UFOlogia Supplemento a Clypeus - 1982 No 14

Magazine Overview

Title: UFOLOGIA
Supplement: SUPPLEMENTO A CLYPEUS Nº78
Issue Date: December 1982
Volume: IV
Publisher: CLYPEUS
Responsible Director and Editor: Gianni V. Settimo
Curators: Gian Paolo Grassino, Edoardo Russo

This issue of UFOLOGIA is dedicated to its patient readers and those who have encouraged its continuation. It addresses a perceived chronic lack of UFO sightings and a parallel decline in public and 'insider' interest since the peak ufological period in Italy around 1979. The magazine explores the challenges faced by ufologists, including the saturation of public interest and the shift in focus for some enthusiasts.

Editorial: The State of Ufology

The editorial reflects on the current state of ufology, noting a significant drop in sightings and public engagement since 1979. It discusses how this has led to discouragement among new enthusiasts who were primarily drawn to the 'mystery' aspect. Many who persisted have sought new stimuli, often by venturing into the 'margins' of ufological study or even outside of it. While a few are investigating alleged shoot-downs of airliners, a growing number are engaging in 'sky-watching' – a practice reminiscent of the 1950s, involving methodical observation of the sky in the hope of seeing UFOs. The editorial criticizes this approach, particularly when combined with attempts to collect instrumental data, arguing that it can lead to biased observations and a lack of objectivity. It also touches upon the use of infrared photography as a technique to capture 'invisible lights,' questioning its connection to visual sightings.

The editorial announces that the magazine will continue its focus on the mythical and ufological components of the phenomenon, and will present a detailed analysis of the logical-methodological approach to scientific research in ufology. The authors express a desire to move beyond what they perceive as arrogant claims of possessing the 'tablets of law' in ufology, hoping that those who are discouraged by a more rigorous approach will simply cease their involvement.

Articles and Content

Computerized Analysis of Photos: Ufological Applications

This main article, authored by William H. Spaulding and Fred Adrian, translated from UPIAR Research in Progress, delves into the sophisticated use of electronic calculators (Computer Image Enhancement - C.I.E.) for analyzing photographs of alleged UFOs. The authors note that many UFO photos exist in large quantities but are of poor quality, posing interpretation problems for researchers. C.I.E. is presented as a method to obtain significant additional information for the analysis of Unidentified Objects (U.O.) by electronically manipulating photographic images.

The article outlines the methodology, starting with the digitization of image data using a Computer Eye camera. It explains the concept of pixels and how their density values are captured. The system used by Ground Saucer Watch (G.S.W.) involves a matrix of 640 rows by 480 columns, with each pixel assigned a gray level value from 0 to 255.

Several computer processing techniques are detailed:

• Contrast Enhancement/Suppression: This process adjusts the brightness differences between adjacent parts of an image to make details more legible. It can transform an image into a binary black and white representation, highlighting the UFO against the sky or background.
• Spatial Filtering: This technique separates image components into high and low frequencies. Low-pass filtering removes high-frequency details (like lines), while high-pass filtering can highlight details by removing low-frequency variations caused by uneven lighting.
• Edge Intensification: This method focuses on identifying and enhancing the contours of objects and details within an image. It works by detecting abrupt changes in gray levels between adjacent pixels, making shapes and particulars more evident.
• Edge Factorization: This test is used to determine the distance and distortion of an image by analyzing the gradient of the image contours.
• High Resolution (Laplacian): This function provides a more natural-looking contoured image, highlighting details by maximizing the strongest values. It can be combined with the original photo to create an image with an enhanced sense of resolution.

The article lists several advantages of using this system for analyzing daytime UFO photos, including determining the time of day, estimating the distance of the UFO from the witness, analyzing movement, assessing whether an object reflects light or emits its own, identifying supporting structures for models, detecting photographic alterations or tricks, and identifying natural phenomena or optical effects.

