💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › ufo › swamp_61.txt captured on 2023-06-16 at 20:49:23.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Volume 6 The SWAMP GAS JOURNAL ISSN 0707-7106
Number 2 ********************* June 1992
This issue of SGJ will be devoted to a review of recent articles and
books that I feel are of some significance to ufology and related
subjects. It is probably impossible to comment on all the published
material, as there are so many ufozines and new books that are
available. The Arcturus catalogs alone contain many more items than
most researchers or avid readers can ever hope to keep pace with (let
alone afford them!). And, with materials branching out or crossing
over into other fields, the volume of information is truly
astronomical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCIENCE NEWS is a weekly international newmagazine which is highly
regarded in the science community. It covers virtually all subjects,
and contributors write authoritatively on everything from global warming
to Alzheimer's disease. Its cover story for February 1, 1992, was
about a unique interpretation of British crop circle formations by
noted archeaoastronomer Gerald Hawkins. Basically, Hawkins believes
that whatever intelligence is behind the crop circle mystery, it is
sophisticated enough to create and solve complex problems in geometry.
Hawkins claims that several Euclidean theorems are demonstrated in the
British designs, and that this is more than simple hoaxing. He asks in
a letter of response in the March 7th issue: "Are the crop-pattern
makers hitting these geometries by blind luck, or are they
communicating at some level of mathematical knowledge?" He went on:
"It is unlikely that hoaxers could draw these by doodling in the dark".
The problem is, however, that many people do not agree that the
patterns are complex enough to warrant an "unlikely" label. This is
further complicated by the recognition that crop circles (or certain
types of UGMs) have been found in fields dating back long before the
1980's, and around the world in addition to the concentrated British
wave around Wiltshire. Admittedly, some of the formations in England
are very bizarre, such as the one on Alton Prior, with "keys",
"ladders", inscribed rings and other shapes. There is no question that
even hoaxers would have had to plan these with some effort. But do
these formations necessarily imply an intelligence beyond human
intervention? We can recall books written about the pyramid of Cheops,
in which authors attempted to show complex knowledge about the universe
through the height, shape and position of the stones. Skeptics showed
that these works were in error through further research into the
accuracy and measurement of the dimensions, but the attributions linger
on.
We can therefore cast some doubt on Hawkins' interpretation of the
geometric accuracies of the British formations, despite his reputation.
It would be nice to think that the aliens (or whoever) are
communicating with us through geometric forms, but because so many of
the formations in England are suspected hoaxes, the data to support
such a theory is badly contaminated, and the theory is on very shaky
ground.
Speaking of shaky ground, the latest issue of GEO-MONITOR (published
by Vince Migliore) [May 1992] has an interesting discussion about the
possibility that the April earthquakes in California were predicted by
some amateur seismic researchers. One person monitoring 10.2 kHz said
he had heard "thumping sounds" a few days before a quake hit
California. Others monitoring various frequencies also thought a quake
was coming. Some earthquake "sensitives" who get migraines or heart
pain also seemed to predict the quakes. Interestingly, the counting of
lost pet ads in newspapers is now losing favour among some researchers,
because the statistical tests used to verify any changes are too
rigourous to discriminate between small random variations and any real
effects. GEO-MONITOR has previously reviewed UFO reports as earthquake
precursors, and some interesting correlations have been reported. But
out of the hundreds of seismic events listed every month, there are few
with associated luminous phenomena. This is clearly at odds with the
Tectonic Strain Theory of UFOs advocated by Michael Persinger, John
Derr and others.
Persinger is still publishing reams of material about TST effects on
UFOs and other paranormal phenomena. One of the most recent is:
"Geophysical Variables and Behavior: LXVII. Quieter Annual Geomagnetic
Activity and Larger Effect Size for Experimental Psi (ESP) Studies Over
Six Decades", in PERCEPTUAL & MOTOR SKILLS, 1991, 73, 1219-1223. Yes,
that's right, the 67th installment of the TST exposition, as of 1991.
