UFO Brigantia issue 29

Magazine Overview

Title: UFO BRIGANTIA
Issue: No. 29
Date: January-February 1988
Publisher: The Independent UFO Network (I.U.N.)
Type: A Journal of UFO Investigation.

Editorial

The editorial, written by Andy Roberts, begins by drawing attention to the upcoming 'Mysteries of the Pennines' day conference in Sheffield on March 26th. This event is described as the first multi-disciplinary lecture day of its type in the north, aiming to be varied and interesting by featuring speakers who are published experts in their fields. The conference will cover various anomalies, not just UFOs, and will be widely advertised. Attendees are advised to obtain tickets early for numbered seats. A licensed bar and a book/magazine stall will be available. Ample time for questioning speakers after each lecture is highlighted as a key feature. The organizers plan to retire to a local hostelry after the event for further discussions, and field trips to places of interest in South Yorkshire/Derbyshire are being considered for the following Sunday if there is enough interest.

The editorial then reflects on the 40th anniversary of UFOs in 1987 and its impact on the subject. It notes a 'spate of publications' that followed, focusing on conspiracies and alien visitation, mentioning titles like 'Above Top Secret', 'Intruders', 'Gods, Spirits, Cosmic Visitors', and 'The UFO Conspiracy'.

Contents

The issue includes the following articles and features:

• Editorial: Andy Roberts (Pages 2/35)
• Brief Reports: I.U.N. (Page 4)
• Review: Sandy Trebor (Page 5)
• Rendlesham Quest Questioned: Eric Morris (Pages 6-9)
• Seeing The Light: David Clarke (Page 11)
• Rowley Regis Part 2: Albert Budden (Page 16)
• News: I.U.N. (Page 24)
• Clicknology: Philip Mantle (Page 25)
• Mysteries Of The Pennines: Advertisement (Page 36)

Investigations

This section details several UFO/UAP sighting investigations:

• Date: 4/1/88, Location: Birmingham: Mr. Chris S. and family observed two white triangular objects at night. Investigator: P. Mantle.
• Date: 27/11/87, Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire: Mrs. Linda F. saw a light in the sky with colored lights around it. Possible IFO/Jupiter. Investigator: P. Mantle.
• Date: 9/12/87, Location: Castleford, West Yorkshire: Mrs. Pamela M. observed 3 white lights in a triangle. Possible IFO/Jupiter. Investigator: P. Mantle.
• Date: 9/12/87, Location: Humberside: Approximately fifty witnesses observed dozens of lights, positively identified as an aircraft refuelling exercise. Investigators: G. Anthony and P. Mantle. Marked as IFO.
• Date: 7/1/88, Location: Chesterfield, Derbyshire: Mr. & Mrs. T. and five others saw three large stationary objects and one moving object. Under Investigation, likely astronomical origin. Inv: Dave Kelly.
• Date: 19/1/88, Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire: Mrs. Shirley S. observed a bright object streak across the sky very fast. Possible satellite, under investigation. Investigator: P. Mantle.
• Date: 27/10/87, Location: Holmfirth, West Yorkshire: A couple observed a stationary bright light with red and white lights in a circle shape, which then moved off with a whooshing noise. Under Investigation. Inv: Andy Roberts.

Review: Phantom Aerial Flaps and Waves

This section reviews a booklet by Nigel Watson titled 'Phantom Aerial Flaps and Waves', available for £1:20 from Magonia Magazine. The reviewer, Andy Roberts, describes it as a 24-page booklet covering major 'non-flying saucer' flaps and waves from 1830 to 1947. It details dates, locations, and types of phenomena, with references to source material. Roberts praises it as an invaluable reference booklet and a worthy start to Magonia's Occasional papers series.

Rendlesham Quest Questioned: CUFOSC Discover The Truth!!!