Other Sections

• Editoriale: Discusses the decline in UFO sightings and interest, and the shift towards 'sky-watching' and other fringe activities.
• Analisi computerizzata delle foto: le applicazioni ufologiche: The main technical article on C.I.E.
• Controluce: Features a section on Eugenio Siragusa and 'Sufismi'.
• Gli aerei "fantasma" degli anni '30: An article by Anders Liljegren.
• Osservatorio: Includes discussions on the 'Affare Stringfield' and an event in Salzburg in 1982.
• Rapimenti e traumi da nascita: An article by Alvin H. Lawson proposing a testable hypothesis for the origin of abduction accounts.
• Recensioni: Reviews of "UFO: la realtà nascosta" by R.F. and "Accadde a Roswell" by James Oberg.
• Gli altri dicono: A section with contributions from others.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the challenges of maintaining scientific rigor in ufology amidst declining interest and sightings, the potential of technological tools like computer image analysis, and the exploration of various hypotheses regarding UFO phenomena, including psychological and historical aspects. The editorial stance is critical of less rigorous approaches to ufology, advocating for a more methodical, objective, and scientifically grounded research methodology. The magazine aims to provide informative content for serious researchers while acknowledging the persistent mystery surrounding UFOs.

This issue of CONTROLUCE, identified by issue number 11, focuses on several key areas within ufology: the technical analysis of UFO photographs, the controversial figure of Eugenio Siragusa, and historical UFO sightings, particularly the 'ghost fliers' of 1930s Sweden.

Photo Analysis: Night Photos

The issue begins by discussing the challenges and methods of analyzing night-time UFO photographs. It outlines eight points for graphical analysis, including using a profile graph to measure density along a vector, which can sometimes reveal the shape of the analyzed image. For night photos, specific techniques are detailed:

1. Microdensitometry and digital densitometry: Used to determine the luminosity saturation of the UFO image.
2. Pseudo-coloration: Applied to density slices to map light distribution on the UFO's surface.
3. Dark image programming: Specialized sub-programs can analyze film emulsions up to 4.0 H&D standard, revealing details invisible to the naked eye. This has helped identify anomalies, such as a light illuminating a portion of an aircraft's superstructure or a person holding a flashlight appearing as an unidentified luminous object.

However, the section "LIMITATIONS OF THE SYSTEM" emphasizes that while computer enhancement can help, it is not a panacea. The quality of the original photograph is paramount. Poorly cropped or low-resolution images cannot be effectively interpreted. Electronic enhancement is a technology that requires good quality photos for optimal results. It cannot determine the exact substance of an 'image' (though densitometry might suggest a metallic reflection) or the exact distance from the camera without reference points. It also cannot distinguish 'real' images from sophisticated special effects.

Essential Elements for UFO Photo Analysis

The article poses the question of whether a photo is worth evaluating. It stresses that for practical purposes, a night light appearing as a point on a dark background without details is not proof and could be an aircraft light, a flashlight, or a genuine unidentified object. Such photos are deemed not worth the time or money for scientific analysis.

Key requirements for scientific analysis include having all parameters of the camera, lens, and film, regardless of the analysis method. If photos are sequential, they must be in the correct numerical order from the original negative or positive. The GSW (presumably an organization) has never seen a negative without the production/development progressive number, except when it was advantageous for the witness to remove it. Investigators are advised to request to see the originals.

Ideally, originals or first-generation copies made from the original should be used. Witnesses often believe they are helping by cropping and enlarging the UFO, which is detrimental as the entire frame is needed for proper evaluation. A report on the photographic case should highlight specific data usable for analysis, such as film type, sensitivity, shutter speed, F-stop, and camera/lens details. Second-generation photos or those taken from newspapers or opaque photos are discouraged for computer analysis. Original negatives should be sent with precautions for shipping and protection against damage.

The section also mentions future plans for highly sophisticated programs with improved hardware to aid photographic material evaluation.

Bibliography

A bibliography lists several academic and technical publications related to picture processing and computer analysis, including works by B.S. Lipkin, A. Rosenfeld, J. Schuldies, and W. Spaulding.

Note: The G.S.W. does not solicit UFO photos for analysis. Analysis is costly and takes time. A contribution of twenty-five US dollars is required for analysis, with an additional five dollars for foreign countries. This fee covers the analysis of up to three photos of a single event, with the return of a written critique and computer-generated photographs.

Eugenio Siragusa: Point and Basta?

