Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
TheMUFONUFO JOURNALNUMBER 136Founded 1967.OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF NUJPONlJ MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.,i!Vol. 397No. 23Thursd...
The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALL EditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STR...
BRITISH PARLIAMENT DEBATES UFOsOn Thursday, January 18, 1979,the British House ofLords conducted afull-fledged UFO debate ...
(Parliament, Continued)for Her Majestys Government at the end of thisdebate. I should like to ask the noble Lordwhether he...
(Parliament, Continued)on UFO sightings. Further, they claim that theyare not spending any money on UFO research.They appe...
(Parliament,*Continued)they exist. All we are saying is that they areunidentified. They may be terrestrial or celestial.We...
(Parliament, Continued)Viscount said, is the star Proxima Centauri,which is 4% light years away. Always supposing,therefor...
(Parliament, Continued)and tell it.My Lords, I remain sceptical, perhaps moresceptical than anyone who has spoken thiseven...
(Parliament, Continued)noble Lords have spoken as though UFOs wereactually something, but ofcourse we are preciselysaying ...
(Parliament, Continued)science and makes no effort to go beyond them.Nor does he point the finger of scorn at anyoneelse. ...
(Parliament, Continued)The noble Earl also referred to an interviewwhich the then French Minister of Defence, M.Rpbert Gal...
NEW ZEALAND FILM REPORT - II; By Bruce Maccabee(Part 1, in the previous issue, described Dr. Maccabees trip to Australia a...
Mufon ufo journal   1979 6. june
Mufon ufo journal   1979 6. june
Mufon ufo journal   1979 6. june
Mufon ufo journal   1979 6. june
Mufon ufo journal   1979 6. june
Mufon ufo journal   1979 6. june
Mufon ufo journal   1979 6. june
Mufon ufo journal   1979 6. june
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Mufon ufo journal 1979 6. june

106

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
106
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Mufon ufo journal 1979 6. june"

  1. 1. TheMUFONUFO JOURNALNUMBER 136Founded 1967.OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF NUJPONlJ MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.,i!Vol. 397No. 23Thursday18th January 1979P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S(HANSARD)HOUSE OF LORDSOFFICIAL REPORTCONTENTSWEDNESDAY, 17 JANUARY 1979(Continuation of Proceedings)Motion—Industrial Recovery (Debate continued) [Col. 1101]Deer Bill [H.L.]—Committee [Col.1118]Written Answers—THURSDAY, 18 JANUARY 1979Questions -Pension Fund Investment [Col. 1155)Charier 77Appeal: Human Rights [Col. 1157]Grey Squirrel Control in Scotland [Col. 1159]Social Workers: Inquiry Proposal [Col. 1163]Ancient MonunKim and Archaelogical Areas Bill [H.L.]—First Readingrrv,i 11(.71Answers—" British "Nationality Law: Discussion of PossibleChanges "Disabled Persons: Employment Quota*DeficiencyDisarmament and Arms Control: _UN ResolutionsLONDONH E R M A J E S T Y S S T A T I O N E R Y O F F I C E40p netJUNE 1979$1.00
  2. 2. The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALL EditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRINGFIELDAssociate EditorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONTED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,Humanoid Study GroupPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARK HERBSTRITTAstronomyROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO PropulsionNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKEditor/Publishers EmeritusThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Subscription rates: $8.00 per yearin the U.S.A.; $9.00 per yearforeign. Copyright 1979 by theMutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. POSTMASTER: Sendform3579 to advise change ofaddress toThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.FROM THE EDITORThe UFO debate in the British House of Lords, reported inthisissue, is a perfect microcosm of the UFO problem—a problem ofattitudes, of priorities,and ofmilitary/political reactions to questionsthat have no neat explanatory pigeonholes. Since UFOs do not"attack" and wreak widespread destruction, they are,concluded to"pose no threat to nationalsecurity."The British Parliamentand theU.S. Congress daily are faced with urgent problems of energy,population, pollution, and crime. For obvious reasons, UFOs areseen as more ephemeral. They do not obviously affect day-to-day lifeand must therefore be given a lower priority.The British Lords, whether pro or con on the UFO subject,quite properly look to science for guidance...but do they look invain? Another famous Britisher, Lord Bertrand Russell, pointed outyears ago that science increasingly does "political" work, dictatedmore by where the research funds are availablethan by any noble"search for truth," particularlywhere ridicule may be the reward.The Lords are to be commended forsome thoughtful commentary,pointing out the very human difficulties of coming to grips with aproblem that threatens to outmode many of our cherished ways ofgoverning or of coping with nature and "reality."In this IssueBRITISH PARLIAMENT DEBATES UFOs 3MUFON SYMPOSIUM AGENDA 11NEW ZEALAND FILM REPORT - Part 2 12By Bruce S. MaccabeeDM OTHERS WORDS 19By Lucius ParishDIRECTORS MESSAGE 20By Walt AndrusThe contents of The MUFON UFO JOURNAL aredetermined by the editor, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of MUFON. Opinions ofcontributors are their own. and do not necessarilyreflectthose of the editor, the staff, or MUFON. Articles may beforwarded directly to MUFON.Permission is herby granted to quote from this issueprovided not more than 200 words are quoted from anyone article, the author of the article is given credit, andthe statement "Copyright 1979 by the MUFON UFOJOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd., Sequin, Texas" isincluded.
  3. 3. BRITISH PARLIAMENT DEBATES UFOsOn Thursday, January 18, 1979,the British House ofLords conducted afull-fledged UFO debate initiated by theEarl of Clancarty (Brinsley Le PouerTrench, author of several UFO booksbefore becoming a Member ofParliament). The debate fills about 70pages of the House of Lords "OfficialReport" of Parliamentary Debates.Since the discussion touches on manyimportant issues, extensive excerptsare reproduced here. Credit PeterTomikawa ,for providing the officialtranscript.UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS7.7 p.m.The Earl of CLANCARTY rose to callattention to the increasing number of sightingsand landings on a worldwide scale of unidentifiedflying objects (UFOs), and to the need for anintragovernmental study of UFOs; and to movefor Papers. The noble Earl said: It is with muchpleasure that I introduce this debate this eveningabout unidentified flying objects — known morebriefly as UFOsand sometimes as flying saucers.Iunderstand that this is the first timethe subjectofUFOs has been debated in your LordshipsHouse, so that this is indeed a unique occasion.Before proceeding further Ithink Ishould declarean interest, in that I have written a number ofbooks about UFOs. I am grateful to those nobleLords who are going to follow me in this debateand I am sure that it will be a most stimulatingdiscussion.Before speaking about the need for anintra-governmental study of UFOs, which is the basisof my Motion being debated today, I think itadvisable to give your Lordships some• background to this fascinating subject of UFOs.Ishall briefly cover a little history, the classes ofwitnesses, the characterises of UFOs and someimportant sightings, and then Ishall deal with thevital subject of the attitude of governments tothese important phenomena. . .: (The Earl ofClancarty described ancient Egyptian reports,World War D sightings, and early 1940s and1950s cases.-Ed.)There are literally vast numbers of theseastounding reports. Indeed, my Lords, thisworldwide UFO invasion of every countrys airspace is of growing importance and therefore Isuggest that Parliament keeps a continous watchon the situation. I have thought of one way ofdoing this. In the same way that there isa Houseof Lords Defence Study Group ably chaired bythe noble Lord, Lord Shinwell,perhaps we couldhave a House ofLords UFO StudyGroup tomeetperiodically. If any of your Lordships areinterested, please let me know!I should like to touch on the attitudes ofGovernments towards this subject and to stressthe needfor an intra-governmental study, whichis the object of my Motion.Iam only going to talkabout four Governments, your Lordships willprobably be pleased to know. First, let us take alook at the United States. I think that one of thereasons for "playingdown" UFOs some years agoin the United States was the fear of panicamongthe public. This was partly based on an actualpanic that did occur in 1938 due to a veryrealisticbroadcast by Orson Welles of H.G.Wells War ofthe Worlds. Thousands of people left theirhomes.However, after the war, the United StatesAir Force investigated pilots reports without anydebunking. Then the Central IntelligenceAgency, the CIA, stepped in. The CIA controlsthe intelligencedepartments of the UnitedStatesmilitary services. They ordered the UnitedStatesAir Force to clamp down on UFO reports. Thatwas, Ibelieve in 1953 and it has been goingon eversince. Pilots who reported seeing UFOs wereridiculed, and after a time other pilots did notreport them for fear of damaging theirreputation.We had high hopes during President Carterselection campaign that there was a strongpossibility of a breakthrough to the truth aboutUFOs. He disclosed duringhis campaign that hehad seen a UFO a few years previously inGeorgia, and he added that if he got into theWhite House he wouldrelease to the public alltheUFO information inthe Pentagon. Unfortunately,that election pledge has not been fulfilled.What has been happening in the SovietUnion? Probably the leading ufologist in thatcountry is Doctor Felix Zigel, Professor of HigherMathematics and Astronomy at the MoscowAeronautical Institute. For a long time he hadbeen trying to form a bigUFO research group ona worldwide scale. Many UFGs have been seenover the Soviet Union. In July, August,September and October 1967, for instance, giantspace ships were seen over various parts of theUSSR by astronomers and other witnesses. On10th November of that year, it was announcedthat there was to be a full investigationof UFOs.This was announced on Russian television. Theoperation was to be headed by Major GeneralAnatoly Stolyerov, with Doctor Zigel as NumberTwo. Thousands of UFO cases were to beanalysed by scientists and Soviet Air Forceofficers. However, the Russian Academy forSciences came down hard on the newUFO groupand on 27th February, 1968, Pravda publishedthe official attitude of the authorities, and thecover-up was on.There is, however, one country which can berelied upon to takea line independent from othersover many matters, and UFOs proved to be noexception. In February, 1974, the then FrenchMinister of Defence, M. Robert Galley, wasinterviewed entirely about UFOs on France Interradio station. The interviewer was Jean ClaudeBourret. At the time there was tremendouspublicity in France, but for some reason ournewspapers did not even mention the broadcast.M. Galley stated that the UFOs were real butadmitted that it was not known where they camefrom. He said that since 1954, there had been aunit in the French Ministry of Defence collectingUFO reports. Some of this material was sent tothe National Centre for Space Studies inToulouse, the Frenchequivalent of the AmericanNASA. In this Centre there was also a unit — ascientific one — studying both UFO sighting andlanding reports.A little over a year ago, I received someinformation that this particular unit was undergovernment sponsorships and so I put down aQuestion for Written Answer. The noble Lord,Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, kindly confirmedto me in his reply that the GEPAN unit — thoseare the initials of the group — had been set upunder the French Ministry of Industry,Commerce and Artisans at the centre inToulouse. M. Galley also added that thegendarmerie wereplaying a veryimportantpartinUFO investigations, questioning witnesses andexamining burnt circular marks on the groundwhere UFOs had landed, or were alleged to havelanded. So the French have been taking it allseriously and keepingtheir own people informed.Nobody panicked and people did not rush likelemmings into the sea.It is not time that Her Majestys Govermentinformed our people of what they know aboutUFOs? The UFOs have been coming inincreasing numbers for 30 years since the war,and I think it is time our people were told thetruth. We have not been invaded from outerspace. Most incidents have not been hostile.Indeed it is us, the earthlings,who have fired onthem. There may have been a fewallegedly hostileincidents, but I maintain that if there is adisturbing element in a phenomenon which ispretty friendly on the whole,weshould be told thetruth. Whatever the truth is, I am sure that aninformed publicis a prepared one. Anotherthing:it is on record that both sighting and landingreports are increasing all the.time. Just supposethe ufonauts decided to make mass landingstomorrow in this country — there could wefl bepanic here, because our people have not beenprepared.The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is to reply(Continued onnext page) .
