NIVFO-Bulletin - 1987 No 2

Magazine Overview

Title: NIVFO bulletin
Issue: 2/87
Volume: 7. ÅRGANG
Issue Date: February 1987
Publisher: NORSK INSTITUTT FOR VITENSKAPELIG FORSKNING OG OPPLYSNING (Norwegian Institute of Scientific Research and Enlightenment)
Country: Norway
Language: Norwegian
ISSN: 0800-0360
Price: KR. 95,-

This issue of NIVFO bulletin, a publication dedicated to scientific research and enlightenment, delves into the nature of coincidences and the skeptical approach to paranormal phenomena. The cover features a striking image of a man, identified as mathematician Persi Diaconis, in front of a blackboard filled with equations, hinting at the issue's focus on probability and statistical analysis.

Feature Article: "HVA ER EGENTLIG ET SAMMENTREFF?" (What is Actually a Coincidence?)

The lead article, based on a lecture by mathematician Persi Diaconis from Stanford University, explores the concept of coincidences. Diaconis, also a renowned professional magician, argues that many seemingly extraordinary coincidences are simply a result of probability and our poor ability to calculate it. He defines a coincidence as 'a set of concurrent events, perceived as meaningfully, with no apparent causal connection.' The article contrasts these statistically explainable events with pseudoscientific claims about supernatural forces.

Diaconis's lecture touches upon C.G. Jung's theory of 'synchronicity' but ultimately aims to provide a rational explanation for these occurrences. A key example discussed is the 'birthday problem,' where most people incorrectly guess that 182 people are needed for a 50-50 chance of two sharing a birthday, when the actual number is 23. Diaconis also introduces the 'law of truly large numbers,' suggesting that with enough data, any event, however improbable, is likely to occur multiple times.

The article details Diaconis's background as a professional magician and his transition to academia, highlighting his work in investigating alleged psychic abilities and paranormal claims, often in collaboration with CSICOP.

James Randi and the Investigation of Fraud

James Randi, a prominent figure associated with CSICOP, is extensively featured. The issue references a report in the Norwegian magazine 'Vi Menn' that visited Randi at his home. Randi is portrayed as a 'magician' who exposes charlatans, particularly those involved in faith healing and psychic phenomena. The article criticizes the business of 'healing by prayer' in the USA, where preachers like Pat Robertson and Peter Popoff allegedly amass fortunes through deceptive practices, often exploiting religious beliefs and tax loopholes. Randi's efforts to expose these frauds, including providing evidence to the California Attorney General, are noted, though their effectiveness is questioned.

Randi's approach is characterized by demanding empirical evidence, famously stating that he needs proof before believing in claims that would overturn current scientific understanding. His skepticism is illustrated by his comment that 'there is actually more evidence for the existence of Santa Claus.'

Case Study: 'BD' and the 'Bundle-of-Sticks Phenomenon'

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to a detailed account of a case involving a medium referred to as 'BD.' Diaconis recounts how he, as a student at Harvard, observed BD perform card tricks that appeared miraculous. Diaconis meticulously breaks down BD's methods, demonstrating how a combination of simple tricks, statistical probability, and the 'bundle-of-sticks phenomenon' (where a collection of weak arguments creates an illusion of strength) can fool observers, including psychologists and physicists.

Diaconis explains that BD's 'performance' often involved predicting outcomes that were not exactly correct but 'close enough' to impress the audience. For instance, if a predicted card was not drawn, BD would claim success based on a 'near miss' or a related outcome. The 'bundle-of-sticks phenomenon' is described as the cumulative effect of multiple tricks, making the overall performance seem more convincing than any single trick would be.

Diaconis criticizes the parapsychological community for often overlooking the possibility of trickery and for selectively reporting only the successful outcomes of experiments, as seen in reports about BD in 'The Journal of Parapsychology.' He argues that skeptics should be present during such demonstrations to identify potential fraud.

Other Articles and Topics

"TVANG TIL TRO ER DARENS TALE” (Coercion to Believe is the Tale of a Fool)

This section discusses a dispute between two UFO organizations in England regarding a UFO report. It highlights the aggressive tactics employed by some UFO groups, which include personal attacks and threats against critics, a phenomenon also observed in Norway. The article warns against 'coercive reform' and the dangers of fundamentalism.