In this article, Persinger and co-author R. Berger claim that they
found strong correlations between decreases in geomagnetic activity and
positive experimental ESP effects. The ESP experiments were those
reported by the Rhine group in 1940, compiled during the 1800's and
early 1900's. Persinger and Berger found that by introducing a LAG of
one year (thus allowing for a delay between the experiments and the
publication of the results), the strong correlation was produced. They
therefore concluded that geophysical effects influence psychic ability.
It is interesting to note that they made no mention of the possibility
that the experiments or reports were in error. They conclude: "The
relationship between [geophysical effects] and this form of psi
phenomenon has been present for at least 100 years." Support for this
contention? Well, according to the list of references, many previously
published articles - by Michael Persinger.
For those of you on the INTERNET or BITNET, the sci.skeptics
newsgroup recently carried a discussion about the TST and the crop
circle plasma vortices. The Arizona Skeptics, represented by James
Lippard, recently published an article about John Derr's claims that
UFOs are miniature earthquake lights. Lippard obtained further info
about the TST mess, and published some fairly damning comments in
another issue. Robert Sheaffer, "Skepticus Maximus", as he calls
himself, was also interested in the TST debate. He stated that he had a
run-in with Persinger some time ago, with predictable results. After
several more exchanges, yours truly was invited to contribute to an
article for the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER on the subject of the TST. As some
readers will know, Phil Klass had asked me to compile a definitive
article about the TST for SI, but I had not yet had the opportunity to
do so. Sheaffer therefore compiled information about the TST into a
"News and Views" article for SI, which will be published soon.
On the topic of the Skeptical Inquirer, a fascinating article
critical of CSICOP has been published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH, Volume 86, January 1992. Titled:
"CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview", author George Hansen really
socks it to CSICOP, cleverly uncovering some skeletons in their
closets and inadequacies in their approach to paranormal phenomena.
The lengthy article (available as an offprint from Arcturus Book
Service) discusses the formation of CSICOP, its makeup, belief systems
and also profiles some of its prominent members. Hansen's conclusions?
From the abstract:
"Initially, CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon
after its beginning it adopted a more popular approach that
fostered a more broadly-based social movement ... a
disproportionate number of magicians are involved, ...
dominated by men, and many members hold religious views that
are antagonistic to the paranormal. Despite the name of the
organization, actual research is a very low priority of the
Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing
research itself. CSICOP's highest priority has been to
influence the media ..."
Basically, Hansen concludes that CSICOP is just as biased AGAINST the
reality of paranormal phenomena as "believers" are biased IN FAVOUR of
such phenomena. He noted how moderates such as Truzzi and Rawlins
(who conducted a study on astrology with POSITIVE results) were ejected or
otherwise parted ways with CSICOP. The CSICOP executive was found by
Hansen to be composed mostly of non-scientists with firm convictions
against the reality of paranormal phenomena (to the extreme position of
publicly proclaiming belief in such phenomena "dangerous").
Hansen's most curious finding was that although CSICOP members often
point out that moneymaking ventures (such as book publishing) by
paranormal proponents are an obvious indication of incincerity, the
CSICOP executive itself appears to have a vested interest in publishing
companies disseminating anti-paranormal material. Obviously, though,
the amount of material published by pro-paranormal factions far
outweighs the contrary, so the analogy may not be the best.
Perhaps the most unsettling of Hansen's findings is the lack of
research conducted by CSICOP, despite its published Mandate. This is
probably most true now, with the legal battles and infighting
proceeding because of the Randi/Geller debates. (This is most telling
through the insistence of CSICOP "affiliates" that they in no way
represent the parent group, and vice versa!)
Hansen presents a decidely unkind look at CSICOP, but rather than
employing the flames used in INTERNET arguments, he uses quotes from
CSICOP members' own published comments to show their weaknesses. (Dare
I suggest that some of these quotes might be out of context?)
Paranormal researchers and CSICOP members alike are encouraged to seek
out a copy of Hansen's article, as constructive criticism can only
strengthen one's perception of a polarized debate.
