Arrow, £ 4.99, 296 pages, 14 photos, numerous
diagrams/maps etc + index.
This is the sequel to Alien Liaison, Good' best selling
1992 book devoted to promoting the alien myth. Consisting of 13
chapters and a highly selective "World Round-Up of Selected
Reports" Good's book is one of UFOlogical extremes - from
George Wingfield's libellous and deceitful "Circular
Condrums of 1992" to an intriguing and well written account
of some peculiar lights witnessed and photographed by numerous
people above the centre of Montreal, Canada's largest city. Its
almost impossible to review a book a varied as this so instead
we've chosen - like Good - to review highly selected sections to
see what we can find ! Let's begin with George Wingfield.
Wingfield's article is typified by numerous errors of fact and
critical omissions - omissions which some reviewers might
consider to be part of a cold calculating fraud. Here's a
selection of Wingfield's more outrageous claims:
(1) On page 52 Wingfield dismisses the Bower and
Chorley claim with "It was subsequently demonstrated that
most of their claims were fraudulent". What an absurd
statement ! WHO has demonstrated that Bower and Chorley's claims
are "fraudulent" ? How and where have they done this ?
Regular readers will be used to being presented with arguments
like this. Wingfield has an uncanny ability at conjuring up
arguments out of thin air which always support his cause.
(2) On page 51 Wingfield omits to point out that Busty
Taylor ALSO failed to identify the Wessex Skeptics' hoax at
Clench Common, concentrating his attack on Terence Meaden. This
is a classic case of the cereologists rewriting crop circle
history to cover-up their own failures whilst belittling their
opponents.
(3) On page 53 Wingfield states: "Terence Meaden's
attempt to find a middle path, to the effect that simple and
ringed circles are 'genuine', and that pictograms and complex
circles (which do not fit his plasma vortex theory) are 'hoaxes',
is equally unacceptable and cannot seriously be entertained.
Indeed, there are people, desperate to salvage the discredited
vortex theory, who have engaged in the hoaxing already described,
with a view to disparaging the pictograms". This too is a
complete rewriting of crop circle history - for Meaden did NOT
dismiss the pictograms merely because they did not appear to fit
his theory. With the exception of a handful of the most
complicated formations Meaden ACCEPTED the pictograms as
'genuine' and only later concluded that they were hoaxes.
Wingfield's allegation that "supporters" of the
plasma vortex theory were so "desperate" that they
resorted to hoaxing is a wicked slur and quite untrue. Meaden,
myself and all other members of CERES never indulged in hoaxing
(we have been severely criticised by the Wessex Skeptics, for
example, for NOT trying to make circles). If by this accusation
Wingfield is accusing Schnabel and Irving of being
"supporters" of the plasma-vortex theory then this too
is not true as neither are "supporters" of the
plasma-vortex theory.
(4) On pages 52 and 53 Wingfield hammers the last nails
into his own coffin with his sarcastic and overwhelming praise
for the makers of the Froxfield hoax, stating that "It was
indeed magnificent. One could scarcely fail to admire the
craftsmanship and dexterity of the circle-fakers who had
painstakingly reproduced many indicators of genuine
circles". In this single ill-judged statement Wingfield
admits that "genuine circles" are capable of being made
by humans. On the following page Wingfield continues:
"What has become abundantly plain is that no one
currently has any guaranteed sure-fire method of distinguishing
the genuine article from the cleverly made fake."
This too is a clear admission that - by implication - all
circles are capable of being made by humans, although Wingfield
tries to cover his acceptance of this fact by engaging in
semantics. Wingfield then goes on to discuss that demonstrably
false argument about how "if we are lucky enough to find a
virgin formation" we'd find "a dozen telling
characteristics which are indicators of true circles".
Wingfield doesn't seem to understand that these "dozen
telling characteristics" are now known to be false
characteristics because the circles used to establish these
characteristics were themselves man-made hoaxes ! Wingfield then
admits that it is unlikely that a test will ever be found which
is capable of distinguishing between real circles and fakes. This
hotch-potch of discarded arguments, false claims and wishful
thinking disguise the fact that Wingfield himself no longer
believes in real circles. Why don't you just come out and admit
it George ?
(5) Earlier Wingfield alleges that two un-named
researchers (presumably Irving and Schnabel) conducted an
obsessive campaign whose main aim over the past year or two was
to set up and discredit leading circles researchers and CCCS
officials (namely Michael Green, Colin Andrews and - quite
naturally - Wingfield himself). Wingfield's acute paranoia is
well demonstrated by his description of how the "sceptics
and circle-fakers now went to great lengths to dupe their
victims... Before making one large formation at Hyden Hill near
East Meon in Hampshire, they actually dowsed a major earth energy
line in the field and carefully constructed their pictogram on
top of it...". George, the sceptics don't believe in
"major earth energy lines" or dowsing so how would they
be able to dowse one and then place a pictogram on top of it ???
