TIMESNunber 7 May 199O ISSN 0958-4846

Investigations ofthe alleged tlF0crash in Botswanaseem to show thatthe stoi:y is notall that itrscracked up Eo be.Full expo6einside.

In some CE cases,rritness-es sufferfron physicaltruama. SteuartCaflrpbe1l provideshis opinion on hor^rsuch effectsoccur.

After JottrtSlurcerrs recant1n1nr, JennyRarrilles takes antudepth look athis latest bookPerspectives.

Plus........Skywatcher andhdd lb'pkins tospeak iJr Lmdon.

SOUTH AFRICAN AIR FORCE

CLASSIFIEDTOPSECRET DO NOTDIVULGE

DEPABTI\,IENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND RESEARCH (DSIR)

DEPABTMENT OF AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE (DAFI)

DATE:

SUBJECT:

CODE NAME:

FILE NUMBER:

DESTINATION:

DESIGNATED CHANNEL:

RESTRICTED ACCESS:

7 L/ay 1989

tjr oerliliFd Fv nq Ooe' I ,,aHopl)

-

--

'tLwe''

--r-

e-2

RFD Top stcRET au a t u+ttA a4Pn€7.tu4

PRIORITY CODE: D4

SPECTRUM LOT: Blue

DEFENCE COIIIPUTEB PASS CODE _ PROCEED WITH CAUTION

CONTENTS: Case History

CrattSpeciticalions

Humanoid Specif ications

Conclusion

CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET DO NOT DIVULGE

A BUFORA PUBLICATION

coullcrl, 1988-89PRESIDENT : Maior sir Patrick l,lal1'

Mc vRD RM (Rtd)VICE PRESIDEIIT : Lionel E. Beer, FRASFOUNDER PRf,SIDEIIT: G.F,N. Knevstub' CEng FEISCOUNCIL CHAIRIIATI ! StephCN CAMbIE' FIMLS AFBISVICE CHAIRIIAI{ | John SpencerTREASURER , Simon Rose

COUTCIL IIETIBERS

llanfred Cassirer Jenny RandlesDavid Clarke Sinon RosePauL Fuller Arnold QestPhi Iip Mantle l{ichael lootten

Consultants to Council: Hl1ary Evans' RaIPh Noyes

IIE}IBERSHIP SECRETAIY

James Danby,16 Southray,Burgess HiI1,Sussex, R H15 9STret ( 04446 6738)

IIEMBER SOCIETIES & ASSOCIATE GROUPS

DINECIOI OT

PUBLICATIOIIS

Hike l,Jootten,103 llove Avenue

'tlalthans to'r,London,817 7NC

crdnts are avalable (bylefeee) to any gloup orirdividusl i,ho wl$es tosrofesdonaly publishthet res€actL Synopsesshould be sent to theDir:ectdr of Putlic€tions

SECRETARY TO COUNCIL

John Spencer,16 Souihway,Burgess Hl1l,Sussex, RH15 9ST

RT:SEARCR AIf D I YESTIGATIOIIDIRf,CTOR OF RESEARCII

Stephen GambIe,16 Southtray

'Burgess HiII,RH 15 9ST

DIRECTOR OF INVESIIGATIOtrS

Jenny Randles37 Heathbank Road,Chead Ie Heath'S tockport,Cheshi!e, SK3 oUP

SECRE-IARY TO IIIC

PhiI ip MantIe,1 ltoodhall Drive,Ilea ley Lane,fies t Yorkshire,ItF17 7Sti

'Ihe National lrvesdgations Com mittee co-oldinates investiSation initiatives across the Bdtish Ls1€s

and acts as an open fc'rum for sny group or individu6l inteested in *te objective urvesdgaEon oflhe UFO phe.omenon. NIC meetjngs are held alound the counEy, Dates and venues of thesemeetings can be obtained ftom the NIC Seclet€ry. The NIC is Rmded by BUFORA and by donation.

ReseaEh Grants are availahle to any group or individusl (subject to referee) vho wishes to initiateobjective reseaEh of t}le UFo phenomena. Details of tlere grants can be obtajned ftom t-treDitrtd of R8e6Eh.

Lrr!,:.rItrtr ltrIIf ITtrES S COI{F II'ENTIALITY

The British UFO Research Association realises the importance of treating cases submictedto the Association by witnesses as confidential. In the light of this, the BUFORA Code ofPractice has been devised and employed throughout the AssociatioD to guarantee that theutmost care is taken when dealing vith vitness petsonal details and case report mateiial.It is also the policy of UFO Tinea not to publish the names or addresses of witnesses whoare not in the rpublic domainr. The material and petsonal details of lritneases who havebeen published in the media r^'ill be treated ltith care and etnpathy by the editorship.

PRESS OFFICER

Phi Iip [4antle'l woodhaII Drive 'Ba tley,t1test Yorkshire,LiF17 7 S!r.

TIESSCLIPPITE ARCTIIVE

Mlchael Hudson '71 Knight Avenue

'

CT2 8PY

THE BRITISH UFO RESEARCH ASSOCIATION LIIIITED(by guaran t ee )

Founded 1964. Registered office, 16 Southway, Burgess HilI, Sussex, RHl5 9ST. Registeredin London; 12349924. Incorporating the London UFO Research Association (founded 1959) andthe British UFo Association (founded 1962).

AIHS

1. To encourage, promote and conduct unbiased scienfific research of unidentified flyingobject (UF0) phenomena Lhroughout the ttnited Kingdom.2. To collect and disseminate evidence and data relating Lo unidentified flying objects(UFos),3. To co-ordinate UFo researih throughout the United Kingdom and to co-operate vithothers engaged in such research throughout the world.

MEIIBERSHIP

I'lembership is open to a1l rrho supporL Lhe aims of the association and whose application isapproved by the executive committee. ApplicaLions, forms and general information can beobtained from BUFORA's !egisteied office.

Includes Bri tain's oldes tBS 17 2PB. Associate groups

Heath, Bristol, Avon,Centre and Skyscan.

UFO group, BFSB. 3 0rchard Road, CoaL Pitinclude: The Northamptonshire uF0 Research

EDITOR

Mike lJootten,103 Hove Avenue,London ,E17 7NGU. K.

ASSISTANT EDITORS

John SpencerKen Phillips

RESEARCH EDITOR

Steve Gamble

FEATURE EDITORS

Jenny RandlesGary Anthony

OVERSEAS LIAISON

Hilary Evans

ARTIST

Edward Clark

(c) BUFoRA Lrd 1990.

Views expressed in anypapers presented in tlF0Ti.res do no! necessarilyrepresent those of theeditor or BT FORA Ltd.

It is permissible formernbers to use materialin this publication fortheir own personal use,provided it is done on alirnited basis. Iftrerematerial is used forpublication, acloow-ledgonenl should begiven to BLJFORA and theappropriate contributor.

TIMESNumber 7 tlay 1990

4.

5.

tt.16.

9.

rssN 0958-4846

Contents

Fdif,ggj5|

ftre frash Retriet/al [rat tdever l{asAn IIJN investigation

Skt EtdlerEdited by cary Anthony

Rerriens

Fear Response in UK) ReportersSteuart Campbellprizes

Letterst7.

TIMESED TOtrIAL

As you na5r have alreaily noticed,th@bing through this latest issue ofIIFO tines, there are feter pager atril arather noticeable depreciation of ilesignaad nasterly layout that you have allbeeo spoilt Yith of late.

WelL, there is a very good reason forthis. By the tine you will be readingthis editorial, I sould have left thebachelor life behind for a bLissfulmarried one instead. Time is very short.with ruaking all the arrangements for theufologieal wedding of the decade so Ihope you will be forgiving.