  4. 4. (Parliament, Continued)for Her Majestys Government at the end of thisdebate. I should like to ask the noble Lordwhether he will contact his right honourablefriend the Minister of Defence, about thepossibility of giving a broadcast interview aboutUFOs, as his counterpart across the Channeldidin 1974. That would go a longway to discredit theview held by a lot of people in this country thatthere is a cover-up here and that in some wayweare playing along with the UnitedStates over this.I should also like to see an intra-governmentalstudy of the UFOs. AllGovernments should gettogether and pool their knowledge about UFOs,and the results should be passed on to the public.Finally, I should like to thank your Lordships foryour kind attention,and Ibeg to move for Papers.7.29 p.m.Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am boundto say that I face making this speech with sometrepidation. I had wondered whether we couldjustify the holdingof what is in effect a full debateon this matter; but having seen the audience wehave tonight,and indeed having heard the speechof the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, Ican see thatthat sort of thought wouldnot go down too well.Imay well be shouted down before Ifinish anyway,but let us see ifwe can avoid that right at the start.The noble Earl asked us in his Motion tosupport a proposal particularly for an intra-governmental study — I suppose he means, asindeed he has described, between Governments.No doubt he would wish to see the co-operationof the United States. But I should not want tosupport that kind of proposal. I do not think thetime has yet come when we can view this matter,with sufficient certainty to justify the expenditureof public money on it.I certainly agree that the numerous voluntarybodies, including those with which the noble Earlis associated, ought to be encouraged, and indeedI should not be opposed to informal links betweenthose bodies —or,at least the responsible ones—and others, such as the Ministry of Defence. ButIam ashamed to say, in the midst of all this faith,that Iam not myself a believer inUFOs described,as I believe they are, as objects or vehicles fromanother planet or from another universe.I have some 2,500 hours as a pilot. I haveflown across the atlantic a few times as a pilot.But, unlike with the aircraft reported bythe nobleEarl, I have never seen one. Ipresume — indeed, Ibelieve — that a good many of the sightings canbe explained by logical scientifictheory and I am,so far at least, convinced that those that cannotso far be so explainedcould be, ifour knowledgewere more advanced or if. we had moreinformation about the sightings in question. It isthese unexplained sightings upon whichufologists rely so heavily in asking us to accepttheir theories. But 1believe, as I say, that theseunexplained sightings could be — and indeed,would be —explained, ifwe had more knowledgeabout them; for example,, better photographs.How many clear photographs ofUFOs have yourLordships seen? AllI have seen are hazy, fudgyphotographs which could, or could not, begenuine.Ufologists often rely upon radar informationfor evidence in their case, but I must tell yourLordships that radar plays more tricks even thanthe camera, and 1 do not believe that radarinformation, in this context, isvalid. For example,the recent sightingsin New Zealand, which werewidely reported just before Christmas, includingsome rather strange-looking photographs whichappeared on television, were also said to havebeen confirmed by radar information which wasavailable to the aircraft in question. But I knowfrom my own experience that radar is frequentlyused, and, indeed, is so designed, for detectinganomalies in atmospheric conditions and inweather patterns, and I am not persuaded thatradar is a valid supporting argument in this case.Since time immemorial, man has ascribedthose phenomena that he could not explain tosome supernatural or extraterrestrial agents.Eventually, as scientific wisdom has advanced,these phenomena are understood more fully,until now, today, no one takes witchcraftseriously and there are no fairies at the bottomofmy garden. It is not so long ago that magnetism,as it occurs naturally in the form oflodestone, wasthought to be the work of the Devil, as indeedwere some of the hot springs found in Iceland,Australia, and elsewhere....I emphasize that Ido not for a moment doubtthe sincerity and conviction of those who believein these objects, who believe that they are visitorsfrom another universe or, at least, somesupernatural force beyond our reason. Isimply donot happen to agree with them. Icertainly do notagree with th learned professor, speaking on theradio the other morning,who said: "Anyone whobelieves in UFOs is a loony." But as for thesuggestion that an international. study groupshould be set up, I do not think that I couldcountenance that as a serious proposal at thistime. Iemphasize, however, that Iwouldbe happyto encourage informal links between, forexample, the RAF and the very worthy groupswho believe differently from the way I do....The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has done usa service by bringing this matter forward, but Iwould counsel caution and care.7.38 p.m.The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, as thenoble Lord, Lord Trefgame, has said, themajority of noble Lords in this Chamber will begreatly indebted to the noble Earl, LordClancarty, for raising this fascinating andcontroversial subject this evening.Before Ibegin,perhaps I should say that I have an interest in it,because I am a director of a company which is tomake an identified flying object — a thermoskyship, which is saucer shaped. I shall not getthat muddled up. But in spite of sceptics, such asthe noble Lord, Lord Wigg, the other day in anewspaper, and Sir Bernard Lovell from JodrellBank, who says that UFOs do not exist, wemustagree that they do, because otherwise therewould be no unidentified flying objects.Furthermore, we should not have throughouttheworld radio telescopes listening to try to pick upsignals from intelligences in outer space....It has been reported that the United Statesand the USSR signed a pact in 1971 toswap UFOinformation, but the pact stated that theywere tokeep the rest of the world in the dark. I believethat the pact was signed so that neither super-Power would make mistakes about UFOs beingatomic missiles. Iam also led to understand thatquite recently the three UnitedStates balloonistswho crossed the Atlantic were followed for up to12 hours by UFOs but were ordered by UnitedStates Government agents not to discuss them.We know that war inspace,once a figmentofthe imagination and a subject much beloved byscience fiction writers, is very nearly a factnow. Both super-Powers have, or will have, killersatellites and laser beamsoperating inspace.MayI ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether heagrees that this may perhaps be one of thereasons for the reticence of the United Statesover being more forthcomingabout their UFOinformation?. . . .As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgame, said, Iagree entirelythat we do not understand many ofthese unidentified flying objects because of burlack of knowledge. UFOs defy worldlylogic.Evenif one accepts that there may be life elsewhere inour galaxy, or even in other galaxies, the humanmind cannot begin to comprehend UFOcharacteristics: their propulsion, their suddenappearance, their disappearance, their greatspeeds, their silence, their manoeuvers, theirapparent anti-gravity, their changing shapes.They defy our present knowledge and laws ofmatter. Of course, this naturally upsets ourearthly scientists because it is outside their.earthly terms of reference and knowledge, but totry to present UFOs iri a more mundane light letus briefly examine the last 30years....: (The Earlof Kimberly recounted the early history of UFOsin the United States and presented a list ofprominent people who either had sighted UFOsor took them seriously.--Ed.)Despite the United States and the USSRembargo on UFO information, funnily enough theRussians appear more inclined to think thatUFOs have extraterrestrial origins. Further,some Russian scientists see a connectionbetween UFOs and paranormal phenomena. Infact, there is an ever-growing belief that spacetravel has a connection with telepathy andtelekinesis, because cosmonauts in orbit havediscovered through scientific tests that they havean increased level of telepathic communication. Ifwe assume that extra-terrestrial intelligenceswhotravel to earth are more advanced than weare—and in that respect I think that they must be —then UFOs could be telekinetic phenomena: inother words, controlled by thought pulses. . . .I believe that there ismuch material evidenceon UFOs in the national archives in the UnitedStates of America which has never been madeknown to the public,and even President Carter isfinding it difficult to carry out his pre-electionpledge. I am led to believe that he has triedunsuccessfully with NASA to do UFO research.The answer he has been given is "No, due toexpense." That research which NASA has beenrequired to do would cost a few million dollars,but a few million dollars is only the cost of two .astronauts suits. Therefore it appears obviousthat for some reason there is a cover-up in theUnited States.We in the United Kingdom are in a strangeposition because we have had thousands ofsightings, yet I am led to understand that theMinistry of Defence have only two clerksworking(continued on next page)
