Flying Saucer Review June 1978 [antikvár]

FLYINGEditor CHARLES BOWEN ConsultantsGORDON CREIGHTON, MA, FRAI, FRGS, FRASC. MAXWELL CADE, AInstP, FRAS, AFRAeS, CEng, FIEE, FIEREBERNARD E. FINCH, MRCS, LRCP, DCh, FBISCHARLES H. Gl BBS-SMITH, MA, FMA, Hon Companion RAeS, FRSAR. H. B. WINDER, BSc, CEng, FIMech E JONATHAN M. CAPLAN, MAI. GRATTAN-GUINNESS, MA, MSc, PhD, DSc PERCEY HENNELL. FIBPOverseas J. ALLEN HYNEK, PhDAIME MICHELBERTHOLD E. SCHWARZ, MDSecretarial Assistant iENm RANDLESAn international journal devoted to the study of Unidentified Flying ObjectsVol. 24, No. 1 (published June 1978)CONTENTSValidity of.investigationsunder Hypnosis:Charles Bowen 2UFO Landings inEstonia:Juri Lina 3-The Aveley Abduction:Part 3:Andrew Collins 5Bent Spoons, or BentReality?:Philip Creighton .,16Did humanoids killthese men?:F.W. Holiday 20Bizarre "Boxcar" overPreston:Ray Rimell 22Soldiers' close encounteron a Yorkshire Moor:Barry M. King 23Low-level UFO atMytchett:Omar Fowler 25A problem for the ItalianMinister of Defence:Gordon Creighton26Green mist UFO atNewmill:Terry Cox 28Mail Bag 30 Flying Saucer ReviewContributions appearinginthis magazine do notnecessarily reflect its policyand are published withoutprejudicei For subscription details andfl address please see foot of* page Ii of coverDEBUIMKMAIMSHIPQN Sunday March 19, 1978, The Sunday Times saw fit to publish anarticle by a science writer named Ian Ridpath entitled "The UFO Conspiracy." The underlying purposes of the article seemed to be attacks on the integrity of ufologists, and on the Daily Express and The Sun for publishing features on UFOs. Dr Hynek and the Editor of Flying Saucer Review came in for side-swipes: Hynek for neglecting to reveal in his book The Hynek UFO Report, apropos the Socorro case of 1964, that local residents had seen and heard nothing, and that the marks at the site could have been made with a shovel, etcetera; your Editor for giving the Express information on the Lakenheath events of 1956 and for admitting in a telephone interview that he had been too busy to read the "works" of Philip Klass. The latter, it seems, had discovered that false radar returns known as "angels" are experienced in East Anglia and, in conjunction with a meteor shower, could provide the features for such a case. For his part, however, Ridpath failed to mention the close visual sightings by experienced RAF and USAF pilots and aircrew (in the USAF case, looking down).Perhaps there was some significance in the fact that Ridpath also failed to mention that the Lakenheath/Bentwaters events had been removed from the secret list when the Condon Commission, which had investigated the case, published some detail of it in the US Air Force-sponsored report Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects which appeared in the United Kingdom in January 1969. Another thing that missed the attention of our critic was that the late Dr James E. McDonald of Arizona University had made an exhaustive study of the Lakenheath events from the American view point and that his report was given as part of a paper at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) on December 26, 1969. The paper was published by Flying Saucer Reveiw in its issue of March/April 1970.It was felt that readers of The Sunday Times should have the chance to judge some of the inadequancies of Ridpath's article. Hence a letter was addressed to the Editor of the newspaper in the hope that it would be published. Not unexpectedly it was neither acknowledged nor published, although it is known that it reached its destination for it was mentioned in subsequent correspondence between the Sunday Times andDaily Express (according to Mr. Levy): "The Editor, The Sunday Times, (Readers' letters)London WCI.March 21, 1978"Dear Sir,"Your contributor, Ian Ridpath, interviewed me by telephone and apparently listened to my views on reports of UFOs. He heard that, unlike many, I feel we should not assume tliEt wq are looking at an extraterrestrial phenomenon; that the massive nature of the visitations over so many years, the seeming inefficiency of the 'operators', the