity to the reports, making them generally reliable. Delair states there was no need to "juggle around" or "read into" accounts meanings not intended by eyewitnesses. He acknowledges that witnesses might have seen meteors, bolides, or satellites, but emphasizes that a significant series of observations described objects proceeding in other directions, too numerous to ignore.

Delair points out that applying strict scientific methodology makes it difficult to dismiss non W-E sightings as erroneous. He questions whether it is justified to apply the explanation of inaccurate orientation only to non W-E sightings, or if W-E observers could also have been mistaken. He argues that rationalizing flight paths, regardless of direction, calls into question the observational ability of too many observers to be acceptable.

He highlights that his article drew attention to "pairs" of observations at specific localities where flight directions were closely similar (W-E and S-W or E-NNW). While these pairs are numerically small, he notes that observations of zig-zagging and meandering objects (sightings 7, 83, and 171) do not fit the main pattern and suggest multiple objects. He finds it encouraging that Mr Morrell, a scientist, and Miss Randles, known for her bias towards scientific methodology in UFO research, reach similar conclusions. He also references Mr Howard's query about whether "someone up there" might be taking advantage of prominent meteor activities or satellite re-entry, a suspicion voiced by others investigating anomalous sky objects.

Delair concludes by expressing disturbance at the apparent lack of critical scientific methodology among some contributors who, as prominent UFO fraternity members, have their statements read and accepted. He suggests that while their evaluations might be correct, his and others' conclusions could be wrong. He reiterates that witnesses may not know what they are looking at or their orientation, but urges those without facts to refrain from making statements about the non-existence of public consternation, which was real. He also cautions against attributing dogmatic statements when none were made, as this diminishes the evaluators' status.

Letters to the Editor

From Anthony Green: Green expresses respect for J.B. Delair but finds it strange and unnerving that Delair concluded in his "preliminary survey" of UK UFOs that the objects were of alien or extraterrestrial origin. Green argues that Delair's survey lacks direct evidence for this conclusion. He suggests that "alien" might only refer to the phenomena not being commonly associated with sighting locations. Green believes that if Delair's conclusion were correct based on the evidence, it would have emerged long ago. He states that extrapolating from truly identifiable phenomena is natural, but presenting pure speculation as fact can be harmful.

From Manfried Cassirer: Cassirer addresses a letter from Randall Jones Pugh, correcting misunderstandings. Cassirer clarifies that he did not state or imply that Pugh's work was "nonsense." On the contrary, he regrets Pugh's withdrawal from investigation, noting Pugh's flair. Cassirer expresses unhappiness with Pugh's apparent religious paranoia, which he believes caused him to abandon his work. He suggests Pugh consider reversing his decision in favor of research and dismisses the notion of himself being an armchair "theoretician."

PRE-1947 UFO BULLETIN No. 3 by Nigel Watson

Nigel Watson discusses how war nerves can manifest and potentially influence perceptions, drawing parallels to pre-World War I phantom airship scares. He consults Barbara Tuchman's book "August 1914" for information on this period.

Watson highlights several pieces of information from Tuchman's book:

• August 2nd, 1914: German newspapers reported French aerial bombings near Nuremberg, which, though unsubstantiated, were used by Germany to justify its ultimatum to Belgium and declaration of war on France. The declaration cited "French acts of 'organised hostility' and of air attacks on Nuremberg and Karlsruhe and of violation of Belgian neutrality by French aviators flying over Belgian territory..." as causes for war.
• August 6th: German zeppelins bombed Cologne to force Belgian cooperation.
• Night of August 5th: Due to invasion scares, Britain sent only four instead of six divisions to aid the French, with soldiers deployed to defend the east coast.
• August 4th: Rumors in Frankfurt claimed Cossack brutalities in East Prussia, distracting the German General Staff from the western front.
• August 13th: Germans mistakenly believed the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) had disembarked at Ostend, Calais, and Dunkirk, based on false reports from cavalry reconnaissance.
• Date unspecified: A seal in Scapa Flow was mistaken for a periscope, causing Admiral Sir John Jellicoe to send the entire fleet to sea, leaving the North Sea open to the Germans.
• August 30th: A German Taube aircraft bombed Paris for the first time, with daily returns providing "excitement to compensate for the Government's prohibition of absinthe."
• Dates unspecified: Rumors of thousands of Russian troops arriving in Britain to reinforce the western front circulated. A Scottish army officer described them in "long gaily-coloured coats and big fur caps' carrying bows and arrows instead of rifles and with their own horses 'just like Scottish ponies only bonier' - a description that exactly fitted the Cossacks of a hundred years ago."