  5. 5. (Parliament, Continued)on UFO sightings. Further, they claim that theyare not spending any money on UFO research.They appear reluctant to investigate publiclyconnected.phenomena such as alleged messagesfrom outer space. They say that this is theresponsibility of the BBC and the Post Office.Can the Minister say whether the BBC and thePost Office know that they have thisresponsibility?Further, when the noble Lord, LordStrabolgi, replies to the debate will he confirmthat Her Majestys Government might besympathetic and give support to the efforts ofPresident Carter, Dr. Kurt Waldheim and SirEricGairy to get the United Nations to debate theresolution"to discouer the origin, nature and intent ofUFOs."The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said that weshould set up a parliamentary UFO group to meta few times a year. I would concur with him.Further, I think the general public should beencouraged to come forward with evidence.Many do not, for fear of being ridiculed. Let thembe open; let them be honest; letthem badger theirMember of Parliament and the Government to beopen with them and to ceasewhat Iam convincedis a cover-up here. The people of Britain have aright to know allthat the Goverments, not only ofthis country but others throughout the world,know about UFOs.Before I sit down I ask the noble Lord, LordStrabolgi, whether he will tell your Lordships whythe Ministry of Defence has not informed thepublic of 18 contacts from 23rd May 1977 up to22nd February 1978, numbered K 5634 to K 5651inclusive. Further, what do the classificationnumbers 5,3,20,16,6,8and 23mean for these18contacts? Moreover, does the noble Lord realisethat 13out of these 18contacts were seen duringthe hours of daylight? There need to be no fearthat the people of this country may panic, since ifUFOs are extra-terrestrial their intelligence andknowledge is far ahead of our primitiveunderstanding. My Lords, I heartily support theMotion moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty,for an intra-governmental body to researchUFOs. Let Her Majestys Government give anexample to the rest of the world by being theleader in this investigation.7.55 p.m.The Viscount of OXFUIRD: My Lords, first Ishould like to thank the, noble Earl, LordClancerty, for initiating this extremely interestingdebate. Of course it is really much above myhead, but I have enjoyed it already and I hope Ishall enjoyitfor the rest of the evening.To me, thefirst question really is, where have these UFOscome from? There could be agreat many answersto that, but in the first place we can look at ourown planet and there isno doubt that there isverylittle chance of their having come from anythinginour own solar system. . . . •The next possibility which has been paradedis that they mightcome from the sister sun in ourown galaxy. Of course that is quitepossible if youbelieve in the now accepted — or shall we saymore popular —? theory of the "big bang" for thestart of the universe. Undoubtedly, our sun andits solar system must have been shared withmanyothers at that moment when we suddenlyappeared. They even give dates for it now; theytalk about 5,000 million years ago, which fits inwith our own geological background.There are many stars which have a solarsystem which might well be in the same position;they might have one planet, as we have, as goodas ours and with the same amount ofknowledge.On the other hand, we must accept the fact, asthe noble Earl,Lord Kimberley, was saying,thatitwould have to be something which we have notbeen able to attain on this earth and somethingthat we do not understand on this earth, becauseif one wanted to get, say, from A Centauri,whichis our nearest star, to here, it would take half alifetime. Even travelling faster than anything wehave ever produced in the way of space ships inthis world of ours, the distance is 250,000 timesthe distance that we are from our sun, which is93million miles.It isa distance which wouldcertainlytake half a lifetime, even at 100,000 miles an hour.So Ido not think it would be reasonable tolook atanother solar system, say A Centauri, which isvery near, being only roughly 4% light years fromus, which is not very much in space. There isofcourse the possibility that the UFOs may comefrom some secret effort on this earth. This Iverymuch doubt because one could not keep a thinglike that secret for 20 or 30 years. I very muchdoubt the possibilityof its being on this earth....If the suggestion of the noble Earl, LordClancarty, backed by the noble Earl, LordKimberley, is adopted — that is, that we shouldhave a worldwideorganisation — to look intothismatter and to go further than we have ever done,why should we not be the leaders of it? It wouldtwist science back into a new field. Is it possiblethat there is not merely another solar system inour galaxy, but that somewhere in one of themany galaxies inthe expanding universe there areother places where these things could come fromwith their amazingly vast scientific knowledge? Ipersonally see no valid reason why we mustaccept that at this time, but we should startworking for it. Ifwe had a worldwide organisationto try to control that, perhaps we should be ableto solve many of the problems which face ustoday in the universe; and nothing could bebetter. Then we might possibly find the answer toour UFOs.8.2 p.m.Lord DAVES of LEEK: MyLords, as the onelone figure on this side of the House who hasdared to come in on this debate, may Isay thatithas been a pleasure to listen to the nobleViscount, Lord Oxfuird, who has just spokenand, who has, in his own inimitable way, as aresult of his military and other experience overthe years, brought a certain depth and profundityto the request for some investigation into thephenomenon with which mankind is presentedtoday. Consequently, with all sincerity I can saythat I hope this House will have the pleasure oflistening to the noble Viscount on manyoccasions adding his voice to our deliberations,and I thank him for what he has said.Now Iwant to attack the problem in my ownway. First, I want to ask what are we talkingabout. Secondly, after expressing my gratitudefor the maiden Speech, I would also expressthanks to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, whoinitiated this debate to call attention to theincreasing number of sightingsand landings on aworldwide scale of unidentified flying objects.There is no argument about that. Do not let thenoble Earl be a little bit sad because of dandyintellectualism that may approach this debate.The world oozes with intellectuality and at thepresent moment it is completely lacking inwisdom. Let us remember what I have said rruinytimes here, and it was my old motherwho taughtme this; she made me go to Sunday school andquote the text. She would say inWelsh: "Alwaysremember, my boy, Solomon did not ask forcleverness, he asked for wisdom." There is a vastdifference between the dandy intellectualism ofsome of the reporters on newspapers approachto this problem and the wise approach that wehave just heard in this maiden speech. Let usanchor that down. What else does the noble Earlask for. He says on a worldwidescale and thatthere is need for intergovernmentalstudy. I willadd to it from the other side of the House that theexpense would be so small that we should notneglect this. . . .There isa queerness in the cosmology of theworld inwhich we are now living. Was Wellsright?We .certainly see mankind acting queer whenpetrol is short. He is snarling and worse than anybeing from outer space. The antropologicalarrogance of 20th century man in his tinpotmotor-cars riding through the streetsofthe lovelyspaceship we call the world is heartbreaking. Hehas learnt nothing from his two wars; and if wehad another, God help mankind, in view of theway that he has shown his greed, selfishnessand tendency to panic as never before since thedays ofthe Crusades. The greatest delusionin thehistory of man was the delusion of the Crusades.But men went on them after the days of Peter theHermit with a fiery and fierce belief in what theywere doing....The House has heard a number of laudablepeople quoted. Ordinary little people havesometimes been laughed at, especially thoseconcerned in the famoussighting at PascagoulainMississippi when one little fellow fainted when hesaw a chap with one legjumping towards himwitha wizened and wrinkled face, with pointed ears,crab claws for hands, slits for eyes and holesbeneath his nostrils — they would not be nostrilswithout holes, at least I should hope so! We shallnot develop fantastic descriptions like that. Weshall not go into those realms. But we must saythat there are many people who have said thatthey have experienced these phenomena.I agree that the New Zealand incident hasreawakened mans interest and as the nobleLord, Lord Trefgame, said, they were not clearpicures. However, Iattended a scientific lectureinthis noble building not so very long ago, givenbysomeone who believed faithfully in the Loch Nessmonster. He showed us masses offilms. He was ascientist and he swore that the Loch Nessmonster existed. There is just as much case forthe existence of flying saucers. We know that(continued on next page)
  6. 6. (Parliament,*Continued)they exist. All we are saying is that they areunidentified. They may be terrestrial or celestial.We are asking Governments to find an answerand that is allthatthisdebate isabout. There isnomagic, we have nothingup our sleeves, but let theworld know what is going on. ...Is the earth the only planet populated byintelligent technological life? I do not know and Ido not suppose that we shall be able to find ananswer yet. If in a year of Queen Elizabeth I hadsaid to someone inLondon that I could show hima pictureof Philip of Spain in Madrid on a pieceofglass in his room, I would probably have beenburnt at the stake as a wizard, or as a witch ifIwere a woman. However, we can do that today.We have broken through.We have the miracleonearth of television, even from the moon. . . .For a couple of generations now thousandsof magazines and so on have reported thesesightings. We want to know whether theseobjects that are unidentified deserve realresearch in depth. Whether or not it is true, onlyour prejudices can decide, and it becomes moredifficult to listen to such weird experiences fromapparently honest, sane and unself-seeking menwho place their findings before papers andGoverments. Are we right to call these men liars,hallucinators or sensationalists? If one humanbeing out of the tens of thousands who allege tohave seen these phenomena is telling the truth,then there is a dire need for us to look into thematter. Those who believe inpsychic phenomenaor spiritualism and those who believe in thesynchronicity of ghosts — as they try to explainthem —should not scoff at the possibility oftheseunidentified objects. We know that poltergeistsexist; we know about their activities. Therefore,we do not be so ready to scoff at UFOs when,inanother moment if I catch you talking, you willagree with me that poltergeists exist. This is aserious Debate. It deserves study andunderstanding.8.30 p.m.The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords,Icount it a privilege to follow the noble Viscount,Lord Oxfuird, and to link myself with the wordsofthe noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, incongratulating the noble Viscount on his maidenspeech. At the beginning of his speech I jotteddown that Ishouldlike to thank him for his "down-to-earth remarks," but when he got right out to ACentauri I realised that that phrase was of no useanyway. However, we congratulate himand lookforward to hearing his voice again and often. . . .It is right that we should give a cool andscientific look at allunidentified flying objects, notonly because of natural curiosity, not even only —as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley,suggested —because ofnationalsecurity but alsofor reasons of scientific research. There was atime when leaders in the Church were not alwaysso enthusiastic about pushingout the frontiers ofknowledge as I believe we are today. I very muchhope that such a searchwill continue. Whether ornot it should be an infra-governmental study I amnot sure. We shall listen with interest to what thenoble Lord, Lord Strabolgi,says to uson that.Butthat it should be studied, and seriously studied, Ibelieve to be true. . . .I think that we should be quite cool, firm andscientific and try to extend our knowledge inthisarea. But, with the wealth of