Most sceptics, in
their efforts to debunk the ETH, employ a priori and ad
hominem arguments to attack reports which seem to
indicate that there might be a case to be made for it.
They also sometimes give the impression that any
explanation will do, so that we are sometimes given two
or three of them to choose from.
We intend to take a
more reasonable line, maintaining a critical attitude to
inadequate sceptical explanations as well as a refusal to
accept unlikely tales unsupported by corroborative
evidence or independent witnesses.
A baffling case
Q. What do sceptics do when they encounter a baffling
UFO report?
A. They jump up and
down and shout 'Liars! Liars!'
Many initially
puzzling cases are eventually solved, at least to the
satisfaction of most serious ufologists, by a process of
long and painstaking investigation and careful
examination of the available evidence and testimony. A
few, however, seem to the unbiased researcher to offer no
easy answers and it is these that rouse the sceptics to
hysteria in their denunciations of witnesses and
ufologists. One of the most interesting of such cases is
the incident which occurred in Arizona on 5 November
1975.
On that day Travis Walton claimed to have encountered a UFO
while on his way home from his work as a logger in the
Sitgreaves National Forest. He was apparently taken on
board the UFO and returned, several miles away, five days
later.
If Walton had been
alone at the time this story would probably have been
almost forgotten by now. The problem for the sceptics,
though, was that when Walton encountered the flying
saucer there were six other men with him. Apparently they
all supported his story and testified that they panicked
and drove away when Walton was zapped by the saucer. They
returned a short time later, but could not find him. He
turned up five days later in a telephone booth in the
nearby town of Heber.
Possible
explanations
This is a case which is difficult to debunk without
asserting that the witnesses are liars. Not only must
they be liars, but they must also be highly disciplined,
painstaking and ingenious liars. The only other approach
is to suppose that Walton and his workmates saw an
unusual natural phenomenon which they misinterpreted as a
flying saucer, and that Walton, knocked out by an
electrical discharge from the phenomenon, wandered about
in a trance for five days before fully regaining normal
consciousness.
Both of these
explanations have a certain plausibility, but only if you
just skim through the story and pay little attention to
the details. On closer examination both of them seem
rather feeble. However, there seem to be no other obvious
explanations and rejection of these hypotheses would
leave open the possibility which dedicated sceptics will
do anything to avoid.
Encounter in the
forest
A very strange feature of this case is the
concentration on what happened, or allegedly happened,
after the incident, with very little attention being paid
to the incident itself. Most writers on the subject seem
to copy descriptions of the UFO encounter from one
another rather than referring to the description written
by Walton himself. For example, some writers tell us that
when the men saw the UFO, Walton jumped out of the truck
before it stopped. But, according to Walton:
Suddenly we were
electrified by the most awesome, incredible sight we had
seen in our entire lives. 'Stop!' John cried out. 'Stop
the truck!'
As the truck skidded
to a dusty halt in the rocky road, I threw open the door
for a clearer view of the dazzling sight.
'My God!' Allen
yelled. 'It's a flying saucer!'
Mike shut off the
engine. We watched, spellbound.
. . . Turning back to
that impelling spectacle in the air, I was suddenly
seized with the urgency to see the craft at close range.
I was afraid it would fly away and I would miss the
chance of a lifetime to satisfy my curiosity about it. I
hurriedly got out of the truck and started toward the
hovering ship. (1)
The description that Walton gives of what happened after the 'blue-green ray' shot out from the UFO is obviously a reconstruction based on what the other witnesses said. They got the impression that Walton was hurled backwards for ten feet and fell heavily on his right shoulder. This happened very suddenly, so their recollections could be inaccurate. However, Philip Klass has made much of the fact that doctors who examined Walton about 24 hours after his return (i.e. about six days after the alleged incident) found no bruises anywhere on his body. He doesn't consider the possibility that Walton did not suffer any noticeable bruising, or that the bruises would have disappeared within a few days.
Was it a hoax?
Klass, and most other sceptics, presumably think that the
whole affair was an elaborate hoax. Let us, then,
consider it to have been a hoax and try to see if this
explanation makes sense.