The latest issue of UFoN Journal hassholrn to be bold and has presented twointeresting and enlightening essays lhatseem to crack the mould of rkeep it nutsand bolts or elser brand of US ufology.Firstly Robert G. Todd seerns to rip theMJ12 saga to shreds, presentinS manyinconsistencies that some have failed topresent before. Todd openly condemnsSt.anton Friedrnan for keeping MJ12 aliveand kicking, "..than he is reporting hisalleged research accurately, honestlyand objectively. " I understand thatFriedman has asked MUFON for an apology.Ilowever other IIJ researchers nanelyBarry Greenwood et a1 are also shoutingr inconsistencies I $ith ]-ncreas]-ngvolune. Another protagonist of the MJ12docunents, narnely Timothy Good, Authorof the popular book 'Above Top Secretlis also under fire for hispronouncements of support, which alLseema to add up to the fact that M.tlzrsdays are probably numbered.

Entitled, tTherapist and Investigator:A Definition of Roles', Rirna E. LaibowM.D. lrho is a clinical psychotherapistcarefully and succinctly underlines the

tremendous care that is required whendealing with abduct.ioo experients andtheir trauna. Laibow states. 'rwhether ornot investigators find thenselves eagerto pursue a particular case, they shouldregard thenselves as morally andethically bound to offer cornpetentreferral to a therapist for theunweaving of the twisted strands ofabduct.ion-related experience fron thetapestry of the patientrs 1ife.Reweaving the tapestry is the work ofthe ensuing therapy.rr Sone wise wordswhich I can only agree with.

I have been receiving sone interestingresponses to the questionnaire that wasincluded in the last issue of UT. One ortwo people have comnented on nyeditorials stating that they are ratherbiased (to say ghe least) and are quickto criticise other researchers withouttsparing the rodr. 0f course myeditorials af,e biased sirnply becausethey are my beliefs that have beenformulated from a long and structuredstudy of the subject. Yes, I have asceptical view and do chastiseindividuals and other groups because Ipersonally feel they sometimes deserveit. Too ruuch rubbish is pronounced inthe nane of ufological science and thatis the sole reason why we have notunshrouded the nystery conpletely, if atall, to date, llowever unlike some otherrnagazines I could mention (but spaceprecludes) I will always publishcritiques of rny own opinions and others(so long as they are printable!), ruakingthis rnagazine open and denocratic. Sot.ry me.

_b=fef=_We shal1 be rnoving the closing date

for prize draw questionnaire entries tollay 23rd 199O to allow more of you tosend in your conpleted quesiionnaires(ou a separate sheet of paper ifpreferred). Please, nake the effort toreply as it is for your benefit.

UFO Tines

fith the l980rs seeingthe rise and rise of thecrash retrieval story itseened oaly fittint thatrith the raning of thedecade, 1989, shoulil seethe genesis of rhat rillbe a long ruanilg c/rstory in this cormtrlr,bolstering belief syatensaaal itrter-group politicaalite. Although thealleged crash toot placein South Africa it seensto be Ditrly IrXregearchers rrto areinvolveil in it ilitectlyat preseEt.

Three ruajor articles have so far beenpublished in the UFO literature andthere are several rofficialr docutentsfloating about so it seems set tosnowba1l.

The IUN first becane aware of thiscase when one of our contacts (thepereonial A11afl Staithes) who deals withintelligence told us a vague runourabout this case, and also that it was ahoax, in nid-June. We sat and waited tosee what developed and by october it hadbecome a fu11 blown rcaser. YUFoS werethe first to r^trite about it in the IIK, asone of their contacts came by the case.

If ne are to believe the accountpublished in YUFOST journal QUEST thisis nhat happened (taken from therofficialr docunents lrhich they obtainedfrom S.A, ) We offer this Trithoutcomnent, but please read 'allegedlyt infront of all the statenenis - all nanesetc are pseudonyms.

On the 7th I'tay 1989 at 13.45 GMT aSouth African naval Frigate, The WhiteSrran, reported that they had tracked aUFO on radar. This UFO lras travelling at5746 nautical nph. This report wasconfirned by other radar installations.Radio contact was tried, rrithout successand two nirage fighters were scranbledto intercept the object. At 13.59 GltT,one of the fighters reported radarvisual contact and was ordered to firehis rexperinental aircraft-rnounted Thor2 Laset cannonr. The laser cannon must

UFO as itost

IIFilE CRASF{ RETRIEVALT'F{AT I\EVER WAS

Investigators Probe Probable Hoax

altitude and eventually came down at anangle of 25i[ it the Kalahari desert,approxinately 80 ruiles into Botswana.The fighters were ordered to stay in thearea until an Air Force team were on thescene. when they arrived lhis is whatthey found.

Inside a crater (150 netres across by12 rnetres deep) they found a silvercoloured disc shaped objece. The objectlay at an angle of 45o and had inpactedwith such heat that the surrounding areahad become fused. A nagnetic field waspresent which disabled some of ghe AirForces equipment. Eventually the objectllas noved for analysis and the site wasfi1led in and returned to normal.

Insignia

The document then goes on to list thefindings by the S.A.A.F, when theyexarnined the craft at the Air Force baseit wag removed to. The type and originof the craft was listed ast extraterres tr iaL r and it had a rcuriousinsignia forged into the net.alr on itsside. Its dirnensions were; Length - 20yards, Height 9.5 yards, lreight 50000kg.The materiaL construction of the craftr,7as (as usual) unknown and no point ofentry could be located. During thisinvestigation a hatch suddenly opened afraction in the craft which was fu1lyforced by hydraulic jack, When this wasdone two rentities' came out and werelaken t.o a medical centre.

The docurnent continued to describe thehave danaged the

UFO Tines

entities as being of suspected extra-tef,restrial origin, 4-4.'ft high,greyish blue conplexion, devoid of allbody hair, oversized head in relation tobody with proninent cheek bones, large,pupiless eyes slanted upwards at theside of the face, small nose, nouth butno lips, no ears, arms reaching to belorrthe knees, three fingers on each hand,no exterior sexual organs and many othersmalL iterus alL devoted to indicatingthe entities was one of those tgreytchappies beloved by ET ufologists overthe past few years.

Apparently no blood or tissue samplescould be taken as the entiiies were veryaggressive and had in fact attacked andscratched a doctor. Instead of hanging arcareful, I bitr sign round their headsthe aLiens were consigned to tleve1 6r(no, not 1evel 6, anything but that weirnagined they screamed) of the AFB andwere kept there until such tines as theywefe transported to wright Patterson(where else) on the 23rd of June.

Co[tec t

tIlFOS I involvenent in all this isunclear but it seens that first news andthe documents were obtained by a YUTOScontact, Dr Henry Azadehdel, arho has apenchang for Anerican version ofcontemporary ufology. YI'FOS nenber, TonyDodd was apparently rnade aware of thecase by Henry Azadehdel and eventuallythe shadorry South African contact cameto the UK and net with the two YUFOSpeople and gave more info on the caseincluding names of officials andscientists fron SA and Anerica who vereinvolved in the case. These names arenot given. The SA contact signed a longstatement to the effect that the storywas true and that he was ready andwilLing to take a lie detector test.