This lengthy article by Eric Morris (CUFOSC) investigates allegations surrounding the Rendlesham incident, specifically challenging claims made by YUFOS/QUEST. The article notes that QUEST magazine had published information from a witness, allegedly a junior member of the crew of HMS Norfolk, stating that the warship sailed under secret orders from Portsmouth on December 29th or 30th, 1980, and undertook secret maneuvers off the Suffolk coast, implicitly connected to the Rendlesham affair. The witness claimed HMS Norfolk operated under 'watchkeeping conditions' and performed other routines until returning to Portsmouth on January 6th or 7th, 1981.

Eric Morris, drawing on his 15 years of Royal Navy experience, decided to investigate these claims. He states that YUFOS/QUEST were uncooperative and abrasive when he attempted to verify the information, refusing to allow him to speak to the witness or provide documentation. Morris then conducted his own inquiries through official channels.

He contacted the Ministry of Defence Naval Historical Section, which replied in a letter dated September 3, 1987 (from M. McAloon), stating that HMS Norfolk was at Portsmouth for an Assisted Maintenance Period combined with leave between December 6, 1980, and January 14, 1981. Morris argues that the witness's claims about the ship being incapable of sailing due to asbestos insulation, requiring 48 hours' notice to sail, and nobody being allowed on deck are contradicted by naval procedures and safety factors, especially during helicopter operations.

Morris also wrote to the Queens Harbourmaster at Portsmouth. In a letter dated November 18, 1987 (from Commander R.E.A. Lang, RN), it is confirmed that HMS Norfolk was alongside at Fountain Lake Jetty in Portsmouth and sailed at 1200 hrs on January 15, 1981. This information is presented as documentary evidence to support CUFOSC's claim that YUFOS/QUEST received inaccurate information.

CUFOSC expresses disappointment at the lack of cooperation from YUFOS/QUEST and poses the question: "WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?" They challenge YUFOS/QUEST to present their evidence to counter the official records from the MOD and the Captain of Portsmouth Harbour, suggesting that YUFOS have laid their cards on the table and it is now their turn to do so. The article implies that CUFOSC knows the identity of the witness but is not revealing it, focusing instead on the discrepancy in the information.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently focuses on UFO investigation, presenting case reports and analyses. There is a strong emphasis on evidence-based research, as demonstrated by the detailed investigation into the HMS Norfolk claims. The IUN positions itself as a non-dogmatic organization promoting freedom of information and witness anonymity where applicable. The editorial stance appears to be critical of unsubstantiated claims and supportive of rigorous investigation, as seen in the Rendlesham incident article which prioritizes official documentation over unverified testimony. The magazine also promotes UFO-related events and publications.

This issue of UFO BRIGANTIA, dated January/February 1988, features an article titled "SEEING THE LIGHT" by David Clarke, which explores the historical and psychological aspects of UFO-like light phenomena.

Seeing the Light by David Clarke

David Clarke's article begins by referencing a 793 AD entry from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle describing "terrible portents" in Northumbria, including exceptional flashes of lightning and fiery dragons, which led to famine and the harrying of the Northmen. This historical account sets a precedent for unusual aerial phenomena.

Clarke then examines the historical connections of UFO-type light phenomena to specific geographical locations, geology, and topography, particularly in the north of England. He emphasizes the crucial role of the interaction between the human observer and the light phenomenon itself. Paul Devereux's theory that 'earthlights' might be 'consciousness-sensitive' and capable of being 'molded' by the human observer like 'planetary ectoplasm' is introduced. Clarke, however, suspects a more subtle process at work, suggesting that these lights may be attracted to or visible only to certain 'special' people, those with 'second sight' or mediumistic abilities.

He draws parallels between these individuals and prehistoric tribal shamans, who acted as intermediaries between the tribe and nature. Modern counterparts, according to Clarke, might be contactees and abductees who describe encounters with beings and 'magical spaceships'.

The article posits that the human eye perceives only a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. John Keel's 1960s theory about 'soft-objects' (earthlights) traveling up and down the spectrum, from infra-red to ultra-violet frequencies, is discussed. Clarke questions whether individuals more sensitive to these frequencies, referred to as 'repeater' witnesses and contactees, are able to 'see' objects invisible to others.

