critical thinking anomalous phenomena reader

Transcription

CRITICAL THINKING
ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA READER
Chaffey College Spring 2013
From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience
has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the
fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it
more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain
suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it
be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a
violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is
esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle
that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of
death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to
happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has
never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform
experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that
appellation....
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no
testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind,
that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to
establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I
immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should
either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have
happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority,
which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the
falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates;
then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle
is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that
testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great
deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event
established on so full an evidence.
2=G=C6/D33A>-
#
@3D7A32
6/1/11
)BWFZPVFWFSGFMUMJLFZPVLOFXXIBUTPNFPOFXBTHPJOHUPTBZCFGPSF
UIFZTBJEJU 0SUIBUZPVIBEBGFFMJOHUIBUUIFQIPOFXBTHPJOHUPSJOHBOE
JUEJE )BWFZPVIBEBQTZDIJDUFMMZPVTPNFUIJOHBCPVUZPVSTFMGUIBUTIF
DPVMEOULOPXXJUIPVUSFBEJOHZPVSNJOE )BWFZPVFWFSUIPVHIUZPVIBE
BTJYUITFOTF 8IBUFYQMBJOTUIJT .BOZIBWFFYQFSJFODFEPOFPSNPSF
PG UIFTF FWFOUT EFTDSJCFE UIFN BT FYUSBPSEJOBSZ BOE BUUSJCVUFE UIFN UP
FYUSBTFOTPSZQFSDFQUJPO&41
E6/B7A3A>7KHWHUP´(63µZDVLQYHQWHGE\'U-%5KLQHDQGXVHGE\KLPWRUHIHUWRVXSSRVHGDELOLWLHVVXFKDV
telepathy, which involves the ability to know the thoughts of another person without the use of the recognized
VHQVHV&ODLUDXGLHQFHSHUFHSWLRQRIVRXQGVQRWGHWHFWDEOHWKURXJKWKHFRQYHQWLRQDOVHQVHRIKHDULQJ
FODLUYR\DQFHVHHLQJWKLQJVUHPRYHGIURPWLPHDQGVSDFHDQGSUHFRJQLWLRQNQRZOHGJHRIIXWXUHHYHQWV
DOVRIDOOXQGHUWKLVWHUP(63LVDWHUPZLGHO\XVHGE\WKHJHQHUDOSXEOLFWRGHVFULEHDQ\RIDQXPEHURI
paranormal abilities. Those in the psychic advice industry use this
WHUPWRGHVFULEHWKHLUPHWKRGRIDFTXLULQJSULYLOHJHGLQIRUPDWLRQQRW
available to those restricted to the five traditional senses.
3V\FKLFDELOLWLHVKDYHDOVREHHQXVHGDVFKDUDFWHUWUDLWV
and thematic elements in American pop culture and most
prominently in comic books and science fiction writing. Most of
us are familiar with well-known fictional telepaths including the
Jedi of Star Wars0U6SRFNRIStar TrekDQG$TXDPDQ
;@A>=19;7<2;3:2A7<
µ/2/553@=4B63;7<2¶
AB/@B@39(B63=@757</:A3@73A
'$%>/@/;=C<B
/?C/;/<<¡
'$ 211=;71A
$
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
%HOLHILQSDUDQRUPDOFODLPVUHODWHGWR(63UHPDLQVZLGHVSUHDG7KH*DOOXS2UJDQL]DWLRQ
FRQGXFWHGDVXUYH\RIWKHEHOLHIVRIWKHJHQHUDO8QLWHG6WDWHVSRSXODWLRQDERXWSDUDQRUPDOWRSLFV
LQ7KHVXUYH\IRXQGWKDWSHUFHQWRIWKRVHSROOHGEHOLHYHGLQH[WUDVHQVRU\SHUFHSWLRQDQG
26 percent believed in clairvoyance. Thirty-one percent of those surveyed believed in telepathy
or psychic communication.
3DUDSV\FKRORJLFDOUHVHDUFKWKHVWXG\RISV\FKLFDELOLWLHVKDVEHHQJRLQJRQLQODERUDWRU\VHWWLQJV
SULPDULO\LQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQG8QLWHG.LQJGRPIRUPRUHWKDQ\HDUV7KHILHOGVDZLQFUHDVLQJ
LQWHUHVWDQGLPSURYHGWHFKQLTXHVWKURXJKLWVSHDNLQWKHV$WGLIIHUHQWWLPHVRYHUWKHODVW
century, laboratories searching for evidence of paranormal abilities could be found in many top
XQLYHUVLWLHVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQG(XURSH
7KH8QLWHG6WDWHVPLOLWDU\DQGLQWHOOLJHQFHFRPPXQLWLHVDOVRKDYHORQJKLVWRULHVLQSV\FKLFUHVHDUFK
'HFODVVLILHGGRFXPHQWVGHVFULEHPDMRUUHVHDUFKSURJUDPVOLNHWKHRQHDWWKH86$UP\·V)RUW0HDG
7KH)RUW0HDGSURJUDPZDVGHYHORSHGWRH[DPLQHWKHSV\FKLFSKHQRPHQRQNQRZQDVÚHPRWH
YLHZLQJµ5HPRWHYLHZLQJLQYROYHVWKHDFTXLVLWLRQRILQIRUPDWLRQIURPGLVWDQWXQVHHQORFDWLRQVXVLQJ
SV\FKLFDELOLWLHV&RQYLQFHGWKDWUHPRWHYLHZLQJZDVDUHDOSKHQRPHQRQUHVHDUFKHUVKRSHGWR
LQFUHDVHLWVUDQJHDQGDFFXUDF\WKURXJKWUDLQLQJ7KLVLVRQHRIPDQ\SURMHFWVWKDWVDZLQWHOOLJHQFH
JDWKHULQJYDOXHLQ(63UHVHDUFK
+DVDQ\VFLHQWLILFHYLGHQFHEHHQIRXQGIRU(63"7KHUHKDYHEHHQVHYHUDOPDMRUVWXGLHVWKDWFODLPHG
VWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQWDFKLHYLQJDVXFFHVVUDWHWKDWLVXQOLNHO\WREHWKHUHVXOWRIFKDQFHUHVXOWV
VXSSRUWLQJLWVH[LVWHQFH$IWHU\HDUVRIH[WHQVLYHUHYLHZE\WKHVFLHQWLILFFRPPXQLW\KRZHYHU
few still consider these studies to be of any scientific value. The results have been attributed to
PLVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIUHVXOWVDQGIODZHGH[SHULPHQWDOGHVLJQ:KHQVFLHQFHLVGRQHULJKWUHVXOWVDUH
always open to the scrutiny of other scientists.
6RPH\HDUVLVORQJHQRXJKWRLQYHVWLJDWHWKHVHFODLPV6FLHQWLVWVVHHQRUHDVRQWRFRQWLQXHZRUNLQ
DILHOGWKDWKDVQHYHUSURGXFHGPHDQLQJIXOUHVXOWVVXSSRUWLQJWKHH[LVWHQFHRISV\FKLFDELOLWLHV:KDW
GR\RXWKLQN"
%
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
BCSJFGIJTUPSZPGNPEFSOSFTFBSDI
5IFNPTUJNQPSUBOUGJHVSFJOQTZDIJDSFTFBSDIJTQSPCBCMZ%S+#3IJOF
3IJOFPSJHJOBMMZQMBOOFEUPFOUFSUIFNJOJTUSZCVUHSBEVBUFEJOCPUBOZBU
UIF6OJWFSTJUZPG$IJDBHP*UXBTJOUIBU3IJOFGJSTUCFDBNFJOUFSFTUFE
JOUIFTVCKFDUBGUFSIFBSJOHBMFDUVSFCZ4JS"SUIVS$POBO%PZMFDSFBUPS
PGUIFXPSMEGBNPVT4IFSMPDL)PMNFTBOEQBTTJPOBUFCFMJFWFSJOUIF
FYJTUFODFPGQTZDIJDBCJMJUJFT)FXBTGVSUIFSJOTQJSFECZSFBEJOH4JS0MJWFS
-PEHFµT5IF4VSWJWBMPG.BO3IJOFXPVMECFDMPTFMZBTTPDJBUFEXJUI
$POBO%PZMFBOEPUIFSQSPNJOFOUTQJSJUVBMJTUTVOUJMBOJOWFTUJHBUJPOFBSMZ
JOIJTDBSFFSQVUIJNBUPEETXJUINBOZJOUIBUDPNNVOJUZIFGPVOE
.BSHFSZ$SBOEPOBXFMMLOPXONFEJVNUPCFBGSBVE
,Q5KLQHEHFDPHDFTXDLQWHGZLWK'XNH8QLYHUVLW\SV\FKRORJLVW'U:LOOLDP0F'RXJDOODQGVRRQ
WKHWZREHJDQIRFXVLQJRQWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIQHZ´VFLHQWLILFµPHWKRGVIRULQYHVWLJDWLQJSDUDQRUPDO
phenomena. They would describe their research area as parapsychology to intentionally distinguish
it from traditional psychology.
5IF3IJOF
3FTFBSDI-BC
%VLF6OJWFSTJUZ
%\5KLQHDQG0F'RXJDOOKDGEHJXQVWXGLHVDWDSV\FKRORJ\ODERQWKH'XNH8QLYHUVLW\FDPSXV
LQ'XUKDP1RUWK&DUROLQDDORQJZLWKDFROOHDJXH'U.DUO=HQHU=HQHUZRXOGEHEHVWNQRZQIRU
GHYHORSLQJWKHVHWRIILYHV\PEROFDUGVQRZNQRZQDV=HQHUFDUGVIRU5KLQHWRXVHLQWHVWLQJIRU
SV\FKLFSRZHUV:LWKLQDIHZ\HDUVWKH\KDGHVWDEOLVKHGWKH'XNH8QLYHUVLW\3DUDSV\FKRORJ\
/DERUDWRU\DW'XUKDP7KHODEZRXOGGHYHORSQHDUO\HYHU\PHWKRGDQGFRQFHSWWKDWZRXOGIRUP
&
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
WKHFRUHRIH[SHULPHQWDOSDUDSV\FKRORJ\LQFOXGLQJWKHWHUPextrasensory perception(63(63
EHFDPHWKHSULPDU\IRFXVRIWKHODEDQGDPDVVLYHERG\RIGDWDZDVSURGXFHG7KH\FRQGXFWHG
H[SHULPHQWVZLWKPRUHWKDQRQHPLOOLRQWULDOV6HYHUDOVWXGLHVUHSRUWHGVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQWUHVXOWV
LQVXSSRUWRI(63
B637@>:/137<A173<13
Many agree that Rhine's work was pioneering and that he was sincerely dedicated to the search
IRUHYLGHQFHRI(638QIRUWXQDWHO\KLVSDVVLRQIRUWKHVXEMHFWFRXOGQ·WRYHUFRPHWKHORZTXDOLW\RI
his research or his failure to produce any compelling evidence to support his claims. Today, few
mainstream scientists give any serious consideration to the contributions made by Rhine and his
fellow parapsychologists. Even worse, critics have pointed to numerous cases of misrepresented data,
sloppy methods, and even fraud, rendering his entire body of work tainted.
5KLQHILUPO\EHOLHYHGKHZDVVHHLQJHYLGHQFHIRU(63LQWKHUHVHDUFK7KLV´HYLGHQFHµZDVIRXQG
ZKHQKHOLPLWHGKLVDQDO\VHVWRGDWDFROOHFWHGIURPWULDOVZLWKKLVPRVW´JLIWHGµVXEMHFWV+LVIRFXV
RQVXFFHVVHVRIJLIWHGVXEMHFWVJDYHDIDOVHYLHZRIWKHRYHUDOOUHVXOWV,WLVQRZZHOOHVWDEOLVKHGWKDW
Rhine and his colleagues had been allowing themselves to ignore much of the data they had collected
DQGUHSRUWHGRQO\WKRVHZLWKSRVLWLYHUHVXOWV1HJDWLYHGDWDZHUHVHWDVLGH7KLVLVDFRPPRQ
problem in studies of paranormal abilities and other areas of fringe science: investigators start with a
FRQFOXVLRQDQGZRUNWRILQGHYLGHQFHLQVXSSRUWRILWLQWKLVFDVHWKHFRQFOXVLRQWKDW(63LVUHDO
"UZQJDBM
TFUPG
;FOFS
DBSET
7KHILQDOEORZWR5KLQHRFFXUUHGZKHQ'U:DOWHU/HY\DWUXVWHGFROOHDJXHDWWKH)RXQGDWLRQIRU
5HVHDUFKRQWKH1DWXUHRI0DQ)510DSULYDWHRUJDQL]DWLRQHVWDEOLVKHGE\5KLQHLQZDV
GLVFRYHUHGWREHFKHDWLQJRQDQLPSUHVVLYHDQLPDO(63WHVWWKDWKDGEHHQUHSRUWHGDVDKXJHVXFFHVV
Levy confessed and was fired.