YITFoS nade contact $ith another SAintelligence officer who confirned thecase and said he had access to photos (8by 10 glossies no less) and a fifty pagetelex from wright Patterson givingdetails on holf to conduct a crashretrieval Iinteresting to point out thatin a recent docunentary concerning thepremature re-entry of the Cosnos 1900satellite in the late seventies, theHome Office issued a 600 page document

detailing procedures oD how to dedllrith radioactive satellite debris. So itwould seem that a fifty page telexconcerning alien c/rs would be a ratherlight rreight docunent when one considergthe alleged subject matter. Editorl

YIIFOS then telephoned the SquadronLeader in SA who allegedly fired at theUFO, lied about thei. identity andnanaged to get hin to confirrn that hehad fired once. NoRAD in the USA wasthen contacCed and they confirmed toYUFOS that an object had been tracked(you try tphoning NOMD and see what.they say! ). The sleuthing went on.Wright Patterson and one of the nennaned by the SA intelligence agent nastried. They knew nothing but accordingto YUFOS, rhe was obviously shakeo andtook sone tine to answer r (interestinghow if officials confirm a UFo sightingthey are rspilling the beansr or teomingcleanr, but. if they deny then they arealways tshakenr by the knowl.edge thatothers know the terrible secret - hasanyone considered that they no! justthink rwho the hel1 are these bunch ofloonies I and give thenn a load ofgarbage?). Not surprisingLy nhen YUFOStelephoned again the rnan had rgone awayon an assignnent for several weeksr.I{ell he would have wouLdn't he? Wouldnrtyou if you were being pestered byufologists ?

the YT FOS article goes on to detailthe nany phone ca1ls made to WrightPatterson, and various agencies in bothcountries. Threats were nade by phone tothe SA intelligence agent who r[as

UFO Tines

TEE ' CRAFT I

staying nith Henry Azadehdel and thearticle finishes r,rith the conment fron aSouth African contact who said, "Thereis absolute he11 let loose here at thenomentrr.

The IIIN have a coraespondent, aveteran ufologist, who lives in arelevant. area of South Africa who hassupplied us with a list of criticisns ofthe case, which, mingled in with ny ownare as follows (in no particular order).

1. The document is littered withgramratical problems. Kalahari had beenspelt 'Calaharir on the docurnent. Alsothe report seems to nix neiric withinperial weights and rneasures. - why?

2. The Thor Two Laser cannon is franklya joke. No aircraft in any airforcecarries Laser cannon capable of shootingdown aircraft let alone UFOS travellingat high speeds. In fact it nas reportedin early January that the R.A.F. .!ras

experinenting with lasers which coulddazzle pilots eyes - a long way fron theThor veapon mentioned.

3. The frigate involved was alleged tobe secret - our S.A. contact assures usthat frigates a'ere phased out trro orthree years ago. The remaining frigateswere used, once, for target practice bysubnarines, Obviously one lras secretlystored away until it could befortuitously involved in this nonsense,

4. The tern rsquadron Leaderr is notused in SA, British Arny ranks aregenerally used.

5. Why should the SA,s deal with WrightPatterson? There is no love lost betweenSouth Africa and the USA: ltsanbassadorial aircraft have recentlybeen caught using their privilegedpos i tion for photo-recogni s anc e rnissionsanC the CIA were caught atternptiirg toinfiltrate a nuclear researchestablishment at Pelindaba 18 years ago.Add to this the fact that the US havaimposed sanctions on SA and instant co-operation seems odd to say the least.

6. A UFO cr:ashes in Botswana and withinthe space of the length of tirne a jetcan remain above the site a tean goes infollowed by a c/r tearn? This besides thetine and availabilitv factor also

assumes that the South Af?icans happento have a team of men and vehiclessuitable for retrieving crashed UFOS.The area of the Kalahari that the UFO isalleged to have crashed in is not sandyopen dessert it is in fact rthornveldrand is farmed sparsely. I{hy didn'tanyofle see such a massive operation?Furthermore, considering the presentpolit.ical clirnate, Bots.wana wouldcertainly have condernned the actions ofSouth Africa aft.er having its territoryand airspace violated.

7. Assuning they get in there (renemberthat the lead jet stayed in the arealong enough for an initial team !o getthere - attracting attention all thetirne), and avoid Botswanian nilitarypatrols whiLst they check it out. How dothey get. the UFO out ,lrithout leavingtracks all over the dessert, a dessertrhere tracks can remain for over 30years? Planes can not land so it wouldhave to be transported across desert androads. To transport such an iten itwould have to be neceasary to rnoveanything at the sides of the road whichlras in the way; houses, lights etc.

8. The UFO crashes at an incredibly highspeed, fusing the ground around it, yetit is not scratched (this is also afterbeing shot at by a laser cannon t.oo).Rernember the Roswell incident - thatalleged craft broke up after justskirnrning the surface never rnindimpacting at ground fusing speeds. Butthe aliens also emerge unscathed too.That I s alien technology for you: anadvanced technology that a11ol{s holreveran experiment.al laser cannon to shoot itdown.

9. The SA, US and lsraeli intelligenceservices (at least) know about the caseand yei one of lheir number i: allowedto come Co Lhe UK to spi11 the beans,phone ca1ls are made to and frorn SA,docunents passed through the post, Al1this and no one prevents the ultimatesecret from being passed to a bunch ofanateur ufologists in West yorkshire. Inthe real world this doesnrt happen.

CaIl us cynical if you like but Ithink the whole thing srnacks of a hoaxand a pretty flimsy one at that. Why andby whom? Hard !o work out but look at

UFO Tines

the sequence of events. who got the casefirst? YttFos (but after Allen Staithesheard about it) who go to Sreat pains inpointing out that llarry Earris(ufologyt s forgotten man according tohin) was told about the case beforeYUFOS reveaLed it. But who released lhestory? We are pretty sure the saidperson lives north of Watford GaP but we

cantt say more as ufologists arenotoriously litigious these days whentheir hoaxes and beliefs are threatened.

Underground Bates

That.'s the case in the ItK. Thisdubious c/r also reared it.s ugly head inthe USA where lhe Nevada AerialNeI'sletter has covered the story ( fronPO box 81407, Las Vagas, Neva<ta 89180-1407, usA - $8.00 per issue in the IIK).NAR is a conspiracy based UFO Journal,presenting the John Lear style ofunderground alien bases, aliens breedingus for food, agents killing people forrknowing too nuchr. But anyway r in theirNovernber issue the case is outlined'exactly the same as the YttFOS version(except that the eLecgromagnetic fieldsurrounding the object caused ahelicopter to crash killing five crew),until the rcanr is opened so to speak.The NAR then clain that the two figuresthat emerge are US nilitary petsonnel.This statement is qualified by the factthat NAR say that there \iere alsor greys t on board (ttris after andprobably only upon seeing the YUFOS

docuneotation). According to NARr s

analysis, the UFo was an anerican UFO;

they are allegedly building and flyingUFOs as part of one of those iffy dealswith the aliens. NAR says they arecaLled ARVs (AlienVehicles ).

Reproduction

So two versions of the story, each onesl-ightly different. Tenpting to say eachone tailor made to fit the ufologists itreached (why wasnrt the story leaked tosay BUFORA or CUFOS?). For exarnple I]Kufologists, even those who have strayedweLl beyond the path of theoreticalacceptance wouldnrt accept alien/hurnandeals and all the John l-ear flim-f1am.So give them a straight forrraril c/r withcover-up to go and they love it. Butgive that to the wilder shores ofAmerican ufoloqy and its no good, too

tame. To se11 it yourve got to add inthe alien human deals and theunderground bases to the nixture to addthe seasoning for the Arnerican tasteIEuropean ufologists usually take thiskind of story rrith a pinch of salt only- edl.