This section addresses the "Siragusa trial," noting the author's previous interest in the "Siragusa phenomenon" (Ufolatria and Ufomania). The magazine maintained silence during the trial, deeming it too tedious to update readers on the various phases due to limited press coverage. Following Siragusa's acquittal by the Tribunal of Catania on all charges, the author shifts focus to the ufological implications rather than the legal aspects. The verdict itself is stated as not being of interest to the magazine, as it concerns Siragusa personally. The author explicitly states they are not inclined to rejoice or reaffirm their "unchanged friendship and esteem" for Siragusa, distancing themselves from the moral responsibilities Siragusa may owe to those who believed in him as a prophet, citing the Hooker couple as an example of naive individuals who were deluded.

The author emphasizes that the trial did not shed light on the "Siragusa case" from a sociological or psychological perspective, a task better suited to magistrates. Instead, the trial reinforced Siragusa's role as an "innocent victim" and "new martyr," a role he readily assumed with the skill of an actor. The outcome is deemed a "nullity" for the scholar. The piece concludes by suggesting that even if Siragusa has "burned himself out" and lost credibility, the need for belief will ensure another "messiah" quickly takes his place.

Sufism

This section addresses a perceived annoyance from the Sezione Ufologica Fiorentina (SUF) towards CONTROLUCE, stemming from critical remarks made in "Il Giornale dei Misteri." The SUF, in response to a reader's critique, described certain ufologists as having "the sole activity of condemning others in the name of a presumptuous criticism" that usually hides "a desolate intellectual void."

Pier Luigi Sani's response to an article about Alberto Perego is also mentioned. Sani defended Perego's memory based on his consistency and good faith, valuing the "man" (or "master") over historical and ideological responsibilities. Sani criticized "scientific" ufologists for ostentatiously displaying contempt for pioneers and adopting "hyper-critical" attitudes to gain favor with "official science."

CONTROLUCE states they preferred to remain silent about these criticisms because they were not explicitly named and they respect the right to criticism. However, they were directly and publicly "mistreated" for a critique of the second volume of "UFO in Italia." While not personally bothered by such attacks, many friends expressed indignation at their silence. Therefore, the authors decided to address the issue to clarify their motivations and stance, rather than to engage in reciprocal attacks.

The article explains that the SUF's annoyance is partly due to CONTROLUCE's critical approach, which contrasts with the SUF's perceived self-importance. The SUF is described as having been a pioneer in collecting Italian UFO case data in the 1960s, a role they were proud of, especially after being isolated. This pride, coupled with the ephemeral nature of interest among many UFO groups (which typically lasted only two to four years), led the SUF to see itself as the central, enduring entity in Italian ufology. They allegedly adopted a paternalistic attitude towards younger researchers, valuing them as suppliers of material but not engaging with their ideas if they differed from the "fathers."

The authors state they will return to the "UFO in Italia" work, not because it's SUF's work, but because they are interested in *how* things are done, regardless of whether the creators are friends or strangers. They do not expect a response to their critiques, anticipating that SUF will resort to dismissive remarks like "mountain pipers" rather than addressing the detailed criticisms and bibliographical references provided.

The section concludes by stating that ignoring criticism is a sign of not wanting to hear. Since they have no interest in changing the minds of those who believe they are the best in ufology, they will cease further discussion on this matter, having outlined the "historical" reasons for the incomprehensible attitudes. The authors emphasize that this is not a trivial polemic but reflects two fundamentally different approaches to ufology: superficial dissemination and case compilation versus methodological and analytical rigor.

Ghost Fliers of the 1930s

This extensive section, authored by Anders Liljegren, details research into the phenomenon of "ghost fliers" or "spokflygarna" in Scandinavia during the 1930s. John A. Keel's 1970/71 articles in "Flying Saucer Review" are cited as a primary source, which in turn relied heavily on translations of Swedish newspaper clippings compiled by researcher Ake Franzén.

Franzén's archive, though valuable, often lacked specific source citations. Despite potential errors and the difficulty of judging foreign journalistic accounts, Keel's presentation of the phenomenon's data was largely correct, though his theories about its origin are not discussed here. The article credits Keel with highlighting this previously overlooked wave of unidentified flying object reports.

In 1976, Keel visited Sweden to investigate further, but the Swedish Ministry of Defence stated that no official documents from the 1930s investigations existed.

In May 1973, the author interviewed Ake Franzén, who confirmed the details of Keel's reports on "ghost fliers" and had visited John Keel in the US, following the "mothman" reports.

