0143-8840

-cThe Journal oTransient Aerial PhenomenaMarch 19aa \Zo l- rrrne 5 No - 2

Pubtdrrd by tho Sdthh Unidontifird Flying Object Rcrcrch Arrochtion

L[-E*_J".9_U-E U_A"L_,*a.E -_IEANS_II N r A E R r A L p H E No r{ E N ADevotecl to the sc:ientific study of unusual aerial phenomena,

Ma.rch 1.gaA Vo -l- ltrrre 5 No . 2Published by : 1'HE BRITISH UNIDENTIFIED t'LyING ollJECT RESEARCH

ASSoCTATTON (BUFORA Ltd)

Fldi tqq .!4 ..9hlgf : S..L Gamtrle, MSc, FIMt,S, MIST, l'BIS, FRAS

E{!tg-qiat. F-oqqd: R.S. Digby, R.J. Lindsey, , A. Wesr

Qqnqql-_t-4nt. : Richard Beet, MAIIi(Dip), FRAS, FIJISJ.c. Shaw, TBIPP

Thr:.IOURNAL OI"'TRANSIF:NT At:RIAl, PHHNOMENA is published in Harch andSeptember each year by the British Unidentified Fl5'ing Object ResearchAssot:i at i clr. I,tcl.Chairman: Arnold West

Hditorial enqttir.iers shoulcl be addreisr;e:d to the Editor-in-Chief (J-TAP),40 Jones Drove, Whittlesey, Peterborough, PE? zHt{. The EDITORIAL BOARDw:ill be glacl to consider contributions fron any source. The Board nay seekadvice on the suitability of contributions for publication fron externalrefet'ere:s. Itor guidance please refer to the inside back cover of thispttbiicittiotr. No guarantee of publication can be given. The views expressedby cont.r'ibutors are not nec:essarl ly those of ther Flditorial Bcrard or BUFORA.

Single copies of naterial from this issue of the Journal of TransientAerr j al Phenonena nay be reproduced f or personal , norr-ronnercial use.Permission to reproduce all or part of any page must be obtained from t5ellclitor-in"Chief at the address above. Copyright is reserved b-v B1F9RA Ltd.

Enquiries concerning membership of the British Unidentified Fiying Objectreseart:h Associatiorr (BUF0RA) should be sent to the Membership Secretary,l6 Scluthway, Burgess Hill, Sussex, RHIS gST.

'l'her Journal of Transient Aeri a.t l'henomena i s sent f ree to members ofBUFORA and r:n att exchange basis to selected individuals and organisationsthrouglrout the worlcl. It may also be purchased from the Director ofPublications, 16 Southway, Burgess I{iIl, Sussex, RHIS 9ST.

I)etaj-is of othr:r BUITORA publications nay be obtained from the Direct6r ofPublications at the adclress above.

Arlvr:r'tisment r:omnunications should be addressed to the Director ofPttblic;ations, and will be accepted on the basis that the product or servicebeing offrrrcd is pertinarrt to thr: science ancl study of transient aerial;:henomena. Classifiect advertising is not accepted.

ltis_ltl4\l 'E41u:s.

FULI PAGE f.45HALF PAGE f25 (vertical or horizontal)QtrARl'[i]r ]'AG[i t15E ICHI'H PAGE T 8

Pl,HASll N0TII : All advertisements are black and white only.

EDITORIALI1ANY STEPS FORI^IARD, THE DEATH ()F THE S I NGLE CASE

Steve Gamb1e, Director of Research.

fn this issue of JTAP we studytwo, important, and notnecessarily un-related topics.Both these are methods whi-chare well founded in science,and rarely (and even thenclumsily) applied byUFOIogists.

The two methods f refer to arefirstly the application ofstatistical methods to thestudy of UFO Phenomena and,secondly, to the principle ofrecursl_ve examination ofevidence.

Itlany years ogor when I firstjoined the BUFORA Researchteam, we had a fairly activestati-stical section under theleadership of Peter Hitl.Peter went on from here toserve as both BUFORAT sDirector of Research and to bethe first chairman of ICUR(ttre fnternational Committeefor UFO Research). UnderPeter. several interestinganalyses were carried out.

The basic philosophy behindstatistical analysis is thaterrors in observations can beminimised by combining manysimilar observations together.Consider the paper onestiamtion of duration of assigting published by BobDigby, Ken Phitlips and myselfin a recent i-ssue of JTAp ( 1) .In Table Two of this paper,where a group of UFOlogistswere asked to estiamte thelenght of time a slide showinga UFO was projected, theestimates ranged from 2seconds up to 180 seconds. Itshould be remembered that allthese rwitnessesr observed thesame event, for the same

period of time, yet there i-sup to a ni-nty fold differencein answers. Just imagine ifyou had built an entire theoryabout the causative agent ofUFO reports based on thetestomony of one wj_tness andthat witness just happened tobe either the one who guessedlB0 seconds or the one whoguessed 2 seconds (botfr ofwhich are inaccurate (2)). Ifyou consider the valuesobtained from the 46 peoplewho took part in thisexperiment, you find thearithmeti-c mean to be 13.67seconds, which is much moreaccurate. If you exclude thevalue of 180 seconds as beinga considerable outlying value,the mean comes down to being9.978 seconds whichcorresponds well wj-th the modeof the data (ttre mode beingthe most frequently recordedvalue) at ten seconds (seeFigure one).

So from just a briefexamination it can be seenthat fairly basic statisticscan help to produce a moreaccurate view of what actuallyoccurs an UFO events.Traditionally UFOlogists havetended to adopt the individualcase approach i.e. similar tothe law courts. Each case isconsidered on it's own merits,and either the witness is'guilty' or innocent of havingseen something genuinelyunidentified.

I am not advocating that weneed to forget everythingexcept statistcal methods.Indeed, what we need is acombinati-on of the twomethods. The fieldinvestigators need to evaluate

Journal of Transient Aeriar phenomena, Marctr lggg page 33.

r_

Editorial cont .....

{5

A

figrrrre llnellu-ber lqtF

Gfo=erlra.ti*rr= lf=Tire E:rtira.teil

B lr1 t!. 1g t'l 14 !.5 t+ is ,t0 l80s*..,0r,,i_-

Fitilrrre lrs

flrtsratieallru* F.essl*-

[speat*i ilrecurssGrafiuallu Gctting

llear*r ?r€e *csttlt

**"-$ i *'rrcr Y4+lLrtr-1ftl*rqtJ 5L'l -

;j

intIi!i{

It

IiI

,rl

1l r.

ilurfuer tf fi*= f,are f,nalEs*i[

Journal- of Transient Aeria1 Ptrenomena, Harch 1988 Page 34.

Editorial cont

each of the cases they workor, whilst the researchersshould group these together toattempt to extract patterns orto define as precisely aspossible characteristics ofthe phemonena.

Another problem with thestatistical approach, is howdo you explain to a witnessthat they a just a sma1l partof a much gfreater who1e. Anorganisation such as BUFORAmay have approaching 10,0O0cases on itrs files. It iscommonly regarded that anindividual is lucky to haveone UFO experience in theirwhole 1ife. In some of themore interesting cases, thewitness may become so involvedin their particular case thatlarge amounts of their tiferevolve around it, How do youexplain that their whole lifejust reduces to one number in,perhaps, several million ofreports worldwide ?

The second problem that I wantto air is the subject ofrecursive analysis of cases. Ibelieve that this is an areawhere we should also makeprogress. A suprising numberof investigators (and somewitnesses) become upset ifanybody makes comment on acase they have investigated. Ido not include here stupidcomments, but sensibleanalysis. Yet constructivecritism is a valid way ofmoving forward. It comes downto I two heads are better thanoner . Certainly it is a methodused at the BUFORA NationalInvestigations Committee. Herecases are discussed, andoccasionally suggestions aremade for extra work that couldbe carried out. By opendiscussion we get nearer thetruth. Once the case reports

reach the Research department,they are examined again, andin some cases additionalcomments added. What f amproposing is that, whilst wemay never obtain entirely 1O0?accurate information in anyone case, by encouraging theexamination and re-evaluationof cases we may get nearer thetruth. The kind of approach Iam proposing is showndiagramatically in Figure Two.

A11 to often, however, insteadof raising guestions toclarify points or to highlightareas of further study, thesecritical evaluations turn intopersonal attacks on fellowresearchers. These get us nowhere. By all means comment onanothers research orinvestigation, but make itpositive critisism. We areafterall supposed to beworking towards a common goal.

REFERENCES

1. Gamble, S.J. ; Digby,R. S. and Phil1ips, K(fgeZ) rime Estimation ofSimulated UFO Events.JTAP 5, pp 26-3L.

2. see also Correspondenceby PauI Euller in thisissue concerning theapplication ofstatistical methods toUFO research.

Meeting cards and applicationforms are available from theregistered office (pleaseenclose SAE) :

BUFORA16, SouthwayBurgess HiIlSussex, RH15 9ST.

Journal of Transient Aerial phenomena, Dtarch lggg page 35.

L

THE UFO. AN UNIIJENTIFIEI] FORI,l OF CREATIVI''

Dr Alexander G. Keul and Ken Phillips.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the work of Keul andpsychological testing to the evaluationfollows on from earlier descriptions ofincludes the results of recently completed

Ph:--:;of -l:

L:^:--

cc:---:: -

]-ngIt

and

the,-uly

(ttris paper was originally presented by Ke::Fourth International UFO Congress held in L:1eB7 )

Ladj-es and Gentlemen,

Since organisationalcoinplications have preventedmy colleague Alex Keul fromlanding i-n this auditorium,you have to listen to thefield investigator of theproject instead. The followingpresentation is part two,f ollowing on frorn ourcontribution to the new BUFORAbook ( 1 ) as part one, anddeals with more psychologicaldetails of UFO reportersagainst a control group.