On a similar note, the editorial by Jerry Clark in the March/April
1992 issue of IUR also raises some disconcerting problems about CSICOP.
Jerry points out that in its "Manual for Local, Regional and National
Groups", 17 pages are devoted to "Handling the Media", whereas only 3
are given to "Scientific Investigations". Jerry's editorial is much
less polite than Hansen's review, but this might be expected. However,
even Jerry cautions that "not everyone ought to be tarred with the same
broad brush". He goes on: "I have friends in CSICOP, individuals I
respect and whose views and insight I listen to respectfully even when
I disagree with them; I might add that we often agree, too. [My]
remarks here are directed to CSICOP's leaders, who with some exceptions
have distinguished themselves chiefly by their arrogance, bombast, and
extremism." It is interesting that such an editorial is carried in
IUR, because one criticism by both Clark and Hansen is that CSICOP
tends not to recognise reasonable paranormal research outside its own
dominion. A case in point is the attempt by IUR to present opposing
views on the Gulf Breeze affair; two recent issues carried definitely
PRO articles about the Gulf Breeze UFOs (including one by Bruce
Maccabee) and also decidedly NEGATIVE articles about GB. This is a
good example of how rational discussion should be conducted and evolve
in the UFO/paranormal/Fortean community.
The same issue of IUR with Jerry's editorial also contains an
article I co-authored with John Timmerman of CUFOS. John and I visited
Langenburg, Saskatchewan, with Jeff Harland (of UFOROM) last year, and
we had an opportunity to interview Edwin Fuhr. Fuhr was the witness to
a remarkable CE2 in 1974, in which he came upon five bowl-shaped,
spinning objects as he was swathing rape. When the objects departed,
they left behind circular swirled patches in the grass, remarkably
similar to the crop circles that have been found in England during the
past decade. We argue that crop circles are an ongoing, worldwide
phenomenon, and did not begin in the 1980's in England. Furthermore,
it is unlikely that the case could be attributed to a plasma vortex.
This case is one of many which involve an observation of an apparently
solid, disc-shaped object which leaves behind a depression in the
vegetation. These types of cases are clearly at odds with the two or
three dozen cases of eyewitness observations of rotating wind vortices
creating circles in English countrysides. The latter are used by
vortex theorists to support their views, whereas the former are used by
some ETH theorists to bolster belief in aliens as circle creators. Our
study of the Langenburg case shows how an investigation of a major CE2
can lead to differing interpretations and raises many questions about
witnesses' testimony and physical evidence.
This is no more evident than in the CROP CIRCLE BULLETIN of CPR
Australia, a new branch of Colin Andrews' group. Its first issue,
published in February 1992, reviews Andrews' visit down under and the
subsequent fallout. Only days after Andrews' much-publicised visit in
December, 1991, crop circles were found amid a wave of UFO reports.
Issue #2 (May, 1992) breathlessly recounts Andrews' visit to Tasmania
in April, with packed houses of believers listening to his exposition
of how contact is occurring through the circles. Circle formations, of
course, represent "ideas, qualities and functions", rather than actual
text, and the Hungerford (England) pictogram is thus translated into
the name: Ra, meaning "Sun". As the BULLETIN's editor says herself:
"Language and words are a low-density form of communication and can be
used very successfully to mislead and control." This is most revealing
in that the rest of the issue goes on at great length to expound upon
how crop circles are indications or messages from a higher intelligence
urging humanity to "WAKE UP and then be 'tuned in'".
The BULLETIN also contained some interesting discussion about the
crop circles which were found in New Zealand recently. On February 1,
1992, the first one was found in Canterbury. It was 20 metres in
diameter, with a concentric track about 10cm in width. Another was
found within a few days. However, two young men named Hanrahan and
Harrison broke the story through the local newspaper that they had made
the formations with a T-shaped board (Bower and Chorley's nephews?).