Conclusion

Thatrs the case and our thoughts on itso far. our contact in South Africa ischecking further into the case andintends to visit the area, so we willbring you nore news when we have it orwhen other groups publish sonething.Unfortunately, YIIFoS are not releasingany names, locations etc. which areseriously checkable so we will have tocriticise what we have got. It is theIUNS opinion that the case is a hoax,carefully designed to create a rclassiccaser for the purposes we can only guessat. This is the 1990s, tir0e to grasp thenettle. We may never get to the bottonof this, but letsrs rnake sure it doesnrtescape into the ufological literature asa classic case - at least until theproblems have been resolved.

Tf,E BUFOXA LECII'X,E NECOBDIIGSEBYICE

All ntFoBA lecturer t conferencealfe [auall]r recorded, for yout copyof tte latert ?rintoutr lirtfugal'Det /bfl) lecturea, pleane renil a249 stq (not ao,rae) to:

lobin Lindaey, tlomtague Yillaor,A7 Slatio! Rord, llhittlesey,EeterborougF, PE7 llIE.

LIONEL BEER(SPACELINK BOOKS)

115 Hollybush LaneHAMPTONMiddlesexTW12 2QY

UFO Tines

Edited by Gary Anthony

Introd.uction

ttis Skjryatcher includee the urualregular features and space neYshighlights a ner centre I EuropeanArtronauts I anil rciotto - The Sequelt.Yes, Giotto returns rith a ner target inthe effort to stuily a coDetary nucleus.

the Planett

magnitude -4. This planet is visibLe lowin the eastern twilight and the Moon canbe seen nearby on tll.e 22nd,.

June. Venus remains low in the easterntvilight at magnitude -3.9 and risesapproximately two hours before the Sun.

IIARS - May. Like Venua, Mars is alsoin the eastern twilight and brightens tonagnitude 0.5. By the end of the nonthit rises before 02 hours, two hoursbefore sunrise. The Moon is to the northon the 20th.

June. Mars moves out of norningtwilight this rnonth, rising soon afterrnidnight by the end of the nonth atrnagnitude 0.3. The Moon is to the northon the 17th.

JI'PITEn - uarch. Jupiter seta by22hours and 30ninutes by the 31st. Theplanet I s brightness has faded tornagnitude -1.9 and it wilLrnove eastlrardsthrough Genini. A crescent Moon passes2" to the north on tt.e 26/27i.l'..

June - Jupiter sets before 23hours onthe lst. By the end of the nonth, thisplanet vil1 be 1ow in the westernevening twilight, setting less than anhour after the Sun. The lloon is close onthe 23td, /24Gt.

VEflUS - May.only 90 minutes

is a rnorning starbefore the Sun.

rls]-ngAt

1990 JUXE1st 209rh z017rh 20

241'-h. 1231st 08

FirstFu11Laat!Iertrirst

QuarterlloonQuarterlloonQuarter

8th 1116th 0522nd 1929tlJ. 22

hhhhh

hhhh

RA Dec---------Eas t------ - ------- -- ---Ea s t----------06h > 08h +10o > +30o18h > 20h -150 > -300

Verusllar s

JupiterSaturn

lleteor ShoYera

RA Dec---------East----------------Ea" t-------:--06h > 08h +10o > +30o18h > 20h -15. > -30.

Nane BeginsEta Aquarids Apr 21Lyrids APR 19

tlaxi[um EndsMay 4 l(ay LZAPR 22 APR 24

Radiant Coord itra te s3350 RA 00" Dec260" RA *20" Dec

llax2010

ZER

ote: A11 co-ordinates refer to the tequatorial system I

skydnrnrtAY

UFO Times

SPACE NEWSThe ESA Council neeting, at their l{Q

in Paris on }tarch 20t\lzlst, approved anagreenent between the Federal Republicof Gernany and the ESA, on theconstruction of a European Astrotrautcentre (EAc), A11 delegates wereunanimously in favour of the EAC beinglocated in Cologne, which rvil1 beestablished for the selection,

of Europeanrecruitment and trainingastronaut.s.

The centre is set to provide theastronauts for tColumbus I and therHeruesr space plane, two key prograrmesin Europers autonomy in space.

After spending four years ofinactivity in deep space, ESArs probe,Giotto was reactivated on the 19thFebruary 1990. It took experts only 150hours to reactivate Giotto, using theJet Propulsion Laboratory Deep SpaceNetwork (DSN) tracking station inMadrid.

On 14th l{arch 1986, Giotto encounteredHalleyrs Comet at a distance of 150nillion kn fron the Earth., takingphotographs every four seconds,revealing the comet nucleus.

The spacecraft is nov 75 nillion krnfrom Earth and undergoing a series oforbi! control nanoeuvres. Giotto has anew mission - to rendezvous rvith ConetGr igg-Skj ellerup on rhe 10th July 1992.0n the Znd of July 1990, ciott.o willpass lrithin 23r000kn of our planet,using the Earthrs gravitational forcefor a sling-shot effect in order to makethe Conet Grigg-Skj el lerup encounterpossible.

A11 infornation courtesy of ESA andNASA.

If any investigator requiresastrononical infornation to help withthe evaluation of case investigationsplease write to:

Gary .enthony, BIIFORA AnP, 141 f,eringtonStreet, Ertll, orth hnberside, UU3 5IJ.

BUFORA LECTURE SPECIAL

BUDD HOPKINS TO SPEAK IN LONDON17ih July 1990, 7pm

BUFORA ore plooeed io onnounce +hai Budd Hopklns - the

unlled stoteB' leodlng obductlon rEBEorcher wlll be speoklngln London on Tuesdoy, 17th July 1990 o't ihe London BuElnees

School, Sussex Ploce, Ouier Circle, Regenis Pork, London,

NW1. Neoreet Underground le Boker Si, The lecturestorts oi 7.00pm (doors open 6,30pm). Tickeis ore priceda+ / 7.00 for non-members cnd J5,00 for BUFORA m€mb€rsAdvonce booklngs: BUFORA (SL), 15 Southwoy, BurgessHlll, Sussax, RH15 9ST, Chaquas poyoble io 'BUF0RA Ltd'

Dlql UFOCALI - 089E 12 18 86 fon r.rpdotcs38p peok 25p stondo rd

Book eorly os d€mond ls expected io be hlgh.

Lrr Ct rItttr f r l-10 UFO Times

.' 7.,:it t.:;:

A NEF PERSPECTIVE OX tIE ASDUCTIOtr?

Perspectives by John Spencer, 256ppillus., f,ardbact, llacdonald. f12.95

Books about UFO abductions are rrolonger novel. Indeed we have had astrem of then since 1987 anil to justifyits right to exist any ner offering hasto be jusr a little bit different.I Perspectives I maaages to achieve that,even though I do quibble rith itsforthright sub-title railicalexamination of the alieo abiluctionphenomenonn. The trro rords refreshingand irritating sprang more to uy nindshilst I ras reading it.

0f course, sub-titles are often theinvention of an eager publisher and Ican hardly blarne .Iohn for this exampLe- especially not when the Arnericanpublishers of rny own Abduction bookclaimeil in a sub-tit1e that it actuallySOLVED the abduction mystery ! It didnot do so - nor, to be truthful, doesJohn Spencerts offering come close todoing that.

John , as readers will know, is a longstanding BUFORA council rnember and withIlilary Evans was the masterrnind behindour two highly acclaimed compiLationsrUFOs:1947-1987' (Fortean Tomes 7987)and rPhenomenonr (l{acDonald 1988, Avon,USA, 1989). Those lrere wonderful books,but this is his first solo effort in theUFO publishing business - so how does hefare?