Our budget time and moneywas and is severely limited,so even after a BUFORA grantfor tapes and fares (deservingthanks) our study does notreach dimensions where itcould be calledrepresentatlve. It is morelike probing the sea-watertemperature with your toes asan instrument

In part one of our joint paper(1), we have commented on thedivergent findings of thecouple of psychological UFOreporter studies : "What wecan safely say as a result ofpast studies is that IJFOreports cannot bedist j-nguished f rom phantasiesby means of their contents,that with the exception of

Schwartz UFO :=;show psycholc:::from the ger:3::-espec ia I ty

::. tot on,- 1q6

encountertt/ " a-areporters. Dosupport or 3

conc lus ions ? "

Our study oi ---a: ::: -^:r-erpsychology use: --:-:=: :=. ==rchinstruments :

1) The Al;:-l'11,::- : - anintervietr,' : t:-=::lecomprisinq :--,::- ---,.;o

questions =-:: --- :=:=:::a1data, lif e :-:: --:--l:r:esand socia- =-------::3s,medical :'=---:'.-, ISPclaims, ::--:-lusconvictions =---: :::':1tbelief sys-.s:--. : lreANAMNESIS is: -.-::-'-:awfilter, fa: i: : - anyspecialconstructed i:: a -.:::c-scale orienta--' : -. : :.?:eare the regic::s -,-- :.;::-chUFO reporters ::ii:: irom"people in tne s --:e

=---" ?

The Rorschac: -:: <cl-ottest, a a-assical"projective" pe:s.:talitytest method co::f rcntingthe examinee ',r':-

j--:t tenblack and rvhite andcoloured inkblcts andwith the guestion "I,/hatcould this be ?".

::: - ---ICDe-: - -- -:^^^:___--=>c

,1 \

2)

papers by Sprinkle and

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, Marctr 1988 Page 36.

Unidentified Creativity cont. . .

3) and last, a pilot studywas made using theEysenck PersonalityInventory (or E.P.I), aso-called "objective"personalityquestionnaire, to re-check briefly some firstresults obtained by Scott(3) in Great Britain.

To start with the ANAMNESISevaluation : 15 ', CLOSEENCOUNTER" reporters, 15 ESPreporters (mostly contactedvia ASSAP) and 10 controlsubjects from Great Britainwere interviewed in the lastthree years (see Table 1). Asthe total case numbers arerather small, w€ only examj-nedthe raw-data list to findsignificant values by means ofstatisti-cal examinations withthe chi-square or Fisher-Yatestest.

There were more female thanmale observers in the list ofcases coming in directly toKen Phillips, the fieldinvestigator, ot provided byBUFORA/ASSAP and their people.The age span of the reporterswas between 20 and 60 years.Evaluation part one hasalready demonstrated that UFOreporters do not deviate fromthe general population withregard to demographic

omit themfeatures, so wehere.

However, the.high (tut non-significant) unemployment ratein the close encounter group,

But the real suprise of thisstudy is at the top of Tab1e 2

Compared to the controlgroup, close encounterreporters showed a highlysignificant tendency toanswer ANAMNESISquestions no . 25 ( "Do yourecall your dreams?" ) andno. 26 ("Have you dreamedabout UFOs or flying?")with 'lYesrr. This tendencyis not so prominent inthe ESP reporter group.We did not do whatBlackmore (3) didasking for frequencies ofdream recall and flyingdreams. In her Bristolsurvey, 57"< reporteddream recall once a monthand more often. Ourcontrol group shows aboutthe same proportion.

Flying dreams were reported toBlackmore in 2Be" of her sample

more often than in ourcontrol group. Compared to theBristol survey L982, our dreamrecall rates for UEO and ESPreporters are stillsignificantly higher, whereasthe number of flying dreamrecallers is not.

The prevalence of dream reca1land the association with themore rare category of flyingdreams rj-ngs the alarm forfurther in depth psychologicalevaluations : It means thatthe average close encounterreporter in our sample shows aIow threshold between dreamand waking states as well assome congruence between whathe/she experienced in "real1ife" - a close UFO eventand the contents of his/herunconscious. The region ofimagery and phantasy will bethe focus of a new studystarting this year and using

together withsignificant

the mostwork-career-

financiala ttclose

social

studies dissatisfaction (aIsopresent in the ESP group) andthe prevalence of family,social anddissatisfaction formsencounterdissatisfaction cluster" .

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, March 1988 Page 37.

Unidentified Creativity contTABLE ONE

EVALUATION OF BRITISH ANAMNESTS PROJECT

Number of casesCE15

ESP15

control10

Fresh cases (under3 years old

Feqa 1e/male s/6 Lo/s 6/4

Interview age class: Under 2020-2930-3940-4950- 59over 60

02B410

163140

231301-

(e.g. broken home)

'ruprootedrr (movedmore than 5 times)

EmpMore than 3 siblin

oyment manualofficeself-employedhousewifestudentunemployed

0027 n.s. 4 2

4312

43o

3302

2210

retired O 0 1sick/invalid 0 1 OzTTo/o--

Satisfied with work,sturlies/ 3/22*** 12/Ig** 20/4not (cumulative)marital status single 5 7 4

marri-ed 4 6 4cohabiting 5 0 O

divorced 0 1 1widowed 1 1 1

totaldivorced 2 I 2Ileq married,non cohabiting 6 g 6 .children none '

r-23-5>5

4I0

51I

Satisfied wj-th family, sociallife/notno clos

3/a 7/52

e/ro

aI group member notatis with fi-nanciasituation/not 2/5 6/5 5/5

Serious illness, handicap 6 3 1Insomnia 6 5 4

KEY: * indicates statistically significant result

Journal of Transient Aeriar phenomena, March lggg page 39.

labeIanlrmore

Unidentified CreativitY cont

the 'rMemory, fmagining, andCreativity Interview Schedule"by Wilson and Barber, USA.

A row to be considered for amoment is ANAMNESIS questionno. 32 'rHave you ever had areligious or mYsticalexperience?". As alteredstates of consciousness inthis age of secularization donot necessarily get the social

more than one event to tell,and that four of them (or 279<)reported multiple ESPphenomena (l to 5 differentcategories compare with KeuIand Phillips (1) page 236). Inthe Audience Selection survey1980, 26z. of the respondentssaid "Yes, (I) have ESP'r (ref5, page I52), but definitelynot all of them were multipleESP reporters.

In the alleged close encountercases, it does not seem to beas simple as "UFOs cause ESPor vice versa". In six of thefifteen cases, ESP startedbefore the UFO episode, infive cases, together with orafter the UFO episode, inthree cases, there was noself-reported ESP at all andone case remains unclear.

ESP surveys are still in ashaky positi-on because they

safeparapsychologist to feel thedignity to down-grade UFOresearch), but the overallphenomenon in the UFO ESParea j-s already clearlyvisible : Some people focusclose UFO and ESP events.Hypnotherapists Barber andlVilson (6) call them "fantasy-prone personalities" andesti-mate them to be 4z of thegeneral population.

members andacquaintances also allegedIysaw UFOs or experienced ESP toa significant extent. fn thefamily, this happened almostexclusively in the maternalline, suggesting kind of a"UFO/ESP heredity".

The next two questions( ewatrunsrs no . 45 and 48 )shown in Table two cover

"re1igious /mystical "(compare thediscrepancy between churchmembership and spiritualitYfurther down this table), itdoes not suprise us that thisevent category is in the usualrange. Blackmore (ref 3, Page235) got 19U positive rePliesto a simitar question in hersurvey.

Moving downwards on Table two,we find indications foranxiety and vegetativelability in both reporter are founded on sometimesgroups compared to thecontrols.

More pronounced and this isthe second important resultis the concentration ofalleged ESP experiences inboth the close encounter and(of course) the ESP reportergroup. In part one of thisevaluation, we quoted theAudience Selection survey of1980 on self-reported ESP inGreat Britain. 64q< of therespondents said they had had"some psychic experience" (5).BOU ESP in the UFO group isnot high above that value, and93? in the ESP group is nowonder, either.

That the close encounterreporter group, nevertheless'contains "birds of anothercolour", is documented bY thefact that the majoritY of ESPreporters in this grouP had

doubtful self-reports (nosupport for a

Family

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenonena, ltarch 1988 Page 39.

Unidentified Creativity cont

TABLE TWOEVALUATION OF BRITISH ANAMNESIS PROJECT PART TWO

Recalli-ng dreamsUFO dreamsFlying,

CE14**

B* **

ESP13

control*5n-s 16

Nightmares 6

Vig'ilance maximumnot in evening"Habj-t breaking"before observatlonaccident prone"Life event" around

65

observation

Religious, mysticalexperi-ence 7 n.s. 2

Itleaninq in life 9 10 6Medical treatment for

severe reason 5 9 n.s 3Taking drugs for illness 4 1 1Non-righthanded 3 1 2Wearingqlasses B B 6

DepressionNervousnessDizzinessFaintingFits

37**I113

57**621

32230

Hiqh/Iow blood SSUTE

After effects of observationNarcotics takeExperienced ESP/notMultj-p1e ESP phenomenaSupernatural origin of ESPFamily, friends UFO, ESP

7

L2/342

14/ r*41

7 /3*

r/e00

2/B6 /2*

Church, religriousmernbership/not

Spiritual side of

group

life

2/T3 n.s

LI/3 n.s

2/13 n.s

9/2 n.s

3/7

6/4important/not

Read UFO literatureRead science fiction

11*5

7 n.s3

Family belief /disbelief ,observation not told

Positive social reactionsobservation/negative, in-difference, not told

Self reportingChange in life

7/7

2/6

91o*

4/5

4/7

64

Journal- of Transient Aerial Phenomena, Itlarch 1988 Page 40-

external versus internalreligiosity. The results makeclear that UFO and ESPreporters are secularized the high

Unidentified Creativity cont

membership in a religiousgroup versus spirituality, or

"children of our time".