If it was a hoax then
the group of loggers did not see anything unusual in the
forest that day (that is, assuming that they were in the
forest). Therefore the whole business must have been
carefully rehearsed beforehand. Having got the concocted
story clear in their minds they drove into Heber where
one of the men, Ken Peterson, phoned the police. Deputy
Ellison duly arrived to interview the men, who told him
that Walton was missing. The men were either in a highly
emotional state, or were excellent actors.
When Travis reappeared
five days later he, too, was in a highly emotional state.
Either that or, as generally agreed, his acting was
brilliant. So, we have seven hoaxers who are fine actors,
wasting their talents cutting down trees, rather then
making Hollywood blockbusters.
Such a hoax requires a
motive as well as the not inconsiderable ability and
discipline required to fool enough people for a long
enough time. Two main motives have been suggested.
Philip Klass asserted
that, as the men were behind in their work, they stood to
gain financially by having their contract terminated
because of some cause outside their control. However, the
contract was held by Mike Rogers, who paid his men by the
hour for work actually done. Forest Service staff who
supervised the contracts confirmed that Rogers would gain
nothing by terminating his contract in this way. They
didn't believe the UFO story anyway. In his latest book,
Walton has explained the details of Forest Service
contracts at great length (2) and Klass seems to have
finally dropped this explanation, as it is not mentioned
in his latest newsletter, which is entirely devoted to
yet another attack on Walton, his methods and motives.
(3) It is amusing to note that a number of sceptics
uncritically strung along with Klass's allegations for
many years, for no better reason that he has been
recognised as the arch-sceptic of ufology ever since the
death of Donald Menzel, who is the sceptics' equivalent
of a saint.
The other motive was
the large sum of money offered by the National Enquirer
for anyone who could prove that aliens had visited the
Earth. However, Walton, Rogers and the other men must
have been aware that they would be thoroughly grilled
about their story and that, when they were questioned
separately, a fantastic yarn told by seven men would soon
display serious inconsistencies and fall apart, leaving
them all looking very foolish. Actually it was the UFO
organisation APRO that contacted the National Enquirer,
and not Walton or Rogers. They also must have known that
they would have to face the dreaded polygraph tests.
Polygraphs
Polygraph? I was surprised, when I started looking at
the literature on this case, to see how much space was
devoted to the use of this absurd contraption. Believers
and sceptics alike seem to treat it with great reverence.
The descriptions and controversy concerning polygraph
tests used in the Walton investigation have done nothing
to alter my perception that 'lie detector' testing is
just one of those strange and irrational American
customs, like shooting holes in road signs.
The believers asserted
that the polygraph tests showed that the witnesses were
telling the truth and the sceptics were satisfied that
they showed that they were liars. Again, the lack of
consensus goes to confirm my impressions about this
gadget.
Klass keeps up the
pressure
The witnesses have stuck to their original story over
the years and the sceptics have little more to offer by
way of explanation than calling them liars. Klass goes
even further, by telling us what Walton would have done
if he really had been in a UFO:
If Travis was really abducted by a UFO, and even if he previously had no interest in the subject, UFOs should have become the focal point of his interest. He should certainly have joined APRO, whose leaders endorsed his abduction tale, to participate in its efforts to 'solve the UFO mystery'. But he did not . . . Surely he would want to attend UFO conferences and 'support group' meetings to talk to other "abductees". But the only UFO conferences Walton attends - always with Rogers - are those where they are invited speakers. (4)
Klass is trying to
have it both ways. If Walton did these things he and
other sceptics would say that he was just like the other
abductees, his experiences being purely subjective. So
whatever Walton does or does not do, it somehow proves
that his story is false or that he is deluded. Klass also
criticises Walton for refusing to attempt to recall any
further details of his claimed experiences at the hands
of the aliens. But if he did eventually come up a greatly
extended account Klass would not believe a word of it
anyway.
Jerome Clark has
commented: 'Should the Walton episode turn out to be a
hoax, we may be confident that it will not be the kind of
hoax Klass says it was.' This seems fair enough to me, if
a little enigmatic. In his latest newsletter Klass says:
'It is rumored that Clark helped Walton write his first
book and there is evidence that he served as
"ghostwriter" for much of the new material in
Walton's recent book.' (5) Over to you, Jerry . . .