These mysterious, seemingly 'intelligent' blobs of lights appear to be attracted to these special people. The article cites childhood experiences of contactees like Gaynor Sunderland, who saw and played with 'balls of light,' akin to how previous generations played with 'fairies' or spirits.

Two significant Welsh 'repeater' witnesses, Pauline Coombs and Mary Jones, are highlighted. Both experienced religio/spiritualistic phenomena that seemingly prepared them for UFO-type appearances. The lights accompanying the Welsh religious revival of 1904-4 are linked to the religious hysteria of Mary Jones's evangelical mission. Clarke notes that such mystical lights accompanying religious missions are not unique to the Welsh revival, referencing great floods of light that accompanied the missionary exploits of Celtic monks in the Dark Ages, such as the account of St. Columba's death.

An account of Columba retiring to a wilder island near Iona describes an "extraordinary light" seen escaping through the hut's key-holes and chinks, illuminating the Holy Scripture.

Mary Jones's own description of 'her' lights, given in January 1905, details seeing lights every night from the beginning of the Revival. She describes them appearing like a motor-car lamp flashing, sometimes like two lamps with tongues of fire, or a quick flash followed by a vaporous smoke, and sometimes like a rainbow of vapor and a bright star.

On another occasion, Mrs. Jones and witnesses, including a Daily Mirror reporter, were followed by a peculiar light while driving to Egryn. Mrs. Jones described it as a "glowing ball of fire of exceeding brightness." The reporter described a "soft, shimmering radiance" flooding the road, making everything visible, and appearing as an "oval mass of grey half open, disclosing within a kernel of white light."

An 'Express' correspondent recounted being led by a convert to witness lights near Egryn Chapel. The lights were described as gleams, scintillations, and jumps, appearing and vanishing at intervals. The convert stated, "Spiritual things are not discernable to all men."

Clarke then discusses a similar story told by a skeptical clergyman to a Daily Mirror reporter. While with Mrs. Jones, they witnessed an "extraordinary sight" – an irregular mass of white light moving with "lightening speed" towards Egryn Chapel. It took the shape of a solid triangle with rounded angles, hovered over the chapel, and its brilliance was "almost terrible."

The article questions whether these lights are attracted to intense religious emotions, similar to how they might be attracted to reservoirs, powerlines, or areas prone to seismic stress, citing the Bala fault in North Wales.

A similar hysterical religious revival in Ireland in 1859 was also accompanied by mysterious lights. A writer in 'The Spiritual Magazine' of 1877 described a "cloud of fire" approaching during open-air meetings, hovering over people, and moving to other revival meetings.

Another mysterious light is said to have followed Owain Glyndwr in 1400, and during French religious revivals in the 18th century. Professor N. Cohn is cited regarding the Camisards in France in 1702, who were guided by "mysterious lights in the sky" and "supernatural voices."

A 1704/5 account by Claude Arnassan describes a "light" like a large star that advanced and pointed to a meeting place. Charles Fort, in his 'Lo!' (1931), referred to the Welsh Lights, suggesting the excitement was "combustion, or psycho-electricity," and that the phenomena might feed on human energy.

Clarke concludes this section by drawing a parallel between the growing interest in UFO abduction stories in the USA and religious revival meetings, questioning if this new belief makes humanity vulnerable to "influence from outside forces which are not necessarily benign."

The Rowley Regis Case (Part Two) by Albert Budden

Albert Budden continues his examination of the Rowley Regis CE case, following up on Part One published in UFO BRIGANTIA no. 28. Budden is preparing a book on the case.

The narrative focuses on the witness, Jean, who had recovered from the "beam's effects." She found herself flying over and landing on the sofa. The description of the entities' voices is compared to poltergeist phenomena, and Budden notes parallels with RSPK (Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis).

Jean asks the entities where they come from, receiving the answer, "From the sky." They then engage in a lengthy exchange about Jesus, Tommy Steele, the role of women, the Queen, children, and babies. Investigator Andy Collins is quoted as describing such conversations as "pure garbage."