What is most curious is that the Australian CCCS is not accepting the
hoaxers' claim. The circles were destroyed before any member could
investigate. Skeptics would invoke Occam's Razor and contend that the
hoaxers were, in fact, the culprits. In this case, I would tend to
agree; Bower and Chorley were suspect in England because of a number
of circumstances, including the vast numbers of circles found, and the
history of circles in the area. In New Zealand, only two circles were
found after the publicity following Andrews' visit to Oceania, and
hoaxers came forward immediately. It is LIKELY that they were indeed
responsible. (However, any TRUE skeptic reading this would doubt my
conclusion, and point out flaws in my reasoning!)
Incidentally, in addition to the sporadic reports of new circle
formations in England in 1992 (why isn't anyone disseminating
information from Britain this year?), North America has had a few cases
this year as well. The first report came from Rosemary Ellen Guiley,
of the American branch of Andrews' group, who told me that a formation
identical with one last year was found at the exact same site near
Jonesboro, Georgia, in April. However, inquiries with MUFON personnel
in that state have not been able to confirm the discovery. In
addition, Rosemary (and another NAICCR correspondent) said that UFO
activity in New Hampshire had associated UGMs. Again, I have been
unable to confirm this.
I HAVE been able to confirm a new "space cookie" type of UGM,
investigated by Gord Kijek of the Alberta UFO Study Group. It was
found on May 6th in a grassy field not far from Edmonton. The UGM is a very
strange-looking formation and is EXACTLY six metres in diameter. It
varies in depth from 5 to 31 cm, and stands out clearly in the
photographs which Gord has provided to NAICCR. Although my first
thought was that it was a sinkhole, the terrain is supposedly not
conducive to such features, and besides, it would be unlikely that it
would be perfectly circular if that was the case. Grass is growing
both in and out of the circle, and the shear is quite evident.
Hoaxers? Maybe, though I'm not sure how this could have been produced
without heavy machinery leaving tracks. Oh, yes. The UGM is in a
field owned by an RCMP officer.
The JOURNAL OF METEOROLOGY, vol.17, #165 (January, 1992), carried an
article written Dennis Stacy of MUFON but obviously endorsed by Terence
Meaden. The article was titled "Soviet Ice Circle Reported", and was
submitted as yet more evidence that many classic UFO cases could be
"luminous, electrically-charged spinning vortices and the subsequent
formation of physical ground traces". On January 7, 1990, a strange
object was observed by an ice fisherman near the town of Marefa. He
saw a "saucer", a top-shaped object with a spire, 75 metres in diameter
and 5-6 metres thick. From the account:
"The object appeared to be resting on, or hovering just
slightly above, the surface of a small frozen bay. Its spire
and base were described as greyish-blue in color, the middle
or main body as orange or rose-colored: 'something like the
color of the clouds in the sky at sunset'. The base was
pulsating 'as if some balls (of light?) were rolling around
there'."
After 10 minutes, the object rose about 30 metres, hovered, then moved
away to the east and was lost to view. Where it had hovered were
several circular rings, the largest of which was 20.7 metres in
diameter and one metre wide. It had the appearance of a "giant milling
machine cutter". At the time of its discovery, the ice was said to be
too thin to support a human, making the hoax explanation very
difficult.
Whereas most ufologists would interpret the case as a classic CE2
caused by a alien craft, Stacy (and apparently Meaden) propose that the
case is consistent with "many phenomenological correspondences with
some purported plasma-vortex effects", and "the colors themselves are
those that might be easily associated with a luminous atmospheric
phenomenon, including, presumably, the plasma-vortex". This
interpretation of an apparently solid object as a plasma vortex has
become the norm for cerealogists wishing to find support for the vortex
theory of circle creation. This attitude has naturally upset the
'nuts-and-bolts' UFO proponents, who find the plasma explanation as
unpalatable as Klass' ball lightning explanations of the 1960's.
Basically, the debate is this: which is easier to believe - that we are
being visited by extraterrestrials, or that a mysterious and
incomprehensible atmospheric phenomenon previous unknown to science is
being witnessed by thousands of people each year (and makes elaborate
ground formations almost exclusively in southern England)?
