The 21st Leeds
International UFO Conference
The
Unofficial Review
This was the second conference at
Leeds that 'Cosmic Conspiracies' has attended. Last year we were pretty damning
about several aspects of the conference in our review, and invoked fairly sharp
responses from Graham Birdsall and Russell Callaghan. Over the last 12 months,
the dust has settled, and we were looking forward to the 2002 conference with
open minds. We were not to be disappointed. Many of the recommendations that we
had made last year on this website had evidently been listened to and put into
practice.
For instance, professional AV guys
had been brought in, with good effect, and this allowed Russ and Graham to relax
a little more and concentrate on their own set-pieces. Things went a lot more
smoothly as a result, and the atmosphere of the entire event improved over last
year.
The time management was better, run-overs
being simply attributable to speakers trying to cram in too much material into
their presentations (not entirely unforgivable). Questions were read out by
Graham from questionnaires filled in by audience members. This was loads better,
preventing us from all being shamed up by the guy in the green jacket from the
planet Zog (keep taking the meds, fella…). In keeping with this new 'listening
to our customers' policy, feedback was actively sought by Graham Birdsall,
including ideas for future speakers. Nice thought, big guy.
It's true that Graham used enough
plugs to cause a minor black-out on the National Grid, but marketing is the name
of the game when running a business. If there was no UFO Magazine, there would
be a massive hole in British Ufology. We are consumers of that product, and
without our support it would not prosper. So the conference shop window is a
necessary means of financing British Ufology, both as a recognisable national
community and also as a political movement (with a very small 'p').
The conference was well attended,
proving that the UFO subject continues to fascinate. Three astronomers (at
least) were in attendance, and the distinguished line-up included a nuclear
physicist, a surgeon and a serving police officer. This was not the Crank
Community's annual Barking Bonkers Bash, but instead a heady brew of informed
discussion and cutting-edge ideas. Hey, and all the speakers actually turned up
this year! I learned from one of Britain's most prominent UFO researchers that
the mysterious absence of Graham Ennis last year may have been due to his having
been 'warned off' by certain representatives of her Majesty's government.
Whether true or not, it is clear to me that the UFO forum in Britain is becoming
an increasingly attractive arena for scientists exploring the cutting edge of
science. This has to be a welcome development for any open-minded scientist,
even if it isn't for their bosses.
All the staff at UFO Magazine must
be congratulated for bringing the very best speakers over to the UK each and
every year and on the hard work behind the scenes that went towards the smooth
running of this years event. We would give the Conference on the whole a 5
out of 5 rating.
This review will give you a flavour
of the conference and insights into the work of the various speakers on Saturday
and Sunday. We hope you enjoy it.
Michael Hesemann
Rating: 8/10
Michael
Hesemann is a witty European with an eye for a good story.
As a researcher he specialises in collecting video evidence of UFOs and
delving into their historical context. This
talk concentrated on evidence about UFOs collected by the Soviets, and emerging
because of the collapse of their security apparatus (although I think this
collapse is questionable given that the denizens of the Lubyanka have simply
renamed themselves). Obtaining the
video interviews with the Soviet cosmonauts and Generals that we watched at
Leeds was quite an achievement for Hesemann and his co-workers.
Highlights included an early FT sighting, a separation of spheres in
space, a greenish object filmed descending towards Earth (a meteor?), a
gun-camera photo from a MIG and loads of high-ranking, honest testimony (but no
cuddly toy or fondue-set?).
Of course, none of
us spoke Russian, so the gesticulating generals could have been describing their
weekend’s trout catches for all we knew, but the accompanying films and photos
gave us a pretty good insight into the nature of the UFO beast, Soviet-style.
The Soviets took the subject seriously, and studied it with defence
significance in mind. Many
sightings occurred over sensitive military installations, yet the remarkable
manoeuvring ability of these objects negated the potential for their origin
being terrestrial. So said the
three-star generals, anyway. Furthermore,
the head of the Academy of Air Defence related how targeting systems of
interceptor aircraft failed when in use against UFOs, showing the defence
significance of these objects, but how current investigations were hampered by
the poor financial state of the Russian military.