7KH5KLQH/DELVMXVWRQHRIPDQ\VXFKODEVWKDWKDYHPDGHUHSHDWHGFODLPVRISRVLWLYHUHVXOWVRQO\
WRKDYHWKHLUILQGLQJVUHMHFWHGEHFDXVHWKHUHVXOWVUHIOHFWHGSUREOHPVZLWKWKHH[SHULPHQWVDQGQRW
WKHVXEMHFW
VDELOLWLHV$OWKRXJKSURSRQHQWVRISDUDSV\FKRORJLFDOUHVHDUFKDUHIRQGRITXRWLQJWKH
LPPHQVHRGGVDJDLQVWVXFFHVVLQ(63WHVWVE\FKDQFHDORQHWKRVHILJXUHVDUHPHDQLQJOHVVLIWKH
H[SHULPHQWVDUHQRWSURSHUO\FRQGXFWHG
We will be conducting our own investigations into psychic powers using methods similar to those
employed by Rhine. The methods can be sound only if researchers are rigorous and consistent with
their use.
2=G=C6/D33A>-
'
@3D7A32
6/1/11
UFTUJOHGPSQBSBOPSNBMBCJMJUJFT
BG>3A=4B3ABA
:HFDQWHVWIRUWKUHHPDLQNLQGVRI(637KH\DUHWHOHSDWK\PLQGUHDGLQJFODLUYR\DQFHNQRZLQJ
ZLWKRXWXVHRIFRQYHQWLRQDOVHQVHVRUWHOHSDWK\DQGSUHFRJQLWLRQNQRZLQJWKHIXWXUH
-%5KLQH
VJRDOZDVWRHVWDEOLVKGLUHFWKRQHVWDQGVRXQGPHWKRGVRIWHVWLQJIRUSDUDQRUPDODELOLWLHV
7KHWHVWNLWSURYLGHVHYHU\WKLQJQHHGHGWRFRQGXFWDQH[SHULPHQWOLNHWKRVHFDUULHGRXWE\-%5KLQH
DQGODWHUUHVHDUFKHUV:HZLOOEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWK5KLQH
VWHUPLQRORJ\E\FDOOLQJRXUH[SHULPHQWHU´WKH
VHQGHUDQGRXUVXEMHFW´WKHUHFHLYHUµ7KHWHVWLQJDSSDUDWXVLVVLPSOH7KHNLWFRQWDLQVILYHVHWVRIILYH
cards for a total of twenty-five. Each five-card set has a different image on it; there is a circle, a plus,
ZDY\OLQHVDVTXDUHDQGDVWDU7KHUHLVDOVRDQDGGLWLRQDOVHWRIILYHVXEMHFWFDUGVWKDWWKHVXEMHFWPD\
XVHDVUHIHUHQFHWREHFRPHIDPLOLDUZLWKWKHV\PEROV7KHWHVWFDUGVDUHFRPPRQO\UHIHUUHGWRDV=HQHU
FDUGV7KH\DUHQDPHGDIWHU.DUO=HQHUWKH(63UHVHDUFKHUZKRLQYHQWHGWKHP
3ULQWWKHLQFOXGHGFDUGVRQFDUGVWRFNDQGFDUHIXOO\FXWDORQJWKHGRWWHGOLQHV'DWDFROOHFWLRQVKHHWV
are also included and can be printed as needed.
B3AB7<5B3:3>/B6G
$EDVLFH[SHULPHQWLVWRVKXIIOHWKH=HQHUFDUGVDQGDOORZWKHH[SHULPHQWHUWRUXQWKURXJKWKHP
RQHDWDWLPHZKLOHWKHVXEMHFWDWWHPSWVWRGHWHUPLQHZKDWWKH\DUH2IFRXUVHWKHH[SHULPHQWHU
DQGWKHVXEMHFWPXVWEHRXWRIYLHZIURPHDFKRWKHU7KLVFDQEHDFFRPSOLVKHGZLWKDFXUWDLQRURWKHU
PDNHVKLIWEDUULHU7KHH[SHULPHQWHUZLOOYLHZHDFKFDUGDQGDQDWWHPSW
ZLOOEHPDGHWRVHQGWKDWPHQWDOLPDJHWRWKHVXEMHFW7KHH[SHULPHQWHU
ZLOOUHFRUGWKHWDUJHWµZKLFKLVWKHV\PERORQKHUFDUGDQGWKHQUH
5/<H473:2
FRUGWKHFDOOµZKLFKLVWKHV\PEROWKDWWKHVXEMHFWEHOLHYHVLVRQWKH
3F>3@7;3<BA
FDUG&DUGVDUHWKHQUHWXUQHGWRWKHGHFNDQGWKHGHFNLVUHVKXIIOHG7KLV
7KLVWHFKQLTXHLV
is repeated for the number of trials established for this test.
used in the field of
$QLQGHSHQGHQWMXGJHVKRXOGHQWHUDQ;LQWKHVFRUHFROXPQZKHQWKH
parapsychology
WZRV\PEROVDJUHHZKLFKPHDQVWKHUHKDVEHHQDKLWµ$GDVKVKRXOGEH
to test individuals
entered when the symbols do not agree.
IRUH[WUDVHQVRU\
SHUFHSWLRQ(63
After completing the series of trials, subtotals and totals should be
FDOFXODWHGE\WKHMXGJHDQGWKHHQWLUHGDWDVKHHWILOOHGRXWDVLQVWUXFWHG
,WXVHVKRPRJHQRXV
([SHULPHQWHUVPD\WKHQUHIHUWRWKHVWDWLVWLFDOVLJQLILFDQFHWDEOHRQSDJH
and unpatterned
14 to check their results.
sensory stimulation
to produce an effet
Researchers can be misled by results that appear significant enough to
similar to sensory
report as evidence of psychic effects. While the results may be strong
deprivation.
HQRXJKWRFRQYLQFHXVWKDWWKHVXEMHFWLVFDSDEOHRIUHFHLYLQJWKH
symbol on the card, we should always consider the possibility that there
PD\EHRWKHUPRUHOLNHO\H[SODQDWLRQV7KLVVLJQLILFDQFHFDQUHIOHFWWKH
VXEMHFWKDYLQJWKHDELOLW\WRUHFHLYHWKHFDUGZLWKFRQYHQWLRQDOVHQVHVSHUKDSVE\UHDGLQJWKHH\HV
of the sender. This is sometimes referred to as sensory leakage.
B3AB7<51:/7@D=G/<13
7KHWHVWIRUFODLUYR\DQFHLVWREHFRQGXFWHGLQWKHVDPHZD\DVWKRVHIRUWHOHSDWK\EXWZLWKRQHPDMRU
GLIIHUHQFH,QWKLVFDVHWKHH[SHULPHQWHUPDNHVQRDWWHPSWWRVHHWKHLGHQWLW\RIWKHFDUGXQWLODOO
RIWKHFDOOVKDYHEHHQPDGH7KHVXEMHFWSURYLGHVDOOJXHVVHVDQGWKHVHJXHVVHVDUHUHFRUGHG
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
LQFROXPQ&7KHH[SHULPHQWHUZLOOWKHQOLVWDOORIWKHFDUGV\PEROVLQWKHSURSHURUGHUWKDWWKH\
appeared in the deck and record them in column T, but only after all of the calls have been made.
B3AB7<5>@31=5<7B7=<
,WLVYHU\GLIILFXOWWRWHOOWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQFODLUYR\DQFHDQGSUHFRJQLWLRQLQWULDOV:KRFDQWHOO
ZKLFKSRVVLEOHIRUFHLVRSHUDWLQJ"2QHSRVVLEOHVROXWLRQLVWRFRQGXFWSUHFRJQLWLRQWHVWZKHUHQR
VHOHFWLRQLVPDGHXQWLODVXEMHFWKDVDQQRXQFHGDFDOO2QO\DIWHUDFDOOLVPDGHZLOOWKHH[SHULPHQWHU
draw a card at random. The symbols are then recorded, the card is put back into the deck and the
deck is reshuffled. This process is repeated as many times as necessary.
BGFXJNQPSUBOUSVMFT
,QH[SHULHQFHGH[SHULPHQWHUVPD\FRPPLWWKHPLVWDNHRIRQO\DFFHSWLQJGDWDWKDWDUHIDYRUDEOH
1HYHUGURSSRUWLRQVRIWKHGDWDEHFDXVHWKH\DUHRQO\DYHUDJHRUQHJDWLYH7KRVHGDWDDUHMXVWDV
LPSRUWDQW$QRWKHUSLWIDOOWRDYRLGLVRSWLRQDOVWRSSLQJ,W·VLPSRUWDQWWKDW\RXGHFODUHDQXPEHU
RIWULDOVLQDGYDQFHDQGVWLFNZLWKWKDWQXPEHU,WLVHDV\WRTXLWZKLOH\RX·UHDKHDGDQGDYRLGWKH
inclusion of negative results.
$OOWHVWVDUHVXEMHFWWRUDQGRPHIIHFWVWKDWFDQ·WEHFRQWUROOHG:LWKDODUJHUQXPEHURIWULDOVLW
becomes more likely that these random factors will cancel each other out and that a real phenomenon
ZLOOEHGHWHFWHGLILWH[LVWV
([SHULPHQWHUVFDQLQIOXHQFHWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIVXEMHFWVWKURXJKFRQVFLRXVRUXQFRQVFLRXVELDV
EHLQJLQWURGXFHGLQWRWKHH[SHULPHQW,IWKLVEHKDYLRULVQRWFRQWUROOHGWKLVFDQVXEVWDQWLDOO\DIIHFW
UHVHDUFKUHVXOWV([SHULPHQWHUVFDQDOVRXQNQRZLQJO\EHDVRXUFHRILQIRUPDWLRQDIIHFWLQJWKH
VXEMHFW·VUHVSRQVHLHIDFLDOH[SUHVVLRQV7KHXVHRIWKHWHFKQLTXHNQRZQDVGRXEOHEOLQGLV
HVVHQWLDOWR(63WHVWLQJ,QGRXEOHEOLQGWULDOVQHLWKHUWKHVXEMHFWVRIWKHH[SHULPHQWQRUWKHSHUVRQV
DGPLQLVWHULQJWKHH[SHULPHQWNQRZWKHFULWLFDODVSHFWVRIWKHH[SHULPHQW
You will be able to avoid the above problems and produce more meaningful data by adhering to
the following five rules . . .
Rule 1 'HFODUHLQDGYDQFHZKHWKHU\RXUVHWRIWHVWVZLOOEHDQDFWXDOWHVWRURQO\DGU\UXQ,ILW
LV DQDFWXDOWHVWFRXQWLWLQWKHILQDOHYDOXDWLRQ,IQRWGRQRWFRXQWLWDQGRQO\NHHSLWIRU
reference.
Rule 2: Always complete a set of tests by conducting the number of trials that was decided
upon and recorded before the start of the test. Further tests may be run, but these must
be set up and recorded in the same manner as the previous one, with the number of trials
decided upon and recorded ahead of time.
Rule 3: 6HWWKHQXPEHURIWULDOVDVODUJHDVVHHPVSUDFWLFDO%HFDXVH\RXPD\EHOLPLWHGE\WKH
OHQJWKRI\RXUFODVVSHULRGWKDWQXPEHUPD\EH,I\RXKDYHPRUHWLPHLQFUHDVH\RXU
sample to 250 or 500.
Rule 4: .HHSDFDUHIXOUHFRUGRIWHVWFRQGLWLRQVHVWDEOLVKHGIRUHDFKWHVWDVZHOODVYDULDWLRQV IURPRQHWHVWWRDQRWKHU%\WKLVPHDQV\RXPD\ILQGWKDWVRPHRWKHUZLVHWULYLDOIDFWRULV
seriously affecting the test results.
Rule 5: $QRXWVLGHMXGJHXQDZDUHRIH[SHFWHGUHVXOWVPXVWEHXVHGWRUHFRUGDQGWRWDOWKHVFRUHV
on the data sheets.