Bill Chalker sent along info (through Paranet) about the central
coast of New South Wales (again in Australia) having a major flap of
UFOs in April and May of this year. Besides the Toukley reports on
April 28th, there seem to have been a several other cases reported and
a great deal of media coverage. But a local resident announced to the
media that he was responsible for many of the reports. It seems he was
trailing a "luminescent kit apparatus" on a 500-metre-long line while
riding his bike in the area. Ufologists in the region are reportedly
debating whether or not this explanation is viable.
Someone posted a huge wad of articles and letters concerning the
Gulf Breeze affair, in the alt.aliens INTERNET newsgroup (I think it
was Don Allen). It contained (among other things): eyewitness acounts
by newspaper reporters, articles by Donald Ware and Duane Cook, letters
and articles by Bob Oechsler, photographic studies by Bruce Maccabee, a
letter by Bruce basically telling GB's mayor he doesn't know what he's
talking about, a summary by John Hicks, comments from Ed Walters in his
own defense, and Rex and Carol Salisberry's reasons why they disagree
with MUFON's support of the case. The information complements the IUR
articles mentioned earlier, and show how complicated the GB affair has
become. Some people are now firmly convinced that flares and balloons
caused the most recent UFOs there, and that Ed faked all his photos
with a little help from his friends. Others (notably MUFON reps) argue
that Ed's photos are impossible to fake and that flares or balloons
cannot explain the reports from the nightly skywatches. A recent
addendum to the case is that a physician from Louisiana who has been
investigating the GB reports with some associates has succeeded in
communicating with the recent UFOs, getting responses from flashing car
lights and telepathically giving instructions to the UFOs.
I think it's about time that an expedition of objective
investigators was made to the Pensacola sites. Even if Bob Sheaffer
and Phil Klass were along, it might throw a towel on the nightly UFO
contacts so that a better assessment of the reports could be made.
This all sounds suspiciously like the Niagara-on-the-Lake skywatches
(which I understand are still going on), which found hundreds of UFOs
each night flying over Lake Ontario. Investigators with CUFORN and the
former Project SUM had plotted UFO flight paths and had determined
through triangulation that the UFOs were flying in and out of an
underwater base near Toronto. Whatever happened to Project SUM,
anyway?
Back to crop circles. Mike Chorost kindly sent me a copy of a
RESEARCH REPORT (#3) by W.C. Levengood, who has analysed crop circle
samples to show they are significantly different from unaffected sites.
"Unusual Growth Responses in Crop Circle Seedlings" discusses how seeds
from crop circles grew at different rates than control seeds. In
addition, under a magnifying glass, seeds from circle sites were
"grossly malformed" compared with control seeds. Levengood claims that
"circle seedlings at the six-day point were at a significantly higher
growth (p < 0.05)". The data was presented in the form of a graph
which showed the circle seedlings at 9cm versus the 7cm control
seedlings. Levengood suggests that the average seedling heights were
therefore significantly different, though we cannot see this easily
from the graph, and details of the growing conditions are not given.
He also gives data on the "Vancouver" circles (actually from the
Alberta sites) and the Medina, NY, case, with similar results. He
concludes that "plant growth from crop circle seeds indicates the
presence of complex energy mechanisms within the formations".
Although Levengood's report is very interesting, others will be less
convinced of the significance of the results. What would be needed to
convince the skeptics, I think, would be two or three independent labs
conducting the identical growing experiments and then comparing the
results. From a paranormal point of view, perhaps it could be argued
that Levengood might have subconsciously "willed" the circle seedlings
to grow differently.
Jenny Randles has sent along copies of the NORTHERN UFO NEWS, the
most recent few of which have contained defenses of her views on the
Rendlesham UFO case. NUFON also defends the vortex theory quite
heartedly, though it also offers pointed commentary on the circle
scene, including the crop circle radioactivity fiasco. NUFON also
includes summaries of recent British UFO cases (remember THOSE things?)
in each issue, contributed by members of BUFORA, MUFORA, SPI and
essentially all other imaginable acronyms.