Uri Geller Writes a Book

The issue mentions that Uri Geller, known for his alleged psychic abilities and spoon-bending tricks, has co-authored a book titled 'The Geller Effect.' The article notes Geller's past revelations of his tricks and his current business ventures, such as using a plane to search for mineral deposits, contrasting this with his 'paranormal' abilities.

"PINNE-KNIPPE-EFFEKTEN" (The Bundle-of-Sticks Effect)

This concept, already discussed in the context of BD, is further elaborated as a key mechanism behind perceived coincidences. It emphasizes how a series of weak arguments or tricks can collectively create a strong impression of paranormal ability.

FUSK ELLER IKKE? (Fraud or Not?)

This section poses the philosophical question of whether a person who sometimes cheats can be considered to have genuine abilities at other times. It uses the example of Uri Geller, who has been observed to cheat, but the possibility remains that he might possess genuine abilities when not under scrutiny.

LURTE FYSIKER (Tricked Physicist)

This short piece underscores how even educated individuals, such as physicists, can be deceived by simple tricks if they are not vigilant or if they lack expertise in identifying such deceptions. It emphasizes the need for skeptics or magicians to be present during paranormal demonstrations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

NIVFO bulletin consistently adopts a skeptical and evidence-based approach to paranormal claims, UFOs, and pseudoscience. The magazine champions critical thinking and scientific methodology, using statistical analysis and investigative reporting to debunk extraordinary claims. The editorial stance is clearly against the exploitation of public credulity by charlatans and advocates for a rational understanding of phenomena, emphasizing the power of probability and the importance of empirical evidence. The recurring theme is the distinction between genuine coincidence, explainable by mathematics, and fabricated or misinterpreted events presented as paranormal.

This issue of UFO-NYT, dated 3-4/86, features a review of "The National Enquirer: UFO-Report," a book published by Pocket Books in 1985. The magazine also includes articles on the reliability of UFO witness size estimations and a controversy surrounding medical claims on a radio program.

Book Review: The National Enquirer: UFO-Report

The review, written by Ole Henningsen, discusses a book compiled from articles previously published in "The National Enquirer." The reviewer expresses that while the book is engaging, its content is not entirely trustworthy, a sentiment reinforced by the source. The book, priced at US$ 2.95, contains nine chapters and features three black and white photos of UFO models, described as "fantastic, scientific, frightening! The whole story about UFOs." The reviewer notes that the book covers classic UFO cases from Kenneth Arnold to astronaut observations, but often focuses on the most extreme and mysterious aspects, presented in a haphazard manner with "scientific" explanations.

One section of the book highlights the German UFO organization CENAP and its research. However, Werner Walter of CENAP refutes the book's claims, stating that CENAP is not highly recognized by scientific circles in West Germany, that they consult astronomers but do not have scientists in their organization, and that an astronomer cited in the book has never spoken to "The National Enquirer." Walter also clarifies that CENAP has far fewer members than stated and that their reporting is limited to West Germany and Austria, not all of Western Europe. He strongly disputes the book's assertion that CENAP considers six investigated cases to be extraterrestrial spacecraft, clarifying that these are considered Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena (UAP) and that CENAP has consistently fought against the sensationalist journalism of "The National Enquirer."

The book also mentions Dr. Cyrus Lee, a professor of psychology at Edinboro State College, who allegedly stated that a contact between the Chinese scientist Motzu and an extraterrestrial being 2,300 years ago was the origin of Chinese knowledge of acupuncture. However, the reviewer notes that Carsten H. Pedersen's wife, who works at State College in Pennsylvania, could not find any trace of this Dr. Cyrus Lee.

The reviewer concludes that the book requires the reader to act as a detective to find reliable information and suggests that the book should perhaps be reported to the police due to its misleading nature.