In the early 1970s, the author had researched "phantom rockets" in Sweden from 1946. This led to a request to Franzén for his notes, primarily from four Swedish newspapers. These reports often mentioned police and military investigations into mysterious aerial sightings.

In 1977, the author contacted Nils Soderberg, a Swedish aviation historian and director of the Society of Swedish Aviation, who confirmed the existence of documents at the Defence Archives in Stockholm.

Found Documents: In August 1977, the author received confirmation from archivist Bertil Broomé about four classified document boxes labeled "Spokflygaren" within the Command of the Norrland Superior. Three boxes dated from 1934, and one from 1937. Permission from the Swedish Ministry of Defence was required to view them.

In September 1977, the author received authorization from the Minister of Defence, Erik Kronmark, with the condition that no details could be published without express permission from the High Command. The author, whose interest in ufology was a hobby, finally accessed the confidential documents in September 1978. Despite bureaucratic hurdles, the atmosphere was friendly. Four boxes of "folio" pages, about a thousand pages in total, were reviewed over two days. It was noted that likely no one had accessed these reports for 45 years.

The Archive: The archive consists of reports and analyses conducted for or by the Norrland Superior Military Command. About 25% is standard military "filler" (action reports to headquarters). A ground search and reconnaissance operation was ordered, supported by Swedish Air Force aircraft. Police and customs offices were asked to cooperate. Military attachés in neighboring countries were instructed to gather information. The analysis included potential motivations for the aerial incursions, leading to the conclusion in a SECRET memo from General P. Revter Sward (April 28, 1934) that the Russians were to blame.

General Information: Evaluating the "ghost flier" archive requires understanding the societal context, including public, military, and political opinions, as well as how newspapers reported on the phenomenon. The author also compiled an archive of thousands of newspaper clippings from 1979-80, covering political discussions, aviation trends, espionage, and other events of that tempestuous period.

A Known Myth: The collected clippings now number in the thousands, carefully referenced from about a dozen Swedish newspapers. The "ghost fliers" were used for political propaganda: right-wing press blamed the Russians, while the left-wing was skeptical or blamed the Germans. The phenomenon became a "social fact," used in advertising and even inspiring a film title. Parliamentary debates occurred, and four children's books in 1934-39 referenced the phenomenon, influencing the Defence Commission's decision in 1936 to strengthen the Swedish Air Force.

In 1980, the author visited regions where reports originated but found that while people remembered the "ghost fliers," direct witnesses from that era were scarce, making it difficult to locate them after 40-50 years.

Continuation of the Project: The author is seeking collaboration from researchers interested in this aspect. Due to the volume of material, translating everything into English is difficult. The project will focus on finding sources, cross-referencing, creating an index, writing a manuscript in Swedish, and finally translating it into English. Information is sought on mysterious aircraft sightings in the 1930s, aircraft characteristics of that era, espionage, smuggling, political discussions, "lure" objects, and UFO reports from the 1930s.

Notes: The notes provide references to John A. Keel's articles and book, and critique some of Keel's assertions, such as the Soviet Union's underdeveloped aeronautical industry in the early 1930s and his claim that there were no organized contrabandist groups, citing the "Falchi della notte" (Night Hawks) mafia group that used aircraft for smuggling.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine CONTROLUCE adopts a critical and analytical stance towards ufology. It emphasizes rigorous methodology, the importance of original source material, and the limitations of technological enhancement in photo analysis. The editorial team is skeptical of sensationalism and "cultism," as exemplified by their treatment of the Eugenio Siragusa case and their critique of the SUF's approach. They advocate for a scientific and historical approach, distinguishing between superficial dissemination and in-depth research. The magazine also highlights the historical context of UFO phenomena, showing how they have been influenced by and used within political and social discourse, as seen in the "ghost fliers" of the 1930s.

Title: Osservatorio
Issue: 12 (implied by UFOLOGIA n. 12 reference)
Date: Mid-1982 (based on content references to 1980, 1981, and 1982 events)
Publisher: Not explicitly stated, but likely an Italian ufological publication.
Country: Italy
Language: Italian

This issue of Osservatorio delves deeply into the controversial "Stringfield Affair," a complex series of alleged UFO crash retrievals and alien occupant discoveries that captivated the ufological community. The magazine critically examines the evidence, the researchers involved, and the ensuing debates, while also exploring psychological interpretations of abduction phenomena.