The CROP WATCHER, a British circlezine edited by Paul Fuller, is
also a good read. Being a statistician, Paul's article describing the
details of the radioactivity found/not-found at circle sites was
particularly insightful to those of us still trying to figure out what
a Chi-square is. Issue #10 (March/April) of CW contained a summary of
Andrew Hewitt's Survey of the 1990 British crop circles. FINALLY!
Hewitt used the CERES database (supplied by Terence Meaden) to
catalogue about 670 separate circles. The full CERES database is now
said to have over 2200 circle events listed, but for simplicity, only
the 1990 data was selected. Curiously, Hewitt used variables radically
different from those used by NAICCR in its reports. Probably because
of the source of the data, variables were selected that were
particularly relevant to the plasma vortex theory. Hewitt considered
the variables: Geographic Distribution; Altitude Above Sea Level;
Aspect; Gradient; Geology; Distance From Hills; Generalised Gradient
and Pattern Type. In addition, each circle had a map location, a date
found, the name of the discoverer and a brief description of the
formation.
Hewitt's results were interpreted to show that the vortex theory is
consistent with the data. For example, the variables of Aspect and
Gradient concerned the positioning of circles on hills in southern
England. Most of the circles were on the northeast side of hills, and
"thus wind vortices forming on lee slopes in Southern England would
tend to create crop circles on the North-Eastern side of hills". This
observation was supported by statistical tests. Other variables such
as the Altitude did not seem to have much meaning as data, and merely
reflected the geographical distribution in Britain.
But in North America, winds are much more variable, and such
analyses would have less meaning. Furthermore, North America has much
fewer UGM cases to use as data. Many circles in Manitoba were on
perfectly flat terrain, without any noticeable gradient, and rather
than negate the vortex theory, it has been reported that Meaden has
come up with several reasons why circles could form on flat terrain as
well. (This begs the question of whether or not Hewitt's
Gradient/Aspect data were meaningful.)
NAICCR also tabulated UGM data such as circle diameter, ring width,
eccentricity and crop type. The disparity of variables between the
North American and British analyses shows how the two cerealogies differ
just as the ufologies. Hewitt's study is a fascinating and much-needed
contribution to cerealogy, and is hopefully only the first of many
quantitative research efforts from the British groups. NAICCR will
attempt to include some of Hewitt's variables in its future Reports,
and it is hoped that British cerealogists will include more dimensional
analyses in their future studies. Only through an increased effort to
exchange and standardize cerealogy data can progress be made. (Just
like what is needed in ufology!) Good work, Andy!
More circles: A review of cerealogy research was published in UFO,
an Italian ufozine affiliated with Centro Intaliano Studi Ufologici, in
its Spring 1992 issue. We were surprised to find that the NAICCR 1990
Report was summarized and translated into Italian as an example of
worldwide cerealogy research. Grazie!
Vance Tiede, of another American cerealogy group, sent me a printout
of circle data he compiled. There are about 80 cases in his North
American Circle Log, and each one has a pageful of data. Vance has
chosen (along with Rosemary Guiley, I would assume) to use even more
variables such as Latitude, Longitude, Local Newspaper Address,
Legislature Representatives, Local Agricultural Agent, State Senate
Agricultural Committee Chairman, and allowances for audio anomalies,
dowsing effects, photos, and the names of local military bases and
power stations. One of Vance's ideas is to lobby politicians for
support in investigations of crop circles, hence the listing of ag reps
and house reps. The co-ordinates are useful to those supporting, for
example, Richard Hoagland's energy grid theory.
The most recent NATIONAL SIGHTING YEARBOOK (1990), by Paul
Ferrughelli in New Jersey, is another excellent statistical study,
using data on 954 American UFO reports during the period 1986-1990.
Among Paul's findings: in 1990, numbers of reports peaked in January,
April and October (UFOROM found that Canadian reports peaked in January,
April and August); the hourly distribution peaked at 9:00 PM and had a
trough around 10:00 AM (in exact accordance with UFOROM's studies); and
a slight indication of Keel's "Wednesday phenomenon".