Let me say straight away that it is amore thoughtful and fundarnentallyinteresting book than nost titles thatget churned out. Pot boiler is the lastthing this can be ca11ed. It adopts avery particular (and quite unusual )stance that is not exactly guaranteed to

appeal to ruost UFO1ogists - especiallynot those living in the USA, where anarticle expressing some of the ideasdeveloped by the book has alreadygenerated much wrath anongst thereadership of I{UFON Journal. John isalso taking UFo reputation in hand andbraving the American lecture circuit atthis summerrs jamboree in the new UFOhaven of the FLorida panhandle (ie GulfBreeze territory). One can only advisethat he pack a bu1let-proof vestalongside the suntan lotion.

Why is this? In many ways because itsthe sort of book that you night inagineSalman Rushdie would dare write if hewere a UFologist. 1t stands in themiddle of a crowd of believers,expecting the sermon on the nount, andcuts them dor.m uncerernonious 1y with firefrom a well-airned nachine gun. In otherwords, it represents one of the nostdebunking books yet written fron withinthe field and sacrifices more than onesacred cow along the way.

That in itseLf is no bad thing. Indeedit is really very healthy and valuable,because much of what is criticiseddeserved criticism and I cannot arguewith many of the general points that aremade. Nevertheless, i.n an effort to be asort of psycho-social 'new wave I

trailblazer - or trigger a ninetiesphilosophy of post-abductionistUFological rationalism it denonstratesboth what is good about the rmind andmythr approach and what the Americanstend to find so annoying. They claim aEuropean desire to sweep everythingaside by vague ganeralisation in anattenpt to reach theory-basedconclusions. As always, both sides ofthe debate have nerit.

Indeed, in rny view, probably thesingle greatest failing withrPerspectives I is that its author has

UFO Tines 11

litt1e experience as a fieldinvestigator. To an extent that is noreal detriment, because there is a needfor overviews (especially when thetoutsidert IS a UFOlogist - a statusnobody will deny this author). But he islargely comnenting on the failings ofour investigation into the abductionphenornenon - so his acute lack of directinvolvement or familiarity with theevidence creates s orne problems.

The first quarter of the book merelyreflects a potted survey of UFO historyin a fairly superficial manner, nakingpoints that have rnostly been rnade before(eg that the tern rflying saucerr stemsfrom a journalistic errot - that UFOcrashes might be disinforrnation etc ) .This is succinctly packaged together asa t revisionist I view of the pre-Abduction phase of UFOlogy which is notparticularly daring but sets the tonefor what follorrs

Plausible At tenpt

Then, around page 47, John entersbrave new territory. Ile dissects theBetty and Barney Hill abduction frorn1961 - which he regards as the genesisof ALL subsequent cases. It is much tohis credit that he does this not simplyby reading the literature and imposinghis views onto it, but by talking atlength (via transatlantic phone ca11s)to Betty Hi11. I doubt whether Betty istoo happy with his assessnent of hercase (we donrt rea1ly find out) but Johnnakes a plausible attempt to show thatit was effectively a non-rea1 experience(ie a sort of dream/hypnosis fantasyshared by Barney from her visions );although that superirnposed itself uponwhat may have been some sort of realexperience in the first place.

Whilst he does not rea1ly analyse whatthat trigger rnight have been and thereare bound to be manl' UFologists r.rho findhis psychoanalysis inadequate I suspecthe rnay not be too far wide of the mark.Nevertheless, I did begin to find rnyselffar from convinced by Johnrs efforts tosaddle the entire abduction phenomenonon the coat-tai1s of this casesuggesting (if not stating) that thetirne-lapse elernent roithin it (and

subsequent CE 4s) and even the OzFactor, which to me dernarks an alteredstate of consciousness, are all inventedby UFologists and imposed onto this caseand other future examples as we mouldedand shaped the abduction like aberrantor demented sculptures with thewitnesses playing the roLe of the clay!

This will infuriate many people in thefield; even though there is an elementof truth in the argument. How nuch truthis very open question at the moment -and I suspect the blame heaped ontoUFologists, whilst not entirelyunjustified, is grossly over-stated. Infact, therein lies the fundamentalproblem that seerns to dog the ethos ofthis book. It makes a valid point beforelosing it karnikaze-fashion, sometimestrying to pu11 off a Paul Daniels magictrick and vapourise the entirephenonenon.

It is just not tenable to claim thatthe Oz Factor state or even time-lapsesONLY occur in the wake of the Hill caseand as a result of eager-beaverUFologists seeking thern out. I have nodoubt that on occasions time-lapses AREinvented and I have conmented on one ortwo cases where I think I saw thathappen. Ilowever, if you real1y study theUFO literature you see that theseelements DO occur in cases, at least asfar back as the 1954 wave. Also if youinvestigate across boundaries ofdifferent paranormal phenomena(sornething John Spencer seems to berecommending) then you find that the ozFactor is of such importance simplybecause of its universal nature. When Iwas researching rny books outside themainstrearn of UFO1ogy (eg Sixth Senseand Mind Monsters ) I found it fromfir s t-hand investigations intopremonitions, psychic visions, ghosts,

I2 UFO Times

poLtergeists, tirne s1ips, out of bodyexperiences and near death experiences -as well as in count.less studies by otherfield researchers cithin the literature.

To r,ne this is undeniable evidence thatwhat counts is an altered state ofconsciousness of r,rhich tbe 0z Factorjust happens to be a symptom. llhatCAUSES that state or lthat FoLI,OWS once aperson is emersed within it aredifferent questions altogether, and Ifear to deny the existence of thisevidence as a pure invention ofabduction research just rtill not do.

Different Evaluations

John tries a second, nore detailed'analysis of the Kathie Davis case(subject of Budd Hopkins booki Intruders r ). This is fascinating,because you can look at it side by sidewith Paul Devereuxr s assessment inearthlight terms as featured in hisrecent book. You get two who1lYdifferent evaluations. Both cannot becorrect and conceivably neither of thernare... even if the Ilopkins version ofthe truth aLso looks improbable.

I{erein lies another problen. Johnseems only to be interested in casesthat Hopkins provides, even though thereare indications throughout the text thathe is not fuL1y convinced about thistype of methodology.

Budd Hopkins is undoubtedly a keyfigure in Abduction research, partLybecause he has done quite a few personalinvestigations but nostly (f suspect)because his two books have been sopublicly successful in the USA and haveset a cultural stereotype in notion.However, it seems to me to be ratherineffective to focus on this work(dismissing other people almost out ofhand). That creates selectivity of dataand helps to explain what are (to rne)some flawed conelusions whichI Perspectives I reaches.

For instance, the statement is madethat the aliens which emerge frornhypnosis are investigator dependent. . .seemingly because Hopkins always comesup with the standard US alien (ie thesmall grey nen) whereas another American

researcher, Dr Leo Sprinkle, has a rnoremixed variety of entities in his(actually far more extensive and muchlonger terrn ) case bag.

Horrever, a less restrictive approachwould show that l{opkins is co somedegree atypical and it may be that thereare special circumstances in hisresearch why the entities are so limitedin form. overall, there is clearevidence of a more culture doninatedfactor within the entity format (ie -uglyr aggressive creatures in thehirsute South American culture 'clinical srnaller technicians in thetechnocratic US society and polite, taLLgentile tNordic I types in the rathermore reserved British society). That -surely - is more in need ofunderstanding as a key factor in theabduction pattern than nhat I think isthe red herring of why Budd Hopkinssample of cases happen to be sohomogeneous. In my view the answer ismore to do rsith these cases of hisbeing largely quite reeent reports andthus constrained by the current AnericanItemplatet of an a1ien, honed by theextensive publicity for that precisekind of space-being.

