Flying Saucer Review November 1981 [antikvár]

FLYING SAUCER REVIEW Editor CHARLES BOWEN Consultants GORDON CREIGHTON, MA, FRAI, FRGS, FRAS C. MAXWELL CADE, AInstP, FRAS, AFRAeS, CEng, FIEE, FIERE BERNARD E. FINCH, MRCS, LRCP, DCh, FBIS CHARLES H. GIBBS-SMITH, MA, FMA, Hon Companion RAeS, FRSA R H B WINDER BSc, CEng, FIMech E JONATHAN M. CAPLAN, MA I. GRATTAN-GUINESS, MA, MSc, PhD, DSc PERCY HENNELL, FIBP JANET BORD, COLIN BORD Overseas J. ALLEN HYNEK, PhD, AIME MICHEL, BERTHOLD E. SCHWARZ, MD Secretarial Assistant JENNY RANDLES An international journal devoted to the study of Unidentified Flying Objects Volume 27, No. 3 (published November 1981) CONTENTS CE-III report from Rauma, Finland J. Kirôlâinen P. Teerikorpi 3 Are contactées left-handed? Dr. B. E. Finch 7 Dr Felix Zigel' and the development of ufology in Russia - Part 1 Gordon Creighton 8 FSR Bookshelf ^ 11 Janet Colin Bord 13 A w/arm and peaceful expeience Leslie Harris 15 A gigantic "Cigar" over the Atlantic Gordon Creighton 17 The Falcon Lake incident - Part 3 Chris Rutkowski 21 Classification of levels of Humanoid intelligence Ahmed Jamaludin 25 Mall Bag 27 © Flying Saucer Review Contributions appearing in this magazine do not necessarily reflect Its policy and are published without prejudice For subscription details and address I please see foot of page ii of cover ARE THEY "PROJECTIONS"? Years of experience of studying UFO reports has convinced us of the simple truth that the UFO phenomenon is real. Yet despite the great mass of information relating to that phenomenon, and all the sifting, sorting and processing of the available material for more than thirty years, we seem to be little nearer a solution to the problem. So, frustrated by the phenomenon's unwillingness to fit neatly into a convenient physical pigeon-hole, some researchers seem to have proposed complicated paranormal explanations. It is hardly surprising that some of these proposals are difficult for the layman to follow. Indeed, one can appreciate the frustration of readers like Mr E. A. Cureton (see Mail Bag elsewhere in this issue) who claims to have had an alarming experience in pre-World War II days, nine years before the advent of publicity for flying saucers. Mr. Cureton was dismayed when he heard a leading researcher proclaim on a radio network that UFOs, in effect, are not solid craft. Hundreds of other people, just like Mr. Cureton, are probably further dismayed, and — and this is a most unwelcome result — lose interest when they read, for example, that in the "psychic projection" theory of UFOs ". . .the UFO is a non-physical projection from the brain/mind/unconscious/psyche of the witness, the mechanism as yet not being understood.* It has been suggested by John Rimmer"]" that the UFO is not even externalised, but remains 'an internal projection from the unconscious to the conscious mind.' " The author of that item Qanet Bord) agrees that the idea could be acceptable for some single-witness cases, but is less likely in cases where there are more than one witness, unless we accept the notion that a person can conjure up the UFO in the mind, and project the image telepathically to those other witnesses who may be in close proximity to that person — which is all very complicated. Accepting the possibility of witnesses triggering the projections, Mrs. Bord asks why they should see materialisations of spacecraft and alien beings? Why indeed! Thus are the UFOs divided by researchers into even more categories, and we confess that over the years FSR has done its share of proposing new ideas about the phenomenon. However, we must not lose sight of persistent facts which lead us to the view that the psychic projection theory is not acceptable in multiple-witness cases and, we may add not acceptable in many single-witness cases either. ***** In the very first issue of FSR in the Spring of 1955, a brief account of one * From Janet Bord's skilful explanation of the theoiy in "Ghosts or Machines?" in FSR Vol 27, No. I. t See Zetetic Scholar No. 7 (December 1980) p. 91.