UFO reporters have read moreUFO books than ESP reportersor controls.

Positive and negative familyreactions after the allegedUFO or ESP events were aboutfifty : fifty, but reactionsfrom friends and communitymembers were more oftennegative than positive.

Probably due to the moresingular character of UFOevents in our sample (seeTable three, top row), theyproduced significantly morechanges in life orientationthan did the more frequent ESPevents. But this does not givea complete picture of thesituation. There was more thanone "repeater" in the CEcategory with no alleged UFOevent before the closeobservation, but with moresightings following it.

Next five rows of Tab1e three: A definite belief systemoccult or alternative cannotbe detected in both reportergroups compared to the controlgroup. Even with a high amountof indifference in the controlgroup - i.e. 5 persons gave nospecial opinion towardsparapsychology, only 4 pro and1 contra -, opinions andlatent beliefs match thereporter groups, with theBermuda Triangle as anexception. The same goes forinterest in ancient cultures,real or imaginary, and socialcriticism. No UFOs or ESPevents are needed to open

people's eyes to the decaY ofThatcher Island.

Reporters and controls do notdiffer in the next row, but

number ofhallucinatory episodes ( aquestion adopted fromBlackmore (ref 4, page 243) isi-nteresting. Blackmore (ref 4,page 238) gave a hallucinationreporting rate of 45?. in her1981 Bristol sample. Ourhallucination reporting ratesare between 60? (controls) andB0? (reporters).

Tt has to be underlined thatall but one reporter hadalready heard about UFOsbefore the alleged closeencounter.

A last interesting feature isthat belief in life afterdeath stiIl outnumbers beliefin life in outer space in bothreporter groups. For belief inlife after death, Blackmore(ref 4, page 238) got 429c. ourUFO and ESP reporters show asignificantly higher belief insurvival.

The results (shown in Tablefour) of the Rorschach Projectin Austria and Great Britain(running from 1980 up-to-date)are almost disappointing incontrast to the ANAMNESISfindings. A total of well over100 Rorschach tests wereconducted by both authors, butno recent standardizationattempts have been found forthis instrument in EuroPe. Aswe were not eager to use Pre-1960 standards, weexperimented with a recentAmerican "object relational"(psychoanalytic ) evaluationmethod but left it, again forthe reason of a comPlete lackof European calibrations. Whatwe finally did was a simPle'

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, llarctr 1988 Page 4L.

Unidentified Creativity cont

TABLE THREEEVALUATION OF THE BRITISH ANA},INESIS

GROUP CE :::---:cl-

Experie.nced Before

Interest,Belief systems :

pro/anti parapsychologypro/anti astrologypro/anti spiritismpro/anti Bermuda Trianglepro/anti Von Daniken

7 /O n.s.9/Z n.s.6/5 n. s.

LO/r *6/2 n. s.

u-=o'-

1/L2/4

:/4

Interest in O1dAtlantis/noSuperstitionsState of society

Egypt,

negativenegative

7/2 n.s.13I4

Ale $ = 1/1v/

-55l-23

Had hallucinations/noneHeard about UFOs before

experienceUFO origin outer spaceBelief tife in spaceBelief life after death

5/2 n.s.L4!

67 n.s.B*

B/2 :. s.

105g*g*

a'4

KEY : n.s. = rtot signi_ficant, *

more general check. Whenpeople look at inkblots, theymay give realistic responses(e.g. "a house, a tree, peopledancing" ) or imaginary ones(e.g. "a fairy palace, a magictree, fairies dancing" ) . Wesimply counted the number ofimaginary responses in allreporter and controlRorschachs.

In Table four, it is visibteeven without chi-square teststhat all differences betweenreporter and control groups,both in Austria and GreatBritain, are not significant.The British control grouppercentage of rmagr_naryresponses is even higher thanthose of any of the threeobserver groups ( Uf'O and

= significant

ESP).

Conseguently, it i:a s -_: besaid that when us - ::r :heRorschach "cr3 tec--ivet'personality test, ro :'gheramount of non-rea1 conte:'t--s isdetectable for alleged I-FC andESP observers.

Third, and last, we Cld aquick check with the "EysenckPersonality Inventory" (orEPf) just to re-examine anearlier claim. by Scott ( inref 3 ) that lr* -sritish

"high

IFootnote, * according to are-check done by us trying tore-convert his fuzzypercentage values into (sma1l)case numbers. ]

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, March lgBB page 42.

Unidentified Creativity cont

TABLE FOUR

RESPONSES TO THE RORSCHACH TEST

totalnumberof

observers

totalnumber

ofRorschachresponses

totalnumber

ofimaginaryRorschachresponses

percentageof

imagi-naryresponses

AUSTRTA

Distant observers

Close observers

Control group

n=

11 =

n=

16

9

L2

2L6 resp.

134

267

L4 im.r = 6.5e"

10 = '7 .5e"

18 = 6.72

NS

NS

BRITAIN

Distant observers

Close observers

ESP observers

Control group

n=20

n=2211 = 9

n=10

405

446

I47

148

37

40

T2

1B

= 9.13

= 9.03

= 8.2%

=L2.22

ns

ns

ns

contact't (= alleged cE III andCE IV) subjects showed a mostsignificant (see footnote onprevious page) number of highneuroticism values in the EpIcompared to the control groupof 30 people.

As you can see (from Tablerive), both in our allegedclose observer group of sevenpersons and in our ESpobserver group of five peopleno deviations from our controlgroup and the Eysenckstandardization sample (7)with respect to extroversionand neuroticism were noticed.Not even the two alleged closeencounter witnesses of thethird and fourth kind showedthe "disorder" reported byScott (ref 3, page 154).

What was detected was amajority of high 1ie scalevalues in the EPIs of UFO andESP observers. According tothe EPI Manual, a lie scalevalue of n4 or 5 would beconsidered the cutting pointwhere inventory answers ceasedto be acceptable" (ref 7, pageL4). This is true for fiveclose observers, four ESPreporters, and four controlgroup members.

This means that most UFO/ESPobservers produced a non-validEPI. Apart from Eysenck'snaive optimism to try torrcapture" central personalitytraits with only 57 paper andpencil questions, our UFO andESP examinees simply refusedto cooperate. Scott actually

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, llarch l98B pag,e 43.

Unidentified Creativity cont

TABLE FIVE

EVALUATION OF THE BRTTISH EYSENCK PERSONALTTYTNVENTORY PILOT STUDY

E.P.I means, (standard deviation)

extroversionscale

CE reporters

ESP reporters

Control group

Standardizationsample range

wrote that he only used theneuroticism scale of the EpI(ref 3, page 153). one wondershow many test twisters passesundetected ( or as ',UFOneurotics") j-n his sample?

Lesson to be learned : Forgetallegedly "ob jective'r testswhen you want to understandUFO and ESP reporters in-depth !

After this staccato ofstatistics and implicittheory, let us finish with abrief summary in the form oftheses :

a) A macro-sca1e interviewform called ANAMNESIS, d)the Rorschach inkblottest and the EysenckPersonality Inventory (apaper and pencil test)have been done withnearly 100 people fromAustria and GreatBritain.

b) rn the ANAMNESTS, close

e)

4.e (3.0)

4.2 (1.e)

3.2 (1.8)

o4

a high percentage ofdream recaIl and flYingdreams, a high number ofself reported ESP events'a "family cluster" ofother UFO/ESP reports, rloparticularalternative

cccult orbe I ief

system, but belief inlife after death.

With the excePtion ofsocial dissatisfaction'flying dreams and "1ifechange after event",close encounter reporterscannot be differentiatedfrom ESP reporters in ourstudy.

A clinical "projective'lpersonality test - theRorschach 't did notyield differences between(uFo/nsp) reporters andnon-reporters with regardto imaginary responses.

A paper and Pencil testconstructed around globalpersonalitY traits usedto re-examine thefindings of anotherBritish researcher did

neuroticismscale

1iescale

c)

encountershowed a

reporters" social

dissatisfaction cluster'r,

Journal of Transient Aerial phenomena,

7

5

10

2000

L2.9 ( 3.3 )

10.0 (4.s)

11.8 (3.6)

10. B 13 .6

e.1 (3.3)

10.4 (4.3)

8.3 (3.3)

7 .5 - 10.7

Flarch 1988 Page 44.

Unidentified Creativity cont

not reproduce the allegedclinical findings, butfailed altogether.

f) The logical avenue offurther research afterthis Austro-Britishproject with a mini-budget will be to take alook at creativity,phantasy, daydreamingr,imagery and alleged ESPevents of UFO reporters,particularly of the"close encounter" type ofexperience.

CONCLUSION

Are UFOs an unidentified formof creativity? ft could bemore that than a nice headlinefor this paper. Thanks tocontinuous help from BUFORAand ASSAP and work for weeksof filed investigator andevaluator, some first clueshave been secured. We are notsuggesting a reductionist,rrcomplete psycholgization" ofUFO research, but the propermethod for cases where thealleged witness is the onlyresidue. The psychologicalhypothesis for ttcloseencountersrr definitely gainsmomentum. We hope to report onthe next part of ourtrajectory in the earlynineties.

Thank you for your interest!