Another
general related how Soviet investigators showed that UFOs seem to appear at
military installations when a new technological breakthrough occurred.
The Soviets managed to actually provoke the appearance of UFOs, creating
a conditional relationship between the military and the visitors.
This went as far as noting how the movement of the craft would change in
response to signals by ground staff. The
conclusions of the Soviets were that UFOs are instruments to gather
intelligence, and probably originate from ‘out there’.
There was a frankness to the interviews that is very foreign to our
Western minds. Our own NATO
Generals would never disclose such insights about the UFO subject; Hesemann
noted that even Colonel Philip Corso’s controversial memoir had been ‘mixed
up’ by his ghost-writer.
The final
part of Hesemann’s presentation concerned his recent acquisition of a UFO film
collection that had belonged to a distinguished Armenian General.
I think it’s fair to note that money clearly exchanged hands here,
something that appears to be generally frowned upon by Ufologists here in
Britain. But it’s a scoop,
nonetheless. The films of the UFOs
weren’t Earth-shattering in themselves, but the inclusion of various MIGs in
them indicated the historical significance of the footage.
That appealed to Hesemann’s academic persuasion, no doubt.
All in all, a good
presentation, punctuated by wit (regarding spheres around Mir: “Frozen pee
under intelligent control?”), America-bashing (tut, tut!) and much food for
thought.
Michael
Hesemann's site
Alan Alford
Rating:
7/10
I
think Alan Alford is learning a great deal about what his target audience wants.
His scholarly, yet fiercely independent research into ancient myths and
monuments is highly controversial, yet, well, let's face it, often totally
opaque to the general reader. That's not stopped him from selling many books, of
course, and this is a testimony to his original thinking and analysis. Like
Robert Bauval, Alford has a burning wish to be recognised by the Egyptologists,
but walks a tightrope between popular interest (to sell books, to fund his
research) and academic peer review (the oxygen of historical recognition). One
excludes the other, of course. So talking to a UFO conference inherently raises
dangers for the serious-minded alternative researcher…more years in the
wilderness beckon.
Alford had prepared an overview of
some of his research regarding 'lost paradise myths', but shelved this in
preference for a detailed analysis of the recent 'Gantenbrink Door' opening in
the Great Pyramid. This was a good move. It focused our attention upon the
here-and-now, and clearly showed how Egyptologists such as Zahi Hawass and Mark
Lehner have shifted their opinions towards the heretical 'secret chamber'
hypothesis. By highlighting this, Alford cleverly manoeuvred between
Egyptology's crumbling orthodoxy, and popular fascination with the Ancient
Egyptian antiquities.
That said, I remain unconvinced by
Alford's theory of exploding worlds lying at the core of ancient creation myths.
His argument during this lecture was a more straightforward one, luckily. He
offered a justification for the belief that at least one of the 'air-shafts'
leading from the Queen's Chamber ended in a secret chamber. By arguing that the
known chambers above ground were once sealed vaults, Alford extrapolated this to
predict a similar conclusion for the sealed Gantenbrink Door (a posteriori,
as Van Flandern would say). Not unreasonable, although at odds with the orthodox
view that these so-called air-shafts were simply for the transport of the
Pharoah's soul, or ka. Alford expects three such seals to be in place in
the shaft, and last weeks' discovery of a second door behind the first is
certainly in keeping with this hypothesis.
What did he think lay behind the
third seal? Almost traditional now for the New Egyptologists (or 'Pyramidiots',
as coined by their academic critics), he thinks there will be a small Hall of
Records. Well, it beats an extra-terrestrial homing beacon, I suppose, but is
hardly awe-inspiringly original. Alford expects those records to prove beyond
doubt his theory about the true origins of Egyptian beliefs; that they lie in
the catastrophic roots of myth, not the worship of the Sun. But given that, as
Alford jokingly put it, the 'good old days' of gunpowder-enhanced exploration of
the Pyramid are over, he may be waiting a long time to find out…
Alan
Alford's site
Tom Van Flandern
Rating: 8/10
Lecturers
at Leeds like to look their best. Van Flandern was wearing the uniform of a
typical male American academic; the soft tweed suit. It was certainly in
contrast to his 'B-movie' space shirt on Sunday! He has white, foppish hair,
reminding us of 'suits you' Ken from the Fast Show, and his manner is quiet and
reflective. For some reason I was expecting someone of a more boisterous
disposition, so this was a disarmingly pleasant surprise. Van Flandern's fairly
polished I.T. presentation was hampered somewhat by his pottering with the files
while lecturing, and this underlined his mildly eccentric academic credentials.