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
/0=CB163/B7<5
As you become more familiar with conducting tests of this kind, you will become aware of the many
ZD\VLQZKLFKDQH[SHULPHQWHURUVXEMHFWFRXOGFKHDWWRFKDQJHWKHUHVXOWV7KLVW\SHRIWDPSHULQJ
KDVRFFXUUHGUHJXODUO\LQWKHKLVWRU\RI(63UHVHDUFK0RVWPDMRUÉUHDNWKURXJKVµLQSDUDSV\FKRORJ\
UHVHDUFKKDYHIDLOHGWRZLWKVWDQGDQ\W\SHRIFDUHIXOH[DPLQDWLRQZKHQWKHHYLGHQFHKDVEHHQPDGH
available for analysis. More important is that published positive results have never been replicated
ZKHQWKHH[SHULPHQWVDUHUHSHDWHGE\LQGHSHQGHQWUHVHDUFKHUV
7KLVPRGXOHZLOOJLYH\RXWKHWRROVWRGRSUHOLPLQDU\H[SHULPHQWVEDVHGRQWKRVHFRQGXFWHGE\
SDUDSV\FKRORJLVWV$OWKRXJKPDQ\VHULRXVVFLHQWLILFLQYHVWLJDWLRQVLQWR(63UHTXLUHGPXFKDGGLWLRQDO
planning and resources, those studies were only as good as the attention given to establishing and
PDLQWDLQLQJFDUHIXOFRQWURORIWKHUHVHDUFKFRQGLWLRQV7KHVDPHZLOOEHWUXHRI\RXUH[SHULPHQWV
Project Alpha
Fools Scientists
In 1979, The McDonnell
Laboratory for Psychical Research
at Washington University in St.
Louis was awarded a grant of
$500,000; the money would be
XVHGIRUVFLHQWLÀFLQYHVWLJDWLRQ
into psychic phenomena under
controlled laboratory conditions.
James Randi, a professional
magician and veteran psychic
investigator expressed concern
that the proposed research
methods were vulnerable to study
subjects with knowledge of magic
tricks. Randi prepared for the
researchers a list of activities to
be wary of and offered suggestions
for preventing such trickery. He
stressed the need for the most
rigid experimental controls
possible. His recommendations
were ignored.
Two primary subjects of the lab’s
research were teenagers Steve
Shaw and Michael Edwards. They
were asked to participate in the
study because of preliminary
results suggesting they possessed
the paranormal ability of spoon
bending, an area of special
interest to the researchers. In
L to R: Steve “Banachek” Shaw, Michael Edwards, and James Randi
reality, the two were skilled
magicians associated with Randi.
They had been using sleight-ofhand tricks, which were mistaken
for a wide range of paranormal
abilities. They used methods
from mentalism and magic to
subtle misdirection to alter
research equipment, distract the
researchers, and alter established
protocols—often right in front of
the investigators and cameras.
After 21 months, Shaw, Edwards,
and Randi publicly announced the
elaborate hoax. The announcement
was met with responses describing
the project as everything from
“triumphant” to “reckless.”
Many, even some within the
parapsychological community,
agreed the hoax was long overdue
and was successful in exposing the
dangers of ignoring the need for
rigid protocols.
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
QMBOOJOHBOBMZ[JOHUIFEBUB
@3A3/@16=0831B7D3
*RRGH[SHULPHQWDOVFLHQFHEHJLQVZLWKFOHDUO\VWDWHGUHVHDUFKREMHFWLYHV7KHREMHFWLYHVZLOO
keep the research focused and will guide the selection of methods for collecting and analyzing
WKHGDWD$JRRGSODFHWRVWDUWLVE\LGHQWLI\LQJZKDWLVWKHVLQJOHPRVWLPSRUWDQWTXHVWLRQWKDW\RX
ZDQWWKLVUHVHDUFKWRDQVZHU2QFH\RXIUDPHVXFKDTXHVWLRQ\RXFDQWKHQGHWHUPLQHLILWFDQEH
DQVZHUHGE\H[SHULPHQWDOWHVWV)RUH[DPSOH´,VYLGHRJDPHSOD\UHODWHGWRDQLQFUHDVHLQKDQG
H\HFRRUGLQDWLRQ"µLVDTXHVWLRQWKDWFRXOGLQSULQFLSOHEHDQVZHUHGE\DQH[SHULPHQWWKDWWHVWV
coordination of volunteers before and after they learn to play a certain video game. On the other
KDQGDTXHVWLRQOLNH´6KRXOGYLGHRJDPLQJEHWDXJKWLQVFKRRO"µLVDTXHVWLRQWKDWLQYROYHVYDOXH
MXGJPHQWVWKDWDUHEH\RQGWKHVFRSHRIH[SHULPHQWDOUHVHDUFK
,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRPDNHVXUHWKDW\RXUUHVHDUFKTXHVWLRQVDUHVWDWHGLQZD\VWKDWDUHFOHDUDQGQRWRSHQ
to misinterpretation. This can be especially challenging when research involves unusual claims such
DV(63RUSV\FKLFDELOLW\4XHVWLRQVOLNH´&DQSV\FKLFVVHQVHWKLQJV"µDQG´,V(63UHDO"µDUHWRR
YDJXH$EHWWHUUHVHDUFKTXHVWLRQZRXOGEH´&DQWHVWVXEMHFWVFRUUHFWO\LGHQWLI\=HQHUFDUGVZLWKRXW
WKHDLGRIWUDGLWLRQDOVHQVHV"µ
Those making psychic claims are often vague about the actual abilities they claim to possess. When
someone states that s/he can effectively predict the outcome of a dice roll, this claim is specific and
FDQEHWHVWHGIRUYDOLGLW\$SV\FKLF·VFODLPWKDWVKHFDQ´VHQVHWKLQJVµLVQRWGHILQHGZHOOHQRXJKWR
H[DPLQHVFLHQWLILFDOO\
6G>=B63A7AB3AB7<5
*RRGUHVHDUFKTXHVWLRQVJHQHUDOO\OHDGWRFRPSHWLQJVWDWHPHQWVRUK\SRWKHVHVWKDWFDQEHWHVWHG
DJDLQVWHDFKRWKHU6FLHQWLILFVWXGLHVDUHWHVWVRIWKHVHWKHRUHWLFDOO\OLNHO\K\SRWKHVHVDQGDUHGHULYHG
IURPZKDWVFLHQWLVWVKDYHOHDUQHGDERXWWKHUHVHDUFKTXHVWLRQ$WKHRUHWLFDOO\OLNHO\K\SRWKHVLVLVRQH
ZKLFKLVOLNHO\WREHWUXHEXWRQHIRUZKLFKZHGRQRW\HWKDYHHQRXJKHYLGHQFHWRDFFHSW6RPHWLPHV
a researcher is interested in testing a hypothesis that is not theoretically likely and even in conflict
ZLWKFXUUHQWVFLHQWLILFXQGHUVWDQGLQJ7KHVHFDQEHFDOOHG´H[WUDRUGLQDU\FODLPVµDQGUHTXLUH
´H[WUDRUGLQDU\HYLGHQFHµIRUVXSSRUW
6FLHQFHVWDUWVZLWKWKHDVVXPSWLRQWKDWZKDWZHFXUUHQWO\NQRZDERXWWKHZRUOGLVFRUUHFW7KLVDOORZV
XVWRGHYHORSD´QXOOK\SRWKHVLVµRUDVWDWHPHQWRIQRHIIHFW,WLVLPSRUWDQWWKDWWKLVVWDWHPHQWEHERWK
WHVWDEOHDQGIDOVLILDEOH7KH´DOWHUQDWLYHK\SRWKHVLVµGHVFULEHVVRPHNLQGRIHIIHFWRUUHODWLRQVKLS
7KHVHVWDWHPHQWVVKRXOGEHDVSUHFLVHDQGTXDQWLWDWLYHDVSRVVLEOH)RUH[DPSOHLQRXU=HQHUFDUG
JXHVVLQJH[SHULPHQWRXUQXOOK\SRWKHVLVZRXOGEH´6XEMHFWVFDQQRWFRUUHFWO\SUHGLFWFDUGVDQ\
EHWWHUWKDQMXVWJXHVVLQJµPHDQLQJWKDWQR(63KDVEHHQGHPRQVWUDWHG:HDUHWHVWLQJWKDWDJDLQVW
WKHDOWHUQDWLYHK\SRWKHVLVWKDW´6XEMHFWVFDQFRUUHFWO\SUHGLFWFDUGVPRUHRIWHQWKDQZH·GH[SHFWE\
MXVWJXHVVLQJµHYLGHQFHWKDWWKHVXEMHFWPD\KDYH(63
:KHQZHGHVLJQDVWXG\ZHGRRXUEHVWWRHQVXUHWKDWLIWKHQXOOK\SRWKHVLVLVUHMHFWHGWKHRQO\
K\SRWKHVLVOHIWWKDWFRXOGH[SODLQWKHILQGLQJVLVWKHUHVHDUFKK\SRWKHVLVWKDWWKHSDUWLFLSDQWLVSV\FKLF
AB/B7AB71/:A75<7471/<13
:KDWZRXOGHYLGHQFHIRU(63ORRNOLNH",QFDUGJXHVVLQJH[SHULPHQWVLWZRXOGPHDQJHWWLQJVRPH
QXPEHUPRUH´KLWVµWKDQVRPHRQHZLWKRXW(63PLJKWH[SHFWWRJHW:KHQ´MXVWJXHVVLQJµRQHRIWKH
2=G=C6/D33A>-
!
@3D7A32
6/1/11
ILYH=HQHUV\PEROV\RXVKRXOGH[SHFWWRJHWDERXWRQHRXWRIHYHU\ILYHWULHVEXWVRPHWLPHVLWZLOO
EHPRUHDQGVRPHWLPHVLWZLOOEHOHVV([DFWO\KRZPDQ\PRUHKLWVZRXOG\RXQHHGLQRUGHUWRWHOOWKH
GLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQRUGLQDU\YDULDELOLW\DQGH[WUDRUGLQDU\DELOLW\"
6FLHQWLVWVXVHWKHPDWKHPDWLFVRISUREDELOLW\WRGHWHUPLQHKRZPDQ\KLWVZRXOGEHQHHGHG
WRDFKLHYHDVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQWUHVXOW8QOLNHWKHZD\ZHXVHWKHZRUG´VLJQLILFDQFHµLQ
everyday conversation, this special kind of significance tells us nothing about the importance or
PHDQLQJIXOQHVVRIRXUILQGLQJV6WDWLVWLFDOVLJQLILFDQFHRQO\WHOOVXVKRZXQOLNHO\LWLVWKDWRXUUHVXOWV
occurred by chance.
)RUDJLYHQQXPEHURIWULHVZHFDOFXODWHWKHOLNHOLKRRGRIJHWWLQJKLWVZLWKRXW(637KHODUJHUWKH
QXPEHURIKLWVWKHVPDOOHULVWKHOLNHOLKRRGRIDFKLHYLQJLWMXVWE\JXHVVLQJPDNLQJWKHHYLGHQFH
DJDLQVWMXVWJXHVVLQJDQGIRU(63PRUHFRPSHOOLQJ*HQHUDOO\VFLHQWLVWVUHTXLUHDSHUIRUPDQFHVR
FRQVLVWHQWWKDWLWVOLNHOLKRRGRIKDSSHQLQJMXVWE\JXHVVZRUNLVOHVVWKDQ7KLVOLNHOLKRRGRIDUHVXOW
by chance is called the significance level, and smaller is better in the sense that small likelihoods
PHDQPRUHLPSUHVVLYHSHUIRUPDQFH,QVRPHUHVHDUFKZKHUHWKHVWDNHVDUHKLJKZHUHTXLUHDQHYHQ
PRUHH[WUHPHOHYHORISHUIRUPDQFHFRUUHVSRQGLQJWRDVLJQLILFDQFHOHYHORIRUHYHQOHVV
7KHOHYHORIVLJQLILFDQFHIRUDQH[SHULPHQWVKRXOGEHFKRVHQEHIRUHDQ\GDWDLVFROOHFWHG
A/;>:3A7H3
+RZPDQ\WULHVGR\RXQHHGLQRUGHUWRKDYHDJRRGH[SHULPHQW"$VPDOOVDPSOHPD\EHHQRXJK
WRWHOOWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQQR(63DQGDSHUIHFWDELOLW\WRJXHVVFRUUHFWO\HYHU\WLPH³DIWHUDOO
DVLQJOHPLVVZRXOGIDOVLI\DFODLPRISHUIHFWLRQ%XWSDUDSV\FKRORJLVWVJHQHUDOO\GRQ·WPDNHFODLPV
RISHUIHFWDELOLWLHVDPRUHUHDOLVWLFK\SRWKHVLVLVWKDWVRPHRQHLVDÓLWWOHELWµSV\FKLFZLWKSV\FKLF
DELOLWLHVWKDWDOORZWKHPWRSHUIRUPVLJQLILFDQWO\EHWWHUWKDQFKDQFH,WZRXOGWDNHDPXFKODUJHU
sample to fairly test a hypothesis relating to a moderate psychic ability.