Extraordinary Claim

Several t imes throughouti Perspectives r the author claims thatBritish UFOlogy is blindly foLlowingthis nuch criticised Anerican lead (seepage 99 and 130 - for instance) - aconment which, I feel, shows ignoranceof British investigation. John does notreally specify why he believes thatextraordinary elaim, but it is simplyuntrue in my experience.

It may be that a couple of UFOlogistshave used regression hypnosis in themode of Budd Hopkins; although even inthose instances the ax0ount of hypnosisand timing of its use has been nothinglike as excessive or instant. Also - themajority of British UFOlogy - does NOT

use hypnosis in cases and there are moreCE 4 type reports where it has not beenused than there are cases where it has.We also have the Code of Practice (whichplaces sone restriction on the use ofhypnosis) and the recent guidelines forabduction cases - both of which were

UFO Times 13

instigated in Brirain (with kev BUFORAinvolvement ). Then there is theanamnesis work of Ken phillips et al. Sowhere is the basis of these allegationsabout our work?

For me the best part of the book comesr^rith John Spenceris personalinvestigations of tlro Swedish cases.These are interesting reports (theAnders case is, in fact, brieflypreviewed in BUFORA's UFO World 87 fromthe original stories ) .

One of the bookrs rnajor debatingpoints now energes. It is said thatUFOlogy tends to treat witnesses asrnurder suspects and even likens them tovictins of a witch-hunt. It paints apicture akin to wicked investigatorsstrapping their victins under spotlampsand interrogating them in the style ofthe SS! That may not have been the irnageJohn was seeking and might reflect myfrustrations about the text. However, ifI rn'as not mistaken, this is a bilLionmiles removed from the work that I know,where the investigator is trained to 1etthe witness te11 their storv in theirown words as far as they want to go,then he or she goes home and tries tofind an explanation.

lly concern is that any self-respectingwitness reading such views of how wetreat 'victirnsr are pretty unlikeiy togo anylhere near serious groups such asBUFORA. I,lhilst there could be limitedtruth here ln certain circdmstances 1got an impression of over-the-topgeneralisation, which I think willprevent this conment fronr having anyinpact it deserves. A more gentleexpression of the problerns nright havegeneraled less fury- amongst activeI-TF0loeists and s tood sone charce i,isti:irulati.itg change" Such change rnay evenhe a good thing, buit these over-.emohasised aitaclis rvili 1arge1_v ?.,)unheard, f rom IJFOlogists ivhc rri11 sir::p1_r'r:efuse lo accept healed criticism.

There is nruch rnore I could say aboutthls book - but space precludes.Interest-ing points are often foundinterspersed vith rnissed opportunities.For instance, when he briefly discussesthe Alan codfrey case (page 148) andindicates surprise at the news that thename of one of the hypnotists was JoseDh

- the same as claimed by the entity. Itappears as if John Spencer suddenlydiscovered this when he asked a questio;at a lecture after the case waspublished and he does add that he hasnot studied the report in detailbut... then goesquestions about it.

on to pose some

In fact, if he HAD read 'The pennineUFO l"lysteryt, where I wrote up the casein 1982 on behalf of the witness withtranscripts of the hypnosis sessions,then he would have known that this pointwas spotted right away - along withseveral other sinilar clues that amplifyand add to his conments. The textpartially answers sone of John Spencerrsqueries.

I am not criticising him specificallybecause he has not read one of my books,but this is synptomatic of a rnoregeneral dilemma of 'perspectives r . Ithink it is true that if you seek toreappraise the abduction phenomenon andto conment on a particularly strongcase then you owe it to your readers tohave familiarised yourself with the fulLfacts which were, after all, not vervdifficult to get hold of in rhi;instance.

I found 'Perspectivesr to be veryschizophrenic. 0n one page I would beapplauding a point r{e1l made andpondering its irnplications. Turning overthere was a coment that nearly had rnescrearning out aloud in exasperation,

Having said all of that and seerninglyattacked the book's most fundamentalprinciples, 1et me make one thing clear.It is the duty of a new booh on oursubject to give you sonething Lo thinkabcut and to add to lhe .:otticve.:sy, lewsucceed, but rPer:specti{,es ' uildoLbtedlvdoes so, i ,nay aot ag,:ee tviln all oiits conclusions, cr like t.he nay in'^thich it expresses evec some ./ieirs thar-i do support. Ilowever, when a book firesme up to wriling such a long review(which despite the length really doesnot do justice to all the points 1wanted to nake) then it is clearlvuseful .

'Perspectives' is a book I woulddefinitely suggest that you read tojudge John Spencerrs rradicalr concept.

t4 UFO Times

Do we turn the investigation over to thewitness and end the doniaeering and (hethinks) distortiog effect ofrinvestigator controlr? But if re dothis, will we get new insights or aconfusing ness of diverging esotericwaffle that sees us chasing rild storiesalong countless blind alleys? llaybeonly tine will te1l.

Revia by Jemry Rsdles

BUFORA POSTAL LIBRARY

The cdlprehensiyely stocked freelending I ibrary is nff open to alllEnbers. All books are availableagainst a returnab'l e deposit (lesspostage costs).

If you are i nterested in thisservice vri te to: BUFoR (PL), 16Southxay, Burgess Hill, Sussex, Rlll59ST.

LATEST 1{EIJS

II{DEPEI{DEI{T UFO I{ETIIORK1st Annual International UFO

ConferenceSheffield Li brary Theatre

July 14th & 15th 1990

The IUN are pleased to announce that DrVladimir Rubstsov of the Soviet Unionl^lill be speaking at the conference overthe weekend of July 14115. This wilI bethe first tine that a ufologist from theSovi et Uni on has ever I ectured i nBritain. Dr Rubstsov i s the MUFONrepresentatj ve i n Russi a and hasrecently been invol ved wi th thei nvesti gati on of the a1 1 eged I andi ngcase in Voronezh.

PreI irninary outline of speakers: -14th July:1-6pn

Budd Hopkins (USA)Peter Hough (UK)Dave Cl arke & AndyRoberts (UK)

Rattlerra Tale, Editeil by AnthoEy Forth,bi-nonthly 85.00 fror Aothooy ltorthEnterpriser BCtl Xeyhole, Iondon, fClN3r.

Subtitled, rA voyage of theirnagination|, Rattlers Tale is a journalfull of short essays, anecdotes andstories covering nany subjects includingUFos (frorn time to tine). As the editorstates in his prernier issue thatRattLers TaLe is, "...designed to tieyou in knots, stand you on your head andoffer a new train in thought. It is foranyone who has a story to te11 or anidea to share. "

I have certainly enjoyed reading thecouple of issues I have had chance toread and I suggest you try it out too,The spirit of rsrnall pressr publishingcan certainly be found within thesepages. The budding writer is encouragedto participate as the journal currentlyoffers f5.00 for accepted articles. Soget writing !

Rewier by ite Itootten

15th July: Vladimar Rubtsov (USSR)

10an-6pm Jenny Randl es (UK)

Paul Devereux (UK )

Budd Hopkins (USA)

Perry Petraki s (Fr )

Tickets priced 54.00 Saturday f5.00Sunday, Special Two day ticket f8.00.

But for BUFORA members only, aspecial tro day concessi onary rate off7.00 (paid in advance) is on offer(please enclose your n€nbershi p numberri th remittance).