He showed us many images of Mars, hoping to win us
over that artificiality lay at the centre of a true understanding of the Martian
terrain. Like Percival Lowell before him, he saw patterns and discerned
artificial features.
Were they simply artifacts of the
human psyche projected upon the Martian landscape images, or a scientifically
discernible pattern? I'm not sure either way, but I now know this: the Mars
Global Surveyor images that 'killed' the 'Face on Mars' were less than ideal.
Van Flandern's computer generation of an extrapolated MGS image, is it would
have been seen from above and under better lighting conditions, showed a
Viking-like artificiality about the controversial mesa that belied NASA's
petulant dismissal. Malin and JPL 'filtered' the MGS image, apparently, in a way
that purposely removed detail. Yet computer analysis of a rendered Face actually
showed more details, supporting claims of artificiality.
From that, Van Flandern argued, we
can look at other Martian terrain anomalies with an open mind. That we did; a
plethora of surface features that suggested to our subjective minds faces,
dolphins, humanoid figures…you name it. More convincing were the vegetation
patches, as ennobled by Arthur C Clarke's daring assertion of life on the
Martian surface. Given that water ice lies below much of the surface of Mars,
Van Flandern argued, the eruption of vegetation from that ice layer seems quite
reasonable. This hypothesis is buoyed by the changing appearance of this
phenomenon with the seasons. 'Dust Devil Tracks' in the landscape were more
suggestive of Europa's surface, I thought, with its cracks and flows; a thought
I put to Andrew Pike, UFO Magazine's resident astronomy writer. Pike was taken
with Van Flandern's work, and possibly with some justification. But I think Van
Flandern would be wise to bear Lowell's 'Canals' in mind.
The most wild idea mooted by Van
Flandern was that Cydonia might be a museum, or a 'theme-park', left by the
Martians escaping to Earth prior to a cataclysm 3.2 million years ago. The
nature of this catastrophe? Mars was once a moon, he suggests, one that was
orbiting a planet that exploded. Hence, he says, the cratering on one side of
the red planet. Er…OK. But couldn't the cratered hemisphere also be a very
ancient landscape, simply untouched by surface changes such as volcanism that
happened elsewhere on the planet? Personally, I think Mars was catastrophically
'killed' by massive impacts, but a very, very long time ago. If catastrophic
cratering came after artificial construction on the surface, then the artificial
features would have been eradicated, surely. In contrast, an ancient catastrophe
could still be consistent with more modern artificiality.
The mystery of Mars remains, and Van
Flandern's efforts help to focus our attention on that. He has contributed to
the debate in an openly partisan way, but he has much of value to bring with
him.
Tom
Van Flandern's site
Stanton Friedman
Rating: 10/10
The
greatest proponents of any controversial material are surely those gifted with
charisma. Ufology has been rejected by Academia and Science in the West. It
would be nice to have a level playing field, to engage in a debate that is not
subject to personal beliefs and prejudices, but this is not an option open to
us. Any amount of rigorous academic research conducted by scientists who
conclude in favour of the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis is met by a mandatory
brick wall of ignorance and accusation by the mainstream. The only way to
counter such scathing dismissals is to assert self-belief in a charismatic and
forthright way. To hell with them…I know what I know, and I'm willing to stand
by it! Friedman offered us a splendid
collection of the more outrageous falsehoods and assertions of the sceptics he
has faced. Or should I say, faced down. His pedigree is impeccable,
his intellect cutting and dynamic.
He leaves no prisoners, and why
should he? To even deal with the unjustified public ridicule and contempt heaped
upon him by his peers is a brave act indeed. To coin another metaphor, Stanton
fights fire with fire.