7KLQNDERXWIOLSSLQJDFRLQ,I\RXSUHGLFWKHDGVDQGIOLSLWRQFHDQGJHWKHDGV\RXFRXOGFODLPWKDW
\RXFRUUHFWO\SUHGLFWHGWKHRXWFRPHRIWKHWLPH7KDWLVQRWH[WUDRUGLQDU\LI\RXNQRZWKHUH
ZDVRQO\IOLSFKDQFH7U\LWILYHWLPHV*HWWLQJLWULJKWLVOHVVOLNHO\EXWSHUKDSVVWLOOZLWKLQWKH
H[SHFWDWLRQVRIFKDQFH:LWKMXVWIOLSV\RXDUHORRNLQJDWDFKDQFHRIDERXWLQDQGDWIOLSV
\RXKDYHRGGVRIDERXWLQ:KLOHDQ\RQHZRXOGDJUHHWKDWSUHGLFWLQJDVLQJOHFRLQIOLSGRHVQ·W
SURYHVRPHRQHSV\FKLFPRVWZRXOGXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHVDPHUDWHUDSLGO\EHFRPHVOHVVOLNHO\
the result of chance as the sample size increases and more likely the result of some other force acting
on the coin.
Once the level of significance is set, we can mathematically calculate how large the sample would
QHHGWREHLQRUGHUWRKDYHDJRRGWHVWIRUDJLYHQOHYHORISUHFLVLRQLQRWKHUZRUGVWRUHDVRQDEO\
GHWHFWDJLYHQGHJUHHRIDELOLW\EHWWHUWKDQMXVWJXHVVLQJ
&DOFXODWLRQVOLNHWKLVDUHLPSRUWDQWZKHQSODQQLQJDQH[SHULPHQW)RUH[DPSOHLIWKHDELOLW\
being tested is very modest, then it is important to know up front if there will be sufficient time and
resources to collect the very large amount of data that would be needed.
/</:GH7<5B632/B/
6DPSOHVL]HDQGVLJQLILFDQFHOHYHOJRWRJHWKHUWRGHWHUPLQHKRZWRLQWHUSUHWWKHUHVXOWVRIWKH
H[SHULPHQW7KHWDEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHVXPPDUL]HVWKHFDOFXODWHGFULWHULDIRUH[SHULPHQWVRI
VHYHUDOGLIIHUHQWVDPSOHVL]HV)RUHDFKH[SHULPHQW\RXFDQVHHZKDWZRXOGEHUHTXLUHGLQRUGHUWR
GHPRQVWUDWHVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQWHYLGHQFHIRU(63ZKHQWU\LQJWRSUHGLFWFDUGVLQDVKXIIOHG=HQHU
GHFNDQGWKHQXOOK\SRWKHVLVH[SHFWVRQO\DLQVXFFHVVUDWH
"
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
<C;03@=467BA
<332324=@
A75<7471/<13=4#
;7<7;C;>3@13<B/53=4
67BA<332324=@
A75<7471/<13=4#
#
'
!$
&
&
#
$!
#
#
$
!
!
""$
A/;>:3A7H3I\¡]TQOZZaK
#7aOU]]R\c[PS`W\bVObWbOZZ]eaÔaaSabV`]cUVbVSRSQYOQ]\dS\WS\bO\R\]bb]]]dSèVSZ[W\U\c[PS`bVOb
QO\PSQ][^ZSbSRW\OaW\UZSQZOaa^S`W]R
You can see that small sample sizes demand a much greater level of successful performance. For
LQVWDQFHDVXEMHFWZKRFRUUHFWO\SUHGLFWHGFDUGVRXWRIWULHVKDVIDLOHGWRJLYHDVWDWLVWLFDOO\
VLJQLILFDQWSHUIRUPDQFHHYHQWKRXJKWKH\VFRUHGFRUUHFW$QXQVXFFHVVIXOWHVWGRHVQRW
QHFHVVDULO\SURYHWKDWWKHVXEMHFWODFNV(63LWRQO\VKRZVWKDWDQ\DELOLW\ZDVEHORZWKHGHWHFWDEOH
WKUHVKROGIRUWKDWH[SHULPHQW7KLVLVZK\LWLVVRLPSRUWDQWWRGHVLJQWHVWVWKDWEDODQFHWKHQHHGIRU
scientific rigor and skepticism against the need to fairly consider reasonable claims.
2=G=C6/D33A>-
#
@3D7A32
6/1/11
EJTDVTTJPORVFTUJPOT
:KDWZHUH\RXUUHVXOWVDQGZHUHWKH\VLJQLILFDQW"
'LG\RXDFFHSWRUUHMHFW\RXUQXOOK\SRWKHVLV"
:KDWFRQFOXVLRQVLIDQ\GLG\RXGUDZIURPWKHUHVXOWVDERXWZKHWKHURUQRW\RXUVXEMHFWKDV(63"
'R\RXWKLQNWKHUHVXOWVRI\RXUVWXG\DUHYDOLG"
,VWKHUHDQ\WKLQJ\RXFRXOGGRWRSURYHWKHYDOLGLW\RIWKHVHUHVXOWV"
'R\RXWKLQNVFLHQFHLVFDSDEOHRIDQVZHULQJTXHVWLRQVDERXW(63"
'R\RXWKLQNWKDWPRGHUQVFLHQWLVWVVKRXOGFRQWLQXHWRFRQGXFWUHVHDUFKLQWRWKHH[LVWHQFHRI
SV\FKLFDELOLWLHV"
:KHWKHU\RXEHOLHYHLQWKHH[LVWHQFHRI(63RUQRWZKDWHYLGHQFHZRXOG\RXUHTXLUHWRFKDQJH
\RXUPLQG"
'LGWKLVH[HUFLVHFKDQJH\RXUPLQGDERXWSV\FKLFSRZHUV"
TIBSFZPVSSFTVMUT
&DUHIXOH[SHULPHQWDOGHVLJQULJRURXVSURFHGXUHVDQGWKRURXJKDQDO\VLVRI\RXUUHVXOWVDUHDOO
FULWLFDOWRJHWWLQJUHOLDEOHDQVZHUVWRVFLHQWLILFTXHVWLRQV³EXWWKHSURFHVVGRHVQ
WHQGWKHUH2QHRI
the reasons science works so well is because the ideas that are produced can be scrutinized by the
rest of the scientific community. This scientific community can use its accumulated knowledge and
IXUWKHULQYHVWLJDWLRQWRZHLJKWKHHYLGHQFHIRURUDJDLQVWQHZLGHDV%DGLGHDVGRQ
WODVW%HFDXVHRI
WKLVZHVD\WKDWVFLHQFHLVVHOIFRUUHFWLQJ
We also share the results of our research with the scientific community because science is
collaborative. We can often increase our understanding of phenomena by comparing our results
ZLWKWKRVHRIRWKHUUHVHDUFKHUVRUE\UHSHDWLQJWKHLUH[SHULPHQWVWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKHLUILQGLQJVFDQ
be replicated.
,I\RXZRXOGOLNHWRVKDUHWKHUHVXOWVRI\RXU(63WULDOVZLWKVFKRROVIURPDURXQGWKHZRUOGWKDWKDYH
used this same classroom kit, scan your datasheets and email them to [email protected]. We will
be compiling results and making them available on our website.
$
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
GVSUIFSSFBEJOH
7<>@7<B
)UD]LHU.Science Confronts the Paranormal%XIIDOR1<3URPHWKHXV%RRNV
+RUQ6Unbelievable: Investigations into Ghosts, Poltergeists, Telepathy, and Other Unseen Phenomena
IURPWKH'XNH3DUDSV\FKRORJ\/DERUDWRU\1HZ<RUN(FFR
+\PDQ5The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research.%XIIDOR1<3URPHWKHXV
%RRNV
5DQGL-Flim-flam!: Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions.%XIIDOR1<3URPHWKHXV%RRNV
6KHUPHU0The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense.
2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
:LVHPDQ5-DQXDU\ 'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose'+RZ3DUDSV\FKRORJLVWV1XOOLI\1XOO5HVXOWV7KH
6NHSWLFDO,QTXLUHU
=<B63E30
&DUUROO5REHUW7Project Alpha. The Skeptics Dictionary.
Retrieved from http://www.skepdic.com/projectalpha.html
7KH5KLQH5HVHDUFK&HQWHU-XQH The History of the Rhine Research Center.
Retrieved from http://www.rhine.org/history.htm
&DUSL$DQG(JJHU$Statistics. The Process of Science.
Retrieved from http://www.visionlearning.com/
[FOFS
DBSET
1SJOUDPQJFT
PGUIJTQBHFPODBSETUPDL
UPNBLFPOFGVMMEFDL
$VUDBSFGVMMZ
POEPUUFEMJOFT
:PVDBOQSJOUBO
BEEJUJPOBMDPQZGPSUIF
UFTUTVCKFDUTPTIFPSIF
DBOCFDPNFGBNJMJBS
XJUIUIFTZNCPMT
'
2=G=C6/D33A>-
@3D7A32
6/1/11
;/93/A3>/@/B31=>G=42/B/A633B4=@3/16B3AB
A633B<¡
7<B3<232
<¡=4B@7/:A(
BG>3=4B3AB(
A3:31B=<3
T
T
T
T
T
<=B3A(
A3/B7<5/@@/<53;3<BIRÒePSZ]eK
3<B3@/::2/B/E7B6<=<3@/A/0:3>3<B+B/@53B1+1/::
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C
SCORE
T
C
SCORE
T
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
T
T
C
SCORE
T
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
C
SCORE
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 37–51, 2004
0892-3310/04
Historical Overview and Basic Facts Involved in the
Sasquatch or Bigfoot Phenomenon
JOHN GREEN
P. O. Box 374
Harrison Hot Springs, B.C. V0M 1K0, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract—I describe six decades of increasing interest in and knowledge about
Bigfoot or sasquatch, and efforts to gain scientific attention. Exploiting my
massive data-base, I offer some conclusions about these creatures and comments on some of the objections that have been raised.
From personal knowledge of Roger Patterson, I contradicts the notion that
the Patterson film was faked. And from direct first-hand knowledge and by
citing dates, I expose the fallacy of recent media accounts claiming that a certain
Ray Wallace started the whole thing by faking some footprints.
Keywords: Bigfoot—sasquatch
Some of you may have noticed that I am not a young man. Once upon a time I
was. It is more than 60 years since I first encountered information about what is
now known as Bigfoot, 47 years since I began to investigate the phenomenon,
and about 46 years since I began a campaign to have it subjected to scientific
exploration.
On the face of it, this organization and this subject should be a perfect fit. I
doubt that there exists any anomaly of as much potential scientific importance
that has been so determinedly ignored by the world of science. I understand,
however, that most of you are not likely to have paid any attention to it, so with
apologies to those who have I am going to begin at the beginning.
In British Columbia, where I grew up, stories about hairy forest giants, known
there as sasquatch, have been widely publicized since the 1920s. I don’t remember a time when I was not aware of them, but like most city dwellers I
considered them to be tall tales, and indeed to some extent they were. The
picture painted of the sasquatch in those days was of a race of giant Indians,
hairy, but in some depictions only in the fashion of the hippies of a later generation. They were said to live in villages, speak Indian languages, communicate
with signal fires on the mountains, wrestle with grizzly bears, and kidnap Indian
girls for nefarious purposes.
Then, after a decade of experience on city newspapers, I bought a small
weekly paper in the area where many of the sasquatch stories originated, and in
1957 I was quite abruptly confronted with the fact that people I had come to
respect took the sasquatch very seriously indeed. The stories I heard then were
37
38
J. Green
Fig. 1. Tracing of deputy’s cast from Bellingham, WA, 1941.
not myths or legends, but first-hand accounts of inspecting giant, human-like
tracks, or close observations of huge, bipedal, hair-covered creatures that looked
more like upright apes than humans. In one case I was told that a deputy sheriff
from Bellingham, Washington had cast one print from a series of 16-inch
bipedal tracks that had been made by something so heavy that it crushed
potatoes in the ground.
At the time I thought that was surely stretching the truth, and perhaps it was,
but I have since read that large bears can do the same. In any case it turned out
that the deputy was real, although he had since died and the cast had been
broken. His son gave me a tracing of the cast, and told me that his father had
researched sasquatch reports for years and had accumulated a great deal of
material, but they had not kept it. Note that the tracing, which is on display here,
has been in my possession since 1957, the year before a man named Ray
Wallace supposedly started making all the Bigfoot tracks in the world, and that
the 16-inch footprints had been observed, investigated, measured, and cast in
1941, sixteen years earlier (Figure 1).