References
1. Walton,
Travis. Fire in the Sky: The Walton Experience,
Marlowe & Company, New York, 1997, 35-37
2. Ibid., 303-312
3. Klass, Philip J. (ed.). Skeptics UFO Newsletter,
No. 50, March 1998
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
IN JANUARY 1997, the
Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture approved the
official establishment of Fundación Anomalía (Anomaly
Foundation), a non-profit organisation which is the first
of its kind in Europe.
Fundación Anomalía
is a cultural organisation, created by a group of
experienced UFO researchers and supported by a large
number of investigators, experts, qualified individuals,
scientists and others. They have decided to offer their
books, archives, experience and dedication, as well as
financial assistance and know-how, to make this project
viable.
This project has the
following objectives:
1. To promote the
study, in a rational and scientific perspective, of
anomalous aerospatial phenomena, commonly called UFOs,
and other related subjects, as well as their
social-cultural influence.
2. To preserve and
professionally manage archives, files, libraries and
other legacies covering such topics.
3. To continue editing
the well-established UFO journal Cuadernos de Ufología
(Ufological Papers), considered the best UFO information
source in Spanish, as well as other publications, books,
research monographs, essays, etc.
4. To finance UFO
investigations through research grants and scholarships.
Fundación Anomalía
was born within the team backing Cuadernos de Ufología,
a loosely organised group of professionals who edit,
collaborate or circulate around this most influential
Spanish-language journal. As required by law, the
foundation has a board of directors, composed as follows:
President, Mr Julio Arcas (Santander); First
Vice-president, Mr José Ruesga (Sevilla); Second
Vice-president and Research Director, Mr V.J. Ballester
Olmos (Valencia); Legal Director, Mr Matías Morey (Palma
de Mallorca); Publications Officer, Mr Luis González
(Málaga); Archives Director, Dr Antonio Petit (Sevilla);
Miss Matilde González (Santander).
Fundación Anomalía
unites a number of decentralised and even competing
organisations, becoming an outstanding example of
maturity not commonly seen in the UFO field. In order to
create this foundation, several UFO libraries were
donated, with over 1,200 volumes, as well as nine major
national UFO archives, computer equipment, etc. The
budget for the year 1998 amounts to 8 million pesetas (US
$55,000).
Projects in
progress include:
Project already
accomplished:
Diccionario
Temático de Ufología. This is a hard-cover, 416-page
thematic UFO dictionary edited by Matías Morey, with 18
contributors. The result of a three-year effort, the book
was published by Fundación Anomalía in December 1997.
1998 grants:
Fundación Anomalía, Apartado de Correos, 5.041 - 39080 Santander, Spain
Timothy Good. Alien
Base: Earth's Encounters with Extraterrestrials,
Century, London, 1998. £16.99
Although few British
ufologists take the ETH very seriously, most of them are
uneasily aware that this is what draws the crowds to UFO
lectures and, more importantly, sells books by the
trainload. Seeing the danger of boring his readers with
yet more rather dull official UFO reports and catalogues
of funny lights in the sky, and still unable to produce
evidence that would convince a reasonably alert
six-year-old, Good obviously feels that he has to come up
with something.
Some of us can
remember the old days when we read about the amazing
exploits of Adamski, Fry, Bethurum, Angelucci and all the
other contactees, and naively wondered if there might
possibly be some grain of truth in their stories. Quite a
few of us are still around, and Good obviously realises
this and is mindful of the old adage: The older they get,
the dafter they get.
And what could be
dafter than attempting to rehabilitate that notorious
fantasist, who needs no introduction. Ladies and
gentlemen, George Adamski! [Applause]
It seems that Adamski
really did meet the space people, but it all went to his
head and they eventually decided he was untrustworthy.
How does Good know this? Simple - a friend told him. This
friend had been contacted by 'the same, or a similar
group of extraterrestrials that Adamski knew' who told
her that 'Adamski was indeed selected and contacted by
this certain group of extraterrestrials, but at an early
stage he disclosed some secret information with which he
had been entrusted, and it therefore became necessary for
them to feed him with false information which would
discredit him, thereby protecting their own interests'.
So that's how it's done; if you want to know if one
contactee is genuine, just ask another contactee.
There are other ways
of testing the veracity of contactees. For example, Paul
Villa was asked what the other crew members were doing
while he was conversing with the pilot of the saucer.