Time and again Friedman quoted
distinguished commentators who were derisive of UFOs and their proponents. They
twisted facts and conclusions, made statements that were downright lies, and
showed no willingness to analyse the data with any degree of honesty. Wow.
Friedman's presentation was highly witty, but carried a very serious message.
When Ufology is being put down, challenge the sceptics to demonstrate the
evidence that lies behind their negative statements. Turn the tables on them.
Make clear the "intellectual bankruptcy of the pseudo-science of anti-Ufology".
Most of the material Friedman
examined during his critique of the critics pertained to the Roswell case, the
investigation into which he began. As the years pass, the number of witnesses
still alive lessens, and Friedman showed us photos of many an individual no
longer with us. Roswell is moving into history, and the debate with it. But the
significance of the event is undiminished, and Friedman's passion and
cool-headed wit invoked a stirring response from the delegates at Leeds. His
talent is not so much in facilitating 'belief' in the subject, but in
self-confidence among advocates of extra-terrestrial visitation. Why should we
simply take the crap that gets thrown at us? Arguably, the intellectual debate
is all but won by Ufology, yet it fails because it faces the blanket prejudice
of society as a whole.
Stanton Friedman's lecture was a
breath of fresh air. Long may he lecture.
Stanton
Friedmans Site
Graham Birdsall Rating:
8/10
According
to the blurb, Graham Birdsall would be 'taking off the gloves' during his
lecture presentation. His focus was the media, who had been treating Ufology in
a fairly shabby way recently (what's new?), and claims by some commentators that
the whole subject had died. The Birdsall lecture is often an overview of the
subject during the last 12 months, and this had been a theme running through the
magazine this year.
But before we considered such
matters, he showed us the video clips that had accompanied the Awards ceremony
the evening before. This was a new venture, and he seemed keen to show how it
had gone. Personally, I think the idea of rewarding excellence in Ufology is a
good one, and his broad-brush approach to 'categories' commendable.
Pity there are no website
categories, of course, but whatever. Unfortunately, the music (and I use the
term loosely) that was invoked at the beginning of each award category was
cringingly bad. It would not have been out of place in a 70s quiz show.
I guess Birdsall was using the
various Hollywood promotional clips and amateur video footage to show that there
is life in the old girl, yet. It worked, and added an interesting juxtaposition
to the coming storm of media grievance. Is Ufology really dead, asked Birdsall?
Can the critics demonstrate this? No, of course they can't. After all, they
don't actually need to because their negative sound-bites will be printed no
matter what. The editor of Fortean Times was probably only raising awareness of
their own conference when he said what he said, mused Birdsall. After all,
surely he knew that UFO sightings are up all over the world? Knew, yes…care,
no.
Even sceptics like Clarke and
Roberts (who Beelzebub has definitely put aside a couple of devils for) are
softening their stance in response to Stan Hubbard's testimony, according to
Birdsall. Actually, I would argue that slightly differently. In order to gain
data and evidence from those in Establishment positions who are critical of
'flying saucers', our intrepid investigators were the very epitome of ruthless
anti-UFO debunkery. That way they gained credibility. But to actually sell their
book, they had to appear open-minded to appeal to the wider ETH-believing UFO
community. Hence the apparent about-turn. Clever, very clever…
Birdsall recommended his book of the
week (well, year): "The Missing Times". Between those enlightened
covers we will learn how over 800 media outlets are 'in the pocket of the NSA'.
Having read the Guardian's recent expose of the internal surveillance of our
green and pleasant land, I would be forced to agree. If our beloved Kingsholm
rugby ground ("Glawster!") had a similarly aligned playing field, we'd
have to strain our necks to look up it.
By now the gloves were back on.
Birdsall commended the Sunday Times on its recent reports on official
investigations into the nature of crop circles. The work of Dr Levingood had
highlighted evidence that the soil beneath some circles had been subject to
tremendous heating, yet the crops above showed no signs of damage. Well, apart
from levelling, of course. Can that be attributed to the friction exerted by the
hoaxers' boards? Surely not…
Birdsall finished by chatting about
various recent media-covered subjects: the Disclosure Project, speculation in
the scientific press of imminent tilt changes of the Earth, and the forthcoming
mini-series 'Taken', set to revive Ufology where the X-files had left off. All
in all, a more hopeful picture emerged. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?