The Stringfield Affair: The Epilogue

The article begins by revisiting the "Stringfield Affair," named after researcher Leonard Stringfield, which had generated considerable attention, including reports of UFO crashes, recovered alien "bodies" (some photographed), and a proliferation of ufological groups engaging in disputes. The magazine notes that what started as an intriguing saga had degenerated into a chaotic "fair" with numerous alleged crash sites and photographic "evidence."

Early Criticisms

Leonard Stringfield, after publishing his book "Situation Red: the UFO Siege" and presenting his findings at the MUFON Symposium in 1978, began receiving second-hand information about "recovery" operations of flying saucers, allegedly conducted by U.S. government entities, primarily military. Despite the clamor, few voices openly criticized Stringfield directly. However, significant critiques were raised by Richard Greenwell, who questioned the twenty-year silence of specialists and the involvement of low-ranking military personnel. William Mc Intyre pointed out the curious absence of any mention of such events in declassified CIA and FBI documents. George Barley raised a logistical challenge, suggesting that the reported "recovered discs" from the 1950s would have been physically impossible to transport by train, plane, or truck to military bases.

Photographic Evidence and Counter-Criticisms

At the 1980 MUFON Symposium, Stringfield announced he possessed eight photographs of a body preserved in a glass case, along with other images of alien "bodies" and live aliens. These photos, allegedly obtained through a complex chain of intermediaries, were initially withheld from public view. However, it was soon discovered that some of these photos had already been published in UFO-scandalistic magazines, illustrating fabricated stories by editor Myron Fass about cryogenically suspended humanoids. The article details the convoluted path of how Stringfield's sources allegedly obtained these photos, involving intermediaries and alleged secret service interventions.

Competitors and Debunking

Other ufologists jumped on the bandwagon of the "crash retrieval" phenomenon, leading to infighting. In August 1980, the Coalition of Concerned Ufologists released photos of a charred body allegedly from a 1948 crash in Mexico. This case was documented in an update report criticizing Stringfield. However, computer analysis of the negatives by Ground Saucer Watch suggested the images depicted a burned and mutilated laboratory monkey (rhesus or orangutan), possibly related to U.S. V2 rocket tests with monkeys in the late 1940s.

The book "Incident at Roswell" by Charles Berlitz and William Moore is mentioned, with the article noting Berlitz's role as a marketable name. Moore, a proponent of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), found himself defending the Roswell case against criticism, asserting that it was definitive proof of UFOs being extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Moore and Stanton Friedman, motivated by a "competitive rivalry," accused Stringfield of excessive credulity and lack of seriousness. Stringfield, in response, acknowledged that the photos he received were likely false. He noted the peculiar coincidence of two sets of recovered alien photos appearing simultaneously in the hands of ufologists living near each other. He then suspected a "discrediting conspiracy" orchestrated by the CIA or other government agencies to undermine his research, even suggesting that ufologist Mc Intyre might be a "covert agent."

The "April Fool's Fish" Incident

A significant section is dedicated to debunking a famous "captured alien" photo that appeared on the cover of UFOLOGIA n.10 and was also referenced by Berlitz and Moore. This photo, allegedly from the FBI archives, was revealed to be a hoax. In 1950, a journalist named Wilhelm Aprunkel from the Wiesbadener Tagblatt created a satirical April Fool's story about a giant flying disc crashing near Wiesbaden and a "captured alien." The photo was staged using two G.I.s and the photographer's five-year-old son, with some retouching to create the "alien" appearance. The article highlights how this staged photo was initially convincing and difficult to debunk for some.

Reflections

The magazine reflects on the "Stringfield Affair" and the broader phenomenon of "crashed disc syndrome." A key observation is the "almost total absence of criticism" towards Stringfield from the U.S. ufological community initially. This is contrasted with the swift and harsh debunking of other ufologists who entered the field later. The article posits that Stringfield's approach of presenting "voices," "stories," and "accounts"—mostly anonymous and unverifiable—made direct criticism difficult. When he did present more concrete "evidence" like photos, he did so cautiously. In contrast, his "emulators" rushed to publish books and photos, presenting specific, verifiable data that, upon investigation, often crumbled into explanations involving monkeys, children, or experimental probe balloons.