When Jean asks if they will harm her, they state, "We haven't come to hurt you." The "winged three" then hover over a table covered in newspapers, making clicking noises. Jean converses with them, and they begin to float around the room, lifting small objects like cassette tapes, as if their arms were magnetic. Jean reports they touched Christmas cards and furniture, and she believes they had magnets in their hands.

Budden clarifies that the entities' wings were not used for flapping but for display, fluttering gently or folding inwards.

Jean offers them drinks, and they request "water, water, water." She brings four glasses and a plate of mince pies. The entities lift a mince-pie each, their hands seeming magnetic. Jean observes them putting on a "power light" and notes that the glasses were empty after they were put down, though she didn't see them drink. The beam of light from the entities blinds Jean, leaving her like a statue.

Budden suggests that Jean was often disabled by the beam when the entities needed to perform tasks, such as when they couldn't answer questions or drink. He argues that if the encounter were purely hallucinatory, such limitations wouldn't be necessary, as dream imagery is rich and versatile.

Jean then fetches more mince pies. As she is about to light a match for a cigarette, a deafening electronic 'beep' comes from the back garden. Jean, unaware of anything landing, recoils in fear.

Jean interprets the entities' reaction to the lit cigarette as fear of fire. A louder noise comes from the back garden, and Jean sees an "orange glowing thing" that she identifies as a "space-ship," about eight feet long and four feet high, with glowing windows or port-holes. An aerial-like structure at one end is described as a "scorpion tail" with a wheel on top.

The entities then glide out, not using their wings to fly, but pressing "press-studs" on their tunics. Jean believes these are translation devices, as the entities constantly touched them before speaking, emitting a 'beep' sound. When Jean said something foreign, they would "bleep-bleep bleep-bleep" on their chests.

The entities sail out of the room, holding mince pies, down the hall, and out of the back door into the spaceship. Jean watches them enter the object, which closes with no trace. The spaceship lifts high into the air and heads towards Oldbury or West Bromwich, emitting a blue light from the "scorpion" structure before departing.

Jean's Return To Normal

This section is described by Budden as the most convincing part of the encounter. Jean's return to normal is described with a "simple and sincere tone." After the object departed, Jean "jumped" rather than dropped carefully to the carpet. She experienced intense pain, agony, and weakness, unable to feel her legs. She lay on the settee until about five o'clock.

She then felt recovered enough to make her husband's tea and contacted her husband, a neighbour, and the police. She retrospectively notes the pointlessness of contacting the police for fingerprints.

Physical Evidence & Aftermath

The Garden:

1. A distinct impression was found in the snow, about eight feet long, described by investigator Stephen Banks as "symmetrical, but most odd. Not what I would call a fabricated effect." It consisted of two parallel lines forming a continuous band with transverse lines, resembling "a caterpillar track."
2. Soil samples revealed higher sodium content than the surrounding soil. The impression in the snow melted quickly, and grass did not grow there for over a year.
3. The thick snow on the roof of the carport had melted, while snow on other surfaces remained, indicating a localized heat source.

The House:

4. The television set stopped working properly, suggesting it was affected by an intense magnetic field.
5. The clock had stopped.
6. The radio ceased to function, having been playing when the encounter occurred.
7. Cassette tapes handled by the entities were distorted and ruined.
8. About two weeks later, Jean's gold wedding ring turned white on the outside and gold on the inside.
9. A circle about 8 inches in diameter was scratched into the glass of the back door, which Jean insisted was not there before the event.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue consistently explores the intersection of unexplained aerial phenomena (UFOs, earthlights) with historical events, religious experiences, and psychological factors. There's a recurring theme of connecting contemporary UFO sightings with older accounts of mysterious lights and spiritual manifestations. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry, presenting witness testimonies and physical evidence while also acknowledging the potential for misinterpretation or psychological influence, as seen in the discussion of religious revivals and the questioning of the benign nature of potential extraterrestrial influences. The detailed examination of the Rowley Regis case, with its emphasis on physical evidence, suggests a commitment to rigorous investigation of reported encounters.