Reliability of UFO Witness Size Estimations

This section, based on an article from GEP titled "Reliability of Magnitude Estimation" published in UFO-NYT 3-4/86, investigates the human ability to estimate the size of celestial phenomena. A statistical study involving 238 individuals asked them to estimate the size of the sun and moon as seen from an outstretched arm. The results, presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3, indicate significant overestimations. The average estimated diameter for the moon and sun was found to be around 7.5 cm, which is 15 times larger than their actual apparent size of 0.5 cm. The study suggests that bright objects appear larger than dark ones, and that the perceived size is influenced by factors like the time elapsed since observation and the contrast with the background. The article concludes that UFO observers' estimations of size are not very reliable, and recommends that field researchers critically evaluate such reports and consider asking observers to estimate the size of the full moon for comparison.

UFO-Klassiker: Delphos, 1971

This article by Kim Møller Hansen recounts the Delphos, Kansas UFO incident of November 2, 1971. Durel Johnson's 16-year-old son, Ronald, reported seeing a "toadstool-shaped" object hovering about 60 cm above the ground, emitting rainbow colors and a light beam. The object was described as having a diameter of approximately 3 meters. After the object departed, a horseshoe-shaped ring was found on the ground, composed of a white, powdery substance that was cool to the touch. Both Ronald and his mother experienced temporary numbness in their fingertips and legs after touching the substance. Ronald also suffered from bloodshot eyes and headaches.

The article details subsequent investigations, including visits from ufologists like Ted Phillips and Stanton Friedman, and a visit from UFO skeptic Philip Klass. The Johnson farm quickly became a pilgrimage site for UFO enthusiasts. The article notes that the physical evidence, such as the soil from the ring, was analyzed. The soil from the ring was found to be acidic and contained higher levels of soluble salts, calcium, magnesium, and potassium compared to control soil. It was also more difficult to wet.

Mysterious after-effects were reported, including Ronald developing psychic abilities and predicting the UFO's return. The UFO reportedly reappeared on October 13, 1974, hovering over the same spot in daylight. Additionally, the Johnsons reported that two-thirds of their prize pigs became sterile, and their young sheep gave birth to lambs that died shortly after. Their wristwatches also stopped working.

The article also touches upon the "wolf-girl" reports in the Delphos area, which were investigated by the local sheriff but dismissed by witnesses who refused polygraph tests. The credibility of the Johnson family's accounts diminished over time, with inconsistencies noted, particularly regarding photographs of the ring which appeared to have been taken with a flash during daylight, contradicting the reported time of observation.

Desinformasjon om Medisin (Disinformation about Medicine)

This short section addresses a controversy involving a senior physician, Dr. med. Carl Ditlef Jacobsen, who published a critical commentary in "Programbladet" regarding a radio program titled "Flere veier til god helse" (More paths to good health). The program hosts, Solveig Bøhle and Astrid Brekken, responded with a counter-argument, defending their content. The article implies that the physician was criticized for questioning a doctor who was promoting what the article terms "pseudomedicine."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a critical stance towards sensationalist UFO reporting, as exemplified by the review of "The National Enquirer: UFO-Report." It emphasizes the importance of scientific investigation, reliable evidence, and critical evaluation of witness testimony. The article on size estimation directly challenges the validity of common UFO sighting reports by highlighting the unreliability of human perception. The Delphos case, while presented as a classic example of physical evidence, is also scrutinized for inconsistencies and the diminishing credibility of the witnesses over time. The inclusion of the medical controversy further underscores the magazine's focus on debunking misinformation and promoting a rational approach to extraordinary claims.

This issue of UFO-NYT, specifically issue number 3/84, published by NIVFO, focuses on the critical examination of UFO phenomena, emphasizing misidentification and the importance of scientific skepticism. The magazine features articles that dissect various UFO cases, contrasting them with natural explanations and conventional aerial phenomena.

Articles and Features

Delphos Ring and Fungal Explanations

The issue begins by discussing the Delphos ring, a horseshoe-shaped imprint. Ufologist Jacques Vallee sent samples to a laboratory in France, where the white substance was identified as a fungus, specifically an organism of the Actinomycetales family, which can form circular patterns known as 'hekseringer' (crop circles). The soil within the Delphos ring exhibited characteristics typical of such formations, including low pH and high levels of soluble salts. The article notes that while many ufologists find it difficult to accept that nothing mystical occurred in Delphos on November 2, 1971, the fungus explanation aligns with known biological processes.