The article concludes that the stories collected by Stringfield remain standing primarily due to their vagueness and intangibility, making them more like legends than usable study material. A second lesson drawn is that by maintaining vagueness, one can avoid scrutiny, whereas providing verifiable details opens one up to debunking.

The First UPIAR Colloquium on Human Sciences and UFO Phenomena

The issue also reports on the "First UPIAR Colloquium on Human Sciences and UFO Phenomena," held in Salzburg, Austria, in July 1982. Organized by the newly formed "Cooperativa studi e iniziative UPIAR S.r.l.," the colloquium was an exclusive, invitation-only event with a select group of about fifteen participants. The theme was the role of "human sciences" in UFOlogy, including experimental psychology, UFO/IFO perception, epistemological methodology, and the psychological and sociocultural involvement in UFO cases.

Key participants included Alexander Keul, who proposed using the Rorschach test to analyze witness personalities; Paolo Toselli, who presented research on factors influencing the perception and recall of IFO (Identified Flying Object) cases, suggesting they are not mere "background noise" but part of a single phenomenon; and Prof. Alvin Lawson, who discussed his theory on UFO "abduction" cases.

The colloquium aimed to overcome the inconclusiveness often found in larger conferences by focusing on a specific theme and a limited, prepared group of participants. The discussions were described as enthusiastic, fostering a closer dialogue among European and international researchers. The hope is that this initiative will lead to a more scientific approach to ufology, particularly through UPIAR and its publication, URIP.

Abductions and Birth Trauma: A Testable Hypothesis

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to an article by Alvin H. Lawson, a professor of English and ufologist, titled "Abductions and Birth Trauma: A Testable Hypothesis." Lawson, who became skeptical of hypnotic regression data after studying an abduction case, presents his theory that many reported UFO abduction experiences are not actual encounters with extraterrestrials but rather psychological manifestations rooted in birth trauma (B.T.).

Lawson argues that the common elements in abduction accounts—such as being levitated through a tunnel, experiencing intense light, encountering strange entities, and undergoing examinations—bear striking resemblances to the physical and psychological stress of the birth process. He suggests that the "abductees" unconsciously use the primary components of birth as a template for their abduction experiences.

He supports this by referencing studies on birth trauma and the psychological experiences of fetuses. Lawson proposes that the "humanoid" entities described in abductions closely resemble fetuses or embryos, with underdeveloped anatomical features. He posits that these entities are projections of the subject's memory of themselves before birth.

Lawson's hypothesis is presented as "testable" and "falsifiable." He suggests that if even one abductee is found to have been born via Cesarean section, his theory would be disproven. Conversely, if no such cases are found, it would lend support to his hypothesis. He acknowledges that confirming his theory would not solve the UFO mystery entirely but would demonstrate that abductions are not physical events and have significant implications for understanding intrauterine life, consciousness, and the brain.

He concludes by urging ufologists to interpret hypnotic regression data cautiously and suggests that future abduction reports should avoid overtly "B.T." imagery (bright lights, tunnels, fetal-like beings) if they aim to be credible, noting the current lack of such non-B.T. abduction accounts.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue demonstrates a critical and analytical approach to ufological claims, particularly concerning the "Stringfield Affair." There is a clear emphasis on scrutinizing evidence, questioning official narratives, and exploring alternative, often psychological, explanations for phenomena. The magazine appears to favor a skeptical yet open-minded stance, willing to debunk hoaxes and questionable evidence while also exploring complex theories like Lawson's birth trauma hypothesis. The inclusion of the UPIAR colloquium highlights a desire for more rigorous, interdisciplinary research in ufology, moving beyond sensationalism towards a more scientific understanding.

This issue of 'Notiziario UFO' (Volume XVI, No. 99, May-December 1981) features a prominent review of Luciano Boccone's book "UFO la realtà nascosta," published by Edizioni Ivaldi Editore in 1980. The magazine also includes reviews of other ufological publications and discussions on the state of ufology in Italy.

Review of "UFO la realtà nascosta" by Luciano Boccone

The review, penned by Roberto Farabone, is highly critical of Boccone's work. Farabone argues that the book, despite its 143 pages, contains less than 35 pages of actual text, with the rest dedicated to photographs. He contends that the book's photographic evidence is largely useless for ufological research, often accompanied by absurd and contradictory captions. Boccone's methodology is questioned, particularly his reliance on instrumental readings to photograph phenomena that are simultaneously described as invisible. The reviewer points out logical fallacies, such as describing a luminous object as invisible, and criticizes the book's unscientific approach, suggesting that Boccone confuses his convictions with reality.