REFERENCES

1) Keul, A.G. & Phif1ips, K.( fgeZ) essessing theWj-tness : Psychology andthe UFO Reporter. pp 23O-237, IN: UFOs 1947-1987Edited by Hilary Evans &John Spencer. EorteanTomes, London.

2) Pischer, K.; Keul, A.G. &Phillips, K. (1985)

3 ) Scott, M. ( 1983 ) rw:l'arabone, R. ( Editor )Proceedings of theInternational UPIARcolloquium on humansciences and UFOphenomena. UPIAR, Milano.

4) Blackmore, S. (1984)

5) Haraldsson, E (1985)Representative NationalSurveys of PsychicPhenomena. Journal of theSociety for PsychicalResearch _11r pBOl

6) Barber & Wilson (1983)

7) Eysenck & Eysenck (1964)

Unfortunately, a complete listof references for this paperwas not to hand as we closedfor press. We will bring youan amended tist as soon as itbecome available

DATE FOR YOUR DIARY

ft is hoped that a EuropeanConference will be held inBrussels sometime betweenSeptember and December 1988.

We hope to publish details ofthis in our next issue.

ED.

(This work wassupported by a seriesResearch Grants fromResearch Department. )

partlyof smallBUFORAI s

Journal of Transient Aerial- Phenomena, ttarch 1988 page 45.

A.G.M. REPORT.

(ttris is brief summary, theful1 minutes of the meet j-ngwill be published at a laterdate. ED. )

The 19Bg AGM of BUFORA Limitedwas held on Saturday 5th March19BB in the Lecture Theatre atthe London Business School,London NWl.

On opening the proceediflgs,the Chairman, Arnold West waspleased to announce that MajorSir Patrick WaIl, MC, VRD, RM(Reta), had accepted the postof President of BUFORA. MrIVest then went on to statethat Sir Patrick had long heldan interest in the area andhad asked a number ofquestions in Parliament. (seereport at foot of this page,kindly supplied by ErnestStill). Sir Patrick hadrecently written a foreword tothe BUFORA book "Phenomenon",which would bewithin a few days.

available

The AGM also saw a number ofmembers of Council change.Lionel Beer, who has servedBUFORA in a number ofcapacities over the years wasstanding down from Counci-l.Fortunately BUFORA was notlosing Lionels services as hehad accepted a position asVice-President. Both KenPhillips and Robin Lindseywere also standing down.Arnold West expressed BUFORAsthanks for all their efforts.

The meeting confirmed theappointments of Phillip Mantleancl Simon Rose who had joinedthe Council during the courseof the year. Arnold West andStephen Gamble were re-electedto Council.

New members appointed toCouncil were Andy Roberts andDavid Clarke. Both are activeinvestigators with Andyworking in West Yorkshire andDavid coveringYorkshire.

South

OBJECT IN THE SKY STILL A MYSTERY

The mystery object seen on Monday evening on the R.A.F.Radar System has still not been identified, an AirMinistry spokesman said to-day. "The normal investigationgoes on" he added.

,favelin fighter aircraft from R.A.F. station at OdihamHampshire were sent up to investigate the object, whichwas seen flying west along the english channel. MajorPatrick WalI (C. Haltemprice) is to ask the Air Ministryon May the 15th, how many "Unidentified Flying Objects"have been detected this year as compared with previousyears; and wheather the object; picked up by radar overthe Dover straights on April 29th has been identified.

Source : Kettering Evening Telegraph,Wednesday lst May L957.

Held in Kettering Reference Library Files.

Journal of Transient Aerial- Phenomena, Harch 1988 Page 46.

THE [i4YSTERY CIRCLES - STATUS REPORT PART 1.

PauI Fuller.

ABSTRACT

For a number of years circular depressions have been observedin fields of cereal crops. These have frequently beenattributed in the popular press as being the landing sites ofextraterrestrial spacecraft. Paul Fuller has been one of theleading researchers attempting to establish the true cause ofthese depressions.

In addition to "Mystery of the Circlesrr, a report jointlyauthored with Jenny Randles, PauI has recently completed anextensive survey amongst cereal farmers concerning theappearence of the circles and likely causes. He has prepared adetailed report on his findings which is being printed by theBUFORA Research department. This will form the basis of furtherdiscussions with appropriate scientific establishments.

This paper is the first part of a detailed update on Paulrsresearches. As weII as being an active investigator, Paul hasbeen a key member of the Research department for several years.He holds a B.A. degree and has undertaken postgraduate studiesin statistics. PauI is a statistian by profession.

1. INTRODUCTION

Since 198l BUFORA has maderepeated attempts toinvestigate the facinatingphenomenon of the rMysteryCircles' . Every sunrmer groupsof precisely-defined areas offlattened arable crop havebeen appearing overnight withincreasing frequency acrossSouthern England. Severalnational newspapers havepublicised the circles andencouraged an association withUnidentified Flying Objects.This development is to beregretted as it has resultedin a great dela of wild andunecessary speculation amongstpeople who are not av/are ofthe full facts of the case,and additionally reputablescientists have avoided the

distort the phenomenon in theeyes of the public.

I\Iith this in mind, BUFORAcompiled a report tMystery ofthe Circles'(1) which waslaunched at a press conferenceheld in JuIy 1986. The reportwas circulated to everynational newspaper and severalTV and radio stations in anattempt to educate the mediaand persuade them to take amore rational approach to thesubject. Unfortunately. itstill seems that the mediaprefer to promote the UFOangle and their descriptionsof what is actually takingplace are shallow and lackingi-n important detail.

Throughout thepast two years Ihave been lucky enough toobserve the phenornenon andit's treatment by the media at

manyformations have appearedvirtually in my own back yard!I have also been very gratefulto a number of people who have

subject thus allowing close quarters,sesational publicity to

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, llarch 1988 Page 47.

Mystery Circles cont

been involved in the study ofthis phenomenon and I wouldlike to take this opportunityto thank Colin Andrews,Patrick ( ,pat' ) Delgado, DrTerence Meaden and BusterTaylor (of SIGAP) for alltheir assistance.

2. PRIMARY CHARACTERTSTICSOF THE PHENOMENON

The circle formations areextremely complicated andinteresting features. A1l thefollowing characteristicscarry important clues as tothe nature of the force whichcreates the circles. However,bear in mind that each summerour knowledge of thephenomenon improves and theremay be further characteristicswhich reguire explanation inthe future.

1. The formations nearlyalways appear overnightin mature arable crops(usually cereals such aswheat or barley, butoccasionaly in othercrops). Thi,s aspresumably because thecrop has to be at acertain stage in itrsgrowth cycle to be 4.pliable enougrh topermanently deform.Cj-rcIes forming in longgrass would soon blowaway. The implicationbehind this is that amechanism exists which isusually un-noticed exceptwhen ma'ture crops arepresent to permanentlyrecord itrs presence.

2. At leaset eight differentcircle formations havebeen identified. Theseare listed in Table One,although no attempt has

Journal of Transient Aeria1 phenomena,

been made to indicate therelative frequency ofeach formation type. ftis quite possible thatsome even rarerformations have yet to bediscovered, however, itis not always possible todistinguish between someformations (e.9. doubles)and accidentialcombinations of moreconmon formations (e.g.singles).

Each part of the affectedarea is very preciselydefined as if a giantrazor blade had been usedto cut out the formation.This featureautomatically excludeshelicopter downwash asthe causing agent becausedownwash always createsan i11-defined dish-1ikedepression in maturearable crops. This facthras established by Lt.CoI. Edgecombe of theArmy Air Station atMiddle Wa11op, Hampshire

3.

(whoseduties

ChessefootHampshire

professionalinclude the

Head in(oscn su

assessment of helicopter-caused damage to crops.

Every formation exhibitsa unique swirl patternwith the spiral centreusually displaced fromthe geometric centre ofthe affected zone. FigureOne shows a schematicplan of a typical circleand rr-ngf formationdiscovered by myself onAugust 15th 1987 close to

520284). The radials havebeen measured from thespiral centre and varyfrom 12.7O m13.59 m (ww) .

(sn) to

March 1988 Page 48.

Mystery Circles cont ....

A Typical Cincle and RingDiEcovered by Paul Ful I er^Head, Hampshine on August

lleasunements in lletr.es

Fonmat i onnean Cheesefoot15th t987

.s{

lJ

n-tuoof,p- tO$odun*

,4)

d%

.,n1" P(J), LJI

c

,! '€€

€'/5

I

.O

ooN)

^3q'

zo-,a+J

I'6o

9.131 .35 2.30

(g'c

,yq/'

^9

na0Jto-oF. 10l r+Jo

ua+

t or'' 11'l

Journal. of Transient Aerial- Phenomena' llarctr 1988 Page 49.

Mystery Circles cont

5. The majority ofdisplayformations

clockwise swirl patternsbut a sma1l number havebeen anti-clockwise (e.g.Headbourne Worthy, August1986) and several havedisplayed mixtures ofswirl patterns (e.9.Cheesefoot Head Number 1July 1986).

Although the formationsappear to be perfectlysymmetrical from adj-stance , closerinspection revealsmeasurable differencesbetween the differentcomponents of eachformatlon. (see Figureone).

No two measuredformations have ever beenidentical in shape orsize, each formationappears to be uni-que.

At least two formations( cfritarey 1986 andPepperbox HitI 1987)di-splayed linearextensions or I spurs' onthe outer ring.

The crop in the affectedzones is undamaged by thecausing agent, the stemsare simply bent sharplyat a 90o angle close tothe ground surface andthe heads are intact(although they are oftenimbedded into the groundsurface).Patrick

10. No suspicious marks (e.9.footprints) have beenfound within the area ofa genur-ne circleformation imrnediately ondiscovery. Attempts towalk along tramlines atnight have always beenshown to leave suchmarks, particularly afterpreciptation.