This issue of UFO Brigantia, dated January/February 1988, delves into various UFO-related phenomena, with a strong emphasis on photographic evidence and witness testimonies. The magazine features detailed case studies, expert analysis, and theoretical discussions.

The Rowley Regis Encounter

The issue begins by detailing the aftermath of an encounter experienced by a woman named Jean. Her physiological and physical effects are listed, including sore eyes, painful inner ear, aching jaws, general malaise leading to time off work, and severe headaches. A red mark on her forehead, which developed a small mole, persisted for months. Her dog also exhibited unusual behavior, entering a trance-like state when she discussed the entities.

A post-encounter anomaly involved the disappearance and subsequent reappearance of Jean's Christmas tree, found in pieces in the garden. The report notes Jean Hingley's background as a foster parent, her lack of prior interest in UFOs, and her poor educational background, yet describes her as sharp-witted with common sense.

Commentary on the Rowley Regis Encounter

This section discusses how researchers tend to categorize UFO encounters into external/physical and internal/mental or hallucinatory sections. The author questions the tidiness of this division, suggesting that physical traces and electromagnetic aspects are often accepted by UFO researchers, while 'impossible' or bizarre elements are relegated to the internal mental category. The case of Jean's painful physiological experiences is presented as evidence of an altered state of consciousness, possibly induced by proximity to UAP/earthlight phenomena, as proposed by Micheal Persinger. The presence of a structured ground trace is noted as a puzzle. The possibility of psychosomatic production of physical effects, like the mark on Jean's forehead, is considered, along with the link between poltergeist phenomena and the 'focus person'. The author proposes that altered states may facilitate both internal mental imagery and external physical effects, similar to poltergeist outbreaks. The idea that UFO encounters might be linked to RSPK (psychokinesis) phenomena is explored, suggesting that physical effects could be mind-based and that UFOs might be 'PK-constructed' or even created in the unconscious mind.

The author posits that certain types of UFO encounters share a mechanism with RSPK phenomena, and speculates that the stimulus behind the UFO phenomenon might be a reality created unconsciously by a collectivity of 'focus-people' or 'mediums'. The possibility that UFO experiences can make witnesses psychic is also mentioned. The author invites interested readers to pursue this theory objectively.

News, Ads, and Rumour

This section provides brief updates and advertisements:

• Northern Lights: Publishers of arcane subjects, offering an information sheet.
• August Report: The IUN is selling a 32-page report detailing a flap of sightings in Derbyshire/South Yorkshire during August 1987, compiled by David Clarke.
• Paranoia: A comment on alleged crash/retrieval cases and a 'stealth' crash in an American forest, which became a subject of ufological gossip.
• More Paranoia: Notes that 'Flying Saucer Review' has started including 'eschatology' in its content, linking it to American evangelism and the 'loony elements'. It also mentions John Keel's comment that ufology has 're-discovered the wheel' regarding the 'new abduction' explosion.
• Keep Taking the Tabloids: Reports on an Australian UFO encounter with multiple witnesses, and a Daily Star article featuring 'leading investigator with BUFORA' Steve Balon, presenting what is described as 'garbage on aliens and UFO's' with a composite alien and a list of 'Things You Never Knew About Aliens'.
• Excalibur Books: Specialists in titles on UFOs, Mystery Animals, Folklore, Ghosts, and allied subjects, stocking obscure and foreign titles, and finding out-of-print items.

Clicknology: A Look at IUN Photographic Cases from 1987

This section, by Philip Mantle (IUN), examines photographic UFO cases that came to light during 1987. The IUN's UFO Hotline, operational since June 1987, uncovered at least seven photographic cases, with two occurring in 1987 and the rest spread over previous years. The article promises to examine these cases and their analysis, reproducing controversial photographs.

The Patterson Photographs: 12 May 1985, Chesterfield, Derbyshire

Investigated by David Kelly and Philip Mantle, these photographs were the first photographic case reported via the Hotline. The witness, Mrs Patterson, observed a bright light in the sky that remained stationary for twenty minutes before dimming, then brightening to reveal eight very bright lights. The lights moved slowly across the sky without noise. Mrs Patterson took three photographs using a Mamiya 2E camera with Truprint colour film, 100 ASA, at 1/30 sec and f/5.6, hand-held. She reported taking the photos two years after the sighting because she didn't know who to report it to.