We'll have to wait and see.
UFO
Magazine's site
Philip Mantle Rating:
9/10
Being
the 21st Leeds International Conference, everyone appeared to be in nostalgic
mood. Stanton Friedman was not to be the only "Tango'd" Ufologist this
weekend, as Mantle had brought with him some classic photos from the first Leeds
conference in the 80s. Very amusing they were too. Graham took it all in his
stride, of course, and Philip Mantle was not personally immune to the joke
either, as one photo of him sporting an 80's perm testified (80 sperm?).
Mantle then proceeded to show us the
full, unedited series of 'Alien Autopsy' films before detailing the background
of its controversial release to the media via Ray Santilli. The film itself has
no soundtrack, and the auditorium was very quiet during the 18 minutes that the
film ran. I think this just goes to show how much controversy and interest this
footage holds among Ufologists.
Cosmic Conspiracies are split down
the middle on this. Dave is quite sure this is a fake, I'm convinced that
whatever the creature is, it isn't a model. And Martin is the classic floating
voter. It's likely that our own 'debate' (it stopped short of physical violence,
you'll be happy to hear) after the lecture mirrored similar discussions among
other delegates. There was certainly plenty of murmuring among the delegates
seated around us.
From Mantle's presentation it was
plain that Santilli has played this thing for all it's worth, and has been less
than truthful at times. The 'Tent footage' was evidently faked by a British
special effects company (AK Music of Milton Keynes), allegedly acting on behalf
of Santilli. How do we know? Because one of their employees is in the film! In a
court of law, I'm quite sure that this duplicity would have killed the alleged
veracity of the actual 'Alien Autopsy' footage stone dead. UFO Magazine has
repeatedly called for authentication of the original film to be carried out
independently, but Santilli has chosen not to allow this to happen. Which fuels
the antagonism towards him, of course.
If the film were genuine, why would
he withhold it from scientific analysis? If it is a fake, he would be
incontrovertibly discovered to be a conman, potentially opening himself up to
civil court cases by disgruntled purchasers of his 1995 video, and possibly a
charge of criminal fraud. This is complicated by the claim by Mantle that there
is a second unreleased autopsy film held by Santilli. Mantle says he's seen this
film. It presumably didn't include images of President Truman either, one of the
claims for the film erroneously made by Santilli.
Evidence supporting the case for the
'Alien Autopsy' film being genuine was then produced by Mantle. Many medical
professionals who watched the film contend that the body is flesh and blood. It
was filmed within a four-walled room, as careful scrutiny of the background
shots will show, and not a film set. From reflections in the head saw, the
cameramen can also be seen, similarly attired in protective clothing. Then
there's the testimony of Clifford Stone who claims he saw some of the film being
shown on a military base in 1969. Another prior witness of the film was the
accredited photographer Mike Maloney, who viewed it at a party some years before
its release in 1995.
This confused picture seems to
indicate that the question as to whether the footage is genuine or fake is not a
straightforward one. Sure, we all have our own opinions about this, but the
controversy is set to run, particularly if a second autopsy film emerges.
Personally, I think that this is a case of disinformation, where a genuine piece
of footage has been presented in such an obviously duplicitous way that it is
being purposely 'killed' in the public eye. The tent footage was definitely
faked, and I suspect the footage of the debris and I-beams was faked also,
designed to discredit the actual autopsy film by association. Santilli's own
behaviour has had the same effect, whether intentionally or not.
I've not seen Philip Mantle speak
before, and I was impressed. He presented the material in a fairly neutral way,
although he is of the opinion that there is some credence to the footage. He is
evidently a tireless investigator, one who will pursue the truth of the matter
to the wire. By that time we might be looking back at dated photos of the 21st
Leeds conference with the same merriment as we did at the start of this lecture.