scientific,aeronautical and erudite knowledge in yourLordships House, what isa bishop doingmovingamong the various parts of this chequeredchessboard? I felt that Iwanted to share anxietieson a rather narrow level with your Lordships.First, I believe that UFOs and the mystery. surrounding them today are helping to build upaclimate of credulity and, in certain cases, evenofsuperstition, with the danger of a sort of ersatzspiritually almost reacting against theimpersonality of modem civilisation, but notwholly involved in the total Christiancommitment, whichisa balanced commitment...My concern here today is that the mysterysurrounding UFOs today — and I think it ishelped by the varietyoffilmsand programmes onthe subject — is in danger of producing a 20th•century superstition in our modern and scientificdays which is not unlike the superstition of pastyears. That is my first anxiety. . . .I see a certain danger of the linkingofreligionwith the UFO situation at that level. SomeChristian researchers suggest that those who.become deeply involved inthe religiousaspects ofthe UFO situation come under a psychicdomination which can cause serious distress tothem and to their personal life. That ismyanxiety.I may be wrong, but Iput forwardwith somecare,having thought about it and studied itagood deal.Therefore, my third anxiety — and I am sorry tobe negative but it is important to share both thelight and the dark sides — is the danger of thereligious aspect of the UFO situation leading tothe obscuring of basic Christian truths. . . .I say this in this debate recognising thedanger of, as it were, preaching a sermon.However, I do not think that is true in this casebecause the very subject we are debating ishelping to widen our horizons — and the nobleViscount, Lord Oxfuird, stressed this point oflooking far but in his maiden speech. IbelievethatChrist has not onlya terrestial, not only a cosmic• significance but literally a galactic significance. Ibelieve that He is Gods vice-regent concerningHis great creative world. It is good that our mindsand eyes should be stretched further out becauseI do not believe that at any point of the universewe get beyond the hand of God. Therefore, ithelps us to understand the majesty of theGodhead when we begin to stretch our minds toreach out to the far corners of creation. . . .8.36 p.m.Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I must beginwith an apology. Before I knew that the debatewas to start so late Ientered into an obligation forthis evening from which Ifindit difficult to escape.Therefore, I may be unable to stay the course.One happy thing about UFOs-is that they havenothing whatever to do with Party politics!Another is that they take ones mind off theabsolutely frightful everyday events. Besidesthat,no theory as regards them can possibly belaughed out ofcourt, nor need angels inrespectofthem fear to tread! Iam sure that the noble Lord,Lord Davies of Leek, would agree.Though many alleged sightings are ofidentifiable objects of terrestrial origin, such asdisintegrating satellites, balloons or meteors, oreven some sort of reflection, others are ofthingswhich, on the face of it, cannot be accounted forin this way. The evidence of this is obviously toocircumstantial to be disregarded. The evidenceproduced by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, andmy noble friend Lord Kimberley, isobviously toocircumstantial. You cannot disregard that. Thesethings almost certainly do exist. Itisdifficult to saythat theydo not exist. Therefore, unlike the nobleLord, Lord Trefgarne, I do .not contest theirexistence.Some objects may be ofterrestrialorigin,butequally some may not.Whatever their origin,ithas certainly not as yet been proved that theycontain, or are controlled by, sentient beingsofany sort. Still less has it been demonstrated thatsuch sentient beings come from another planet,of whichwe are told there are manymillions in theuniverse and no doubt many thousandson whichconditions may well be similar to those on earth.Itis conceivable, therefore, that UFOs come fromanother world; but that, to say the least, is notcertain or, let us say,is not yet certain. Let ustherefore for a moment examine the terrestrialand the non-terrestrial hypotheses.If these objects are terrestrial, they comesomewhere from our world, then they mayconceivably be attributable to some conditionofthe atmosphere, or upper atmosphere, unknownto us, producing electrical or similar phenomenawhich no doubt interfere with compasses and forsome reason dart about the sky, sometimes evencoming to earth. The difficulty about such anexplanation is that they never seem to come intoactual contact withaircraft, or anyother airborneobjects. Even if collisions have sometimes beensuspected, they have not been proved to haveoccurred. Nor,apparently, do they ever crashinto anything important on the ground. Whenthey are alleged to have been seen on the groundit is always, incidentally, away from houses. Isuppose it is conceivable that they may becapable of passing right through physical objects,their mindless trajectory being thereforeharmless, and dictated by some unknownphysical cause, and their apparent presence onthe ground being due to some local conditions onthe surface. All I say is that this is a conceivablehypothesis. In any case, the fact that theiroccasional presence is so far inexplicable doesnot in itself invalidate the terrestrial hypothesis.There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies ofLeek, said, more things in Heaven than aredreamt of in our philosophy. . . .If these objects are not terrestrial, thenadmittedly, always supposing they exist and arenot mere illusions, they must be of some non-terrestrial origin. We can, I think, discard thepossibility that they come from any of the otherplanets, as was said by the noble Viscount, LordOxfuird, whose maiden speech we so muchappreciated; I hope we shall hear from himagainshortly. Venus is too hot, Mars is a lifelesswilderness, and conditions on the others areextremely unlikely to be compatible with any formof life.Thus, from whence do they come? They canonly come from a planet in some other starrysystem, of which the nearest, as the noble(continued on next page)
  7. 7. (Parliament, Continued)Viscount said, is the star Proxima Centauri,which is 4% light years away. Always supposing,therefore, that UFOs are manned by sentientbeings who travel at the speed of light — and ifyou travel at 186,000 milesa second, how do youslow down on approaching the earth? (howwonderful to imagine!) — these creatures musthave been cooped up in their small machines forno less than 4-5terrestrialyears before appearingin our atmosphere. One can perhaps imagine thatthey may somehow have been able to escapefrom time and consequently not need anysustenance or sleep, but itisdifficult, even on thathypothesis, to believe their machines aresomehow time-exempt and can consequentlycontain enough propellent to keep them steadyon their millennary way. . . .There may be more sightings now simplybecause we have better facilities for observingthem. If so, what conclusion must we draw asregards the whole non-terrestrialhypothesis? Itissimply that these sentient and obviously highlyintelligent beings from another planet,ifsuch theybe, at the end of an interminable journey, arecontent simply to hover about our atmosphereand not attempt a landing, or at least a landing ofwhich we have any uncontrovertible evidence.What could be the point of such strangeproceedings? These sentient and obviouslyintelligent beings must have picked up enoughinformation to conclude that a serious landingwas feasible or, if not feasible, then to abandonthe whole idea. Perhaps they may even in somemysterious way have been able to master ourlanguage and penetrate our thoughts. I think itwas my noble friend Lord Kimberley who saidthat conceivably they were .under some sort ofthought control from a planet in theneighbourhood of Proxima Centauri. Ifthat is soand it issimplya question ofthoughtcontrol, thenit comes down apparently to a sort ofcosmic jokebeing played by these sentient beings from 4%light years away on the unfortunate inhabitants ofthis globe; they are a sort of hallucination in thatthey induce us by thought control to believe inthem. It is a conceivable theory but Ido not thinkit is a tenable one....The more over-populated our planetbecomes, the greater the violence and the moreappalling the wars, the more, unconsciouslyperhaps, we want to leave it ifwe can or trust inother worldlyintervention; and the more intensetherefore the longing, the greater the temptationto believe that there actuallyissomewhere else towhich we can physically go or to which we cansomehow make an appeal. It was a greatdisappointment when the moon was discoveredto be a mass of grey plasticine, that Mars waseven more unpleasant than the middle of theSahara and that Venus was the nearest thing toHey.What is the moral? I agree with the rightreverend Prelate, who said so eloquently—we areindebted to him for his intervention—thatperhaps the moral is that we had better not putour trust in saucers for salvation but, rather,concentrate on how best to conduct ourselveshere below so as to live in charity with ourneighbours and eventually die in peace. If theUFOs contain sentient beings, we can only leave4 it to such being to get in touch with us when, andif, they will. Up to now, if they exist, they havedone no harm of any kind. Apparently theyhavedone no harm for the last two or three thousandyears. So there seems to be no great need to setup intra-governmental machinery to investigatethe whole phenomena. The mystery may suitablyremain a mystery,and so far as Ican see no bodywill be in any way the worse off if it does.8:50 p.m.Lord KINGSNORTON: My Lords, Ishouldlike to add my thanks to those which the nobleEarl, Lord Clancarty, has already received foropening the debate in such an extremelyinteresting way.Ifound my imagination boggling alittle at some of the things he told us.Nevertheless, I feel that it isof immense valuethatthis matter has been brought out into the openbythe debate in the House, and I hope that as aresult of it there will be some progress in theunderstanding of what is an extremely seriousmatter. I feel that we must be careful about ourterminology in discussing the UFO problem, and Ibelieve that Ishall make clear in the course of myremarks what Imean by that. For example, in thepast few days, since it was known to my friendsthat I was to take part in the debate, I have hadover and over again the question: Do you believein UFOs? I must say that I think that is rather asilly question, because if I saw something in thesky which neither I,nor whoever happened to bewith me, could identify—I have not, but let ussuppose that I did—then I should have seen anunidentified flying object, a UFO. Ido not have tobelieve in it. Ishould believe merelythat Ihad seenit—something that I could not explain; and Ibelieve that many people are in that position....I am sure that many—and