Misidentification of Aircraft

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to explaining how common aerial phenomena, particularly aircraft, are frequently misidentified as UFOs. John Rimmer, editor of the English UFO journal MAGONIA, recounts a personal experience where he observed a silent, hovering light that later resolved into an airplane. He emphasizes that the 'silent' or 'unmoving' nature of an object does not preclude it from being an aircraft, and pilots do not always adhere to strict regulations. The article cites numerous cases where UFO reports, including those from Hessdalen, have been attributed to aircraft, especially when pilots are not strictly following flight rules.

The Hessdalen Phenomenon

The Hessdalen phenomenon is discussed in relation to high-voltage power lines. A report from a Televerket controller indicates that the high-voltage lines in Hessdalen, which are of an older, Eastern European make, emit radio and TV noise. Witnesses have reported UFOs simultaneously with observing flickering on TV screens. The phenomenon is noted to occur in clear, dry weather, and residents have experienced TV interference. While the 22 kV voltage is considered low for significant air ionization, the possibility of electrical arcs and overloads is mentioned. The article suggests that while many Hessdalen reports can be explained by conventional causes like stars, planets, aircraft, and lights, a small residual group might involve atmospheric plasma and temperature inversions.

Skepticism and Critical Analysis

The magazine strongly advocates for a skeptical and evidence-based approach to UFO research. It criticizes the tendency of some ufologists to sensationalize and mythologize cases, often ignoring scientific explanations. The article 'HVOR DUM KAN MAN BLI?' (How Stupid Can One Be?) by Håkan Blomqvist is featured, which critiques ufologists who dismiss official statements and scientific findings. Blomqvist argues that the 'hard core' of UFO cases, often considered inexplicable, are frequently resolved with sufficient investigation. He highlights the work of researchers like Philip Klass, Robert Sheaffer, and James E. Oberg, who have successfully explained many UFO cases. The issue also touches upon the concept of 'IFO' (Identified Flying Object) reports, emphasizing that thorough investigation often leads to conventional explanations.

Jenny Randles' Research Methodology

UFO researcher Jenny Randles' four-phase methodology for analyzing UFO data is presented. This method involves distinguishing between the initial 'event' (stimulus), the 'observation' (sensory input), the 'report' (verbal or written account), and the 'development' of the story over time. Randles' work is exemplified by a case involving the planet Venus, which was misidentified as a UFO due to atmospheric conditions and subsequent sensationalization by media and ufologists. This highlights how witness accounts can evolve and become distorted, especially when influenced by external expectations.

The Ål Case and Misinformation

The case of Torfinn Tonning from Ål is detailed, where circular marks on the ground were initially thought to be UFO landing sites. NIVFO investigated and determined these to be 'hekseringer' caused by fungus. Tonning, however, lost interest in having his video footage examined once the fungal explanation was provided, and instead, he shared it with UFO enthusiasts and a publicity agency, seeking to promote it as a UFO phenomenon. This case serves as an example of how individuals may prioritize sensationalism over factual investigation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue of UFO-NYT is the critical examination of UFO claims, with a strong emphasis on scientific methodology and the debunking of misidentifications. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of skepticism and rigorous investigation, advocating for explanations based on known science rather than unsubstantiated speculation. The magazine aims to educate its readers about the prevalence of misidentified phenomena and the psychological and sociological factors that contribute to the persistence of UFO myths. It champions the idea that thorough research, rather than blind belief, is the path to understanding.

This issue of 'UFOLOGISK TV-DEBUT' focuses on the first televised debate concerning UFOs in Norway, which took place on April 3, 1987, on the program 'Senfredag' hosted by Dan Børge Akerø. The magazine provides an account of this event, including the participants, the arguments presented, and the overall reception.