Nick Pope and Georgina Bruni Rating:
6/10
This
was a rather disjointed presentation. Not particularly because the flow of the
thing was interrupted by Pope handing over to Bruni, who then ended up handing
back over to him, but because the general thrust of the lecture was lost amongst
a catalogue of informational tit-bits. Both of them attempted to cover too much
ground, introducing various British Establishment characters from decades ago,
and inter-linking them with the UFO subject and the paranormal. By
doing so, Pope was interested in highlighting how the agendas within governments
develop (and it sure as hell isn't anything to do with what the electorate
think, particularly in Whitehall), while Bruni wanted us to recognise how
seriously some Establishment figures took the subject of flying saucers in the
50's. In their way, both these arguments are valid and useful from a historical
perspective. But they don't necessarily take us any further along the road of
discovery because the motives that lie behind the British interest shown in UFOs
remain ambiguous.
Pope highlighted a book by R.V.
Jones called 'Most Secret War', which included a chapter entitled 'Bombs into
Saucers'. Jones had connections with the CIA. Firming up his general argument
that there is a 'sceptic vs believer' debate within the Ministry of Defence
regarding UFOs, Pope asserts that the historical agenda regarding the
implementation of official investigations into the phenomenon was affected by
rivalries between different personalities in each camp. Such a stance would rule
out a concerted cover-up attempt, and also a blanket dismissal of flying saucers
as a real phenomenon. This is what he thinks.
Discussing figures from the same
period, Bruni concentrated upon the long-standing Establishment interest in the
Occult, Theosophy and reincarnation. Lord Mountbatten and Prince Philip in
particular became interested in UFOs, although she fell short of directly
linking them to occult beliefs. Not so Lord Tredegar, an MI5 operative who was a
Chamberlain for the Pope (not Nick). Tredegar was linked to Aleister Crowley and
black masses, and presumably threw a few wild parties from time to time. Then we
heard all about George Adamski's co-author Desmond Leslie, who seemed to know
just about everybody. This led to major Establishment figures having allegedly
met Adamski, possibly even an alleged 'alien' visitor (remember, this is
England, not Manhattan). Despite these links, and despite the fact that Leslie
was a keen Ufologist, for some reason he chose not to disclose these matters
publicly. Bruni wondered, 'Why not?' It's a good question. Perhaps he wasn't
able to allow such prominent Establishment figures to be compromised, whereas he
was already seen as sufficiently eccentric to allow him to openly demonstrate
his beliefs in the media.
So we returned to Pope, who
discussed why governments undertake investigations into various anomalous
phenomena. Citing the American 'remote viewing' programme, he argued that to
ignore such lines of research simply because they appeared rather foolish from
the outset, governments could eventually find themselves behind a 'quantum leap'
in advancement made elsewhere. Study groups are cheaper than engineering
research, hence the investigatory processes undertaken. In others words, an
interest in UFOs was not an affirmation that the government believed in them.
This then follows regarding recent interest in possible exotic propulsion
systems ("that'll be on all your web-sites by midnight" said Birdsall
afterwards. So I suppose I had to stick it in…)
Of some interest, though, were
Pope's accounts of discussion among MoD colleagues regarding UFOs, given his 'sceptic
vs believer in the MoD' line of reasoning. Who are "these people"
(pointing upwards)? Who indeed.
Paul LaViolette Rating
5/10
We
all knew what to expect. As hard as it would be to get comfortable on the Leeds
University seats, we simply had to rough this one out. Any readers of my Dark
Star material will know that I'm very interested in astronomy, and I went into
this lecture with an open mind. Really! Andrew Pike and Tom Van Flandern
attended LaViolette's presentation also, although Pike slipped out after a
while. LaViolette's contention is that
pulsars are not a natural phenomenon. When they were first discovered, it was
thought that they might be artificial beacons. Then the theory emerged that they
were, instead, pulsating neutron stars that were spinning rather rapidly.
Despite some uncomfortable data that has since emerged to challenge this
prevalent theory, it remains the orthodox position.
LaViolette contends that the very
precise nature of the signals given off by pulsars indicates their
artificiality. He contends that they are not randomly distributed, even going so
far as to say that they convey a coherent message. He doesn't stop there.