(6) Wingfield continues re-writing crop circle history
by referring to The Cerealogist's one contribution to the
subject - the West Wycombe hoax farce. To be fair Wingfield at
least begins quite sensibly (page 56):
Although no one expected the [competition] to provide
conclusive answers, it taught us two things. Firstly, impressive
geometric formations can be produced at night by diligent fakers,
indicating that circles which many of us too readily accepted as
'genuine', could have been hoaxed..." - George at his
sensible best perhaps, but next George simply rewrites history by
claiming that "at least half the teams" left behind
small items after making their circles - something which I have
never seen repeated elsewhere.
(7) Wingfield's distortion of crop
circle history continues with his claim (page 56) that none of
the competitors admitted making the formations at Alton Barnes,
Barbury Castle and the Mandelbrot and his nieve promotion of Dr
Stephen Greer's CSETI project (page 62-66). We publicly
challenge George George to justify in writing why his article
failed to tell Good's readers about the following:-(a) that a
group known as the United Bureau of Investigation admitted in
numerous taped interviews that they had made many of the most
famous Wiltshire pictogram formations; (b) that they admitted to
faking UFO incidents by using a set of disco-lazer lights (see
point 12 on page 35); (c) that the Mandelbrot was
"predicted" in a letter to the New Scientist a
year before it actually appeared; (d) that numerous other groups
of hoaxers are being unmasked all over Britain; and that (e)
Irving and Schnabel claim to have made several formations in the
Alton Barnes area.
All these facts are critical pieces of evidence which strongly
influence how the man-in-the-street assesses the evidence, yet
Wingfield suppresses this evidence for reasons we can only guess
at.
(8) On page 57 Wingfield uses that favourite old
chestnut about how the Thatcher Government allegedly received
"many documents" from Colin Andrews and Pat Delgado.
Nowhere has any of this material ever been published by Andrews
and Delgado - we only have their word as researchers that they
sent this material to Nicholas Ridley, the then Minister of the
Environment. Once again Wingfield claims - without supplying the
slightest degree of documentary proof - that there was a secret
government meeting to discuss the crop circle phenomenon in
September 1990. We have already published the fact that we
obtained denials from two of the three ministries involved that
they were involved in such a meeting (CW16 page 28) and we
have twice challenged Wingfield to publish documentary evidence
to support these claims without response. Readers will draw their
own conclusions from Wingfield's failure to supply this
documentary proof.
Well we could go on and on and on .... To conclude, this is a
grossly deceitful and misleading account which seems deliberately
contrived to deceive Good's readers by perpetuating a mystery at
any cost. We call on George Wingfield to apologise in The
Cerealogist for this bigoted sham. As long as Wingfield is
allowed to continue deceiving people The Cerealogist can
only become a tool of further disinformation and censorship. We
also demand that Tim Good apologise to his readers for allowing
Wingfield to write such a disgraceful article.
By contrast this is an excellent article summarising
voluminous documentary and photographic evidence of an unusual
visual phenomenon seen over the centre of Montreal on the night
of 7 November 1990. The authors are Richard Haines, a behavioural
psychologist, and Bernard Guenette, who present meteorological
data, an analysis of photographic evidence, drawings by numerous
eye witnesses and a map of the sighting location. The phenomenon
consisted of a cluster of up to 8 lights arranged in a semi-
circular arc. Each light extended a white ray covering a span of
many tens of degrees of arc. This phenomenon was probably
stationary and observed over a densely urbanised area for a
period of 2.5 hours.
Now let's ask some sceptical questions. Throughout their
report Haines and Guenette repeatedly refer to an enormous
hovering object - mainly because one of the (dozens of) witnesses
drew an object with lights on it. But this is not true ! The
witnesses all reported seeing lights - that is what the photos
show. Have UFOlogists still not learnt that witnesses "read
in" structured objects when witnessing light displays?
Whilst there is some excellent case work here Haines and
Guenette don't appear to have contacted local universities to see
if anyone was testing some kind of device. Neither do they appear
to have contacted local airports in case someone had flown an
airship with bright searchlights above cloud cover. How about
some kind of aurora borealis effect ? What did the local
astronomical observatory have to say ? A superb case, but one
which I feel sure will eventually be shown to have a relatively
prosaic explanation.
With the exception of "Round in Circles" this is
probably the funniest article I've read for some time. This is
another fine demonstration of how far down the line of lunacy
people's belief systems will take them when presented with facts
that don't meet with their previously stated position. In Alien
Liaison Oechsler (pronounced "X-ler") describes a
prolonged telephone conversation he held with someone called
"Admiral Bobby Ray Inman" - allegedly a former Deputy
Director of the CIA and (of course) a member of the
super-secret MJ-12 organisation that was allegedly
responsible for the recovery of crashed alien technology by the
US Government back in the late 1940s. Much of this sequel is
taken up with a very one-sided conversation between Oechler and
"Inman" whereby Oechler claims to have demonstrated
"Inman" 's involvement in the greatest government
deception of all time. The result, in my opinion, is a very
peculiar conversation between two men talking entirely at cross
purposes !