Villa replied that they were just bathing their feet in
the river. Good remarks: 'At the time, that reply,
delivered without so much as the bat of an eyelid,
astonished me. Eventually, though, it contributed to a
growing conviction that Paul Villa's story contains
essential elements of truth.'
There are many other
contactee yarns in this book, so if you are as easy to
convince as Good is, then you might enjoy reading it. But
do I detect a hint of doubt? The author's use of chapter
headings such as 'A Pantomime of Unrealities', 'A
Festival of Absurdities', 'Alien Fantasia' and 'Beyond
Belief' suggests that perhaps we shouldn't take these
tales too literally.
Nicholas Redfern.
The FBI Files: The FBI's UFO Top Secrets Exposed,
Simon & Schuster, London, 1998. £16.99
The FBI at one time
denied that they investigated UFO reports, but files
obtained from them under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information legislation have shown that they have been
involved from the beginning. US Army Intelligence had
asked for their help in questioning witnesses to find out
if they were 'sincere in their statements that they saw
these discs, or whether their statements were prompted by
personal desire for publicity or political reasons'.
Of particular interest
are the FBI's investigations of contactees, such as
Adamski and Van Tassel, which were partly accounted for
by the fact that some people complained that they were
spreading politically subversive ideas. Redfern, though,
has devised a complicated theory to account for the FBI's
continuing interest in the subject.
At an early stage,
relations with the military became rather strained
because the FBI suspected that they were withholding
information that they had promised to share. It seems
that J. Edgar Hoover was intrigued by reports of crashed
saucers and was keen to discover the truth of the matter.
Redfern's thesis is that, as they couldn't get
satisfactory answers from the military, they attempted to
obtain information by checking on people who claimed
knowledge of UFO landings or crashes.
He goes into great
detail about the alleged Aztec UFO crash of 1948, which
is described in Frank Scully's book Behind the Flying
Saucers. The theory is that Leo GeBauer and Silas Newton
had somehow learned about it and passed on the details to
Scully, who published a distorted version. He implies
that the FBI's interest in these characters was due to
their knowledge of UFOs rather than because of their
criminal activities.
The information that
Redfern has extracted from the FBI concerning their
investigations of UFO reports, ufologists and witnesses
is very interesting. However, as in his previous book (A
Covert Agenda), his implausible speculations and his use
of unreliable sources to bolster his support for the ETH,
tends to spoil what could be a useful and serious work on
his chosen theme.
What I can reasonably
add from my long-past experience of DS8 (now AS2), as
well as my subsequent reading of tolerably well-compiled
UFO reports, is that - setting aside the ETH altogether -
I doubt that the Psychosocial Hypothesis will wholly
dispose of the problem. A few (a very few) of the reports
reaching the Ministry of Defence from the public
suggested the existence of transient phenomena which
could not be explained either by conventional occurrences
of a physical kind or by imagination. Reports reaching us
from RAF personnel (invariably of far higher quality and
always submitted with the unease which is felt by people
with a career to lose!) sometimes carried the same
implication, viz. that something was going on 'out there'
which had as much 'reality' - as well as the absence of
'solidity' - as any rainbow. Rainbows are utterly 'real',
even if a bit idiosyncratic in their properties; the
aurora borealis achieves a slightly higher degree of
'solidity' (e.g. in its detectability by radio
receivers); and Nature contains other phenomena which we
would be rash to dismiss as 'unreal', UFOs and ghosts
perhaps being instances.
The difficulties come
when people jump to simplistic conclusions about these
things - e.g. rainbows are a sign from God or a
manifestation of the Goddess Iris, ghosts are direct
evidence for human survival of death, UFOs are visitors
from space. A more 'phenomenological' approach might get
us further.
Ralph Noyes, London
Most ufologists agree that the dome-shaped object photographed by George Adamski was not a Venusian scout ship, as he claimed. However, he obviously photographed something. Many attempts have been made to identify it, most of them pure guesswork. These guesses include: an electric light fitting, a chicken feeder, the lid of a wine cooler, a part of a vacuum cleaner, and a model specially built for the purpose. No one has produced convincing evidence to support any of these identifications. Perhaps some of our readers have information or ideas that would help to clear up this little mystery?