Flying Saucer Review August 1978 [antikvár]

FLYING SAUCER REVIEWEditor CHARLES BOWEN ConsultantsGORDON CBEIGHTON, MA, FRAI, FRGS, FRASC. MAXWELL CADE, AInstP, FRAS, AFRAeS, CEng, FIEE, FIEREBERNARD E. FINCH, MRCS, LRCP, DCh, FBISCHARLES H. GIBBS-SMITH, MA, FMA, Hon Companion RAeS, FRSA R. H. B. WINDER. BSC, CEng, FIMech E JONATHAN M. CAPLAN, MA I. GRATTAN-GUINNESS, MA, MSc, PhD, DSc PERCEY HENNELL, FIBP Overseas J. ALLEN HYNEK, PhDAIME MICHELBERTHOLD E. SCHWARZ, MDSecrerar/4ssKlant JENNY RANDLESAn international journal devoted to the study of Unidentified Flying ObjectsVol.24, No. 2 (published August 1978)CONTENTSThe Ufonaut'splea for water:J.J. Benitez . 3Parkstone UFO occupants:Leslie Harris 6A new medicare?:Gordon Creighton 9The perplexedmotorcyciists:John Bracewell 10Luke AFB sighting:Barry Greenwood 11Entity encountered at Risley:J. RandlesP.Whetnali.16On a Northumbria shore:A. T. Price 21Publishing UFO data:Jenny Randies 22Old contactée case fromSpain:M.P. Garcia 23UFO physics - Pt2(a):Jan Heering 25Humanoid in London EC2?:Barry M. King 27Mail Bag .31New Books from America:John Lade .32Cloud-like object Angel hair:Jenny Randies . iii1 Flying Saucer ReviewContributiorts appearing inthis magazine do notnecessarily reflect its policyand are published withoutprejudicei For subscription details andA address please see foot ofT page ii of coverVEXED QUESTIONSJ N our last issue we recorded some thoughts on the "vexed question"of the use of hypnosis in investigating time-lapse contact cases with abduction and transportation or teleporation. These are the cases which Jenny Randies, Peter Warrington and others have categorised broadly as "Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind" (CEIV). It was felt that the use of the hypnosis technique in properly controlled conditions could be justified if a mental block in the sub-conscious memory could be pushed aside, so releasing, subsequently, a normal, conscious recall of events.There are dangers inherent in this. For instance, the hypnotised subject will frequently "recall" things unwittingly suggested by the hypnotist; as many things, indeed, as he recalls that are of significance. The entranced subject may also ramble far along the paths of fantasy, and the investigator needs to guard against these possibilities.Dr. Bernard Finch, in whose house the hypnosis sessions involving John Avis took place as part of the investigation of the Aveley abduction case (see FSR Vol. 23, No. 6 and Vol. 24, No. 1), says that he felt there were inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness. In a report sent to the Editor he says that the witness (John) was sometimes vague and that at times he appeared to be "filling-in" or romanticising; some of the evidence which emerged under hypnosis was "highly-coloured" by emotion.Dr. Finch also warns that there is a possibility that a subject could be under stress, or tension due, say, to domestic problems, and that he may have had a fugue* a transient period of unconsciousness when the brain carries on as in dreams, yet is still able to control automatic motions, or motions that have been taught, such as talking, moving limbs or stopping a moving car. To a bystander a person in a fugue would appear as if in a trance and talking incoherently, a state that could last a few minutes, or an hour, which could be the basis of a "time-lapse." After the fugue had passed, any dream could be very real to the subject who might believe the experiences he has dreamed are real a belief that could spread to other people (Folic a deux). Such dreams could be recalled under hypnosis.Another member of the FSR team who has met John and Elaine Avis is Jenny Randies a meeting which took place after the report by Andy Collins had been completed and delivered to FSR. Miss Randies'report was dated 17 February 1978.She had a long discussion with them and feels sure that they had a UFO contact; without knowledge of Dr. Finch's views, she states she is not sure what level of UFO encounter it could have been. Rather than " an ordinary sighting with the rest hallucinated" she leans towards the feeling it could have been a CEIV "a contact with subjective and unreal overtones." The couple believe that what happened to them is true " and therefore to decide whether it is objectively true is not entirely necessary; they may well have constructed their own definitions of objective and real."