11. The affected crop is laiddown in bands as if agiant comb with uneventeeth had been used tocreate the ci-rcle.

12. The affected crop islayered so that thetopmost layer points in adifferent di rection tothe underlying crop. The1987 Pepperbox Hillformation displayed fourlayers with the maximumangle of divergencenearing 160o.

13. The majority offormations (possibly BO%)appear close to the basesof steeply inclinedhiIIslopes. Large numbersof formations haveappeared at two suchsites in particular, thetr{estbury White Horse sitenear Bratton in Wiltshire(oscn su 898516) and the

5.

7.

B.

o

Cheesefoottpunchbowl t

Headnear

demonstratedmechanical

Researcher L4. TheDelgad<> has

thatdepression

Winchester in Hampshire(oscn su 52o2go).

majority offormat j-ons go unreportedby the media because theyappear r_n isolatedlocations. This makes thetask of assessing thephenomenon more difficultbecause our knowledge isbased on a small (andhighty biased ) sample of

(e.g. by using a rope)always damages the headsand snaps the stems ofmature arable crops.

Journal of Transient Aerial phenomena, tilarch lggg page 50.

Mystery Circles cont

the formations actuallyappearing.

15. Contrary to popularopi-nion the ma jority offormations are notperfectly circular, mostapproximate ellipsoids.

3. THE PROBLEM OF HOAXING

3.1 Our research of thecircles phenomenon has beencontinually hindered by theactivities of hoaxers an<lpeople who claim to behoaxers. There have been twoproven hoaxes, these are:-

i At Westbury, Wiltshireduring August 1983.

Two farmers, Alan andFrancis Sheppard, werepaid and assisted by therDaily Mj-rrorr to createa quintuplet on theSheppard's land in afailed attempt to foolthe rDaily Express' intoreporting a UFO landing.The hoax never receivednational publicity andthe two farmers laterconfessed to therWiltshire Timesr . OnAugust lBth 1986 BUFORARIC Phillip Taylor tookpart in the Pete MurrayrNightline' phone-in onLBC Radio. Durj-ng theprogramme, former rDailyMirrorr reporter ChrisHutchins rang in toconfirm his personalinvolvement in the hoaxand, in obviousembarressment, tried tojustify the hoax as 'justa joke' .

ii At Venthams Farm,Froxfield, Hampshireduring September 1986.

Reporter John Doddsstaged a demonstration ofhis ability to create acircle and ring .which wasrecorded by BBC RadioSolent and BBC TV'srSouth Today' . Dodds'scheme had been to obtaina copy of BUFORA'srMystery of the Circlesron the pretext that hewould be writing aserious article for therMail on Sunday'. He thenclaimed to therPetersfield Postr thathe had been creatinq allthe circles which hadappeared during 1986 andthat he had photographicproof of his c1aim.

The demonstration was afailure, the circle wasuneven, the crop \^/asdamaged and there was noswirl pattern. When thesefacts were pointed out byPatrick Delgado, Doddsraccomplices had to berestrained. Thephotographic proof turnedout to be a photograph ofan untouched field andthen a photograph of acomplete circle. Nophotograph was producedwhich showed Dodds andhis associates half waythrough the hoax.

Both hoaxes r^rere carried outin daylight and faited toexactly mimic all thecharacteristics described inthe section above( Section 2).The Westbury Hoax INparticular produced damag'e i-nthe adjacent crop and wasimmediately recognised by thePROBE team as a hoax for thisreason. It is interestinghowever to note how long ittook to create the artificalcircles because this only re-

Journal of Transient Aerial phenomena, ltarch rggg page 51.

Mystery Circles cont ....

TABLE ONE.

EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF CIRCLE FORMATIONS REPORTED

Single Circles

Double Circles oo

Triplets

Quintuplets

ooo

ooOo

o

Ringed Single Circle O

oRinged Quintuplet OO O

a

oRegular Quadruplet O O

o

oTriangular Triplet O O

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenonena, lrlarch 1988 Page 52.

inforces the difficulty weface when we try to .*pt.inall circle format j_ons' ashoaxes The Westburyquintuplet took five peopfeonly 24 minutes to ;r";;;whilst the OoOOs,demonstration took two men 75minutes to create a circle andring.

Clearly these durat j_ons mustunder-estimate the timerequired for a nocturnal hoax,g.uite_ apart from erpfr."isi.rgthe difficulty there -wouId

bei". avoiding damage i"-- tt.rnrervening crop with so manypeople needed to create thecircle.

3.2 SUSPECTED OR CLATMED, BUTNOT PROVEN HOAXES

Several other circleformations have come underclose scrutiny as suspected orclaimed hoaxel. These are :_

farm hands from Cornwallclaimed to have createdthe second circle andring formation of theprevious summer bypushing and rolling thecrop down with theirbodies. Their claim wasnot tested with ademostration of theirability and attempts tocontact them for iuch ademonstration havefailed. The formation isthe only one known tohave occured duringdaylight (between IB:56Hrs and L9245 Hrs) andthe site attrached manyvisitors that day toobserve the firstformation, however, onlyole report r/r7as receivedof suspicious behaviourin the location when wemight have expected manysuch reports given the:i3;". .".i3;*:,, nr"ilenlargement of the ,DailyTelegraph' photographobtained by sGnonaclearly reveals anunexpectedly sharp rkink,in the outer ring of theformation. Furthermorepatrick Delgadors plan ofthe circle shows it.t notrue spi-ra1 \^ras presentexcept at the centre ofthe formation. This, ofcourse, tends to supportthe claim of a hoax.

3.3- _Clearly we face criticalproblems if we attempt tointerpret aII circleformations as the result ofhoaxing,, in particular :

a) the majority offormations never receivepublicity because theyappear in isolatedlocations (therefore what

Mystery Circles cont

1. Alfriston,July 1984)

Sussex (26th

1 guintuplet appeared atCradle Hill nearAlfriston and close toShadow Foreign SecretaryDennis Healey's home.BUFORA RIC philtip Taylorpointed out thecoincidence of thelocation bearing in minathe identically ,r"*"Asite near Warmj_nst"r,

"town with a long historyof UFO reports and amecca to many fringegroups interested i.,UFOs.

2. Cheesefoot Head Number 26th JuIy t9B6

fn the July 16th 1987edition of the rsouthernEvening Echo' a group of

Journal of Transient Aerial phenomena, March lggg page 53.

c)

Mystery Circles cont

point would there be j-nhoaxing them?);

b) attempts to replicatecircles (e.9. by PatrickDelgado) fail to createflat, even circles withbanded layered stems laiddown in a swirled manner;instead, the attemptsalways damage the headsand stems, scuff marksand footprints are veryobvious and the swirlpattern ismissing;

these attempts

entirely

always been carried outduring daylight and tendto leave marks in theadjacent crop, almost allknown formations appearovernight with no suchattendant damage;

no reasonable method hasbeen suggested by whichelliptical circles couldbe created, certainly aperfect circle would beeasier to hoax and mighttake

e)

complete;

historical accounts ofsimilar formations extendback to the late 1940s,although the earliestpublished accounts dateback to the mid 1960s.hlou1d hoaxers createcircles over such a longperiod when most of theircreations inevitably failto attract publicity?;

accounts of circleformations have beenreceived from severalnaticns (e.9. France,Australia, Canada), wouldhoaxers bother to createcircle formations oversuch a wide part of the

globe consi-dering theexpense and lack ofpublicity?

In my view the only possibleconclusj-on from these findingsis that apart from the twoproven hoaxes mentioned insection 3.1 (and probably thesuspected hoaxes mentioned inSection 3.2) the ma jorj-ty ofcircle formation must have analternative, more plausibleexplanation.

have ( rnis article wi-llcontinued in the nextlater editions of JTAP)

beand

d)

NEW PUBLICATION

PHENOIITENON

Following on from UEOs L947-87, John Spencer and HilaryEvans have edited this popularwork on behalf of BUFORA.

PHENOMENON was published on

Publications, whi-ch is asubdivision of Macdonald( puntistrers ) Ltd .

It contains over thirtychapters on such diversetopics as Ghost Rockets,Abductions, Earthlights,Investigating UFOs,Photographs and Traces.Authors include Andy Roberts,Rudd Hopkins, Jenny Randles,John A. Keel, Cynthia Hind andNige1 Watson.

PHENOMENON is available inpaperback (price f.3-95) and inhardback. It should beavailable at your 1ocal bookstore. If not, get them toorder you a copy (orderingdetails ISBN 0-7OBB-3655-O)

les s time to 17th I'Iarch, by Futura

f)

Journal- of Transient Aerial Phenomena, March 1988 Page 54.

AI RSH I P F'IYSTERY SOI-VED !

Paul Edwards

(fnis article is adapted fromthe original written by paulEdwards for the Nevrsletter ofthe Northamptonshire UFOResearch Centre. Paul iseditor of the Newsletter. )

On the night of 2nd August1987, between 9pm and llpm anumber of reports werereceived of lights in the skyover the Nothamptonshire area,here is a brief synopsis ofthe ensuing newspaper reports:

f) Evening Telegraph, 4thAugust.'rMystery of UFOSightings "

2) Evening Telegraph,August.

5th

"UFO Riddle Solved, ftwas an Airship"

3 ) Evening Telegraph, IBthAugust.Call for UFO reports byErnest Stil1, BUFORA AI.

Since that request, Ernest hasreceived more than 18 reports.Susan Pollock (Northampton AI)has received a further Breports. Here is a briefoutline of some of thereports.

The first known report camefrom a man and a woman inBozeat at 9pm, heading southtowards Wellingborough, thenturning west towardsNorthampton. It \^/ascylindrical and grey incolour, disappeared s1owly andwas 15o to horizon.