Okay, so I could buy the idea that
these may be artificial beacons, but to then launch into a wild hypothesis that
they are essentially navigation 'wires' for space-ships to travel along to come
to little old Earth is pretty far-fetched. LaViolette produced diagrams showing
how energy emissions from stars could be channeled into the particular
wavelengths exhibited by pulsars, presumably involving engineering projects on a
truly humungous scale. In other words, the pulsars are intelligently beamed
directly at us, not seen as part of a more natural emission into space. Why
would the aliens go to such trouble, one might ask? Because, LaViolette
believes, they are keen to alert us to the other part of his theory…the danger
we face through galactic core explosions.
LaViolette pointed out how
particularly interesting pulsars could be found in celestial positions of some
significance, at least in terms of our own cultural description of
constellations. Believe it or not (and I don't), the most interesting pulsar
forms part of the constellation Sagita, the Arrow, providing a definitive link
between myth and astronomy. Kind of like a massive celestial 'you are here'.
Following this logic, LaViolette contends that our ancient
mythological descriptions of the various constellations can be understood in
terms of ET messages from pulsars. Therefore, the Zodiac must have been designed
by visiting extra-terrestrials in the off-chance that some figure in history,
like LaViolette, might perchance figure out how to interpret them and save us
all. Perhaps we could now build a 'superwave shield' like the one
LaViolette thinks saved the Crab Nebula.
If you're interested in this kind of
stuff it would be a good to visit LaViolette's website. Perhaps he might be able
to interpret the geographical distribution of in-coming ISP hits in a similarly
non-random way. Perhaps thereby solving key mathematical enigmas. Or something.
He's a very clever guy, no doubt about it, with a PhD to his name. But
this set of ideas shows the inherent dangers of taking a good idea too far.
Paul
LaViolette's site
Roger Leir Rating:
10/10
Leir
began by exhorting us to lend out our UFO books to spread the word. An unusual
stance for an author to take, but given the Dr Leir is also a practicing
physician in California I don't suppose he worries too much about the possible
loss of book sales. Standing next to the towering figure of Graham Birdsall, our
intrepid doctor seemed diminutive. But it was evident from the ensuing lecture
that Dr Leir stood head and shoulders above the other lecturers who had
presented at Leeds that day. He has a disarming charm, and spoke with authority
and conviction. I liked him, and I was knocked out by his presentation.
It came in two parts, the first
dealing with a case-file from his alien abduction implant surgeries, the second
regarding Gary Lowry's encounters. Many readers will be familiar with both
cases, but may not have seen the accompanying video evidence. Because it's
clearly not possible to show that material here it isn't possible to put across
the excitement generated by some of the videos, images and artifacts Dr Leir
showed us.
The first case-file involved an
airhostess who was in a state of denial about a foreign object under her skin
that seemed to have a life of its own. When she moved to touch the object it
would move away. But instead of following a cyst or fistula, the movements it
made encompassed a 2 ˝" diameter area on her arm. Weird. Leir caught it on
film prior to its surgical removal. He described the serendipitous sequence of
events that led to his performing the surgery to remove the implant. "Just
call me 'Mr Synchronicity'" he said.
The surgery produced a T-shaped
object within an impenetrable organic membrane that Leir thought probably
prevented rejection by the body (if this could be studied it would be a
potential life-line for transplant receivers who currently have to indefinitely
rely upon Cyclosporin, and other anti-rejection drugs). Leir noted how several
of the different implants in his possession are very similar in nature, so much
so that he has to photograph them in a different context to tell them apart. One
exhibits protrusions that move under the influence of a magnet, and Leir
hypothesises that such mechanical workings might explain the independent
capability to move below the abductees skin.
Then came the science. Analysis of
the object had been carried out using various machines, including an AFM
microscope in Santa Barbara. Tiny frog spawn-like sacs containing oil were found
within the coating, before it was removed by several processes to reveal a
shiny, well-organised metal. It had an amorphous, non-crystalline form. Leir
compared this bizarre metallic form to the work being carried out by military
black projects on similar amorphous metals, none of which were yet thought to
have magnetic properties. I'd like to know if the isotopic ratios of the metal's
constituents were terrestrial or not, but Leir did not allude to this. There are
possible connections here with the 'morphing metals' research by DARPA that
Cosmic Conspiracies exposed last year.