Analysis by Nigel Smith (BUFORA Photographic analyst): Smith commented that the image appeared to be of a real aerial object. He noted camera-shake in Photo no. 1, evidenced by street/house lights, and stated that 'trace lines' on the UFO were identical to these, indicating they were not movement. White spots were identified as specks of dust. He found it difficult to avoid camera-shake at 1/30 sec. Photo no. 3 showed no lights other than the UFO. The 'trace line' was characteristic of camera movement. He suggested that if the object was distant, it would have to be moving very fast to leave such a trace. Aircraft at high altitude or satellites would not show movement in this time. Photo no. 1 appeared to have a matching pair of objects, possibly indicating fluctuation or vibration. Photo no. 3 showed multiple point sources. Smith concluded that while camera movement was a factor, the object itself might have caused some variation, consistent with witness impressions. The objects were very bright, and while stars were visible to the witness, they were not apparent in the photos due to exposure time and film sensitivity. The possibility of reflection from the recently set sun was considered, but self-illumination remained a possibility. Aeroplanes, helicopters, reflective balloons, or RPVs were not entirely ruled out, but difficulties existed with each identification.

Comments by Dr. Bruce Maccabee (Fund for UFO Research, USA): Dr. Maccabee agreed with most of Nigel Smith's analysis but disagreed with the suggestion that computer analysis could indicate distance. He found the reflection theory interesting but considered the 'double dot' image unlikely to be a balloon explanation. He suggested that aircraft headlights could explain the lights, but the 'internal structure' described by the witness made this unlikely. He also questioned whether aircraft would have landing lights on and suggested checking wind direction to estimate landing plane direction. He found the claim of hovering for 20 minutes required inventing unusual aircraft.

The Albert Bryan Photographs: October 1983, Bradford, West Yorkshire

Albert Bryan noticed a strange light while picking up his wife. He took three photographs using a 35mm camera with colour transparency film. The analysis concluded that Mr Bryan had photographed an aircraft landing or taking off at the nearby Leeds/Bradford airport due to camera movement.

The David Murphy Photographs, July 1985, 9 March 1986, Rossendale, Lancashire

David Murphy submitted two sets of photographs. The first, taken in July 1985, showed a grey trail in the sky that hung motionless for about 20 minutes. He took two photos. The analysis suggested the object looked like the remains of a vapour trail, possibly from a military jet's afterburner, given its stationary nature.

The second set, taken on March 9, 1986, featured 'ball of light' sightings, common in the Rossendale area. Mr Murphy and others observed an orange light in the sky that kept coming on and going off but did not move. He took several photographs with a 50mm lens and one with a telephoto lens and converter. Nigel Smith noted camera-shake on the 50mm lens photos and expressed doubts about the 'close-up' due to potential movement with a telephoto lens. He could not think of a conventional explanation if the photos were bona-fide, suggesting Earthlight or unconventional phenomena.

The Conisbrough Photographs, August and February, 1987

This case originated from a newspaper article in the South Yorkshire Times. Photography enthusiast Mr Alan Bird and Miss Angela Hollins of Conisbrough photographed unidentified objects. Mr Bird took photos from the roof of St Peters Church, and Miss Hollins also collected images. Mr Bird later photographed a large circular object appearing near the moon. Both witnesses expressed certainty that the objects were UFOs. However, the newspaper article's photographs were deemed not to require analysis, as it was evident that a lens flare was responsible for the 'UFO' image, a mistake the authors found hard to understand.

The Pendle Observatory Photograph, July 1982, Pendle, Lancashire

Norman Crompton, IUN astronomical consultant, took time exposures of the night sky at Pendle Observatory. On the second and third slides, a mysterious 'light source' with a 'purple trail' appeared. Copies of these slides were made, and analysis was pending. Possible explanations included satellites, space debris, or helicopters.