Watson concludes that anticipation of fearful events can dramatically affect reality. He notes that the threat of assault on British shores reduced support for the French, similar to how Germans diverted resources east due to fear of Russian hordes. He finds it sickening that the British lion could have been "slaughtered by the innocent activities of a playful seal." He also points out how rumors of aerial attacks were used by Germans to legitimize their war-mongering and how aircraft were used to intimidate enemies. He mentions wished-for apparitions and mistaken observations, such as Russian appearances in Britain and mistaken British landings in Ostend.

Watson acknowledges Carl Groves' skepticism about UFO waves being caused wholly or significantly by social factors, noting the lack of a described mechanism for translating social tension into multiple-witness sightings and the invariance of UFO aspects (e.g., rapid acceleration, right-angle turns) across different waves. He invites comments and help to be sent to him.

Crossword Solution

Provides solutions for a crossword puzzle: ACROSS (1) Warminster (5) Identified (7) Hang (10) Solo (13) Navy Flight (15) Ufologists. DOWN (1) Wright (2) Man (3) Naidi (4) This (6) Een (8) Months (9) Alfto (11) Ofg (12) Avro (14) ICI.

One Day Seminar

Announces a one-day seminar organized by ASSAP (Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena) and BUFORA on Saturday, June 12, 1982, at Tufnell Park Hall, London N7. The theme is "Exchanging Information Effectively," focusing on methods of dealing with the press and media. Details are available from Dennis Bury. Costs are £3.00 for BUFORA/ASSAP members and £4.00 for non-members. A buffet lunch is available for £2.00. The seminar will be introduced by BUFORA Chairman Leslie Bayer, with contributors including David Berry, Alan Cleaver, Dr. Bryan Fearon, and Dr. Hugh Pincott.

The Rendlesham Forest Mystery

This section details an investigation into an alleged UFO landing and Close Encounter of the Third Kind (CE3) near Rendlesham Forest, Suffolk, in February 1981. Brenda Butler and T.R. Dutton heard from several people about a UFO landing in early January 1981, involving an object with three legs and "entities" communicating with personnel from the nearby USAF/RAF base at Bentwaters.

Brenda and Dutton visited the airbase and spoke to the commander's secretary, who seemed to know about the January sighting. The commander denied knowledge of the event, but asked about their investigation plans. They visited the alleged landing site, finding nothing unusual.

Later, Brenda heard from an anonymous man who confirmed the report and provided directions to the site, but later denied knowledge of it and was reportedly told not to speak about it. A Forestry Commission employee reported that on January 1st, 1981, a farmer had heard a loud noise, his animals were frightened, and the area was illuminated by a bright white light. RAF Woodbridge investigated, and the incident lasted about four hours. The farmer's identity is unknown, and he has reportedly been told by security personnel not to discuss the incident.

Another forestry worker reported that his wife's friend's husband had also seen a UFO on the night of December 29th, 1980, with an account consistent with other witnesses. This man showed them the location on a map, but their search revealed nothing untoward. It is noted that tree-felling has occurred in that part of the forest since the incident.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue primarily focuses on analyzing UFO sightings, particularly the events of December 31st, 1978. A central theme is the debate between conventional explanations (like satellite re-entry) and the possibility of intelligently-controlled, possibly extraterrestrial, phenomena. The articles explore the methodology of UFO research, emphasizing the importance of objective data analysis versus preconceived notions. There's a recurring concern about the interpretation of evidence and the potential for misrepresentation or bias. The issue also touches upon government involvement and transparency regarding UFO reports, as well as historical parallels between public anxieties and UFO phenomena. The Rendlesham Forest incident highlights the challenges of investigating alleged UFO events, particularly when military bases are involved and information is suppressed or difficult to verify. The editorial stance appears to favor rigorous investigation and open discussion of UFO phenomena, while cautioning against unsubstantiated claims and the dismissal of eyewitness testimony.

This issue of the BUFORA Bulletin, dated June 1982, focuses on UFO phenomena, with a significant portion dedicated to the Rendlesham Forest incident and historical Ufology milestones. The publication also includes book reviews and a stop press item.