TV Debut and Debate

The article details the television debut of Norwegian ufologists on April 3, 1987. The program, 'Senfredag,' featured two ufologists as representatives, who debated against astronomy professor Rolf Brahde and researcher Eivind Thrane from the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI). Author Jon Bing was also present. The ufologists were supported by an audience that applauded their points, particularly when one ufologist corrected the professor regarding the visibility of Mars in the Hessalen valley. Professor Brahde maintained a factual approach, which the article commends as impressive given the circumstances.

The ufologists presented standard arguments, including criticism of science's lack of interest in the UFO phenomenon. Brahde and Thrane countered that there are more lucrative subjects to investigate than a field that has yielded no positive results in 40 years. Jon Bing and the host acknowledged that there might be more to the universe than meets the eye, with Bing noting that human senses are not always reliable instruments for recording events.

The Hessdalen UFOs were a central focus. The ufologists lacked concrete evidence, and Brahde correctly pointed to natural processes that could explain the lights. Thrane also supported this view. The ufologists reportedly played on the 'martyr effect,' suggesting they were ridiculed. The article suggests that the ridicule, if any, was not directed at the phenomenon itself but at the way some ufologists have presented the topic, creating a sense of comedy.

The article criticizes the tendency in UFO debates to avoid genuinely experienced skeptics. While Rolf Brahde is described as experienced, the article notes that important aspects, including the Hessdalen report, were omitted, and no truly intricate questions were posed to the ufologists. The author implies that Brahde could have been more assertive in challenging the ufologists' claims, such as the visibility of Mars from a valley floor or the identification of lights as bærplukkeres lommelykter (berry pickers' flashlights) or high-voltage line phenomena.

The UFO segment on 'Senfredag' was evidently treated as entertainment, with much laughter, not only from the audience but also from the supporters who claimed to have seen UFOs.

Media Coverage and Skepticism

The issue also references a three-page spread in the Weekend Aftenposten on April 4, 1987, which followed up on the TV debate. One ufologist described the TV event as the best UFO debate in Norway and anticipated a surge in inquiries. The article notes that neither the believers nor the host seemed to have changed their views, which is not surprising given the nature of such beliefs.

Ufologists are portrayed as continuing to use the 'martyr effect' argument, with one claiming to be ridiculed daily for his engagement, attributing it to people lacking knowledge of ufology and astrophysics. The article dismisses this as a meaningless argument, similar to other myth-creating claims.

The Weekend Aftenposten report also included recent UFO observations and statements from NIVFO. Colonel Alf Hauge, who has 30 years of experience with radar stations in the Norwegian Defence Forces, is quoted as saying that he has never encountered a radar signal that could not be identified. He believes most reported UFO sightings are meteorological phenomena and does not believe in flying saucers.

The Fortieth Anniversary of Ufology

The article marks the fortieth anniversary of ufology, noting that this period has been largely unproductive, although many 'classic' cases have been explained. The clearance rate for UFO cases has increased, myths have faded, and many ufologists have become skeptics due to increased knowledge. Radar observations of UFOs decreased proportionally with improvements in radar equipment. Experienced skeptics have written books debunking many dogmas.

There is a call for ufologists to clean up their past, define their problems and contributions more clearly. The 'UFO syndrome' is described as a mix of ideas, beliefs, and movements, ranging from psychopathological fantasies to pseudo-scientific efforts. The article regrets that the latter category does not clearly distinguish itself from the rest. A reason for this may be that these groups include 'ufo-romantics' who would be lost if the sensationalist elements disappeared.

Increasingly, seriously interested individuals are pointing to the behavior of ufologists over the years as the cause of ridicule and stagnation. The article concludes that the 'UFO enigma' will never be solved as long as ufologists continue to sensationalize the topic and ally with a sensation-hungry press and profit-driven authors. Instead of complaining about being laughed at, a course correction is needed to stop the ridicule after 40 years.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the public presentation of ufology, the role of media in shaping perceptions, and the clash between skeptical scientific inquiry and belief-based ufological claims. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical, critiquing the methods and arguments of ufologists, highlighting the lack of evidence, and suggesting that the sensationalism surrounding the topic is largely self-inflicted by its proponents. The article advocates for a more rigorous and evidence-based approach to the study of unexplained phenomena, while also acknowledging the public's fascination with the unknown.