Further investigation quickly established that a number of people had done
considerable research into the subject in the past, although none were doing
so currently, and that there had been some very well-publicized incidents in
British Columbia around the end of the 19th century, and in Washington state
in 1924.
The Sasquatch or Bigfoot Phenomenon
39
Fig. 2. Casts from Bluff Creek valley, 1958.
In the fall of 1958, when newspapers pictured a cast of a 16-inch footprint
from a dirt road under construction in the Bluff Creek valley in northwest
California, I drove there to see for myself. All the recent tracks had been
destroyed by the time I got there, but some old ones were still impressive, and
I met a taxidermist named Bob Titmus who had studied fresh tracks and had
become completely convinced that they were genuine, made by some giant
human or animal. A few weeks later I got a letter from Bob saying that he and
another man had found perfect tracks of a second individual, an inch shorter than
those of the original Bigfoot and of a distinctly different shape, and that these
tracks were not in dirt on the road but at the bottom of the steep, brush-covered
side-hill, in a hard-packed sandbar beside the creek. I made a second trip to
California, and this time what I saw changed the course of my life. Where those
huge tracks sank an inch into the ground, my boot prints hardly showed at all.
Tremendous weight was obviously required to make the tracks, and the location
was such that we could see no possible way that machinery could have been
used there undetected. Copies of casts of two of those tracks are on display
here, along with a picture taken on another occasion showing a deep track on
a different Bluff Creek sandbar with a boot print beside it hardly discernible
(Figures 2 and 3).
I was a newspaperman, not any sort of scientist, so I took my information to
the zoology department at the University of British Columbia, expecting that
40
J. Green
Fig. 3. A deep track on a different Bluff Creek sandbar with a boot print beside it hardly
discernible.
they would be enthusiastic to take over the investigation of something of such
obvious importance in their field. What a joke. The department head’s response
was a condescending explanation of how the tracks of a bear’s hind feet can
overlap his front feet, making imprints of the shape I described. A cast of just
such an imprint is on display. There is a resemblance in general shape, but on
examination it would fool nobody (Figure 4).
Disappointments like that are something I have become used to in the
subsequent 46 years, but otherwise the experience has been rewarding. Good
footprints are not reported very often, but they turn up once in a while, and
in 1967 I was notified about, and able to examine, hundreds of them made by
two individuals on another road under construction in the Bluff Creek area. An
original cast from each of those prints is on display as well as some photographs
of them. Clearly the larger track is that of the same individual that made the
tracks Bob Titmus found in 1958, and other people have made casts and photographs of that individual’s tracks at other times and places (Figure 5).
In the 9 years since I had first seen that track, I and others who had taken up
the investigation had accumulated, often on tape, dozens of accounts by people
who claimed to have seen one or more huge, hair-covered bipeds suitable to
make such tracks, and in the autumn of 1967 one of those investigators, Roger
Patterson, got lucky. He not only saw a sasquatch, he took 16-mm footage of it
walking across yet another Bluff Creek sandbar.
Since 1967 hardly a year has passed without someone announcing that they
have proved the Patterson movie a hoax. I have kept no record of all the people
who are supposed to have made the hairy suit, or worn it. The stories contradict
41
Fig. 4. Cast of overlapping bear’s paws.
each other every which way, and you can be sure there will be a different one
along next year and another the year after that. What I do have is a lot of firsthand knowledge about the people and circumstances involved. I knew Roger
Patterson quite well before he got the movie, and I had considerable contact with
him afterwards. He may not have had an unblemished reputation in his
community, but he was entirely sincere in his efforts in the sasquatch search, and
he had neither the skills to attempt to fake such a creature nor the money to hire
anyone who did. As a matter of fact a senior executive in the Disney organization told me in 1969 that they did not have the ability to match it, if they
wanted something like that they would have to draw it.
What is probably more serious concerning the movie is the string of
objections to it which have been raised by scientists who most people would
expect to know what they are talking about:
It shouldn’t have hairy breasts because no female primate does.
Well, on the inside cover of this month’s National Geographic is a picture of
a female bonobo with hairy breasts, and bonobos don’t even live in a cold
climate.
Its supposed to be a female but it walks like a male.
Well, human females walk differently from males because they have a wide
pelvis to accommodate the human infant’s large head. Other primates don’t have
that adaptation.
It has prominent buttocks. Other higher primates don’t.
Of course. It’s a biped, they are quadrupeds.
42
J. Green
Fig. 5. Photos of 1967 Bluff Creek casts top: 130, bottom: 150.
It has a sagittal crest, which is a male feature.
No, it’s a feature providing anchorage for large jaw muscles. It is related to size,
not sex.
And so on.
Roger Patterson took his movie to the Smithsonian Institution, but I am told
that only the janitors turned out to see it. I know the Smithsonian later used to
send out a form letter describing it as an 8-mm film. In Russia the top man in the
field of biomechanics did study the movie, and found, as he told me himself, that
the creature walks in a way that is different from, and more efficient than, the
43
way humans walk. Considering the implications if it is genuine, it could be the
most important strip of film taken in the 20th century, yet in 36 years no
American scientific institution has seen fit to study it.
The Patterson creature didn’t just leave her image on film, she left tracks in the
sandbar. As usual they were far deeper than the tracks of the humans that walked
around them. Roger Patterson and his partner cast two of them. A day or so after
they left the area a forestry crew happened on the scene and three tracks were
photographed by a young man who later became one of the top executives in the
U.S. Forest Service. Several days after that Bob Titmus made casts of all the
remaining tracks, one of which I expect may figure in the presentation Dr.
Meldrum will be making later this morning.
From the time it was made the Patterson movie changed everything. It
stimulated widespread public interest, which in turn brought to light a lot of
reports, both old and current, and was responsible for many more people, including a few with academic qualifications, getting involved in the investigation.
From then on what had begun as a search for information became instead
a struggle to keep up with it. I spent more than 30 years doing that with coded
file cards, tabs on maps, and since 1990 with what was then a fairly sophisticated
computer program. By 2001, I had close to 4,000 reports in the computer, 67%
involving sightings of a large hairy biped or bipeds, 11.5% involving both
a sighting and a footprint find, and 21.5% involving tracks alone.
At that point, however, the flood of information available on the Internet
had become too much to keep up with, and I gave up the attempt. Today if you
search Google for sites that contain references to both Bigfoot and sasquatch and
include the term ‘‘report a sighting’’ you have 23 Websites to check out. If that
seems a high number, consider that if you search for just ‘‘Bigfoot’’ the count
is 880,000. One group alone, the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, at
bfro.net, lists more than 1,600 North American reports that have been checked out
by their investigators, and there is a backlog of hundreds more awaiting checking.
These reports do not prove the existence of the creature, of course. Science
has made it clear that nothing short of physical remains will do for proof.
But assuming for a moment that such an animal does exist, the reports contain
enough information to answer a lot of questions about it. One thing they provide
is a consistent physical description of upright-walking or running creatures
completely covered with relatively short hair; averaging, by estimate, almost 8
feet in height; far more heavily built than humans but with similar leg and arm
proportions; flat faces with no projecting muzzle, and necks so short as to be
almost nonexistent.
Today it is easy to assume that such a consistent description results from the
fact that almost everyone has seen a picture of the Patterson creature, but
actually the description was solidly established before the movie was taken.
Also, some reports mention specific behaviors that match those now known of
other higher primates but reported first about the sasquatch. On that subject I
will defer to Dr. Bindernagel.
44
J. Green
The reports are also numerous enough to establish a few things about the
sasquatch lifestyle:
They are omnivorous, with almost equal mention of meats and vegetable
matter in observations of things eaten or taken apparently to be eaten.
They are largely nocturnal. Although humans cannot see well in the dark
and there are far more humans around in the daytime, almost half of
sightings take place at night.
They are not active in cold weather. Less than 10% of reports mention
snow, and tracks in snow are rare.
They have an affinity for water. Unlike the known apes, they have been
reported swimming, both on the surface and under water.
They are not a threat to humans. There are quite a few reports of bluffing or
threatening behavior, including shaking vehicles and small buildings with
people inside, but only a very few old and questionable stories of injuries to
humans, fatal or otherwise.
The reports are also informative in what they do not mention. In spite of
a common assumption that sasquatch live in caves, indications of use of caves,
or any other form of shelter, are very rare. Tool use is not indicated at all, and
while objects are sometimes thrown, it is in a looping, underhand manner, not in
a straight line. There are also no reports of either fangs or claws, an unlikely
omission if we are dealing with an imaginary monster. Those things are presumably not reported because they don’t exist, but there are also very few reports of
females, infants or small juveniles, which must exist. This brings into question
one of the most obvious assumptions, that sasquatch are solitary animals. Less
than 10% of reports involve more than one creature, but if females and their
young are very rarely seen it remains possible that family groups exist, while
normally only lone males take a chance of encountering humans.
Two widely held opinions find no support in the accumulated information:
Sasquatch are not an endangered species. They are reported everywhere in
temperate North America except in areas where there is limited rainfall. To
occupy so much territory they must number in the thousands, and be able to
sustain themselves in a wide variety of habitats. There is no record of
humans successfully hunting them, and if they are under pressure from
destruction of habitat it can only be in a minor portion of their enormous
range.
They are not some kind of wild humans. They may be our closest relatives,
although there isn’t much room for anything to squeeze in between humans
and chimpanzees, but their adaptations are entirely physical. They can
never have been under any pressure to develop the mental abilities humans
depend on for survival.
So much for assuming that sasquatch exist. The fact that no one has ever
produced any physical remains is a compelling argument that they do not, and I
45
know of no answer for it. There are other arguments, though, that are easily dealt
with.
Why are there no fossils?
Actually there at least two potential fossil ancestors for sasquatch, one or both of
which I expect you will hear discussed today. The gorilla, by contrast, has none.
People have a need to imagine monsters.
Those who make that claim, often scientists, are never asked to produce
evidence for it, and they volunteer none. Nor do they explain why that need dries
up where there is a shortage of rain.
Why are sasquatch never seen by qualified observers?
In fact there are sighting reports by people with every imaginable qualification,
many of whom were total skeptics prior to their encounter. One of the most
recent is a professor of psychology at a major university who recorded a close
and detailed observation while hunting wild boar.
If these creatures are real, why is there no past record of them?
There are accounts in books and newspapers of such creatures being seen on this
continent since at least the 1700s, and European, Oriental, and Middle Eastern
references to hairy wild men are as old as recorded history. Oral information
from Indian sources is presumably also very old, but is complicated by the fact
that their traditional belief systems don’t make a clear division between ‘‘real’’
and ‘‘supernatural’’ creatures. Many Indian languages contain names for beings
that may be equated to sasquatch, which is itself an Anglicized version of an
Indian name, and as Gordon Strasenburg will tell you, many words that refer to
these creatures appear in modern place names.
Returning to the matter of scientific exploration of this phenomenon, there have
recently been some positive developments. While no museum or university has
yet taken any role in the investigation, and no institutional funding has been made
available, a small but increasing number of individual scientists are taking part.
Some of the very top people in the fields of zoology and anthropology are now
taking a public stand that scientific exploration is warranted. They include George
Schaller, director of science for the Wildlife Conservation Society (formerly the
New York Zoological Society); Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation
International and chairman of the worldwide Primate Specialist Group; Jane
Goodall, world-famous chimpanzee researcher; Esteban Sarmiento, primate
specialist at the American Museum of Natural History; and Daris Swindler, author
of ‘‘An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy—Baboon, Chimpanzee and Man.’’
Dr. Swindler has in the past appeared in TV documentaries on this subject
as the mandatory skeptical scientist. He changed his opinion as a result of
the discovery in a patch of drying mud, beside a road in a mountain forest
in Washington, of the hairy imprints of a buttock, thigh, and forearm plus
46
J. Green
Fig. 6. Heel print accredited by Swindler.
several heel prints, of an animal far larger than a human. A huge plaster cast
was successfully made that shows all these elements with such detail that
individual hairs can be counted. One heel print, a cast of which is on display,
shows several inches of the Achilles tendon, and Dr. Swindler has gone on
public record that it is the heel of a huge, unknown higher primate (Figure 6).
Another major step forward has been in the study of skin ridge patterns that
are preserved in a very few of the footprint casts. These ‘‘dermatoglyphics’’ are
distinctly different for each species of higher primate, and sasquatch casts far
removed from each other in date and distance have been found to share their
own unique pattern.
This line of research was originated by the late Dr. Grover Krantz and has
been carried on by Jeff Meldrum. Recently a police fingerprint expert from
47
Texas who has studied the footprint patterns of all the great apes became
involved, and has stated flatly that the dermatoglyphics prove beyond question
the existence of an unknown species of ape in North America.