It seems that the primary reason for this total breakdown in
communication is that Oechsler deliberately avoided using terms
like "Aliens, ETs and UFOs" because he was worried
about scaring the Admiral off into thinking he (Oechler) was
"some sort of kook" (page 207). Instead he makes veiled
comments about "crafts", "phenomenon",
"recovered vehicles" and "intelligence behind the
crafts". Not surprisingly, "Admiral Bobby Inman" -
whoever he is -was completely bewildered. Take these excerpts for
example:
OECHLER:- ... Yes, thank you very much for returning my call.
INMAN:- You're most welcome.
OECHLER:- Do you remember who I am ?
INMAN:- Unfortunately I do not, I apologize.
OECHLER:- OK, well we met at the University of Science - University of Maryland Science and Technology...
INMAN:- I do pull out, now, I thank you.
[Oechler's "clarifying commentary"] This sudden
abrupt recollection is important because it indicates that the
Admiral did in fact consider our brief meeting in May of 1988 to
be worthy of recollection. It was during that brief encounter
that I asked if he would be good enough to have someone get in
touch with me, relative to how I could get closer to MJ-12,
again indicating that MJ-12 meant something to him
..."
As you can see, the moment "Admiral Inman" realises
who he is speaking to he tries to hang up - something Oechler
uses to demonstrate "Inman" 's knowledge of MJ-12
(an issue which Inman never actually mentions in his responses to
Oechler's comments).
Later, when discussing former British Chief-of-Staff Lord
Hill- Norton, Oechler states that:
"Admiral Lord Hill-Norton is, as the way he's expressed it to me, quite furious with his inability to gain knowledge on these issues..."
INMAN:- [Muffled acknowledgement]
[Oechler's clarifying comments] It is important to note that,
by his muffled acknowledgement, Admiral Inman appears to
understand the dilemma here and recognises the inferred subject
matter."
So, even a "muffled acknowledgement" is used to
support Oechler's belief in recovered alien technology ! Later
on, their conversation reaches the heights of hyperbole when
Oechler detects a "smile .. heard on tape" (page 212)
whilst Oechler discusses the alleged "cultural
dialogue"between humans and aliens ...
And so this bizarre conversation continues, with neither man
understanding what each other is talking about, until
"Inman" tries to pass Oechler off onto his successor -
Everett Hineman (allegedly the current Deputy Director of Science
and Technology at the CIA HQ in Arlington, Virginia).
Later Oechler even meets someone called Everett Hineman at CIA
Headquarters, who makes a few pseudo-confirmatory remarks about
Bob Lazar (another dubious character who claims to have worked on
captured alien technology), but like Inman we have no proof that
either man is really who they say they are and neither really
have much to say about crashed saucers and pickled aliens.
All this bizarre testimony is used in a strongly worded
rebuttal to Jerold Johnson's superb review of the "Cosmic
Journey" chapter in Good's previous book Alien Liaison
in MUFON UFO Journal (issue 279, July 1991). Johnson
tracked down this same "Admiral Inman" and learnt that
"Inman" had thought he was discussing underwater craft
with Oechler, not alien craft. Later, when challenged by "Dr
Armen Victorian" and various other UFOlogists
"Inman" (whoever he is) denies having confirmed the
existence of extraterrestrial vehicles:
"Throughout 22 years of service in the intelligence community, I have never encountered any credible evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial or interplanetary entities, individuals, crafts, vehicles, or persons..." (page 221).
He also denies having ever heard of the alleged MJ-12
group (page 220).
Of course Oechler himself is an unusual person holding unusual
views. He freely admits (a bit like Pat Delgado) to having an
"unclassified employment with NASA". He alleges
that his earlier involvement with the Barnum and Bailey
travelling circus exhibition [which featured the "Cosmic
Journey" Project of a "captured Extra-terrestrial/alien
in a cryogenic tank"] was a project that he was asked to
evaluate on behalf of NASA in order to consider the likely
sociological consequences (something NASA, quite
naturally, deny). Oechler even had a psychic "battle"
with an alien that intruded into his brain in Dallas (where
else?).
To give an idea of how ridiculous this story is, even Dr Armen
Victorian enters the fray, obtaining the following statement from
"Inman":
"Having no prior knowledge of Mr Oechlers interest, I did not understand until well into his dialogue that his research was into Unidentified Flying Objects...".
But Oechler comes back, dismissing Victorian as someone who
will go to whatever extent necessary to discredit Timothy Good as
a UFO researcher. Meanwhile, all the key CIA and NASA
people mentioned in this article have denied speaking with
Oechler, something Oechler freely admits to being baffled by.
This is a fascinating argument that seems set to run and run
until all the parties involved fall over from sheer exhaustion !
PF.