There was a clear sky with abright moon and a lightbreeze. In general theseconditions were reported forthe rest of the sightings

around Northamptonshire forthe 2nd August 1987.

A woman from Wilby, near EarlsBarton saw the object (cigarat 2Oo elevation) at about21:30. There were severalreports from Kettering around1Opm, and several fromDesborough at around 10:30pm.

In the Northampton area therewere a number of reportsbetween 9:45pm and 10pm. Forexampler dn oval object wasseen travelling south to northat an elevation of 600 at21245. AIso at 21245, threeadults and two children saw acigar shaped object movingrfrom southwest to north.Elevation was 15".

The above are just a sma1lnumber of examples of the kindof reports that came in overthe next few days followingthe inj-tial sighting. Sincethat time it has beenconf i-rmed that the vehicleseen in the Northamptonshirearea was in fact an airshipfrom the hangers of AirshipIndustries, who have theirbase at Cardington l_nBedfordshire. They say thattheir airship did makeextensive flights over thearea that night. The airshipwould apparently have beenflying at 20,000 ft pIus, ert aspeed of about 35 knots. Thelength of the ship isapproximately 180 feet.( norroRrar. NorE : Ref erencewas made to the wave ofreports in an earli_er BUFORANewsletter. It would appearthat the hard work of pau1,Ernest StiIt IeuFona AI] andSusan pollock lnupoRe AI]. hasaccounted for a majority ofthe reports from the area of2nd Augrust 1987. )

Journal of Transient Aerial phenonena, March 19Bg page 55.

CORRESPONDENCESOME SIMPLE GUIDELINES.

Readers are reminded that, unless otherwise stated, views

"*pressea in correspondence, like the views expressed in the

main papers, are those of the writer and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the Editor or Editorial Board of JTAP' orthe views of BUFORA or it's Council'

A11 correspondents are urged to keep to the point. The Editorreserves the right to shorlen overlong contributions where thiswill not rnaterially alter the point being discussed' In some

cases a properly researched short paper might be a better basisfor repty rattrer than attempting to put everything into a

letter. Correspondents are urgLd to refrain from using insults,these do not aisist any case being prornoted'

where a correspondent passes comment on a paper previouslypublished in JTAP, the author of the original article will be

allowed to reply either in the same or a subsequent issue ' To

prevent excessive debate of any individual point a fiftypercent rule will be applied. This will mean, for example'where an orijinaf artlcfe is 1000 words, dD initialcorrespondent *1ff be allowed about 500 words in reply' The

origin-at author may reply to this correspondence with around25O words. If the correspondent wishes to follow up theoriginal authorrs reply, they may do so in 125 words.

THE TODMORDEN UFO REPORT

EXPLAINED JTAP, SePtember1987.

(fne paper bY Steuart CamPbellwhich appeared under the title"The Todmorden UFO ExPlained"was originallY entitled bY theauthor "The Todmorden UFO

Report ExPlained". Due to atypographical error the word"ieport" became left out inproduction. This omission onlYcame to light when Steuartwrote to guestion the changeof title. He goes on to Pointout that as he does notbelieve in UFO's he cannotexpla.in them, but he canexptain reports of suPPosedUfO's. He feels that this iscrucial to his case, so we areonly too Pleased to correctthis information. We regretany inconvenience caused bYthis omission)

Dear Sir,

I apologise to long-termreaders of BUFORA Publicationsfor having to resurrect mY

debate with Steuart CamPbel1.It was not sornething I had theleast intention of doing. Butthe strange decision of theJTAP editors to Publish hispiece "The Todmorden UEO

Explained" (JraP SePtember1987) has left me no choice.

It is very sad to see a oncerespected and excellent fieldinvestigator descend to thedepths Steuart has reached' Ishouid like it made clear'because the JTAP caPtion doesnot, that Steuart is no longeran AI for BUFORA and has notbeen for sometime now. One

utterly irresPonsible source(nobert Morrell and his teamat Nottingham, formerlY calledNUFOIS) falsely stated intheir journal that the reason

Journal of Transient Aeria]- Phenomena' Dlarch 1988 Page 56.

Correspondence cont

for Steuart's demise as an RICand accredited investigatorwas his disagreement with theextraterrestrj_a1 hypothesis.That is frankly absurd,because many Afrs do notbelieve in the ETH and underno circumstances wouldallegiance to or dispute withany particular theory begrounds for dismissal from theBUFORA National fnvestigationsCommittee.

In fact Steuart Campbell'sunfortunate suspension as aBUFORA investigator wasprecipitated by two things.His categorical refusal tosign the code of practice,despite many months of gracein which he was urged tochange his mind. And themanner in which he hascontinually upsettingwitnesses by re-evaluatingcases and telling them theyhave seen stars.

Of course, in some cases it isqui-te possible they have.Astronomical phenomena havelong been recognised as amaJor

report) were none too pleasedeither and this went beyondwhat i-s acceptable for aBUFORA investigator.

Now Steuart is being allowedto get away with pubtishingtotal garbage on yet anothercase in which he had noinvolvement. I feel I amentitled, on behalf of theBUFORA membership, to reguestfrom the editors of JTAP anexplanation. The publicati_onclaims in its own guidelinesto be a refereed, scientificjournal and that its articlesmay be rejected if they do notcheck out. Why then wasSteuart Campbelt allowed topublish his totalty false anddisgracefutly inept articlewj-thout any of those who wereinvolved being asked tocomment?

The one thing T hope thisaffair will do is to stop thespread of these ridiculousSteuart Campbell artj_cles. Ihave tolerated them for sometime and sympathised with themup to a point, I certainlyhave no ob ject j-on at all toany serious attempt to explainany case (even if I wasinvolved in it) " No sightingis immune. No investigationshould be above criticism. Butthere is a biq differencebetween serious and honestcriticism and the methods usedin this instance by MrCampbel1.

-'.nce I expect the witness/ orMessers Harry Harris and co(tre being a BUFORA rnember )will have thi-ngs to say forthemselves, I will confinemyself to a few small points.

The basis of any fieldinvestigation is to (a) talkto the witness, .and (b) to

source ofmisidentification and 9O percent of all UFO cases resultfrom mistaken identity. Wehave no objection to genuinere-evaluations.

Where Steuart began to divorcehimself from all reality waswhen he commenced evaluationof other peoples cases in amanner which had no regard forthe facts. His attack on BettyCash in the Cash-Landrum casefrom Texas ( where heeffectively accused her offaking serl_ous medicaleffects, leading to weeks inhospital under intensive care)brought an angry reaction fromthe witness. MUFON (who spentyears investigating the

Journal of Transient Aeriar phenomena, March 19gg page s7.

Correspondence cont

visit the site of theencounter. Of course, that isnot alwaYs Possible, andSteuart may excuse himself onthe grounds of living 2OO

miles from West Yorkshire.However, since his entire fivepage article revolves aboutthe'nec"ssity to do both thosethings he had absolutelY noright. publishing what he didwithout doing them. It wouldhave been the easiest thing inthe world for Mr CamPbell topick up a Phone and call Alanbodfrey. I Presume theY dosti1l have Phones in Scotland?Yet he never even did that'Why? Am I being cYnical inthinking that it could havesomething to do with theprobabilitY he might have hadLo rePort how the wi-tnessstory flatlY contradictsvirtuallY every tenet of theVenus theorY? Much better toleave the reader guessing onthat than to allow awkwardthings like facts confuse theissue !

EssentiallY CamPbell has threepoints. Alan GodfreY was nottravelling north-west awayfrom Todmorden, but south-east

towards it. In so doing hethus saw Venus which was lowin the south-east at the time'But it was not Possible forSteuart to gauge whether thewitness could have seen Venus'because in mY incomPetence Inever suPPlied a PhotograPh ofthat view in mY book 'ThePennine UFO MYsterYt (fromwhich '

incidentallY, h€totallY without Permission,uses one of mY coPYrightphotographs ! ) .

His reasons for totallY

Alan GodfreY IfAS P3si'-ivelYdrivi-ng north-wes+- a-t'a-.- f romTodmorden . Ijnder :l!'!::l s: s heref ered to Putt j ::!r histraf f icator on tc --u::l rightinto FerneY Lee Rca:, --henseeing a light areac, bei ngpuzzled bY it and drl';::ig onLo have a look. A11 ci --1a-* isperfectlY clear bv reaiingpages 150 and 1 51 c'- ' ThePennine UFO MYsterY' .

NaturallY, since Alar wasdriving in entirel-1' theopposite direction r'c whereVenus was visible itsmisperception never eve:r col:lesinto the Picture. But l-e*' ushumour Steuart and consiCerhis other griPe, that the bockhas no PhotograPh of the rcadlooking back into Todnorden.It does not because it washardly relevant. But if i" didit would have shown the manyhouses blocking the view tomake it 1iteralIY imPossibleto see so few degrees abovethe horizon. Again his theorYcollapses because he neverchecked his facts.

Readers might have beenpuzzled as to rvhY the mapshows a scale in rdecametresr.Steuart is a master at making

things much more difficultthan they need be. In fact itis only a few hundred Yardsfrom Ferney Lee Road to whereAlan stopPed. Alan drove thosein moments, clearlY relivedunder hypnosis, approaching a

convenient Point to stoP andobserve the UFO in detail.

As for the PhotograPh andSteuart's masterPiece ofevidence that the car musthave been travelling south-east because AIan is standingon that side of the road' Ishe being serious? Themechanics of where Alan stood

altering the facts of the caseare staggering and ludicrousand are clear evidence of hisprofound incomPetence .