A third scientific approach has been to attempt to identify hairs collected in
connection with sasquatch incidents. Unidentifiable hairs have been found at
different locations that match each other, but there are no known sasquatch hairs
to compare them with, and attempts to replicate their DNA have been unsuccessful. Someone more knowledgeable about such things than I am will have to
explain why. A different technique that did show a result is radioimmunoassay,
which makes identifications through immune reactions to proteins.
Some hairs collected by Bob Titmus were tested by Dr. Jerold Lowenstein,
who had previously determined by the same method that chimpanzees are more
closely related to humans than to gorillas. His findings in that regard were later
confirmed via DNA, and his tests showed that the Titmus hairs were very close
to human, chimpanzee, and gorilla, although not clearly any one of the three. All
three possibilities could easily have been checked with a comparison microscope
if there had been any hairs left to examine, but he had ground all of them up.
Presumably because they were brown and were collected in California, Dr.
Lowenstein suggested that the hairs were probably human, but they were pointed
hairs, grown to length, while human hairs never stop growing and have cut-off
ends. A copy of Dr. Lowenstein’s letter is on display (Figure 7).
What is the bottom line on all this? It is quite simple. The existence of the
sasquatch has not been proved, and the lack of a specimen remains a powerful
argument that no such creature exists. There are, however, two things that have
been proved, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt at
all. One is that Something in North America makes huge human-like footprints,
with a depth indicating tremendous weight, and scientists cannot tell us what that
something is. The other fact is that Thousands of people who would be
considered credible on any other subject claim to have had a good look at one or
more huge, bipedal, hair-covered creatures. Scientists can’t explain that either,
and in neither case are they making any effort to find an answer.
Without recourse to the supernatural or extraterrestrial, there are only two
possible explanations for these established facts. One is that humans share North
America with a huge animal that may be our closest relative, but determinedly
remain in ignorance of it. The other is that humans throughout recorded history
have been faking evidence for the existence of an imaginary animal. Surely
establishing whichever answer is true would be a scientific achievement of the
greatest interest and importance, yet of the billions of research dollars and
millions of man and woman hours of scientific talent, hardly a dollar or an hour
is devoted to this quest. Why that should be so is, to me, the most intriguing
mystery of all.
Some of you, I expect, have been only half listening to what I have said,
because you read in the paper or saw on television that Ray Wallace, the man
responsible for faking all the Bigfoot evidence, had made a deathbed confession,
48
J. Green
Fig. 7. Lowenstein letter.
and his family had displayed the carved wooden feet he did it with. Editors who
were cocksure that the whole Bigfoot thing was some sort of put-on just loved that
story and spread it everywhere. It was a horrible example of completely
irresponsible journalism, because the slightest effort at investigation would have
shown that only the name ‘‘Bigfoot’’ began in Ray Wallace’s time on Earth; the
phenomenon to which that awkward name has become attached is infinitely older.
Unfortunately the same editors have since refused to publicize the fact that
they were taken in, so the stifling effect their false stories have had on potential
scientific exploration of an important matter will be with us for a long time. Ray
49
Fig. 8. Newspaper story quoting geophysicist.
Wallace was indeed the contractor for the road job where the first ‘‘Bigfoot’’ cast
was made, and he did indeed, in later years, make and sell fake track casts, but so
far no evidence has surfaced that he ever tried to fool anyone with fake tracks in
the ground. He eventually made many fabulous claims concerning himself and
‘‘Bigfoot,’’ but having made the tracks that showed up on his road job was never
50
J. Green
Fig. 9. Fiberglass copies of Titmus casts.
among them. His original, very genuine, reaction was concern that the tracks
were interfering with the work and costing him money and trouble.
Everyone who looked into the matter at the time of course started with the
idea that someone wearing false feet might have made the tracks, and Ray, who
had a reputation as a practical joker, was a suspect, but the idea did not survive investigation. Sinking deep into hard ground, which I saw for myself, and
taking huge strides up steep side-hills with deeply dug-in toes, which other
investigators saw, the tracks showed evidence of tremendous weight, size, and
strength. A story is on display here quoting a geophysicist who examined the
tracks and made a cast of one. He estimated that the track maker must have
weighed more than 800 pounds. The idea that a man wearing the equivalent of
snowshoes could have faked the tracks made no sense then and makes no sense
now (Figure 8).
As to the wooden feet the Wallace family produced, life-size photos of them
are also on display, and they do not at all resemble the original ‘‘Bigfoot’’ tracks
51
they are supposed to have made. They were apparently carved, rather crudely, in
imitation of the casts Bob Titmus made of the second type of tracks he found
(Figure 2). Accurate, shoe-mounted fiberglass copies of those casts are also here,
and anyone who can get in size 11 shoes is welcome to try them out (Figure 9).
The fiberglass copies were made to determine what could be done with them
in the way of faking tracks, which proved to be not much. Presumably the
Wallace carvings were fitted with foot straps for the same reason, and showed
the same result. They can be used to make passable fake prints on flat, soft surfaces, but even if the wearer carries another man on his back they are useless in
hard-packed sand, and they are totally unsuitable for climbing side-hills.
Some day, some institution that includes students of zoology and of human
behavior is going to take up the sasquatch question and find itself in a win-win
situation. There is a blockbuster discovery to be made in one field or the other
and amateurs have already done most of the leg work. It will be a pity if that
discovery is long delayed because a bunch of media know-it-alls fell for
a nonsensical story.
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 53–64, 2004
0892-3310/04
The Sasquatch: An Unwelcome
and Premature Zoological Discovery?
JOHN A. BINDERNAGEL
Wildlife Biologist
920 Second Street, Courtenay, BC V9N 1C3, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract—Over 3000 North American reports of a large hair-covered bipedal
animal resembling an upright gorilla have been recorded and reviewed. More
importantly, over 100 different tracks attributed to such an animal have been
cast and archived. At the same time, wildlife biologists and other zoologists
continue to ignore this evidence and to reject papers on the subject submitted
for presentation at professional conferences. This attitude of dismissal results
from the ridicule and discredit heaped on the subject in the popular media
coupled with the perceived unlikelihood of a large non-human primate occurring in North America. The discovery of the sasquatch may be ‘premature’
in at least three ways: the animal resembles a bipedal ape, an anomaly in
a mammal group that is perceived to be exclusively quadrupedal; its tracks
resemble large versions of human tracks; and it occurs on the North American
continent where no other non-human primates are known to occur. The possibility of such an animal existing anywhere—but especially in North America—
apparently appears so preposterous as to be an affront to scientists. Nevertheless,
the hypothesis that the sasquatch is an upright North American great ape remains
the best explanation of the available evidence.
Keywords: Sasquatch—discovery—zoological—premature
Introduction
In 1958 a northern California road construction crew reported the overnight
appearance of a number of large footprints resembling those of a giant human.
Subsequent newspaper coverage included a photograph of a highway foreman
holding a plaster cast of one of the 16-inch-long footprints. ‘Bigfoot’ was first
used in print as the nickname for the creature whose tracks, although shaped
like those of a human, were superhuman in size. For most North Americans,
this marked the beginning of an ongoing controversy regarding the possible
existence of a large humanlike primate on this continent.1
Historical Accounts: Sasquatch Reports or Merely Myths?
Although not widely known, accounts of a giant human-shaped creature, and
of the tracks associated with it, already existed in historical and anthropological
literature. The historical accounts are of interest because they provide early
53
54
J. A. Bindernagel
examples of what are now regarded as sasquatch reports. Equally interesting are
the expressions of doubt which continue to be associated with such reports today.
For example, as early as 1790, a Hudson’s Bay Company trader commented
on the belief of the North Saskatchewan River Indians in a giant humanlike
creature known to them as the windigo. He remarked that ‘‘they frequently
persuade themselves that they see his track in the moss or snow . . .’’ (Umfreville,
1790).
Both the aboriginal belief in such creatures and the non-native disbelief are
recorded in another account, that of a Methodist missionary to the Cree and
Salteaux Indians of Lake Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba. In this account,
Young (1893), wrote that:
Among the many errors and superstitions into which they have fallen is the belief in the
existence of . . . gigantic creatures half satanic and half human, whom they represent as
being of great size. . . . We found the Saulteux Indians especially living in dread of these
imaginary monsters.
Expressions of Ambivalence and Dismissal Regarding
the Sasquatch as a Real Animal
Folklorist Carole Henderson interprets such ‘monsters’ as metaphorical in
nature. While apparently agreeing with these authors in thinking that they are
not real, Henderson (1976) nevertheless expresses some ambivalence:
The beasts represent the mystery, strength, and untamed nature of large parts of the
Canadian west, especially British Columbia. . . . As this area moves fully into the
twentieth century, becomes thoroughly ‘civilized’ and populated, the monsters may
vanish. Then again, they may persist because they may really be there. . . .
After referring to accounts of common wildlife species recorded by Indians,
she points out that:
Other animals, unknown to Europeans, have typically, though perhaps unjustifiably, been
classified as mythical supernatural beings. It cannot be proven that the Indians themselves
saw these creatures as mythical, but anthropologists and other scholars have generally
considered them such. . . .
Marjorie Halpin, former director of the Museum of Anthropology at the
University of British Columbia, is one example. Halpin notes that ‘‘. . . hallucinatory experiences’’ are ‘‘experiences accepted as real by the experiencer but not
shared with others.’’ She concludes that ‘‘as long as Sasquatch is a personal rather
than a collectively-sanctioned experience it will remain hallucinatory as officially
defined by Western culture’’ (Halpin, 1980: 211).
Referring to the apelike appearance of the sasquatch she writes that: ‘‘since . . .
there is no category in Western culture for creatures who mediate the animalhuman realms, scientists have no category for the Sasquatch to exist in’’ (Halpin,
1980: 226). This idea that sasquatches are creatures who ‘‘mediate the animalhuman realms’’ is a commonly-held view among cultural anthropologists. For
example, Robert A. Brightman, professor of anthropology at the University of
Sasquatch: A Premature Discovery?
55
Wisconsin is quoted (Rath, 1985) as having studied reports of Bigfoot and as
believing that these stories can be explained from a sociological standpoint:
Images like Bigfoot, images between humans and animals, seem to be common to people
of all states of society. If it’s not universal, it’s close to universal. . . . [S]ociety may feel
a need to separate itself from animals, so that we know we’re different. Creatures that
merge the characteristics of man and animal let us define ourselves more clearly. The
closer the creature comes, the more specific we can make the rules for being human.
It is not surprising that cultural anthropologists espouse a view of the
sasquatch as supernatural. Such a view is consistent with their background and
experience with myths and legends in which some mythical creatures (such as
the Thunderbird) do indeed appear to be supernatural. John Green (1968)
explains that when the term ‘sasquatch’ was introduced to the public in the 1920s
in the writing of J. W. Burns, Burns quoted Indian stories which included supernatural elements, thus stigmatizing the sasquatch as an Indian legend. Green
believes that this was unfortunate because ‘‘scientists in particular are inclined to
dismiss the subjects of Indian legends as purely imaginary’’ (Suttles, 1972).
While this might explain why scientists have uncritically accepted the supernatural as an explanation for some of the sighting reports, it does not excuse
zoologists and other scientists from bringing their knowledge and experience to
bear on the well-documented track evidence.
Professor Ian McTaggart Cowan, former dean of science at University of
British Columbia, has also been described as the ‘‘father of wildlife management
in British Columbia.’’ Regarding the sasquatch he once told a journalist: ‘‘People
believe in these things because they like to believe in them, and it keeps on
going because people like it. And why not? It’s a charming story. My attitude is
just show me, that’s all’’ (Watts, 1994).2
Professor Cowan and other zoologists who dismiss the sasquatch as an
zoological anomaly, and therefore unworthy of study, would find some support
for their position in the comments of Thomas Kuhn, author of a classic work in
the philosophy of science. Kuhn, who understood the problems associated with
an apparent anomaly, wrote that: ‘‘. . . it is for the normal, not the extraordinary,
practice of science that professionals are trained. . . . The scientist who pauses
to examine every anomaly he notes will seldom get significant work done.’’
Nevertheless, it is surprising that only a few scientists have risen to the challenge
embodied in his further comment: ‘‘We have to ask what it is that makes an
anomaly seem worth concerted scrutiny’’ (Kuhn, 1996).
Nature of the Evidence for the Existence of the Sasquatch
There are five components of the substantial body of evidence that makes the
‘‘sasquatch anomaly’’ worthy of scrutiny:
(1) The database of eyewitness reports of huge, hair-covered, upright, humanshaped large mammals, or its tracks—now numbering over 3000 reports
and distributed over a period of over 150 years.
56
J. A. Bindernagel
(2) The remarkable consistency of the physical descriptions of this creature,
including anatomical details (as shown in Figure 1).
