Saucer Forum

Magazine Overview

Title: Saucer Forum
Issue: Vol. 3, No. 1
Date: January-February-March 1965
Editor: Jimmy Goddard

This issue of Saucer Forum, a UK-based publication, focuses on recent UFO sightings and ongoing debates within the UFO research community. The editorial highlights a steady stream of reports and discusses potential publication delays due to the editor's television scriptwriting work. The magazine features several letters from subscribers and researchers, addressing specific cases, critiquing skepticism, and sharing personal investigations.

Editorial: Sightings Continue

The editorial section, penned by Editor Jimmy Goddard, notes that UFO sightings are being reported at a rapid rate. It details a landing or near-landing incident in Harlington in April 1964, where a UFO reportedly hovered low and was observed by police for 20 minutes before departing. The official explanation given was a meteor.

Two interesting sightings from Norwich are presented, sent in by subscriber Peter F. Johnson. The first, on October 30, involved a man cycling who witnessed green, red, and yellow lights racing across the sky. He was then struck by something hot, which burned through his clothing but left him unharmed except for a small mark on his skin. The second Norwich sighting, on August 31, described a very large star making a humming noise at 3:40 a.m.

Another favored report (referenced as 'THE FAVOURED ONES') details Frederick Tyroc seeing a UFO on November 28 that moved erratically towards Newton Heath, changing color from silver to pale gold at 5:36 a.m. Derek Andrews is also mentioned as having seen more UFOs, which are described later in the issue.

The editor warns that the next issue might be delayed or omitted due to his involvement in television scriptwriting, assuring readers they will not be charged if an issue is missed.

Letters to the Editor

Several letters address ongoing controversies and share personal experiences:

• Steinberg Controversy: A letter from George Adamski (Vista, California) directly refutes an article by 'Steinberg', calling it a 'deliberate lie'. Adamski claims Steinberg's assertions about Homet's book and research timing are incorrect. He recounts lecturing with Professor Homet in Denmark and states that Homet discovered certain prints years after Adamski's own contact. Adamski also disputes Steinberg's claim that NICAP published an affidavit from a witness, stating NICAP failed to publish his own affidavit. He mentions discussing these 'errors' on Bob Kennedy's program 'Contact'. Adamski defends his witnesses as being present during contact, not involved in research.
• Adamski's Defense: Adamski further criticizes 'smart guys' who have tried to discredit his photographs using methods like comparing them to Chrysler hubcaps. He asserts that his photographs are now being used as models for future spacecraft by intelligent people, lamenting that many 'experts' rise without understanding fundamental principles.
• Timothy Green Beckley's Defense: Timothy Green Beckley (New Brunswick, New Jersey) comments on letters similar to Steinberg's, defending 'contactees' like Adamski against unwarranted criticism. He quotes 'Master Kuthumi' from Brother Philip's book, suggesting that those who criticize others' material are the ones to watch out for, and that those working with 'Christ Light' need no proof, as their work speaks for itself.
• Dave Hicks' Sighting: Dave Hicks (Gloucester, Gloucestershire) reports his latest sightings from December 3, 1964. While traveling with a van driver named Len, he saw a vague object stationary above a jet plane. This object then descended and appeared as a 'disjointed aircraft'. Shortly after, they observed two more UFOs: a small cigar-like object and a larger, round, shining oval object. These objects rushed past the jet, which was estimated to be traveling at 450 mph, while the UFOs were judged to be moving at 1,200 mph. These objects were seen moving in a northwest direction, suggesting self-powered flight, and vanished into cloud. The sighting occurred around 2:50 p.m. in broad daylight.

Report from Mariner II

This section, reprinted from the S.P. Newsletter by permission of C. Honey, analyzes the findings of the Mariner 2 space probe regarding Venus. The author notes that newspaper reports disclosed surface temperatures of around 600°F on Venus, which aligns with explanations previously offered in George Adamski's book 'Flying Saucers Farewell'. The report also discusses Venusian cloud layers, with temperatures ranging from -60°F at the upper level to -30°F at the lower levels.

The article then contrasts this with Earth's atmospheric temperature profile. It explains that as altitude increases, temperature decreases up to a certain point, then rises significantly. For instance, at 60 miles, the temperature is -3°F, but at 120 miles it reaches 1200°F, and continues to rise to much higher temperatures at greater altitudes. The author distinguishes between 'heat temperatures' and 'kinetic temperature', defining the latter as related to the energy of photo-electrons emitted when solar radiation is absorbed by the ionosphere. This kinetic temperature can reach extremely high levels, such as millions of degrees near the sun, compared to the sun's surface temperature of 6000°F.