perhaps most—ofthe sightings recorded and reported areterrestrial in origin: aeroplanes with navigationlights glowingat night;satellite launching rocketsburning up on re-entry; remotely piloted vehicles,now beginning to be called RPVs; up on trialflights; weather balloons; trick reflectionsof light.In the extra-terrestrial class I am afraid that Icannot think of anything other than meteorites,Northern Lights and ball lightning, but there areprobably other well known physical phenomenawithin the knowledge of astronomers andmeteorologists.I feel, however, that some of the reports wehave had—and we can for the time being leaveout Ezekiel—are not readilyexplained in termsof1any of the possibilities which I have mentioned.The New Zealand phenomena are worth muchmore investigationthan they have yet had, but sofar, in so far as I have been able to understnadwhat has been reported, they do not appear to beexplicable in terms of any of the suggestionswhich I have so far made. That seems to gofor thequite extraordinary,widespread sightingsrecentlyin Italy, where hundreds of people as reasonableas you and I, my Lords, seem to have seen quiteinexplicable things in the sky. It would beworthwhile trying to explainthem,and ifthere are-people who know what they are, theyought to tellus. The high probability in my mind is that theyare terrestrial in origin, and the only extra-terrestrial possibilities do not seem to be feasiblebecause of the very eccentric paths which theobjects, or lights, which were seen seem to havetaken. But if they are terrestrial phenomena, weought to be able to identify them.I believe that any dispassionate investigation,such as I understand the noble Earl, LordClancarty, would wish to have, could not ignorethe possibility of the phenomena having theirorigins outside the earth and perhaps outside thesolar system. Just as meteorites are chancematerial projectiles originating in the solarsystem, may there not be random matter of adifferent character—perhaps a luminous butinsubstantial character— that in certaincircumstances becomes visible and attracted toour area? I certainly should be readier to acceptsome explanation in terms of what Imight call theatsronomical phenomena than ships from outerspace. It would, Isuppose, be foolish to deny thatpossibility, but as an explanation of phenomena—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn,exposed this—it is surely a very long shot indeed.If we are to conduct any dispassionateinquiry—and I think that we should—we mustlisten to the proponents ofwhatone might call theSfar Trek view. It can be argued, notunreasonably, that we in our humble way areprobing nearby solar space with our Venus andJupiter and other vehicular probes. We haveventured on to the Moon. Isitnot presumptuous,the argument goes, to suppose that elsewhere inspace creatures more advanced than us areprobing into our space, probing with means nowoccasionally visible to us, using their own RPVs,controlled from stations light years away, ratheron the lines which the nobleEarl, Lord Kimberley.mentioned? It is a possibility which we must beprepared to consider. Itisa possibility, though notmany of us, Ifeel, would call ita probability.... Thedesirability of getting rational and acceptableexplanations for the odd phenomena which arebeing reported—even if, like some other para-normal phenomena, they are subjective—in myopinion is not, or should not be, merely to satisfyour curiosity....There is a social danger, in my view, inleaving people in ignorance of the origins of thesephenomena. I have recently learned from anumber of sources that there have grown up, inNorth America particularly, many groups andcults whose attitudes are based on beliefs thatUFOs are influential outer-spatialmanifestationsinterested in this earth. In some cases thesegroups are looking to outer space for Manssalvation. If this is right, it is rather disturbing.I find, too, that in this country there aregroups interested, other than purely scientifically,in the UFO phenomena. I had a letter—and Ithink that other noble Lords may have had thesame letter—earlier this week from anecumenical Christian group which believes,among other things, that UFOs menace thespiritual health of the nation; that they are anti-Christian and that information exists about themwhich is being withheld. It seems to me that thisassociation of UFOs with mysticism and religionmakes explanation of the true origins of thephenomena a matter of great importance and ofsome urgency. The sooner that each reportedsighting or landing is satisfactorily explained, thebetter. It is no good just laughing them off ortrying to laugh them off; we must seek the truth(continued on next page) 7
  8. 8. (Parliament, Continued)and tell it.My Lords, I remain sceptical, perhaps moresceptical than anyone who has spoken thisevening except the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Iremain sceptical of the more bizarre extra-terrestrial explanations. 1 remain more thansceptical, indeed, incredulous, of what the nobleEarl in his Motion called "landings"; but I supporthim wholeheartedly in his wish for a seriousinquiry. I hope that the Government will takesteps to put such an inquiry in hand. Finally, Icome back to the matter of terminology. In hisMotion, the noble Earl called for "an intra-governmental study." The noble Lord, LordTrefgarne, and,I think, the noble Lord, LordGladwyn, took this to be aninter-governmentalstudy. But "intra" means "within."I was puzzledby the use of the prefix, but that is what it meansand presumably what the noble Earl meant. Butwhy a study within the Government? I wouldsupport the idea of a Government-supportedopen investigation by a carefully chosen group ofscientists and technologists with some funds attheir disposal; but a study within Governmentwould seem to smack of a secret probe, whichwould be no good at all.1 have no objection to a House ofLords studygroup, but they could scarcely perform inthe waythat a public organisation supported, say, by thelearned societies and the engineering institutions,could perform. It is something of that kind that Ishould like to see brought into being underGovernment or with Government support: agroup ofdispassionate people with the power, themoney and staff on a modest scale to investigate.Perhaps in his reply later this evening the nobleLord, Lord Strabolgi, will comment on thesuggestion.9.4 p.m.Lord RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, first, Imust thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, forthis debate, the subject ofwhich has long neededan airing;and, although the noble Viscount, LordOxfuird, is not in his seat, nevertheless Icongratulate him on his speech. The UFO saga isdeep and complex and there are no knownexperts to keep us up to date with everythingtodo with it including its mechanics. However,scientists throughout the world have been drawninto an ever-increasing discussion as to whatUFOs are and where they come from, so far withlittle enough results except to wonder why thebounds of natural physics seem to be broken onall sides,,,Most Western Governments say thatUFOs do not exist, but I think that the FrenchMinister of Defence, M.Robert Galley, inFebruary, 1974,said that they do; that hisGovernment takes them seriously and that theyhave been studied secretly by a specialdepartment for over 20 years. Indeed, Franceleads the world in UFO research. It has followedup sightings with police teams, scientists andscholars and, since 1950, the Deuxieme Bureauof the Army....Is it not curious that we of the 20th century,with a vast knowledge of science behind us,should be blind to further wonders in the skiesabove? Men throughout the world have beenbranded as mad or mistaken when they have8reported having seen strange sights in theheavens. Many men have seen these sights andhave not been mistaken. Who are we to doubttheir word? Who are Governments that dare toridicule the honest? Not long ago the Loch Nessmonster was regarded as a fable, but now ourleading naturalist says that it (or they, possibly)probably exists. Why, then, should unidentifiedflying objects be any harder to believe, especiallyas they have been seen far more frequently? MyLords, of course they exist. Only a fewweeks agoa Palermo policeman photographed one, and fourItalian Navy officers aboard a light patrol boat inthe Adriatic, in the early hours of the morning,saw a 300-yard long fiery craft risingfrom the seaand disappearing into the sky. Odd, strange,frightening, but apparently quite true. Indeed,why should these men of law enforcement anddefence lie? Of course, they did not lie.Why .should they; especially as in this case theirsighting was backed up by men from a nearbyradar station who saw it, too.Each year there are many sightings of UFOsthroughout the world. Some of them are veryclose at hand, while others are not, but alwaystheeffect upon those who see them isone of concern;and yet this very point is ignored and ridiculed bymost Governments right around the globe. In theUnited Kingdoms case, those who report seeingUFOs are taken to be misinformed, misguidedand rather below par in intelligence. If this is so,why has some of my informationon this subjectbeen given to me by the Ministryof Technology?Why should this Ministrywaste its timegatheringfalse information? Of course, it is not. falseinformation: it is data reported by civil and AirForce pilots, policemen, sailors and members ofthe general public who have all had personalexperience which has intriguedand/or frightenedthem....The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is towind up this debate, is no doubt sympathetic tothe reasons for these speeches, for it has becomepatently obvious to a great many people that thissubject had got to the point when Governmentalexplanations must be forthcoming. A greatermeasure of open government is long overdue,and bringing the UFO saga into the realm ofrespectability would be one way of achieving this,in part. I suspect that the British Government dohave a Department studying UFO sightings, forwhy else should they bother to go to such troubleto publicly debunk reported ones ifthey are of nointerest to them? Quite apart from the fact thatthe Government have not admitted to theexistence of UFOs, these machines arepotentially dangerous. They giveoff blinding light,crippling rays and sometimes beams thatimmobilise humans; they start forest fires,eradicate crops and cause great distress toanimals. If the British pouplation was aware ofthis, they could sometimes take precautions.UFOs have been withus for many generations, sois it not about time that we officially recognisedtheir existence and treated reports as less ofahotpotato than hitherto?...9.14 p.m.Lord GAINFORD: ...My main contributionto this debate is to assure the noble Earl, LordClancarty, of any support that Ican give.Ifwe aregoing to have a study group in your LordshipsHouse Ishallbe glad to be a volunteer to take partwhenever I have the opportunity. Ialso thankhimand others for initiating this debate, and for thepleasure of having such a refreshing subject todiscuss in the midst ofthe present period of crisesand strikes....If I had the time and opportunity, I shouldenjoy volunteering for working in a UFOinformation center, if that might be a suggestedname for the organisation that wouldbe required.I shall be interested to hear the summings up inthis debate. I can give no explanation why thereshould be these phenomena concentrated withinparticularly the past 32years as was confirmedbythe noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and these flyingsaucers in the year 1947 when the phrase wascoined; but Iwouldjust accentuate what has beensaid before and add that ifthey are man-made orsome astronomical feature, and provided there isno risk of any security breach, then the publichave a right to know about them.9.20 p.m.The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, incommon with everyone else who has spoken, Ishould like to thank the noble Earl, LordClancarty, for giving us an opportunity to have, asit were, a scamper over the course and exchangeviews on this very interesting and controversialtopic....: (The Earl of Halsbury recounted severalinstances of personal1sightings of "angels,"zeppelins, sundogs, and "green flashes."