(3) The sincerity, credibility, and reliability of eyewitnesses, some of whom
are law officers and experienced outdoor workers such as fisheries
officers, combined with the reluctance of these eyewitnesses to be
recognized or credited for their report.
(4) The similarity of these descriptions to an upright, bipedal version of
a well-known (possibly related) animal, the gorilla. Sasquatches are
consistently described as huge, hair-covered, human-shaped animals with
a short, thick neck. They differ from upright bears primarily in having
a flat face and shoulders which are typically prominent or squarish rather
than tapered or sloping.
(5) The expanding collection of over 100 different track casts catalogued and
archived at Idaho State University by anatomy professor Jeffrey Meldrum
and available for examination (Figure 2).
The Great Ape Hypothesis
Anthropologist Halpin is correct when she notes that ‘‘scientists have no
category for the sasquatch to exist in’’ but only if we restrict ourselves to
North American mammal field guides. When limited to current field guides,
a bear standing upright is indeed the closest image to the sasquatch, since the
opportunity to compare the appearance of an upright bear with that of
a sasquatch, as illustrated in Figure 2, is not generally available. As a result,
most wildlife biologists continue to insist on misidentified bears as the most
likely explanation for sasquatch reports despite its unbearlike appearance. The
continued absence of the sasquatch from current mammal field guides
constitutes an authoritative statement against the existence of this species in
North America.
Had zoologists acknowledged the poor match between bears and sasquatch
descriptions and been willing to consult a global mammal field guide or mammal list, they likely would have been struck by the resemblance of eyewitness
descriptions and drawings of the sasquatch to those of an upright gorilla. This
similarity has been alluded to by many eyewitnesses who described the creature
they observed as an ‘ape-man’, ‘man-beast’, ‘giant monkey’, or simply an ‘ape’.
The connection was made as long ago as 1978 by journalist John Green both in
the text and title of a book entitled Sasquatch: The Apes among Us (Green,
1978). Anthropologist Grover Krantz developed the concept further in his book
entitled Big Footprints (Krantz, 1992).
Indeed the long arms, the body covering of dark hair, and the short thick neck
attributed to the sasquatch are all physical features characteristic of the great
apes of Africa and Asia: the gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo, and orangutan. Of
these consistently reported physical features, the long arms are especially noteworthy. One mammal field guide lists ‘‘arms longer than legs’’ as a field mark of
57
Fig. 1. Eyewitness drawings of sasquatches. 1a. Oregon, 1971; 1b. British Columbia, 1965; 1c.
Ontario, 1993; 1d. Washington State, 1991; 1e. Ohio, 1980; and 1f. New Mexico, 2002.
Credits for eyewitness drawings: 1a. Mysterious Creatures, 1988, Alexandria, Virginia:
Time-Life Books, Vol. 114; 1b. unnamed prospector, courtesy of John Green; 1c. Desmond
Warren, courtesy of Tim Yearington; 1d. Darin Richardson, courtesy of Ray Crowe; 1e.
Charles Fulton, courtesy of Joedy Cook; 1f. Bigfoot Research Organization (BFRO),
courtesy of Reid Nelson.
the chimpanzee, and similarly, ‘‘exceptionally long forelimbs’’ as a field mark of
the gorilla (Clutton-Brock, 2002). Indeed, arms which are longer than legs are
considered a unique physical characteristic of great apes, whereas arms shorter
than the legs are considered a human character (Dixon, 1981). The long arms
58
J. A. Bindernagel
Fig. 2. Field guide drawings of an 2a. upright black bear and 2b. sasquatch. (drawings by Wendy
Dyck, figures 3 and 4 in Bindernagel, 1998).
(approximately 115 percent of leg length) which are consistently attributed to
the sasquatch suggest an ape rather than human affinity.
In addition to these gross morphological similarities between the sasquatch
and an upright gorilla, a number of anatomical details attributed to the sasquatch
in eyewitness descriptions and drawings also occur in the great apes. One of
these is a pointedness to the head, which at least two observers have included in
eyewitness drawings (Figure 1d and f ).
In gorillas and orangutans this pointedness is the outward manifestation of
the sagittal crest, a ridge of bone located medially on the top of the skull in an
anterior–posterior direction. Zoologist George Schaller, who undertook the first
field studies of the mountain gorilla, described the sagittal crest of gorillas as
variable in size. He noted that in two silverback males, the ‘‘sagittal crests were
so large that they resembled hairy miters.’’ Schaller also noted that ‘‘low sagittal
crests’’ may occur in large females.’’ (Schaller, 1963).
Another anatomical feature observed and recorded by eyewitnesses is deep
sunk eyes.
In April 1973, a 9-foot-tall creature ‘‘walking on two legs’’ stepped out in front
of Alan Skrumeda’s car near Easterville in west-central Manitoba. ‘‘Looking at us
was this thing that had the appearance of man, although it was three times the size
of the average man. . . . It turned to face us, staring into the headlights. . . . It was
covered with hair and there was a flat-profiled face. . . . The most striking feature
was the creature’s eyes. They were really sunk in.’’ (McAnulty, 1974).
More recently (1993), Desmond Warren observed an 8-foot-tall creature in
Ontario’s Ottawa Valley which walked away on two legs. He described it as
59
Fig. 3. Casts of sasquatch tracks. 3a. Vancouver Island, BC, 1988 (15 inches long, 6 inches
wide); 3b. Washington State, 1982 (15.5 inches long, 6 inches wide); 3c. Washington
State, cast of juvenile sasquatch track (7 inches long, 5 inches wide; note slightly
abducted big toe).
being ‘‘at least three feet wide,’’ having ‘‘a chest like a body builder and not too
much of a neck. . . . It had deep sunk eyes’’ and ‘‘where we would have
eyebrows it had a ridge that stuck out a fair piece’’ (Yearington, 1998). The
eyewitness drawing made by Desmond Warren is shown in Figure 1c.
Reference to almost any book illustrating the great apes will confirm that deep
sunk eyes are an obvious feature of the face of great apes, especially gorillas.
Significantly, deep sunk eyes are also a physical feature emphasized in a number
of accounts of the hairy giants in aboriginal myths and legends. Anthropologist
Claude Levi-Strauss noted that ‘‘the myths of British Columbia’s Fraser River
aboriginal groups included a character called the sasquatch or Tsanaq who was
characterized as a black giantess with bushy eyebrows [and] eyes deeply sunk
the in the orbits’’ (Levi-Strauss, 1982).
In a collection of stories entitled Kwakiutl Legends, Kwakwaka’wakw Chief
James Wallas of northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, relates a number of tales about a creature referred to as the ‘Giant of the Woods’ or ‘Woods
Giant’. In several of these, deeply sunk eyes predominate in the description of
the face of the giant. At the end of one story, the woods giant made an offer to
a father and his sons: ‘‘You may use us on your totem poles and face mask. . . .
You can make the mask just like our face.’’ The story concludes with the father
and his sons accepting the giant’s offer. ‘‘No one else had a mask like theirs. It
was a frightening mask with the eyes sunk deep in the head’’ (Wallas, 1981).
The Wallas story typifies the link between giant human-shaped creatures
in aboriginal myths and legends and in modern reports, and may relate to the
‘kernel of truth’ on which most myths and legends are based.
60
J. A. Bindernagel
The (Apparently) Humanlike Attributes of the Sasquatch:
Reasons for Prematurity and Unwelcomeness?
Although most anatomical features of the sasquatch are consistent with those
of the great apes, the bipedal gait of the sasquatch is often raised as inconsistent
with the knuckle-walking quadrupedal gait of the great apes. That the great apes
commonly walk bipedally in order to carry food items in their hands or arms is
apparently not widely known.
This problem was addressed by geneticist Gunther Stent in an article entitled:
Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery (Stent, 1972). Stent explained that a discovery is premature if ‘‘its implications cannot be connected by
a series of simple logical steps to canonical, or generally-accepted, knowledge.’’
Based on this definition, the ‘discovery’ of the sasquatch suffers from
prematurity in at least three respects. First, it appears to be a bipedal ape in a
group whose members are thought to be exclusively quadrupedal. Second, it has
the appearance of a great ape on the North American continent where no other
apes are known to exist. (Marjorie Halpin’s argument that ‘‘there is no category
for the sasquatch’’ is another way of stating this.) A third problem is the shape of
the foot, as documented in numerous photographs and casts. It is shaped more
like a giant human foot than like that of any other mammal, thus suggesting a
human, rather than great ape, origin for the creature (Figure 3). It is unfortunate
that most North American biologists are unaware of the similarity between the
human foot and the foot of a large ape such as the mountain gorilla. The primary
difference is the divergent or abducted big toe of the gorilla foot compared with
the adducted big toe in the human foot and sasquatch foot in which it lies
alongside the other toes (Figure 3a and b). It is noteworthy that the sasquatch
foot sometimes exhibits a degree of divergence or abduction of the big toe,
rendering it less humanlike and more apelike in form (Figure 3c).
It is this apparent blend of human and great ape physical characteristics which
may have contributed to the unwelcomeness of the sasquatch as a subject for
unbiased consideration and study. The fear that the sasquatch may constitute a
‘missing link’ between humans and related ancestors has implications for human
evolution, not all of which are welcome. The possibility that such an animal may
still exist today—unacknowledged and virtually in our midst—may be taken as
a professional affront by scientists.
Paleoanthropologists Alan Walker and Pat Shipman addressed the problem of
‘unwelcomeness’ of scientific discoveries when writing about paleoanthropological discoveries in Africa. They wrote that ‘‘. . . surprises about the identity or
attributes of our . . . ancestors may be deeply unsettling and unwelcome. Even
professionals, if they are not vigilant, are liable to fall into the trap of refusing to
evaluate the evidence objectively . . .’’ (Walker & Shipman, 1996).
Rejection of Opportunities for Scientists to Examine Sasquatch Evidence
Although the shape of sasquatch tracks raises unwelcome evolutionary
questions of origin and relatedness, it is nevertheless the casts of tracks which
61
provide the best answer to Thomas Kuhn’s admonishment to evaluate what
makes an anomaly seem worth concerted scrutiny. It is the track casts which
constitute the much-needed tangible evidence. As noted above, over 100 of these
casts have been catalogued, archived, and made available for scrutiny by zoologists. They should be of interest especially to wildlife biologists who routinely
depend on tracks as a basis for mammal surveys. Wildlife biologists, more than
any other professionals—excepting perhaps some experienced hunters and
trappers—have the expertise and experience to competently scrutinize and
evaluate the validity of track casts attributed to the sasquatch.
If the notable lack of interest in examining this evidence is puzzling, the
continued rejection of conference papers illustrating such evidence and intended
to stimulate discussion is even more problematic. In the absence of professional
evaluation of tracks, there has arisen an almost universal dismissal of purported
sasquatch tracks as the work of ‘hoaxers’. The uncritical treatment in the popular
media, often including an element of ridicule, has further estranged biologists
from addressing the track cast evidence. In the absence of professional attention,
what little investigation is being done is largely undertaken by dedicated but
untrained amateurs.
An inevitable result of the sasquatch being ignored by scientists and explained
instead by non-scientists is the raising of wildly conjectural explanations as
serious proposals. Such explanations occasionally include associations with
UFOs, visitors from another dimension, and ‘shape-shifters’. The tabloid and
mainstream media have exploited these more bizarre explanations to further
increase an atmosphere of levity and ridicule around the subject. As a result,
scientists have (understandably) distanced themselves even further. This may
explain the reasoning given by the chairperson of a national conference of an
international society of wildlife biologists for rejecting a paper on the sasquatch.
‘‘Until there is ‘hard’ evidence of their existence the issue [of the sasquatch] will
remain tabloid material and not part of the scientific community.’’3 A zoology
professor recently rejected a proposed seminar presentation reviewing existing sasquatch evidence, reasoning that ‘‘if this creature exists, it would be the
zoological discovery of the century,’’ a possibility apparently too unthinkable to
be presented to his colleagues and students for serious consideration.
Results of Rejection by Scientists
As mentioned above, the relegation of sasquatch research by scientists to
well-meaning but untrained amateurs is fraught with problems. As pointed out by
Michael Cremo, ‘‘Evidence found by non-scientists tends to be not valued and
therefore not well-looked after and gets lost or thrown out. On the other hand,
evidence which conforms to contemporary thinking is carefully catalogued and
preserved’’ (Cremo, personal communication). Although the amateur investigators are not at fault, since they are merely filling a void left vacant by
scientists, the result is inadequate documentation and treatment of evidence. It
62
J. A. Bindernagel
must be emphasized that this is not a criticism of such investigators but is an
inevitable outcome of the unwillingness of scientists to include the evidence for
consideration in a professional context or forum.