Rendlesham Forest Incident Report

The lead article details an investigation into a UFO report from near Rendlesham Forest, UK. The incident occurred on the evening of December 28th, 1980. A farmer was woken by restless cattle and observed the sky to be unusually bright, accompanied by a loud, unfamiliar noise. He contacted RAF Woodbridge/Bentwater, who sent security personnel. The farmer then saw an object hovering over the forest, which appeared to be in trouble. As more personnel arrived, the object landed, and three "entities" surrounded by a white glow were seen floating around the craft. The craft was reportedly on three legs, approximately 30ft apart. Communication was said to have taken place between base personnel and the entities, with the former instructed to leave their weapons and assist with the damaged craft. One report suggests the craft was removed to the air base. A member of the public also witnessed the activity, corroborating other reports. The incident is said to have lasted about four hours, during which power failures were reported in the area. Due to the involvement of the British government, witnesses, including some air base personnel, have refused to discuss the matter further, with one witness denying any knowledge of the incident. Witnesses have been told to keep quiet and fear for their jobs. The author states they know one witness personally and can vouch for their honesty, but even they refuse to discuss it. The names of witnesses are withheld for obvious reasons. Brenda Butler contacted the Ministry of Defence on February 18th, 1981, about the incident, but the Ministry denied all knowledge and stated they had no information.

Historical Ufology: 35th Anniversary

The bulletin commemorates the 35th anniversary of modern Ufology, which began on June 14th, 1947. Businessman Kenneth Arnold, flying from Chehalis airfield, Washington, to Yakima, Washington, saw a blinding flash of light reflected off his aeroplane. The source was a row of objects to the north of Mount Rainier, flying at approximately 10,000ft. Arnold observed that the objects lacked wings and tails and flew in a diagonal line, as if linked together, swerving only to avoid mountain tops. He estimated their distance at 16 miles and their size as two-thirds that of a DC4. Later measurements suggested the line of objects was about five miles long, and their speed was estimated at 1,750 mph. Arnold described them as looking "like saucers skimming over water."

Stop Press: Milton Keynes Sighting

A "Stop Press" section reports on a UFO sighting at Milton Keynes on Thursday, March 25th, 1981. The event was reported on at least one London commercial radio station but received little national press coverage. Police officers, Sergeant Ian Victory and PC Anthony Underwood, saw a "lozenge shaped object" hovering over Saxon Street, Milton Keynes, at 4.30 am. The object was also seen by a milkman. Sergeant Victory is quoted as saying, "....if you told me you had seen something like this I would not believe you," echoing the sentiments of many UFO witnesses.

Book Reviews

Two book reviews are featured:

• THE ANCIENT SCIENCE OF GEOMANCY by Nigel Rennick (Thames & Hudson, £3.95, 180pp): Described as an absorbing book that touches on subjects like astronomy, geology, leys, and architecture. It defines Geomancy as "the science of putting human habitats and activities into harmony with the visible and invisible world around us." Chapter headings include "Natural Geomancy," "The Omphalos," "Images In The Earth," and "Sacred Geometry." The book includes photographs of sites like Stonehenge and the Big Horn Medicine Wheel. The chapter on Sacred Geometry examines the relation of symbols to religion with references to various holy places. It is recommended for lay enthusiasts.
• BRITISH MEGALITHS by J.T. Graham (Watford College, £1.00, 17pp): This booklet is recommended for those interested in ley lines and astro-archaeology. It identifies main 20th-century sources of factual information and popular speculation on geology, force fields, and folklore related to megalithic sites. It includes a bibliography and index and is described as a handy guide that saves time searching library lists.

Editor's Note and Contact Information

An editor's note states that Dot Street is actively investigating UFOs on behalf of BSIG and BUFORA and provides contact information: Lowestoft (0502) 84606.

BUFORA Publications and Periodicals

An advertisement section lists BUFORA Publications, including "UFO Investigation" (£4.00), "Congress 1979" (£2.00), and "Vehicle Interference" (£4.00), along with their members and trade prices. Postage and packing details are provided. It also lists BUFORA Periodicals: "BUFORA Journal" and "Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena (JATAP)", and "BUFORA Bulletin." Details on availability are from Arnold West, 16 Southway, Burgess Hill, Sussex RH15 9ST, England. Terms are cash with order, trade official order please, and members should quote their membership number.

Editorial Stance and Disclaimer

A disclaimer states that The British UFO Research Association does not hold or express corporate views on UFO phenomena, and contributions reflect only the views of the editor or authors. Copy for publication should be sent directly to the editor. Original material is copyright to the contributor and BUFORA.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are UFO sightings, historical accounts of UFO phenomena, and the investigation of alleged incidents. The editorial stance appears to be one of active investigation and reporting on UFO-related matters, while also acknowledging the historical significance of key events in ufology. The inclusion of book reviews suggests an interest in related fields like Geomancy and archaeoastronomy. The disclaimer emphasizes that the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the organization as a whole, promoting a platform for diverse perspectives within the UFO research community.