The Peter Beard Photographs, 5 August, 1987, Barnsley, South Yorkshire

This case was brought to attention by a newspaper cutting from the Barnsley Chronicle, headlining 'YES... YOU ARE SEEING THINGS'. A local angler, Peter Beard, reported being buzzed by a flying saucer and took three photographs of a typical UFO-shaped object flying over rooftops. Beard wished to remain anonymous due to fear of ridicule. A 19-year-old Barnsley woman also reported seeing two UFOs. Investigator David Clarke contacted the Barnsley Chronicle and arranged an interview with Mr Beard. However, the investigation was hampered by a letter from UFO researcher Timothy Good, advising Beard to protect his negatives and original prints from being 'disappeared' or stolen. Despite this, Mr Beard was interviewed, recounting his story and stating he had taken four photographs, not three. The photos were shown at the pub, and a local reporter saw them, leading to their publication. Beard's common-law wife, Angela, also saw the object.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around photographic evidence of UFOs, the challenges of analysis, and the interpretation of witness testimonies. The magazine presents a critical yet open-minded approach, with contributors like Nigel Smith and Dr. Bruce Maccabee offering detailed technical analyses, while others like Albert Budden propose more speculative theoretical links between UFO phenomena, poltergeists, and psychokinesis. The editorial stance appears to be one of thorough investigation, acknowledging the difficulties and ambiguities inherent in UFO research, and encouraging further study and reader participation in exploring these complex phenomena. There is a clear emphasis on distinguishing between genuine sightings and misidentifications or conventional explanations, while also leaving room for the possibility of genuinely unexplained aerial phenomena.

Title: UFO BRIGANTIA
Issue: January/February 1988
Volume: 88
Publisher: UFO BRIGANTIA
Country: United Kingdom
Language: English

This issue of UFO BRIGANTIA focuses heavily on the analysis of photographic evidence, particularly a case involving Peter Beard.

The Peter Beard Photographs

The central feature of this issue is the detailed examination of four photographs taken by Peter Beard on August 5, 1987, through his bedroom window. The images, initially of poor quality, were sent to investigators Nigel Smith of BUFORA and Dr. Bruce Maccabee for analysis. The magazine presents the arguments and findings from these experts.

Nigel Smith's Analysis

Nigel Smith addresses several points regarding the photographs:

1. Parallax: He acknowledges the possibility that the object's apparent movement could be explained by parallax if it were stuck to the window glass. The consistency of the object's appearance and distance from the window edge in two shots supports this. However, he notes that this doesn't definitively prove it's stuck to the glass, as an aerial object moving left to right could also maintain a similar relative distance if the photographer moved to the right.
2. Movement Consistency: Smith suggests measuring the distance in the other two photographs to see if the object maintains a consistent relative distance from the window edge. Repeating this precisely three times would be improbable.
3. Photo B vs. Photo A: It is evident that Photo B was taken from a position to the right of Photo A, as indicated by the visibility of the putty around the glass in B, which is obscured by the window frame in A. This suggests a more acute angle. The crucial question is determining which photo was taken first without the negatives, as this impacts whether the object was moving left to right.
4. Object Translucence and Focus: Smith notes the difficulty in assessing the object's focus due to its apparent translucence, which softens its edges against the sky. The lower, darker edges appear clearer and on the same plane as the window edge. He suggests that the original prints might offer more clarity, and computer enhancement could resolve this.
5. Hoax Hypothesis: He considers the possibility of a hoax, such as a piece of paper stuck to the window. If it were a paper cutout, its image would also move right to left. The fuzziness of the image could be due to it being too close to the camera to be in focus. He speculates that a hoaxer might have created a cutout with brightness variations to simulate lighting.

Smith concludes that while no firm conclusions can be drawn from the poor-quality prints, and the original negatives were not available, the case warrants further investigation. He hopes that all four photographs will eventually be sent for analysis.