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, March 19BB Page 58-

Correspondence cont

cross-wise on the road weredictated by such mundanethings as my camera lens andthe fact that had f stoodfurther back than I did Iwould have been up against awall or in a stream! Of courseSteuart might have learntthese things had he eitherbeen there or asked me aboutthe photograph. I manoeuvredAlan to this point, some yardsback from me, so I could showhim and the surroundings moreclearly in the shot. Had hestood on the correct side ofthe road the picturescomposition would not havebeen right.

It really is beyond beliefthat Steuart would manufacturesuch a theory out of thisminor and easily resolvedpoint. But it shows howobsessed he is with provinghis ideas at the total expenseof everything else.

Of course, all other aspectsof the case (tfre swirl patternon the road, the split policeboot, the time loss and thehypnotic rnemory) go out of thewindow as having "no basis infact". The only thing thatprobably has no basis in factis Steuart Campbellts madcaptheory.

This kind of sloppy,incompetent and misleadingwork has no place in JTAP Iwould suggest. I hope that allfuture submissions from MrCampbell are much betterthought out and, above all,demonstrate that he has notentirely forgotten how toinvestigate a case. Armchairtheorists are all very well.But there seems to be asurfeit of armchairs in cloudcuckoo 1and.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles,Stockport, Cheshire.17th October 1987.

EDITORIAL NOTE :

As Steuart will be invited toreply to the investigativeparts of Jennyrs repIy, I willdeal only with the commentswhich apply to more directlyto JTAP.

Firstly, the inside back coverof JTAP states " The EditorialBoard shall have the right toseek advice from referees onsuitability for publicatJ-onand may on theirrecommendation, accept, seekrevision of or re j ectmanuscripts. " Please note theword shall means may (or maynot) seek advice, however, itis normal practice forsubmitted articles to beconsidered by two peoplebefore publication. In thecase of this parti-culararticle it was considered bythree people and minorrevisions were sought (andobtained) to the manuscript.

Prior to publishing thispaper, I made an offer foreither Jenny or Harry Harristo publish their commentsalongside the paper.Unfortunately neither wereable to provide comments atthat timer so I welcomeJennyrs attempt to clarifythings now. Subsequent topublication of Steuart'sarticle f have repeated myoffer to Harry Haruis and viahim invited Alan Godfrey toteII his story in his ownwords.

Although not specificallystated, international units of

Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena, llarctr 1988 page 59.

Correspondence cont

measure are Preferred toImperial units. Steuart I s useof Decametres (a valid

unit) isinternationaltherefore in line withpreferred format and notmerely Steuart trYing to bedifficult. Indeed many mapsthese days are scaled inkilometres, SO, T wouldsubrnit, Steuart is correctlYrepresenting current Practice.

Jenny mentions in her rePlYthat in the hypnosis session,Alan states that he switcheson the trafficator to turninto Ferney Lee Road. Steuartquestions the validitY ofhypnotic regression data andprovides pointers to where hehas discussed this more fullYelsewhere. In a recent TVprogranme where AIan aPPeared( "The Time, The Place" ) heseemed to question himself thevalidity of information

hypnoticbyregression. FortunatelY he hasconsiderable consci-ous reca1lof events prior to the timeloss and abduction revealed bYregression.

Steuart I s article waspublished in the same sPiritas the earlier article wepublished about the CracoeFelI photograPhs. He felt hehad genuine questions about acase published t-n theliterature. It is much betterfor Steuart to air hisquestions in public and toeither find the answer or beshown where he has gone wrong.As Jenny states no case orinvestigator should be immunefrom question. Whilst thispaper has provided Steuartwith an opportunity toquestion her methods, it hasalso opened his own methods toscruti-ny.

TODMORDEN UFO REPORTEXPLAINED JTAP SEPTE}IBER1987.

(ffre following is an extractfrom a letter received fromHilary Evans. In anaccompanying note he pointsout that there are alnost asmany typographical errors asoccurred in a book he workedon which rvas rushed into printwithout him being abl-e toproof read it. Same problemhere, Hilary. However I may betaking up his offer to proofread sooner than he expected ! )

Dear Sir,

AIt your readers shouldapplaud the open minded policyyou advocate in your editorial(rrep vol 5 No I p r); ir ishoped that your contributorswitt respond in the samespirit.

Campbell may or may not beright in his suggestion ( "TheTodmorden UFO ReportExplained" in the same issue)that Venus \^/as the origin ofthe Godfrey incident. But forhim there are no doubts. 'What[Codfrey] saw must have been amirage of the llanet. . . . Sucha mirage must have been theresult of a temperatureinversionr Ipl3, coL.2, L.2O iemphasis added]. 'May', maybe; but there is no rmust' aboutit. Campbell has put forwardan intelligent suggestion asto what may have occurred, buthe has certainly not provedthat it did.

One might think that havingbeen let down by his formerhobby horse of ball lightning,your contributor would be morecautious with his new mirageone. We are accustomed to findthe likes of Von Daniken

obtained

Journal of Transient Aerial- Phenomena, March 1988 Page 60.

Correspondence cont .. r.assuming that because a thing

sey be so, it must be so : i-tis dismaying when potentiallyintelligent and helpfulresearch is marred byunjustified dogmatism.

Your sincerely,

Hilary Evans,London

21st October 1987.

'ITIME ESTIMATION OF SIMULATEDUFO EVENTS'I - JTAP SEPTEMBER1987.

Dear Editor,

How encouraging it was to readGamble, Digby & Phillips'article "Time Estimation ofSimulated UFO Events" in JTAPVoI 5 No f (pp 26-31).UFOlogists can only benefitfrom the application of

'0! or t5r. 59e" of theUFOIogists group scores and942 of the control groupscores exhibited thischaracteristic when we mightexpect only 2OZ of scores tobe multiples of five.Further investigation shouldconcentrate on the shape ofthe groups' estimates (whichboth tended to be negativelyskewed) and the ratio of theestimates to variations in theduration of the simulatedevent. It might also beconducive to compare resultsfrom instant recallexperi-ments to those resultsobtained from experiments inwhich the subjects are notasked to record theirestimates until well after thesimulation. This latterapproach may well approximateinvestigative reality.Yours sincerely,

PauI Ful1er,Romsey, Hants25th October 1987.

EDITORTAL NOTE :

Thank you for your comments onour 'rTime Estimates" paper. Weare aware of the short comingsof the data and are activelyconsidering extensions of theproject, such as you suggest,to use longer delays betweenobserving and reporting.

The key point of the paper wasto highlight just how variablereporting of exactly the sameevent can be. Together withPaul, I believe that if we areto make any significant

standardproceduresdemonstrateindividualcan be.

quantitativewhen they

how unreliablewitness estimates

In this experiment, thepresence of extreme outlierscritically affects the outcomebecause the removal of thesingle untrustworthy score( fgO seconds, Table 2) fromthe UFOlogi-st group alters thetest of adifference

significantbetween the

UFOlogist and control groupmeans from acceptance of theNulI Hypothesis to one ofrejection (tlA = 0.94; t75 =3.54). A second, commonproblem in psychologicaltests, is the tendency forsubjects to round theirestimates to values ending in

progress westandardprocedures

need to applyquantitative

including

Journal. of Transient Aerial. Phenomena, ltarch 1988 Page 61.

Correspondence cont

statistical analysis to UFOdata. Just how meaningful suchmeasures can be is open toquestion when you considerthat for this one event,checking just one variable,there was a 90 timesdifference between theshortest and the longestestimate.

GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSISOF REPORTED CLOSE ENCOUNTERSAND OTHER EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS

SEPTEMBER 1986 REPLY TOCORRESPONDENCE.

Dear Editor,

Thank you for inviting me torespond to the criticisms madeof my rGlobal Distributionlpaper (,:taP September 1986,Vol 4 pp 67-76) in the last(see Correspondence, MarchL9B7) edition of JTAP. r willattempt to answer ManuelBorraz Aymerichts and thesensible aspects of SteuartCampbell I s contribution.

Firstly, it seems that I haveto re-emphasise that the 2OO0word limit imposed by thatparticular competition causedme to have to edit outelaboratlon of the processesof data selection andtreatment.features

Only essential

presented and this seems tohave caused some dif f iculti-es.Nevertheless, many ofCampbellrs remarks indicatethat he only skip-read thepaper and thus failed toabsorb vital pr_eces of

Hisinformation.authoritative, but incorrect,comments about thepracticability of the rsuperorbitr indicate that he ismore

Journal of

astronomical rather thanastronautical concepts.

Both Aymerich and Campbellquestion the statisticalvalidity of my findings and Iaccept that this is a validconcern : indeed, I would verymuch appreciate independentstatistical checks by otherresearchers. In defence of mycontribution, however, thesidereal study was one v'itatstep l-n a protractedexploratory study, which couldhave lead to nowhere but,instead, was able to be builtup into a coherent case infavour of the ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis whichwas basedpostulates.

physicalphysical

onThe

of both were

justification for attemptingto link Close Encounter eventsin the manner described in theCutty Sark paper is an elementwhich has been totally lackingfrom other distri-butionstudies, such as Michel t sOrthoteny, and gives strengthto my own findings.

The choice of a group of' rwater events' early in thestudy was not so extraordinaryas Canpbell implies : afterall, the Americans had foundit convenient to rlandr theirorbital spacecraft in the seafor many years and I reasonedthat alien craft entering theEarthrs atmosphere might alsoconsider it to be a convenientthing to do, even if fordifferent reasons.

Finally, I wish to comment onCampbellrs closing remarks bywhich I am accused of peddti-ngrpseudo-sciencer . Given allthe elements of uncertaintythat are i-nherent in UEO datacollections, one has to admitthat the researcher rS

familiar with severely handi-capped from the

Transient Aerial phenomena, Ftarch 19Bg page 62.