Then he turned to the Gary Lowry
case, whose brush with the unknown began 12 years ago. Now his whole family is
affected, and shows no signs of abating. There are several paranormal aspects to
the case, but what's most interesting are the physical indicators of something
truly weird going on. Lowry set up a video camera in his bedroom in an attempt
to capture the visiting phenomenon on tape. After some considerable time he
managed to get 8 frames of an alleged alien face. Wild. More like a demonic
visitation than one of the Greys, although Lowry claims to have seen them too.
Other physical evidence has also
been collected by clever means…the 'aliens' don't appear to be above
subterfuge on the part of their earthly victims. Footprints were captured on
aluminium foil, and a claw complete with 3 hairs left behind. It's currently
undergoing DNA analysis, we were told, with the likelihood of peer-reviewed
publication to follow. Other evidence included burn circles on the lawn and the
magnetisation of various parts of the house. What's more, Leir was himself
actually witness to some of the paranormal activity in the Bakersfield house
whilst accompanying a Japanese TV crew. It happened when he was amusing himself
by riding around in a wheelchair in an empty room of the house. He saw the
phenomenon described by Lowry of walls become wave-like. Leir didn't see any
aliens himself, or at least he doesn't remember seeing them…I mean; he
wouldn't, would he?
This was a great lecture and I look
forward to delving into Dr Leir's book. Ufology ain't dead yet, Mr Fortean
Times!
Dr
Roger Leir's Site
The Gala Dinner Awards
Cosmic Conspiracies didn't go to
this for reasons that have already been spelled out. But this year we had our
very own 'man on the ground' to put us in the picture of what went on at this
prestigious event. Simon Robinson, a researcher from London, agreed to take a
few notes on our behalf. He thoroughly enjoyed himself, as it happened. Sat on
Alan Alford's table, they were entertained by a paranoid Loonie for a while who
considered Alford's media work to be a dangerous act of betrayal. Say what…?
Still, Simon will be the first to admit that he's not beyond a bit of paranoid
thinking, either, and it appears they all got on famously once a few beers had
been quaffed.
Anyway, much mirth ensued during the
ceremonies, particularly because of Alford and the Loonie's fairly accurate
impressions of Jacques Clouseau…'you have a burmb?' And apparently,
Russ C went off for a pint in the middle of the proceedings, possibly because
he'd seen one too many video recorders that weekend. I'm sure the local ale is
excellent, Russ! For those of you more interested in who got the awards, here
they are:
Best TV Documentary on a
UFO-related subject : "Underworld Flooded Kingdoms" by Graham
Hancock
Best Movie: K-Pax
Best Video:'Ships of Light' by Michael Hesemann
Best video in a UFO-related subject: 'Rods' by Jose Ascamilla
Best Video Clip: "Oh my god, there's thousands of them…!"
John Greco from Birmingham
Best UFO photo: UFO over volcano by Alfonso Reyes
Best Music: "The Mystery Spheres" by Ricky Seraphico
Best UFO Investigator: Sharon Larkin from Cumbria
Best Overseas Contribution: Dr Steven Greer of the Disclosure Project
Lifetime Achievement Award: Stanton Friedman
Stanton was then the subject of (or
subjected to?) a short film highlighting his life and works. The film was a
complete surprise, having been arranged with his wife over the last 3 months in
secrecy. Just goes to show Stanton's right about how secrets can be kept! So
other senior researchers beware; if your spouse starts hysterically giggling at
random moments you might be next up for the Gala Pyramid!
Thanks to Simon Robinson of 'This
is the Real Truth Network'.
Summing up, this was a great Conference
that was a pleasure to attend. With the Event being moved to the Queens Hotel next
year in Leeds, we are all in for an even better meeting (more comfortable
seating we hope). Until then, we raise our glasses to Graham and the staff at
UFO Magazine in celebration of hosting one of the best UFO lectures we have been
to in a long while!
(C) Andy Lloyd for
Cosmic Conspiracies 2002