Bruce Maccabee's Opinion

Dr. Bruce Maccabee also received the photographs and information. He states that no firm conclusion is possible without analyzing the other two photos and seeing the negatives to confirm the order. However, his tentative conclusion is that the case is a TRUFO (true UFO).

Maccabee also provides notes based on his review:

• The story behind the photos seems reasonable, and confirmation by the wife is helpful.
• The object resembles some Meier UFOs and other photos in the literature, including a 1978 Iran photo.
• Brightness variations suggest light coming from the left.
• He notes that the glossy prints appear to be partial frame copies of original 110 size negatives.
• Based on a newspaper story showing three photos, he estimates the object's separation from the roof increased from 95/60" to 102/60" (about 7%), suggesting a real object traveling at a constant altitude along a trajectory.
• He suggests measuring the image size increase across the photos to see if it grows consistently, which would be consistent with a real distant object.
• He discusses parallax, noting the object moves right to left, and the window frame also moves right to left relative to the roof, indicating the camera moved slightly right. He questions if the apparent motion of the UFO can be accounted for by its apparent motion on the window, as in a hoax.
• He emphasizes the need for full-frame prints of excellent quality, including high-contrast black and white for mensuration and color prints.
• He suggests re-interviewing Peter Beard to ascertain the time taken and measuring the upward angle from the window to the roof to estimate the object's elevation.

Maccabee considers this a "first priority photo case."

Tony Marshall's Assessment

Tony Marshall, a professional landscape photographer, was consulted for a second opinion. He found the photographs to be of very poor quality but saw no evidence that the object was stuck to the window glass, nor that it was a bird or aeroplane. He stated that the negative had not been tampered with and that constructing a hoax would be difficult given the location where the picture was taken. However, he concluded that the overall poor quality of both the negative and prints left the photographic evidence "somewhat inconclusive," but it appeared to be a U.F.O.

Daily Star Misrepresentation

The magazine reports on a Daily Star article that ran a feature on the Peter Beard UFOs without permission. The Star allegedly re-touched the image to create a clear outline not present in the original. They also fabricated quotes from Peter Beard, claiming his camera was broken when he took the photo and describing the object as having lights and being aluminum colored, which Beard reportedly denies saying.

Other Content

UFO Brigantia's Editorial Stance

The editorial team expresses their intent to continue investigating and reporting on photographic cases. They note that 1987 was a significant year for such cases. The magazine also includes a satirical illustration titled "CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD TIME" with a Cold War theme, juxtaposing Reagan and Soviet imagery.

Astronomy Section

A new feature, "DISCOVERER - PENDLE VALLEY OBSERVATORY," is introduced, providing astronomical data. Due to truncation, only partial details are given for this issue, with full details promised for the next. It includes information on meteor showers and planetary rise/set times for March 1988.

Book Reviews/Mentions

The issue mentions several books: "FORTEAN TOMES book, UFO's 1947-1987" and the upcoming Macmillan book "PHENOMENA." It also references the "MJ12 saga."

Mysteries of the Pennines Event

An announcement for an event titled "MYSTERIES OF THE PENNINES" is included. This is a day of illustrated lectures covering strange phenomena in the Pennine region, organized by UFO BRIGANTIA in conjunction with the Northern Earth Mysteries Group. Speakers include Jenny Randles, Terence W. Whitaker, Ian Taylor, Rob Wilson, and Clarke & Roberts. The event is scheduled for Saturday, March 26, 1987, at the Library Theatre, Sheffield. Ticket information and prices are provided.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a stance of thorough investigation and critical analysis of UFO phenomena. While open to the possibility of genuine UFOs (as indicated by the TRUFO designation and the focus on photographic evidence), it also seriously considers hoax explanations and the need for rigorous verification. The editorial team seems committed to presenting factual accounts and expert opinions, while also engaging in some satirical commentary on the broader UFO landscape and media coverage. The emphasis on detailed analysis, expert consultation, and the pursuit of original evidence (negatives, full-frame prints) highlights their dedication to the subject. The inclusion of the "Mysteries of the Pennines" event suggests an active engagement with the UFO and paranormal community.