-Ed.)Lastly, I come to ball lightning.I have neverseen ball lightning, but the description one readsof it is so coherent, so similarinallcases, that onemust accept it as a phenomenon which occursregularly in nature, though we cannot reproduceit in nature and attempts to reproduce it in thelaboratory are, to my mind,unconvincing. Thereis no theory of it. It appears to take the form of afootball-shaped mass,of glowing gas which hopsaround or, if it has a chance, gets on to aconductor such as the rail inthe gallery here andmigrates along the conductor until it finallydisappears with a bang. It has never beensatisfactorily photographed, to my knowledge. Ifit has been, then the photograph must be a fairlyrecent one, and, as I say, it has not beenreproduced. But this, again, should assure .thenoble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that, faced with anunknown phenomenon which I cannot explain, Ido not get vertigo. Ishould be delighted to go balllightning watching, as I go bird watching....Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, I join othernoble Lords incongratulatingthe noble Viscount,Lord Oxfuird, upon his maiden speech but I runthe terrible risk of being accused by the nobleLord, Lord .Davies of Leek, of being ananthropological arrogant specimen. I am notquite sure what that means, and I am not quitesure that he knows what it means....I am only sorry to appear to be a veritableDaniel ina lions den ofUFO believers and to spoilthe fun, and I have no doubt that todays flightsof—dare I say it?—fancy will command far moreattention than our debate yesterday uponBritishindustry, which scarcely made todays Press atall. Mores the pity. Of course, there isa danger interminology and in gross assumptions. Many(continued on next page)
  9. 9. (Parliament, Continued)noble Lords have spoken as though UFOs wereactually something, but ofcourse we are preciselysaying that if they are unidentified flying objects,we do not know what theyare. So Iquite agree,letus dismiss1the concept of flying saucer equalsUFO to start with. Let us try to take a slightlymore scientific approach.I would not dream of speaking in this debatehad I not asked my very good friend andneighbour in the Cheshire village ofSwettenham,Sir Bernard Lovell, Fellow of the Royal Societyand Nuff ield Professor of RadioAstronomy, to begood enough to brief me at ManchesterUniversity Department of Radio Astronomy atJodrell Bank, of which he is the Director. Iwentthere two days ago and what Iam about to say toyour Lordships is based entirely upon that roundtable meeting with Sir Bernard and the membersof his senior staff at Jodrell Bank: Of all thethousands of reports of sightings that have beenmade, whenever it has been possible to make aninvestigation they have been found to be naturalphenomena, or in some instances, Iregret to say,pure myth. Over the United Kingdom, JodrellBanks radio telescope, the first and still one of themost powerful in the world, has observedthousands of possible subjects for identification. as UFOs, but not a single one has proved otherthan natural phenomena. I would ask the nobleEarl, Lord Kimberley, to take the point on board.If UFOs, as he suggested, defy humanknowledge, how do we really know by whatpossible means or possible background they evenexist at all?...: (Lord Hewlett pointed out the largenumber of rockets and associated hardware inspace, meteorite falls, and an association ofVenus with UFO sightings.--Ed.)One of the most advanced experimentalstations at Jodrell Bank—just take these statisticson board please, my Lords— has been on watch24 hours a day for 30 years. Do you not think itreasonable for me to suggest that if there wereUFOs at least one claim would have been made,but every single thing that has been seen andobserved by radio astronomy has been identifiedas natural phenomena and as occurring from theuniverse itself as we know it—I do not say fromthe solar system; I say from our universe. If therewere something in it—and the noble Earl, LordHalsbury, is so right—of course the scientistswould have been delighted to come forward withan announcement to that effect. After all,it wasJodrell Bank that managed to locate theSputnikwhen the Russians, who so cleverly launched it,lost track of it in the atmosphere. So do not thinkthat this is some denigrating comment by thescientific lobby and some nasty, cheap debunkingexercise. No my Lords. We must take a seriousscientific view of the actual surveys and of whathas been discovered....: (LordDaviesof Leekandthe Earl of Kimberly interjected to dispute thecontention that nothing remained unidentified,and the latter to suggest Jodrell Bank might bepart of a cover-up.-Ed.)I think that it would be most unwise of anydefence establishment to make a categoricaldenial of UFOs,and equally foolish ofme to do so.I am not trying to prove the existence of nothingor that something does not exist. Iam saying thatin the scientific evidence so far—and I can dealonly in detail with the United Kingdom—there isno evidence whatever from the greatest radiotelescope of a single UFO. I think that theattitudes of defence establishments world-wide,even including the Soviet Union, are probablywise; they must display the antithesis of over-confidence and complacency, lest there shouldperchance be some new arm of warfare that theyhave not adequatelyexplored or even entered.But there is no direct connection betweenthe possibility of other persons occupyingotherbodies, either within or outside our own solarsystem. However, one thing is quite clear:thereisan infinitesimal chance that there exists otherpeople who could be within our time-frame—and Irefer of course to the statements made by thenoble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Earl,Lord Halsbury—who would be able to spendperhaps ten or hundreds of light years gettinghere and who would have survived that length oftime in those atrocious conditions and enteredour earth atmosphere assuming that they aresome sort of humanity and have some form offlying saucer, or whatever our friends proclaim itit. How could they possibly meet us in thosecircumstances? Let us take the million-to-onepossibility that they could. Do your Lordshipsmean to tell me that they could get so close to usas to be sighted, but be incapableof any form ofcommunication or identification whatever? No, Iam sorry....I am sorry, the existence of UFOs is evenmore fanciful than Gilbert and Sullivanslolanthe—charming indeed, but Iam afraid ajokeupon your Lordships House. I am afraid thatsome of my noble friends join the flat-earthers,who will make the best playmates for thisparticular lobby.We have a dutyto the country toexplode the myth. Tonight we have been carriedaway in realms of fascination and delight, but theyhave precious little to do with the facts. I suggestthat the myth must be exploded. We must returnto work in this dreary old world and the difficultieswe are in. But I beg your Lordships, and inparticular the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, forheavens sake, no more GovernmentDepartments of inquiries. That alone we shouldbe spared as the result of this excellent debate.9.55 p.m.The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords,I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty,will notbe cast down by the speech to which he has justlistened. I myself must confess that I knowremarkably little about unidentified flying objects.I know a few thingsabout them. 1 know quitea bit,and I have learned more since the beginningofthis debate, about attitudes towards them. Theyare almost as interesting in sortie ways. There isone type of attitudetowards them that Iviewwithrespect, and that is the attitude represented bypeople who call themselves, or perhaps to be fairare called by others, "ufologists." I do not knowwhether the noble Earl will accept that word. Irather hope he would not.I admit the charm, the satisfaction, and theneatness of UFO as—this is the word the nobleLord, Lord Davies of Leek, is so good at—anacronym, coming from "unidentified flyingobject." But it unfortunately leads to a wordwhich to disrespectful persons, and there aresome about, might be suspected as originatingsomewhere between illiteracy and the purely silly;rather as though a keen student of the affairs ofthe United Nations should describe himself as a"Unologist," and his interest "Unology." Thatwould have been severly distressing to my latelamented friend Lord Conesford, and indeed tome....I must make a remark—nobody has done soso far, Isuspect rather to his surprise—about thespeech of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. If hehad been speaking as a private Back Bencher Iwould probably have not said anything, but hewas speaking from the Dispatch Box. Therefore,he presumablyrepresents the views of the Partyto which I belong. It is a view 1 wish to disownentirely, because if a Party of any magnitudecannot produce better views than that on aserious subject,Iconfess I am ashamed of it. If thisrepresents all that the Conservative Party canproduce in the way of thinking on what isundoubtedly a serious subject, whatever youropinion about it may be, then this isdeplorable.If the noble Lord really thinks that thereis noserious interest or belief taken nowadays inwitchcraft, perhaps he does not read the rightnewspapers, but 1can assure him that this is farfrom true. He is not a believerin unidentified flyingobjects. "I am no believer in UFOs," he said. I donot know how you can not believein UFOs. Youcan take it for granted, ifyour mind takes a leapahead, that by an unidentified flying objectsomething is intended that is supposed to haveoriginated in outer space, and you can-say you donot believe in that. But I do not know what itimplies 10 say that you do not believe in anunidentified flying object. You do not believein itsobject? You do not believe in its flying? You donot believe it is unidentified? There are thingsthatare unidentified. Perhaps we are not trying. I donot think it is reasonable to say that they do notexist. Nobody, except my noble friend LordHewlett, has seriouslycontended that theydo notexist. The question is, what are they?...(In response to an interjection by LordTrefgarne): Iam anxiousnot to misquotehim,buthe also said that ufologists—it is difficult not touse that word—referred to unexplained sightingswhich would be explained if only we had betterevidence; that was the gist of one part of mynoblefriends argument. Inother words, ifwe had betterevidence we should be able to explain thosesightings. That is the sole point on which thenoble Earl initiated this debate. That is what he isasking for; he wishes evidence to be collected,collated, examined, evaluated and reported on asto what these things are, and it is notable that hehimself did not say what he thought they were.Other noble Lords have spoken as though he hadsaid theywere fairies or Ido not know what, whenin fact he said no such thing. I believe he is aleading authorityon these matters—certainly hehas studied them more closely than anyone elseof whom I have heard—and he must haveexercised very great restraint in this matter, andhe is to be congratulated on that as well as oninitiating the whole debate....The noble Earl has done a service bydisplaying before our very eyes the scientist-philosopher who knows precisely the limits of(continued on page