Demand is expected to be high so booknow! Please make you cheques payable to

'Martin Daglessr and send to:rPhantoms | , 84 El I and Rd,

Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2QR

UFO Tines 15

FEAR RESPONSE II{ UF''O REFORIIERS

by Steuart Ganpbell.

lhoge nto feport seeing ltFtog (here ilercribed as rltFio reporterst ) oftea ako reportphysiological effects frich they naturally attriDute to s e iafhrence frm the(assEed) ItfO. Uany ufologirtr believe that ltt0r are reslnnaible; Joes rhcupbellthitrts that the effectr rre du€ to ricroraver eritteil t'y ufos.

I wish to discuss one particular set ofeffects, nel1 described by Raymond Fowlerin UfOs: Interplanetary Visitors (L979). awitness, who alleged a close encounter,felt a tingling sensation which began fromhis feet and ran upwards lhrough his bodyuotil he $as conpletely imobilized.Holrever, he recovered after the robjectldeparted (p.13). Many other witnesses havereported a sinilar tingling sensation,often acconpanied by a t.enporaryparalysis. Since I have experienced thisparticular sFnptom I arn well placed toexplain it!

Recovering fron hepatitis sone 12 yearsago I felt a pain in my chest which Ithought might be a heart attack. Atingling began in my feet and spreadrapidly upwards, paralysing ne as it sent.If I feared a heart attack I was even moreafraid of this paralysis since I did notknow shere it would stop. Fortunately Iremained conscious, though totallyparalysed, and was able to speak, I wasrushed to hospitaL lrhere it was discoveredthat all I had was a bad attack ofhypervent ilation ! The pains rtere not dueto a heart attack.

Ilyperventi lation is a normal humanresponse to acute stress. The normalbreathing rate of around 12 per minuteincreases imperceptibly to 20 per rninute,while at the sane time the volume of eachbreath increases by 50 per cent. Theeffect of this is to nore thaq double theintake of air. While this cannot increasethe uptake of oxygen it can increase therate at which the body discharges carbondioxide. This upsets the bodyrs chenicaLbalance and results in very many sJnnptoxns,including especial.ly tingling andnumbness. Other sytrlptons inc ludedizziness, disturbance of vision, muscle

cure forhyperventilation is to breath into apaper bag - so restoring the COZbalance! A good review oEhyperventi lat.ion was recently given byscience journalist Judith Perara in NerrScientist (3 oec 1988 ) .

It now appears that the physiologicalsynptons of fear are the result ofhyperventilation. In L947 Shafferlisted the syttrptons report.ed byAnerican aircrew during cornbat.t Theseincluded rapid heart beat, dryness ofmouth, sweating, stonach sensations,

pains, tremors aod spaans, fatigue,exhaustion, genef,al weakness and sleepdisturbances. The

tension andpsychological

trernbLing. Theeffects were

irritability, feelings of unreality andan inability to concentrate. Readerswill recognize nany of these synptonsas those reported by UFO reporters. Itwould not be surprising if those nhobelieve they are close to a UFOexperience fear and that this fearproduces hyperventilation. Consequentlynany of the physiological andpsychological effects reported by UFOreporters are expl.icable as a simplefear-response. There is no need tosuppose that ghe effects were theresult of sorne direct influence from analien craft (which is what nost UFOreporters believe they have seen). Evensirnple fear-responses have beenattributed (wrongly) to a supposed UFO.One witness reported how her skinprickled and her hair stood on endwithout realizing that these synptonsare typical fear-responses. Nearly a1lthe physiological synptons attributedeither directly or indirectly to soneinfl.uence fron a UFO are expLicable as

continued on page 19.

t6 UFO fines

LETTERS

If you want to air your views onthe U?O subject, then seod yourcorrespondence to:

rEming PiSeons'

Dear Editor,

I was interested to read Dave ClarketsrReviewr of the Yorkshire UFO SocietyConference in issue 4 of UFO Times,since being a speaker nyself it wouldappear the one he attended nust hsvebeen in another dirnension.

rVery Little r\r:rs said about UFOsthenselvesr, he teLls us. I shouLd havethought it obvious that UFos - neaningcraft of unknown origin - was what theconference was all about. As with rnanyBritish r experts I of today - andyesterday - he entirely misses the pointthat UFO research should be prirnariLy bedirected at discovering the origin andpurpose of such craft, not tinkeringaround lrith the 90%-95% of thenetrologicaL-astronomical-etc. etc.reports rre all know can be explainedaway. Any UFO investigator worth theirsalt is fully aware that the other 5%

exists. YUFOS is a society that rhomes

inr on that 5% and the thilarious storyrof the South African UFO report was, andstil1 is being investigated in a farnore active and detailed nanner than Ihave come across elsewhere.

Since disparagement was seerningly therorder of the dayr, it would seem I

should be grateful to Dave forapparentl.y - not having stayed todenigrate my own presentation (though Iwould been interested to see holr hemanaged to do so). ltis tRaving Mad r

remark gives a conpletely falseimpression of the p.oceedings and I canonly recomend to BUFOBA members thatthey journey to future neetings to judgefor themselves.

Ifotlan OliverLincoln

Editorrs c etrt: I woul.d like to tacklethe points you have nade in two parts.Firstly, Dave gave his own point of viewof the proceedings at Ossett. Theseviews are not. necessarily BUFOMI s or rnyown. He is entitled to his olrn opinions,the same as your good seLf (which sonemenbers of the the UFo connunity seem tohave pitifully forgotren). If he hadpenned a positive review then I wouldhave equally printed it. Itrs a mattef,of you win some, you lose some.

Secondly, itrs news to me that ItFOsrnean - rcraft of unknown originr. Isnrtthis a rather presumptuous and blinkeredstateneot to maAe? Too many UFOresearchers have closed ninds on thesubject when we should be keeping ouroptions open; procuring the data forwhat it is, not for nhat we would likeit to be. I an oot surprised thatwi-tnesseg are readily relating harrowingabduction seenarios if the ufologistscontinue to use words like rcrafttwithin the literature. It is also agrave mistake to disniss the wealth ofinformation that exists {ithin the 1F0data. As the oLd saying goes:- If youthrow away the IFO data you could bethrowing the UFo baby our with the barh-water.

Frankly the South African crash/retrieval is hilarious. But if you vantto believe it, I would not stand inyour way.

As for tinkering. Can ve all concludefrom what you say that Paul Devereux, DrMeaden, the Project Pennine tean andothers who have or are producing non-EThypotheses that are poised to reduce theUtr.O 5% stil1 further are tinkers. Thinkagain as I suspect. your judgerneni nay berrronS.

UFO Times L7

The folloring letter yas passeil to reby Jemy Rrndles. I h.ve deciiled topriot it in the tope that it vill help.

Dear Jenny Randles

lly name is Mickey Geisinger, I readyour book UFo Conspiracy - The FirstForty Years. I think the book was great.

lly nother is in your book, her narne isBetty Cash. Irn writing you because Ithink you can help my mom. lly mother nasburned by radiation from a Ul'o. Ttre [USlGovernnent is covering it up, ithappened in 1980.

And no one has offered to help her, Ithink the Governmeot should help pay forher rnedical bi1ls, she nov has cancer.We want to sue the Government for thecover-up.

What happened to my rnon vould make agreat novie, but I think the GovernEentwould have her kilLed, I really do. Ithink the covernment should pay. I donrtknorr who to turn to. John Schuessler haskept in touch with my mother, but. Ithink the Governx0ent should settLe withmy nom, before she dies, I do[rt knowwho to turn to.