The report questions the Mariner 2 readings for Venus, suggesting that the 'high readings' were due to the radiometric method used, which essentially acted as a radio receiver. The author claims the scanning mechanism malfunctioned, making only three slow passes. The theory proposed is that the microwave radiometer detected 'danger electron concentrations' around the limb of the planet, indicating that the 'heat' was from the ionosphere, not the surface. The author concludes that the temperature readings were likely radio emissions from the upper atmosphere of Venus, possibly at ionospheric levels, and were misinterpreted.

Furthermore, the article suggests that if similar measurement methods were applied to Earth from probes at similar distances, Earth would appear uninhabitable due to temperatures beyond the melting point of lead. It also notes that high-altitude cloud layers might have a kinetic temperature of 600 to 100 degrees, while an infrared scanner would measure a much lower 'true heat' temperature.

British UFO Research Association Brains Trust Meeting (October 31, 1964)

This section summarizes a meeting of the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) panel, which included Gordon Creighton, Gevin Gibbons, Graham Knewstub (President), and Brian Rinder, chaired by Dr. G.G. Doel.

• Key questions and discussions included:
• Astronomers' Support: Panelists suggested astronomers are often ignorant of UFO evidence and that telescopes are better suited for large, distant objects than small, fast-moving ones. A rumor of Wernher von Braun acknowledging extraterrestrial powers was mentioned.
• Dematerialization: The question of whether UFOs dematerializing suggests an extraterrestrial origin was discussed. One panelist recounted seeing a helicopter apparently dematerialize due to ground mist. An account of a cigar-shaped object vanishing and reappearing was also noted.
• Adamski's Hieroglyphics: The similarity between hieroglyphics on Adamski's photos and those found by Professor Homet on a prehistoric rock in Brazil was examined. Mr. Creighton stated that Homet's book used symbols from multiple rocks, making the similarity non-existent. However, upon writing to Adamski, it was clarified that the book was intended to represent actual symbols from a single rock, suggesting a common language.
• Templeton Photograph: The 'mystery spaceman' in the Templeton photograph was discussed. Information had leaked through the 'iron curtain of security'. It was suggested that the electromagnetic effect of an invisible UFO might have caused cattle and sheep in a neighboring field to huddle together, and this effect could have appeared on the photograph.
• Earth Bases for UFOs: The panel stated there was no evidence for Earth bases for UFOs, only hearsay from contactees.
• Hostility in UFOs: It was agreed that there was no evidence of real hostility from UFOs; reported casualties were likely accidents. The panel noted that with their power, UFOs could easily eliminate humanity if they wished.
• UFO Color Changes: These changes were compared to color changes seen in the heat of a jet engine's tailpipe. It was also suggested that a large diameter disc would be quiet and require minimal pressure to lift.
• Landing Reports: The investigation of landing reports should follow the same methods as sighting reports. Witnesses should record details as soon as possible, though the surprise and fear experienced can make this difficult.

BUFORA Flying Saucer Gallery Meeting (November 28, 1964)

This meeting featured photographs by Adamski, Matsumura, and the Alex Birch picture. The photos were categorized into solid objects and 'sky images'. Many showed the 'Birch bubble effect' (round bubble-like shapes). The lecturer noted that a phenomenon in Adamski's picture taken at Desert Center was a bright area, not the black object previously thought, though Adamski later confirmed the saucer was the black object.

More Sightings

• Blackburn Sighting: A person from Blackburn, Lancashire (name withheld) reported seeing a small, white, roughly oval disc receding fast in the S.W. sky at 3:00 p.m. on an unspecified August afternoon.
• Oxford Sighting: Martin Elsworthy (Oxford) reported a spectacular UFO display on October 30 at 10:31 p.m. A disc hovered, joined by two others, then all vanished swiftly. During the sighting, a magnetic needle became agitated when the discs moved.
• London Sightings: C.D. Bodimead (East Finchley, London) reported several sightings in 1964, including a brilliant white disc on August 29, which he believes might be the same one seen by Helen Rodwell.

Editor's Notes and Contact Information

The editor, Jimmy Goddard, provides his address and telephone number. He states that letters represent only the writer's point of view and should be kept short. Information on purchasing back numbers and single issues is also provided.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the persistent reporting of UFO sightings, the challenges faced by UFO researchers in gaining credibility and combating skepticism, and the analysis of UFO phenomena through both eyewitness accounts and scientific inquiry (or critiques thereof, as seen with the Mariner 2 report). The editorial stance appears to be one of open investigation and a willingness to publish diverse reports and opinions, while also acknowledging the difficulties and controversies within the field. There is a clear emphasis on personal investigation and witness testimony, as evidenced by the letters and the defense of contactees. The magazine also engages with scientific data, albeit critically, as seen in the analysis of the Mariner 2 findings.