  10. 10. (Parliament, Continued)science and makes no effort to go beyond them.Nor does he point the finger of scorn at anyoneelse. He must know, as others know, that it isimpossible to prove anything by negativeevidence. If you wish to prove that something isnot so you can do it only in logic—by proving theexistence of something that isso that makes thatfirst premise impossible. Thus, you cannot provethat any particular type of flying object does notexist, and with respect to my noble friend, the factthat the Jodrell Bank telescope has not seensomething not only does not prove, but is noteven particularlygood evidence, that it was notthere. I am prepared to accept, if told, that theJodrell Bank telescope has been operating on afrequency suited to the observation of UFOs ofone kind or another forthe last 30years, but,untilI am told that, I shall be sceptical in that matter.Lord HEWLETT: Let me be quite clearabout this,my Lords. Idid not say other thanthatJodrell Bank had made many thousands ofsightings but had been able adequately toexplainthem away as natural phenomena from our ownuniverse.The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: I thoughtthat I had my noble friend right, my Lords; inother words, the telescope has not seenanythingthat was inexplicable.But I do not think that thatis really an argument that something does notexist. The question is:what kind of thingcan it be?I hope that my noble friend does not think that Iam goingon about him—I no longer am. How isitpossible to maintain more thana certain degree ofdoubt in 1979?...I have no wish to express any viewon what aUFO may be. What Iwishto say isthat there is noknowing what it is not.It may be a product ofsome kind of sign language, as the noble Earl,Lord Kimberley, mentioned. It may bemechanical. It may be purelyterrestrial. Idoubt ifit is angels. But Ibelieve that,for the clearingup ofmystery, for the removal of doubt, for even theeliminating of some of the dangers which mayexist and to which the right reverend Prelatereferred, some kind ofan open inquiry ought to beset up. Iam ratherinclined to agree with the nobleLord—I think that it was the noble Lord, LordKings Norton—who said that probably it shouldnot be an intra-governmental inquiry. I think itshould be somethingrather more open thanthat,but it ought to take place. If a group is set upwithin this House, as suggested by the noble Earlhimself, that would be excellent. I should myselfbe entirely in favour of it. In any case, let us getthis matter cleared up and into the open, and byall means let us take it seriously, because this is aserious subject.Far too many people are takingitseriously for it not to be a serious subject....I have not yet said anything complimentaryabout the noble Earl who initiated the debate. Ihave left this to the end on purpose because Ithink it may not be entirely realised what a servicehe has done. This isthe first such debate that hasoccurred in any society such as thisparticularone; and this society, but whichImean this nobleHouse of Parliament, is probably the onlylegislative assembly in the world in whichitcouldhappen. I hope that it will have repercussionswhich will spread far beyond thisChamber. Whatthe outcome will be Ido not know,but, ininitiating10the ripples which I hope will spread all over thesurface of the mill-pond, the noble Earlhas done amost valuable service.-I ;.10.10p.m.Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should liketo join with the nobleEarl, Lord Cork and Orrery,in saying how grateful we are to the noble Earl,Lord Clancarty, for initiating this debate onUFOs. Of course, the subject has been ofconsiderable interest in this country, and I hopeour discussions, which, as the noble Earl rightlysaid, have been the first that we have had inyourLordships House, will help to increase publicunderstanding....There are undoubtedly many strangephenomena in the skies, and it can be readilyaccepted that most UFO reports are made bycalm and responsible people. However, there aregenerally straightforward explanations toaccount for the phenomena, as Ithink was said bythe noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, speaking for theOpposition—and I must say that I welcomed hisconstructive speech. There is. nothing toconvince the Government that there has everbeen a singlevisit by an alienspace craft, let alonethe numbers of visits which the noble Earl, LordClancarty, claims are increasing all the time. Ashas been said today, we live in a huge universe.Ifind as awe-inspiring as Pascal did thecontemplation of infinite space. There are some100,000 millionstars in our galaxy alone, whichitwould take 100,000 years to cross at the speed oflight. Beyond our own galaxy, the distancesbecome even more daunting....The evidence suggests that there is nointelligent life on the other planets of our ownsolar system, as the noble Viscount said. Thereare, of course, different views about whetherthere might be life elsewhere in the universe, butcertainly there is no serious positive evidence toshow that there is. If there were an advancedcivilisation elsewhere in the universe,as mynoblefriend Lord Davies of Leek supposed, with thetechnology to traverse these colossal distances,there are manyquestions to beanswered. Whatisthe point of this alleged huge number of visits toour planet, over three decades or more, to noapparent purpose? There seem to be internalinconsistencies in the idea. To put it simply, ifthese alleged aliensprefer to keep out of theway,the number of reported sightings wouldsurely beonly a tiny portionof the actualUFO movements,which would run intomanymillions. Iftheydo notprefer to pass unnoticed,we could surely expectunmistakeable appearances.Why have they never tried to communicatewith us? Whyhas there been no evidence on radioof attempts at communication? And would notsuch a large number of movements be picked upby our defence radar system? Why has not asingle artefact been found? Assuming that eachvisit does not represent a journey from adistantstar, where are these alien space craft supposedto be hiding? Now that the idea of such bases onthe moon or on another planet inour solar systemis barely tenable, ufologists have had to claimthatthe aliens are based inthe depths ofthe sea or inagreat hole in the earth, or even that they comefrom invisible universes and other space-timecontinua. Anyone who accepts the hypothesis oflarge numbers of alien visitations seems forcedtowards explanations that are ever morefantastic, and incapable of either proof ordisproof.As I have said, there really are manyremarkable things to see in the sky; and mostUFO reports relate to actual phenomenareported by sensible people....: (Lord Strabolgireiterated the many natural phenomena thatcould be reported as UFOs, citing two recentexamples that he said could be explained thatway.-Ed.)• All these phenomena can be misinterpretedby the most sensible observers, particularly whenseen unexpectedly and briefly and in unusualatmospheric conditions. This is what opponentsof the natural explanations forget. Withdistortions of light, and mirages, the mostcommonplace things can be so changed as to bebarely recognisable. For instance, I am told thatthe US.Air Force attributed the 1947 sighting byArnold described by the noble Earl, LordClancarty, to a mirage effect....My Lords, in 1968, the United States AirForce commissioned the Universityof Coloradoto carry out an independent study into UFOphenomena. Their report, which was publishedin1969, was very substantial and detailed and itcovered some 50 examples of such phenomena,but added that it was impossible and potentiallymisleading to try to. tabulate all of the possiblecauses of UFO perception: there are simply toomany. The reports main conclusion was, and Iquote:"Nothing has come from the study of UFOsin the past 21 years that has added to scientificknowledge."The findings of this report were endorsed by apanel of the National Academy of Sciences.There really are tens of thousands of strangethings to be seen. It is the custom to call suchphenomena "UFOs," and to transpose thiseasilyinto "alien space craft." Often the appearance istoo fleeting and the description too imprecise fora particularcause to be attributed. What we cansay is that there is a great variety of plainexplanations. There is no need, Isuggest, for thefar-fetched hypothesis of alien space craft....The recent sightingsinNew Zealandreferredto by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton,attracted worldwidepublicity, and we understandthat the New Zealand Government may make anannouncement when the facts have beenassembled and appraised. Preliminary advicefrom our High Commission in New Zealandshows confident expectation that the sightingswill prove to be due to natural phenomena, as Ithink the noble Lord,.Lord Trefgarne, and thenoble Earl, Lord Halsbury, implied.My Lords, the noble Earl who initiated thisdebate referred to the attitude of otherGovernments to UFOs. Itisnot for me to speak inthis House for other Governments. I havehowever already made mention of the UnitedStates study in 1968 and I understand thatnothing has happened since that timeto cause theUnited States authoritiesto change their viewsorto warrant further official investigations of UFOs.(Continued on next page)