Correspondence cont . . . .

start; but throughout my 20years of study I have strivento maintain scientificobjectivity and personaldetachment from the emotionalovertones of this peculiar UFOsubject. In my work each stepled logically to the next andthe process eventuallyculmj-nated in, what seems tome to be, a strong case forthe Extra TerrestrialHypothesis. I submit that thisl_s legitimate inductivescience, the only rpseudo I

element being in the verynature of the phenomenon beingi-nvestigated.

Yours sincerely,

T. R.Dutton,Poynton, Cheshire.

9th August 1987.

EDITORIAL NOTE : As pointedout by Roy Dutton this paperwas only a sunmary of his workand limited to 2OO0 wordsbythe Cutty Sark competition.

Roy has invited independentreview of his statistics. Weheld extensive discussionswith Roy at the May 1987meeting of the ResearchCommittee. It was decidedthat, within the limitedresources of BUFORA, we shouldattempt to obtain statisticalhelp for this project.

Due to the extended length ofthe Correspondence pages inthis issue it has beennecessary to hold over yetagain correspondence fromSteuart Campbell replying toRoy Duttonrs earliercorrespondence. This wil1appear as priority in the nextissue.

REPORT ON TRAINING MEETTNGHELD AT THE BROOKSIDECoMMUNTTY CENTRE, NORTHAMPTON

Steve Gamble.

This is a brief report on themeeting held on Saturday 20thFebruary 1988.

The purpose of the meeting wasto provide a basicintroduction to fieldinvestigation, with specialemphasis being given to theinitial approachwitness.

to the

The session was lead by KenPhillips. Ken explained to themeeting that this was his lastduty as training officer as hewould be standing down at theforthcoming AGM. I am sure freflect the views of Counciland many members when I passon our thanks to Ken for a1lthe work he has put in over anumber of years as TrainingOfficer, and wish him weII inhis future activities.

The meeting was attended byeleven members from bothBUFORA and the Northampton UFOResearch Centre.

The session started with atalk about how to go aboutcontacting the witness. Thiswas followed with guidelineson filling in report forms andwhat information should gointo the completed case file.Ken outlined some of theadditional sources ofinformation, and how to dealwith special cases such asphotographs. Ken covered alotof ground in the short timeavailable.

Special thanks are due toSusan & Cassie pollock andErnie and Mrs. Stil1 formaking the afternoon asuccess.

Journar of Transient Aeriar phenonena, March 19gg page 63.

DATES FOR YOUR D IARY

LONDON LECTURES.

Unless otherwise stated,BUFORA meeting,s will be heldusing the facilities of theLondon Business School, SussexPlace, Regentrs Park, LondonNWl. A11 meetings start at18:30 hrs. Early arrival isreguested to allow the meetingto start promptly.

Meetings normally end atapproximately 21:30. Half waythrough the evening there is ashort break and the eveningconcludes with questions anddiscussion. At most meetings arange of publications areavailable for purchase.

There is a smalI charge toattend these meetings. Eor theLondon lectures the fees aref,,1 for members and E2-5O fornon-members. Non-members areadmitted subject to spacebeing available.

Whilst it is not anticipatedthat meeti-ngs will have to bealtered or cancelled withoutprior notice, BUFORA reservethe right to do so. BUFORAreserve the right to refuseadmission.

This years progranme has beenarranged on behalf of BUFORAby Manfred Cassirer. If youhave suggestions for futureevents please write to theaddress below. Copies of theprogramme card andmembership forms areavailable on receipt of astamped addressed envelopefrom :

BUFORA (Ueetings)L6, SouthwayBurgess HillWest Sussex,RH15 9ST

May 7th

Speaker : Phillip TaylortrUFOs and Astronomy'l

June 4th

Speaker : Martin Shough

"The Reality ofPhenomenonrl

the UFO

(rtre 19BB/89 lecture prograflmewill start in September.Details will be published assoon as available.)

INTERNATIONAL EONGRESS

Following on from thesuccessful InternationalCongress held during earlyJuly 1987, it is hoped toorganise a similar event forthe summer of 1989.

At this stage plans areextremely preliminary. It isplanned to hold the Congresseither in July or early Augustat a venue in the London area.London has been chosen becauseit is an area which is easilyaccessible both from Europeand the Americas.

Although the Congress isprimarily being sponsored byICUR ( ttre InternationalCommittee for UFO Research),it is hoped that otherorganisations such as BUFORAand MUFON will be able to actas co-sponsors.

It is obviously too early totalk about speakers or thetheme of the Congress. Asfurther details becomeavailable we will publish themto keep readers informed.

Journal of Transient Aeria1 phenonena, l{arch 1988 Page 64.

Ains and scope of the JournalResearch and investigation into unidentified flying object (uFo) phenomena has progressedfron the early days of wird speculation into an area wiere scientifi" anaiv"i; ;;;evaluation nethods can be applied to a number of specified areas.-rt is realised that ufotogical research is subject to a great deal of speculativeconment, much of which ries on the boundaries of currenl scientific thought. r,rany existinyscientific institutions.accept.limited discussion of uFos

"na-r"iit"a-prr"i"i"nu"ii,"." rahas some bearing on their discipline. The Journal of Transient eeri.ar'phenornena JJournaLTAP) offers a forum for scientists and researchers to present ideas for further discussion,results of investigations and analysis of statistics and other pertinent intormalion.Journal TAP aims to neet a wide range of discussion by incorporating an approach withLr-eadth of scope,_clear and topical comment conducted with siientiflc rigiiri. -it i.,t"na,to offer.a truly international forum_enabling researchers throughout the world to publishresults in an authoritative.publication which should serve to frirther XnowfeJt.-of'tf,"cosmos and benefit mankind in so doing.Notes for contributorsThe Editorial Board will be pleased to receive contributions from all parts of the world.Manuscrintsr.preferably in English, should be submitted in the first iistance, to theEditor-in-chief, 40 Jones Drove, whittlesey, Peterborough, pE7 iun, united xinga-m.Manuscripts should be.typed double-spaced on one side of A4 size paper with wide marginsand submitted in duplicate. while no maximum length of contriuutio-ns is pr.="iiU"a,authors are encouraged to write concisely.The authorrs name should be typed onand address should follow on the nextpreceded by an abstract of around lOO

All mathematical symbols nay be either hand-written or typeh,ritten, but no ambiguitiesshould arise.Illustrations should be restricted to the minimum necessary. They should accompany thescript and should be included in manuscript pages. Line diawings-should include a1lrelevant details and should be drawn in black ink_on plain white drawing paper. Goodphotoprints are acceptable but blueprints or dyeline [rints cannot ue uiei. Drawings anddiagrans should allow for a 20 per cent reduction. l,ettering should be clear, open, andsufficiently large to permit the necessary reduction of size-for publication. pirotographsshould be sent as glossy prints, preferabJ-y full or half ptate.size. Captions to anysubnitted photograph or illustration should be appended and clearly marked.In the interests of economy and to reduce errors, tables will, where possible, bereproduced by photo-offset using the author's typed manuscript. Tables should thereforebe subnitted in a forn suitable for direct reproduction. page size used should be A4and $ridth of table should be either 1o.5 cn or 22 cn. Large or long tables should betyped on continuing sheets but identifying nunbers should be placed on the upper right-hand corner of each sheet of tabular rnaterial.Reference to.published titerature should be quoted in the text in brackets and groupedtogether at the end of the paper in numerical order. A separate sheet of paper-shouldbe used. Double spacing must be used throughout. Journal TAp references lhould bearranged thus :

(1) Jacques Vallee: 1955. Anatong of a Phenomenon, vii, Henry Regnery, Chicago.(21 pavid Haisell: 1980. Working Party Report, Journat rAp L/2, pp36-4Owith the exception of dates which should be presented in the astrononical conventionviz : 1977 August 05, no rigid rules concerning notation or abbreviation need be observedby authors' but each paper should be self-consistent as to symbcifs and units, whichshould all be properly defined. Times however shoul.d be presented in astronomical formusing the 24 hour clock and Universal Tine (UT) where posliUte. If local tine is used,this should be specified viz l9h 15 cMT.

The Editorial Board shall have the right to seek advice fron referees on suitability forpublication and-may, on their reconmendation, accept, seek revision of or rejectmanuscripts. ff considered unsuitable for Journal TAP, the Editor-in-chief ieservesthe right to forward nanuscripts to the Editor of Bufora Journal for consideration. TheEditor-in-chiefrs decision wiil be final.Book reviews and retters for pubrication will also be considered.Where pernission is needed for publication of naterial included in an article, it is theresponsibility of the author to acquire this prior to subrnission. AII opinions expressedin articles will be those of the contributor and unless otherwise stated; will not reflectthe views of Bufora, its Couneil or the nditor-in-chief.

the line below the title. The affiliation (if any)line. The body of the nanuscript should bewords giving the main conclusions drawn.

The Journal ofTransient Aerial Phenomena

COlITElITS

EDITORIAL

THE UFO AN UNIDENTIFIEDFORI'I OF CREATIVITY ?

AGT'1 REPORT

THE HYSTERY CIRCLESSTATUS REPORT PART 1

AIRSHIP FlYSTERY SOLVED!

CO RRESPONDENCE

REPORT ON TRAININGt'tEET I NG

DATES FOR YOUR DIARY

4O Jones' Drove, Whittlercy, Peterborough PE7 2HW

ALEXANIJER KEUL &KEN PHILLIPS

STEPHEN GAIIBLE

PAUL FULLER

PAUL EDI.IARDS

STEVE GAilBLE