I thought naybe you can help my monget coverage on this, shers been on GoodMorning Anerica, UFO Live, thatrsincredible. But no one has offered tohelp her.

Please heLp her get what shers gotcoming, you are the oflly one I can turnto.

Thank-you,Itictey Geisiager,Texas, USA,

Editorrs Cometrt: The first thing wecan aLl do is write to Betty Cash (c/o103 ltove Ave, London, E].7 7NG, UK),giving our support. Knowing that peopleare behind her and her farnily, would bea tremendous boost" Also a letter to theAmerican Embassy applying pressure wouldonly help. Their address is: 24Grosvenoi Square, London, Wl,

Which ever way one looks at thesituation the US Governnent is 1iab1e,lf it was an intrusion of a foreign

power (and I use foreign irr its nidestpossible context) then the US covernmentdid little to protect its citizens. AndLikewise if the source was US governnenthardware. Pay up Uncle Sam, yournorally in a no win situation.

fittress Bites EacL

Dear Sir,

In reply to Anthony Northrs letter[uT 4, November 1989]. As I an theperson who sighted rhis UFO with theTornado Isee UT 3 Stop Press], I feeLthat I nust disagree lrith hin on nost ofthe aspects in the letter. First to saythat he spent nine years in the RAf heseems to have a remarkable lack ofknowledge of the Air Force.

1. RAF Leaming, North Yorkshire, TornadoMK F3 SQN, Not the east cost, nor farfroo Blackpool.

2. I have heard that UF0s have alwaysbeen recorded by the RAF - Itave justreleased a list of UFo sightings.

3. IIe seems to think that this Tornadowas only on a sortie, when in fact itwould have been scranbled, with Inight add, live weapons. He thinksthat Tornados canno! fly on the Westside of the country. From East toWest rrould take a matter of ninutesin a supersonic fighter.

4. As I have stated above, the fighterwas not on a training mission,therefore it would have been carryinglive weapons.

5. The aircraft did not change to re-heat. As I saw it, the fighteralready had its afterburners glowingand was travelling very fast. Therewas dull flash under the fuselage,not the engines. Tlre smoke trail wasin front of the aircraft as well asbehind and was black not orange, aswhat would cone from the re-heat.

So all in all, your Letter does nothave any resemblance to nhat actuallyhappened.

noe aad address supplied.

18 UFO Times

Dear Sir,

Parts ofadvocating

John Spencerrs paperrrWitness Driven

Investigation" are not withoutplausibility but he overstates his caseby assert.ing that invesligators ofabduction phenonena are all sharingBetty Ei11rs drean and distort awitnessrs story in confornity with theirowD preconceptions. Consider only thequestion of rfalse isolationr, the roz

effectt or, as I prefer to call it, rthecone of siLence I apparently projecteddol'n from the ltFO at its apex. Last yearI interviewed three witnesses who each,quite without pronpt.ing, sponianeouslydescribed experiencing this phenonenon,of rhich none of them had previouslyheard. No doubt nany investigators couldconfirm this and other frequentlyreplicated aspects of the abductionscenario as originating solely from thewitnesses. I therefore cannot acceptSpencerrs reported sighting of Bettyrsdream - I think it must have been aweather balloon or possibly the planetVenus !

Spencerrs concern with the nethodologyof interviewing raises a nore validpoint, reflecting long standing

psychologicaldifferences bet!|eentraditions. I{hethea or not he is anareof it, he is in effect rejecting theI interpretative I approach of Freud andJung in favour of the rnon-directive,client centredr approach of Carl Rogers,who held that ideas may beunintentionally rintrojectedr into therninds of witnesses by interviewers. Nowwhether or not it is true, as Spencerasserts, that the whole corpus ofreported abduction cases is thus taintedby introjection, one virtue of hishypothesis in that it is at leastpotentially testable. Let hin producefor conparison with the mass ofinterpreted evidence a siniLar quantityof reports produced by non-directivecomputer Rogerian interviewing. Toeliminate the bias inherent in hunaninterviewers, let the witnesses respondfreely to a non-directive conputerprogran, such as a developed version ofWeizenbaum t s famous ELIZA, with thescreen output echoed directly to aprinter. If the hardcopy output of sucha prograrn is found on analysis to differnaterially, once a statistically

significant sample has been obtained,frorn the corpus of naterial SpencerStignatizes, then he will have taken aconsiderable step in support of hishypothesis which, without such enpiricalvalidation, rernains nerely ofle moreopinion.

Gorilon ltillingtonQrililford, Surrey.

The following was rrot subnitted as aleiter. llowever, the writer has askedfor it to be printed as a matter ofpublic record.

fithilrrral of ADologies

Follorring the publication ofDocumentation of Paranoia andPersecution Conplex'r in rFlying SaucerReviewt, I feel honour bound to explainto menbers of the Association that theapologies provided by nyself rrereprovided because llessrs Andrews andDelgardos I solicitors clained to havetrdocunentary proof" that I had libelLedthese gentlemen in ny privatecorrespondence to Ann Druffel ofPasadena, California. I t is with regretthat I nust now inform nembers that nosuch "docunentary proofrr of a libel hasever been provided by Messrs Andrews andDelgardo in the eighteen months sincethese matters were raised. I thereforewithdraw the apologies and undertakingsprovided in good faith and demand thatthese gentlemen apologise for theiractions and pay ne ny costs. I alsowithdrart the apology provided by GordoflCrighton, editor of rFlying SaucerReviewr, and I denand the Right of Replyto the deeply 1ibellous and insultingcoments that have appeared in ehismagazine about those of us who sinplyhold different opinions to those held bythe Editor and contributors of thismagazine.

Paul FullerBonseJr, f,arpshire

Contitrued fror page 16

nornal huoan fear-responses, usuallynanifested in the effects othyperventilation.

It is nov evident that the Dhrasesrparalysed with fearr and rscared-stifflderive frorn the effects ofhyperventilation. Mankind has alwayssuffered fron such a response underextreme stress or in a state of fear.References : -1) L.F. Shaffer, rFear and courageAeriaL Conbat I J. Consult. Psychol.(1947): pp. 137-I4:t;-

in11

UFO Tines t9

2nd -nme

7th July

14-6.tuly

17th July

BIIFOM London Lecture Anmre-sis r4dateSpeaker Ken Phillips

Northanptonshire lJF0 Research Centre meeting: FriendsMeeting House, I^Ie1lington St, Northampton.the Corn Gircles llystery Speaker Steve Gamble.F\rrther details from: Er.nest Still, 46 Occupation Rd,Corby, Norttunts, Meeting Starts at 1.3OF.

IIIN rPh rtms of the Sky' ccrference, SheffieldSee inside for details.

Special BUF0|RA Ladm Lectrre - at the L.B.S.fudd Hopkins - speaks on his latest aMuction research.Price !7.00 non-BUFOM members, f5.00 BIMRA members.l€cture starls at 7pn. Advance ticket sales frorn:BUFORA (SL), 16 Souttway, Burgess Hill, Sussex, RH159ST.

BUF0M lectures are held every first Saturday of the month at the london BusinessSchool, Sussex Place, Outer Circ1e, Regents Park, london, NW1. The LBS is only a fiveminute walk from Baker Street tube. I€ctures slart at 6.308rn. AI1 are ne1crc. Fulllecture prograrrrnes are available frorn BUFORA (LP), 16 Southway, Burgess Hill, Sussex,RH15 9ST.

If you have an event that you wish. to publicise on this page free of clErge thenwrite to the editorial address (page 2) with your request, three months in advince.

UFO fines is published by BUFoRA Ltd and printed by Newton Mann