  11. 11. (Parliament, Continued)The noble Earl also referred to an interviewwhich the then French Minister of Defence, M.Rpbert Galley gave in 1974 on the subject ofUFOs. The noble Earl suggested that M. Galleyhad said that UFOs were real but that he, theMinister, did not know where they came from. Ihave read the transcriptof M. Galleys broadcastand I also took the trouble to check it in theoriginal French. The essence ofwhat the Ministersaid was that the phenomena were genuineandwere reported by responsible people, but thatthere were aspects that were difficult to explain.Nowhere did the Minister say that UFOs werereal in the sense that they represent alienspacecraft, as suggested by the noble Lord, LordRankeillour....It has been suggested in this debate that ourGovernment are involved in an allegedconspiracy of silence. Ican assure your Lordshipsthat the Government are not engaged inany suchconspiracy. In view of what the noble Lord, LordGainford, said, Imust emphasise that theMinistryof Defence examines any UFO reports receivedto establish whether they reveal anything ofdefence interest, but nothing in the reportsexamined has ever given cause to believe thatthey represent alien spacecraft. There is nothingto have a conspiracy of silence about. What ismore, a visitor from outer space would be oneofthe great events in history. It would certainly bean event of stupendous importance, but I hesitateto say the greatest event of all in the presenceofmy old friend the right reverend prelate theBishop of Norwich, whose moving speech welistened to with much interest.As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said,scientists are rightly inquisitive people. If therewas anything in the stories of UFOs, we wouldexpect the scientific communityas a whole to bedevoting much effort to studying or to makingcontact with the supposed aliens; but the idea ofaconspiracy of silence by this and otherGovernments belongs, I suggest, to the world ofJames Bond.Then the noble Earl,Lord Kimberley, impliedthat there was some kind of cover-up.There is nocover-up and no security bah. It is true that whenpeople ask to see the Ministry of Defence UFOfiles they are told that the papers must remainconfidential, but there is a very mundane reasonfor that. The files contain voluminouscorrespondence from people, and we cannotdivulge the identity of the correspondents. Itfollows that the files must remainclosed under therules laid down in the PublicRecord Acts, passedby Parliament, which at present precludedisclosure until 30 years have elapsed since thedate iof the particular correspondence. Theearliest reports the Ministry of Defence hold aredated 1962....Then it has been suggested, too, in thisdebate that Her Majestys Government shouldset up a study group. I am glad to say that thenoble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Lord,Lord Gladwyn, both speaking from the FrontBenches for the Opposition Parties, did riotsupport this proposal, and certainly HerMajestys Government do not consider that thereis any justification for the expenditure of publicmoney on such a study....AGENDA FOR MUFON TENTH ANNUALUFO SYMPOSIUM, JULY 7 & 8,1979SPEAKERSThomas BeardenDEGREE CITY TITLE OF PAPERDavid StuppleRichard F. HainesM.S. Huntsville, Ala. "A Mind/Brain/MatterModel Consistent WithQuantum Physics and theUFO Phenomena"Ph.D. Ypsilanti, Mich. "Contactees, Cults, and. Cultures"Ph.D. Los Altos, Calif. "A Review of Selected Sight-ings From Aircraft —1973 to. 1978" -James M. McCampbell A.B., Belmont, Calif. "Forbidden Frontier—B.S. C o m m u n i c a t i o n W i t hUfonauts"Ted PetersDennis R. ReganAlvin LawsonPh.D! Berkeley, Calif. "The Religious Dimensionto the UFO Phenomenon" :Ph.D. Los Angeles, Calif. "Investigation and Analysisof Sound Pulses RecordedDuring a Period of UFOActivity in Bragg Creek,Alberta, Canada"Ph.D. Garden Grove, "Alien Roots: Six UFOCalif. Entity Types and SomePossible EarthlyAncestors"William H. Spaulding —— . Phoenix, Ariz. "Information Retrievals:A Case for UFO Cover-Up"J. Allen Hynek Ph.D. Evanston, 111. "TheLegion of the Bewild-ered Silent and RelatedTopics"Stanton T. Friedman M.S. Hayward, Calif. "The Case for the Extra-terrestrial Origin of FlyingSaucers"Walter Greenawald B.S. Los Angeles, Calif. "Newspapers and UFOs"As for telling the public the truth aboutUFOs, the truth is simple. There really are manystrange phenomena in the sky,and these areinvariably reported by rational people. But thereis a wide range of natural explanationsto accountfor such phenomena. There is nothing to suggestto Her Majestys Government that suchphenomena are alien space craft.MUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN,TX 7815511
  12. 12. NEW ZEALAND FILM REPORT - II; By Bruce Maccabee(Part 1, in the previous issue, described Dr. Maccabees trip to Australia and New Zealand to investigatethe movie film andradar-visual case of last December. Part 2 describes the case event by event and plots each occurrence on maps.--Editor)EVENT DESCRIPTIONSAND MAP LEGENDTimes are in local Daylight SavingsTime and are accurate to within oneminute. Distances are in nautical miles(6076 ft. or 1.852 km). At the cruisingaltitude the plane travelled at an airspeed of about 3.6 miles/minute.During the trip south the peopleaboard the plane were Captain WilliamStartup (S), First Officer Robert Guard(G), cameraman David Crocket (DC),sound recordist Ngaire Crockett (NC)and reporter Quentin Fogarty (F). TheWellington Air Traffic Controller wasGeoffrey Causer (GC). For part of thetime the radar technician, BryanChalmers (BC), was also present. GCused a radar scope which presented anMTI (moving target indicator)processed radar picture;BCoperated anon-MTI display for part of the time.The plane (P) is treated as an "entity"when communicating with Wellingtonradar (W). Christchurch is noted asCH. During the trip north NC wasreplaced by a Christchurch reporter,Dennis Grant (DG).The event listing is to be used withthe especiallymarked maps (Figures 1and 2).TRIP SOUTHEvent Number Description1 about 2354 (11:54 P.M.), Dec. 30, 1978: the :plane has taken off and circled to head southand was at this time passing over Wellington.2 about 0010 (10 min. after midnight), Dec. 31,1978 (allsucceeding times are on this date):the plane was passing or had passed CapeCampbell. F,DC, and NC were in the loadingbay working on a "standup"for the news storyon the previous UFO sightingswhen S and Gfirst spotted lights in the direction of Kaikoura.The plane had passed 10,000 feet in altitudeand was travelling at about 170 knots air speed(the ground speed might have been about 180knots since there was a slight wind).3 about 0012: the plane (P) contactedWellington (W) and asked "Do you have anytargets in the direction of the Kaikoura12peninsula on your radar at about that range?"(approximately correct; the radiocommunications from the planeare difficult tounderstand). W replied "There are targets inyour one oclock (1:00)position (i.e.,about 20-40° to the right of straight ahead) at, uh, 13miles... appearing and disappearing Atthepresent moment theyre not showing....butwere showing about a minute ago." GC hadbeen noticing "weird" targets east of theClarence River area and the Kaikoura Coastfor as long as half an hour before the planereported anything. S and G reported seeinglights that would appear and then disappearinan apparently random manner, which isconsistent with the appearance anddisappearance of targets on the W radar. Bythis time the plane was at 14,000 ft. andtravelling at 215 knots air speed (3.58miles/min.)4 about 0015: W reported a target in the 3:00position on the coastline. This may have beenseen, but no mention of it was made on the Wtape. Bythis time F, DC, and NC hadjoined Sand G on the flight deck.5 about 0016: W reported a target at 12:00 at10miles which was probably only seen for onesweep of the scope (12 sec. per sweep). Thismay have been seen by the passengers sincethey reported seeing lights that occasionallyappeared ahead of them. .6 about 0016:30: W reported a strong target at11:00 at 3 miles from the plane whichapparently appeared for one sweep. Presponded with "no contact yet."7 about 0017:30: W reported a target just left of9:00 at 2 miles(the spacing between the edgesof the radar blips; the actual spacing of targetcould have been more like 4 miles, assumingthat they were at the same height; W had noway of knowing what heights the targets wereat.) There was no visual confirmation.8 about 0019: W reported a strong target at10:00 at 12 miles. This may have been seen,but there is no specific confirmation.9 about 0022: W reported a target at the left ofthe plane at about 1mile (between blip edges)which remained stationary while the plane dida left hand orbit to see ifthe passengerscouldsee anything. About this time F,whohad beenwatching the lights, recorded his first "on-the-spot" commentary: "Its kind of hard todescribe my feelings right at the moment,but,uh, weve seen probably 6 or 7 or even morebright lights over Kaikoura. Anumberofthesehave been picked up by Wellington radar."The plane did an orbit (hexagon on the map)which lasted about 2 minutes. Nothing to theleft of the plane was seen. Before the orbitstarted there were lights (other than citylights) in the direction ofKaikoura.10 about 0024: just after the orbit wascompleted W reported a target at 12:00 at 3 miles. Theplane responded Thank you....we pick it up.Its got a flashing light." F recorded, as theplane came out of the orbit, "At the momentthere is no activity. When we first made therun (i.e., started the orbit) the lights were sobright they appeared to be lighting up the sky. of the town (Kaikoura) Now we have acouple right in front of us! Very, verybright."These lights flashed on and off. F recorded"We have a firm convert here at thismoment." One of these lights may have beenfilmed. DC obtained about 12 seconds offootage showing sort of oval, blue-whiteimages which were quite bright (considerablefilmexposure of stationary, focused images).DC also obtained about 5 seconds offilmshowing several lights at once in ahorizontalrow that randomly(?) flashed on and off. Healso obtained film of the townof Kaikoura, butthe town lights appear to have been much lessintense.11 about 0028: P passed the "turning point" atKaikoura East. W reported that the onlytargets were 12-15 miles behind them. At thispoint the plane switched to the Christchurch(CH) air traffic control on another radiofrequency.12 about 0029: W called CH by telephone andsaid that there was a target about l.mile(between blip edges; blips would have beenabout 1 mile "thick" in a radial direction outfrom Wellington at the distance of the plane)behind the plane. CH said it would inform theplane and have the plane switchback to theWfrequency.13 0029:30: P contacted W and was told that thetarget was not at 6:00 at 4 miles. Apparentlythe target had remained stationary behind theplane for 6 or 7 sweeps of the radar (72-84seconds). F recorded: "Weve just heard fromWellington radar that we got an object abouta mile behindus and its following us." Actually(continued on next page)

×