Farabone highlights specific examples, such as the description of a 'vortico-rotante force field' as a verbal invention without physical basis, and the claim that it represents the first documentation of UFO propulsion using such fields. He also notes Boccone's attribution of claims to Constable, but implies Boccone shares these views. The reviewer suggests that the GRCU, the organization Boccone is associated with, may have encountered genuine atmospheric phenomena but is hindered by an "ufological interpretation."

The review concludes that the book's primary flaws are the author's insistence on framing everything within the UFO enigma and a complete lack of scientific rigor. Farabone suggests that the GRCU would have been better served studying electromagnetism, meteorology, atmospheric physics, and photography rather than pursuing their current path.

Review of "Accadde a Roswell" by Charles Berlitz & William L. Moore

This section reviews the book "Accadde a Roswell" by Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore. The review quotes James Oberg, who aligns with the reviewer's skepticism. The book is described as presenting the story of a crashed UFO in New Mexico in 1947. While acknowledging that the case is presented more convincingly than others, the reviewer expresses strong reservations due to Charles Berlitz's involvement, labeling his work as "fantasmagoria." The reviewer notes that Berlitz's chapters are filled with "creative journalism," including unsubstantiated claims about UFOs following space capsules and astronauts encountering them. The review also debunks a photograph presented in the book as evidence of an alien encounter, identifying it as a hoax from 1950.

Moore's contribution is analyzed separately. While Moore is described as having followed many leads, the reviewer notes inconsistencies in his accounts, such as contradictory details about the Roswell incident and the aliens' physical characteristics (e.g., fingernails). The reviewer also points out discrepancies in the description of the crash itself, with one account suggesting an aerial explosion and another a ground impact. The association with Berlitz, despite Moore and Friedman's attempts to distance themselves, is seen as a significant drawback.

Other Publications and Ufological News

"Gli Altri Dicono" (Reviews)

This section includes reviews of various ufological publications. The review of "Notiziario UFO" notes its resumption after a two-year hiatus, with a more modest format. It highlights a mix of continuing articles and attempts to cover the gap. The content includes both external and Italian cases, with a focus on news and case studies rather than deep reflection, though an article on "Weapons of Humanoids" is mentioned.

The review also notes the inclusion of articles by "Russo" on "UFOs in China" and brief mentions of "Pinotti's" activities. The overall assessment is that while the publication has improved, it could benefit from more Italian material, in-depth investigations, and theoretical discussions.

"Gli Arcani"

The sudden disappearance of the magazine "Gli Arcani" is noted, with the publisher citing a lack of new material. The reviewer suggests the real reason is declining sales. The history of "Gli Arcani" is traced, from its early issues under the name "Aroana" to its collaboration with the CLYPEUS team and the prominent role of Roberto Pinotti. The content is described as repetitive, focusing on external cases and historical discussions.

"Il Giornale dei Misteri"

This publication is mentioned as having a monopoly on the commercial ufology circuit following the demise of "Gli Arcani." The reviewer notes that for 1982, it features some case studies borrowed from other publications and groups, but is largely dominated by Marcello Copetti's contributions.

"Punto Zero"

A new bulletin, "Punto Zero," from GRUR (Claudio Zacchia) is introduced. It is described as similar to other micropublications but with a more "strange" approach due to its declared "ETH" (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) stance and a polemical, confrontational spirit, particularly in response to previous criticisms.

"UFOFILIA"

A satirical "April Fool's" minibulletin called "UFOFILIA" is discussed. Its sharp and witty satire, aimed at stereotypes in ufology, caused some consternation among readers who took it too seriously. The reviewer praises its originality and intelligence.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of ufological literature and methodology. There is a strong emphasis on the need for scientific rigor and evidence-based research, with a clear skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and photographic "proofs" that lack context or verification. The editorial stance is one of critical inquiry, challenging the uncritical acceptance of UFO phenomena and advocating for a more grounded, scientific approach to the subject. The reviews highlight the shortcomings of popular ufological books and bulletins, often pointing out inconsistencies, lack of evidence, and the influence of sensationalism over factual reporting.