The 1990 YEARBOOK is well laid out, and includes several additional
analyses such as monthly multi-year analyses, shape breakdowns, an
analysis specifically of "deltoid" objects, historical comparisons of
1947 versus recent data, and another look at the apparent influence of
media coverage upon UFO reporting. As for this last effect, some of us
might remember Strentz' classic PhD thesis on this subject many years
ago, which found a very strong correlation. Ferrughelli found that
"television program coverage on UFOs does NOT (his emphasis) cause a
direct increase in UFO sightings" and that there was "no relationship
between the 2 sets of data".
The data for these analyses came from MUFON, and it is good to see
that MUFON UFO reports ARE sometimes available for use in studies by
researchers.
Ferrughelli used Hynek's classification of UFO data in his analyses,
as has UFOROM in its own previous reports. However, in Jacques
Vallee's recent books, he has offered a new classification system, and
I think his new taxonomy is a very viable one. Vallee proposes a 4x5
array of UFO report types, based upon Hynek's classifications, but
expanding them to provide a more detailed listing of anomalies,
including "FA (Fly-by)", "MA (Maneuver)" and CE1 to CE5. In addition,
he suggests a SVP "Credibility" rating, which is a three-digit code
involving Source reliability, site Visit and Possible explanations.
(I call it the "S'Il Vous Plait" rating.) Vallee's coding system is a
constructive reappraisal of the problem of UFO report classification.
It may not be perfect (for example, there is no way to specify a
nocturnal light versus a daylight disc, as far as I can tell), but it
does allow for fine-tuning of the data. The Vallee classifications are
detailed in his book CONFRONTATIONS, but also in his UFO CHRONICLES OF
THE SOVIET UNION, Ballantine Books, NY, 1992, pp. 196-200.
Possibly the most significant new UFO book this season has been
Volume Two of Jerome Clark's UFO ENCYCLOPEDIA (1992) [Official title:
EMERGENCE OF A PHENOMENON: UFOs FROM THE BEGINNING THROUGH 1959].
Despite is high price ($85 Amer?), it should be read by both
armchair UFO buffs as well as experienced researchers. Jerry has done
a phenomenal job in compiling information about UFOs and related events
covering the period up to 1959. There are entries on noted
personalities, major cases, disputed photographs and the contactee
movement. Drawing from a variety of sources, Jerry has produced a very
readable, informative work that stands alone or in complement to the
first volume. Because of its weight, it's more difficult than most
books to read in the bathtub, but it is worthwhile going through the
entire tome. Readers are guaranteed to learn details of cases about
which they were unaware.
Although the book has a definitely "pro" standpoint, Jerry is wise
to include reactions and explanations of major UFO cases by debunkers
such as Philip Klass and Donald Menzel. In Clark's telling of the
tales, he points out major boners and silly comments by debunkers AS
WELL AS overboard proponents, although the former group won't be thrilled
by the portrayals. Mind you, selective quotations out of context have
been used by both sides ...
My only real complaint is the unneven distribution of material.
Biographies of figures like Aime Michel and Isabel Davis are given only
a few paragraphs, but some contactees' bios are many pages in length.
Some sections, such as those on UFO reports before 1959, seem
interminable, even though the case information is interesting in
itself. The inclusion of a long, long entry on Australian UFOs (one of
the few outside contributions, by Bill Chalker) is valuable because
many European and American ufologists are likely unaware of much of the
activity in Oz. But there would be a case to be made for similar
sections about India, Africa, Russia, etc., in addition to the
Australian info.
Otherwise, the UFO ENCYCLOPEDIA is an excellent reference work, and
should be added to any library of Fortean material. Readers new to the
field should peruse the book to get a "proper schooling" in the subject
before making any outlandish claims (and to get correct background
information for their own writings). Clark has included extensive
references with each entry, as well as a condensed index. Volume Three
is anxiously awaited, and Jerry tells me there is a possibility of a
mass-market compendium in the future. Good work, Jer!