Conclusions
In closing, it may be instructive to briefly examine current attitudes toward
the sasquatch in the context of science according to the recent comments of Ian
Tattersall, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History.
Tattersall, writing under the headings nature of science and falsifiability, reminds
us that ‘‘. . . scientists generally start from . . . established notions that seem to be
becoming a little wobbly. These they test against new data . . . and observation . . .’’ (Tattersall, 2002: 10, 11).
In the case of the sasquatch none of the established ‘‘notions’’ entail a real
animal. They include instead the supernatural, a metaphor, an invented being,
misidentified bears, and human hoaxers. These notions have become increasingly ‘‘wobbly’’ as sasquatch tracks are documented and archived, and as
detailed reports from reliable eyewitnesses are filed and reviewed. (More
extreme notions put forward such as: visitor from another planet, visitor from
a UFO, and ‘‘shape-shifter’’ are not considered to be ‘‘established,’’ in that they
are more recent proposals and are only taken seriously by a few people.)
Tattersall noted that ‘‘New ideas . . . are proposed, and once these new ideas
and observations are out there in the public arena, they can be tested’’ (Tattersall,
2002: 8–9). New ideas regarding the similarity of sasquatch anatomy, behavior,
and ecology, and the reports and track casts on which they are based, have been
proposed in books and media interviews for over 30 years. But rather than being
tested or critiqued by relevant scientists, they have so far been either ignored or
dismissed without scrutiny.
Tattersall may be presenting an idealized portrait of science when he states
that ‘‘What matters is that science as a whole is a self-correcting mechanism in
which both new and old notions are constantly under scrutiny . . . the edifice of
science consists simply of a body of observations and ideas that have (so far)
proven resistant to attack, and that are thus accepted as working hypotheses
about nature’’ (Tattersall, 2002: 9).
In the case of the sasquatch the ‘‘body of . . . ideas that are . . . accepted as working hypotheses . . .’’ remains the notions listed earlier: supernatural, metaphor,
invented being, misidentified bears, and human hoaxers. Rather than attacking
or even questioning these notions or hypotheses, scientists appear to have passed
judgment, apparently concluding that the subject is unworthy of their attention.
If and when they decide to examine the existing evidence, or permit examples of
it to be displayed and discussed in scientific forums, they will find that the
existing notions are not so resistant at all. In the meantime, perhaps the repetition
of Alan Walker’s and Pat Shipman’s warning is warranted: ‘‘Even professionals,
63
if they are not vigilant, are liable to fall into the trap of refusing to evaluate the
evidence objectively. . . .’’
Notes
1
2
3
‘‘New ‘Sasquatch’ found—it’s called Bigfoot.’’ AP wire service article,
dateline Eureka, Humbolt Times of Eureka, California. Reprinted in Vancouver
Province, Monday, October 6, 1958. The track was 16 inches long and 7
inches wide and sank into the soil to a depth of 2 inches.
Professor Cowan’s invitation to ‘‘just show me’’ extended to the journalist
and newspaper readers was not similarly extended to the few zoologists
undertaking sasquatch research. A proposal to his successor in the zoology
department at the University of British Columbia, offering to present a seminar
on the subject, was declined.
This statement was part of an e-mail message from the chairperson of a recent
national conference of The Wildlife Society (TWS). The message included
a second comment intended to explain the rejection of the paper: ‘‘TWS is a
very conservatively thinking group unfortunately, and as a society does not like
to be associated with extreme viewpoints.’’
Acknowledgments
Among many others, I wish to acknowledge John Green for his support and
for sharing his database of sasquatch reports built over a 40-year period.
Professor Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University and Dr. Henner Fahrenbach of
the Oregon Regional Primate Center have generously shared information and
ideas. Gordon Strasenburgh facilitated initial contact with the Society for
Scientific Exploration leading to this paper. Henry Bauer provided fresh insight
into the philosophical considerations involved in scientific discovery.
References
Bindernagel, J. (1998). North America’s Great Ape—The Sasquatch. Courtenay, BC: Beachcomber
Books.
Clutton-Brock, J. (2002). Mammals. London: Dorling Kindersley Handbooks.
Cremo, M. (1999). Personal communication (expanding on views put forward in Cremo, M., &
Thompson, R. (1996). Forbidden Archaeology. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Books.
Dixon, A. F. (1981). The Natural History of the Gorilla. New York: Columbia University Press.
Green, J. (1968). On the Track of the Sasquatch. Agassiz, BC: Cheam Publishing.
Green, J. (1978). Sasquatch: The Apes among Us. Saanichton, BC: Hancock House.
Halpin, M. (1980). The Tsimshian monkey mask and the sasquatch. In Halpin, M., & Ames, M.
(Eds.), Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence. Vancouver and London:
University of British Columbia Press.
Henderson, C. M. (1976). Monsters of the West: The sasquatch and the ogopogo. In Fowke, E. (Ed.),
Folklore of Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Krantz, G. S. (1992). Big Footprints: A Scientific Enquiry into the Reality of the Sasquatch. Boulder,
CO: Johnson Books.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1982). The Way of the Masks. Vancouver, BC: Douglas and McIntyre.
64
J. A. Bindernagel
McAnulty, B. (1974). Recounting the April, 1973 report of Alan Skrumeda on the Easterville Road
(Provincial road 327), 2 miles from Hwy 6 in west-central Manitoba. Winnipeg Free Press,
January 26, 1974.
Rath, J. (1985). Milwaukee Journal. September 5, 1985.
Schaller, G. B. (1963). The Mountain Gorilla: Ecology and Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Stent, G. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery. Scientific American, 227, 84–93.
Suttles, W. (1972). On the cultural track of the sasquatch. Northwest Anthropological Research
Notes, 6, 66.
Tattersall, I. (2002). The Monkey in the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human.
New York: Harcourt.
Umfreville, E. (1790). An evil being. In Wallis, W. D., & Wallis, R. S. (Eds.), The Present State of
Hudson’s Bay. London: Charles Stalker. In (1982) Columbo, J. (Ed.), Wendigo. Saskatoon, SK:
Modern Press.
Walker, A., & Shipman, P. (1996). The Wisdom of the Bones: In Search of Human Origins. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Wallas, J., Chief. (1981). Giant of the woods. In Kwakiutl Legends (Chapter 9). As told to Pamela
Whitaker. Vancouver, BC: Hancock House.
Watts, R. (1994). Prints, dusk cries stir boffin to hunt island sasquatch. Victoria Times-Colonist.
Friday, January 7, 1994. p. 1.
Yearington, T. (1998). Unpublished transcript of interview with eyewitness Desmond Warren
regarding his observations on the south bank of the Madawaska River between Springtown and
Burnstown located in Bagot and Blithfield township, Renfrew County, Ontario.
Young, E. R. (1893). Stories from Indian Wigwams and Northern Camp-Fires, London. In (1982)
Columbo, J. (Ed.), Wendigo. Saskatoon, SK: Modern Press.
Bigfoot at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot
Evidence
Ben Radford
Volume 26.2, March / April 2002
The question of Bigfoot’s existence comes down to the claim that “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”
The evidence suggests that there are enough sources of error that there does not have to be a hidden
creature lurking amid the unsubstantiated cases.
Though sightings of the North American Bigfoot date back to the 1830s (Bord 1982), interest in Bigfoot
grew rapidly during the second half of the twentieth century. This was spurred on by many magazine
articles of the time, most seminally a December 1959 True magazine article describing the discovery of
large, mysterious footprints the year before in Bluff Creek, California.
A half century later, the question of Bigfoot’s existence remains open. Bigfoot is still sought, the
pursuit kept alive by a steady stream of sightings, occasional photos or footprint finds, and sporadic
media coverage. But what evidence has been gathered over the course of fifty years? And what
conclusions can we draw from that evidence?
Most Bigfoot investigators favor one theory of Bigfoot’s origin or existence and stake their reputations
on it, sniping at others who don't share their views. Many times, what one investigator sees as clear
evidence of Bigfoot another will dismiss out of hand. In July 2000, curious tracks were found on the
Lower Hoh Indian Reservation in Washington state. Bigfoot tracker Cliff Crook claimed that the
footprints were “for sure a Bigfoot,” though Jeffrey Meldrum, an associate professor of biological
sciences at Idaho State University (and member of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization, BFRO)
decided that there was not enough evidence to pursue the matter (Big Disagreement Afoot 2000). A
set of tracks found in Oregon’s Blue Mountains have also been the source of controversy within the
community. Grover Krantz maintains that they constitute among the best evidence for Bigfoot, yet
longtime researcher Rene Dahinden claimed that “any village idiot can see [they] are fake, one
hundred percent fake” (Dennett 1994).
And while many Bigfoot researchers stand by the famous 16 mm Patterson film (showing a large
manlike creature crossing a clearing) as genuine (including Dahinden, who shared the film’s
copyright), others including Crook join skeptics in calling it a hoax. In 1999, Crook found what he
claims is evidence in the film of a bell-shaped fastener on the hip of the alleged Bigfoot, evidence that
he suggests may be holding the ape costume in place (Dahinden claimed the object is matted feces)
(Hubbell 1999).
Regardless of which theories researchers subscribe to, the question of Bigfoot’s existence comes down
to evidence- and there is plenty of it. Indeed, there are reams of documents about Bigfoot-filing
cabinets overflowing with thousands of sighting reports, analyses, and theories. Photographs have
been taken of everything from the alleged creature to odd tracks left in snow to twisted branches.
Collections exist of dozens or hundreds of footprint casts from all over North America. There is indeed
no shortage of evidence.
The important criterion, however, is not the quantity of the evidence, but the quality of it. Lots of poor
quality evidence does not add up to strong evidence, just as many cups of weak coffee cannot be
combined into a strong cup of coffee.
Bigfoot evidence can be broken down into four general types: eyewitness sightings, footprints,
recordings, and somatic samples (hair, blood, etc.). Some researchers (notably Loren Coleman 1999)
also place substantial emphasis on folklore and indigenous legends. The theories and controversies
within each category are too complex and detailed to go into here. I present merely a brief overview
and short discussion of each; anyone interested in the details is encouraged to look further.
1. Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes comprise the bulk of Bigfoot evidence. This sort of evidence is also
the weakest. Lawyers, judges, and psychologists are well aware that eyewitness testimony is
notoriously unreliable. As Ben Roesch, editor of The Cryptozoological Review, noted in an article
in Fortean Times, “Cryptozoology is based largely on anecdotal evidence. . . . [W]hile physical
phenomena can be tested and systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they are
neither physical nor regulated in content or form. Because of this, anecdotes are not reproducible, and
are thus untestable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and are not part of the
scientific process. . . . Also, reports usually take place in uncontrolled settings and are made by
untrained, varied observers. People are generally poor eyewitnesses, and can mistake known animals
for supposed cryptids [unknown animals] or poorly recall details of their sighting. . . . Simply put,
eyewitness testimony is poor evidence” (Roesch 2001).
Bigfoot investigators acknowledge that lay eyewitnesses can be mistaken, but counter that expert
testimony should be given much more weight. Consider Coleman’s (1999) passage reflecting on expert
eyewitness testimony: “[E]ven those scientists who have seen the creatures with their own eyes have
been reluctant to come to terms with their observations in a scientific manner.” As an example he gives
the account of “mycologist Gary Samuels” and his brief sighting of a large primate in the forest of
Guyana. The implication is that this exacting man of science accurately observed, recalled, and
reported his experience. And he may have. But Samuels is a scientific expert on tiny fungi that grow on
wood. His expertise is botany, not identifying large primates in poor conditions. Anyone, degreed or
not, can be mistaken.
2. Footprints
Bigfoot tracks are the most recognizable evidence; of course, the animal’s very name came from the
size of the footprints it leaves behind. Unlike sightings, they are physical evidence:something (known
animal, Bigfoot, or man) left the tracks. The real question is what the tracks are evidence of. In many
cases, the answer is clear: they are evidence of hoaxing.
Contrary to many Bigfoot enthusiasts’ claims, Bigfoot tracks are not particularly consistent and show a
wide range of variation (Dennett 1996). Some tracks have toes that are aligned, others show splayed
toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or
even six toes (see figure 1). Surely all these tracks can't come from the same unknown creature, or even
species of creatures.
Not all prints found are footprints, though. In September 2000, a team of investigators from the
Bigfoot Field Research Organization led an expedition near Mt. Adams in Washington state, finding
the first Bigfoot “body print,” which-if authentic-is arguably the most significant find in the past two
decades. The Bigfoot, according to the team, apparently made the impression when it laid on its side at
the edge of a muddy bank and reached over to grab some bait. This of course raises the question as to
why the animal would make such an odd approach to the food, instead of simply walking over to it and
taking it. As the log of the expedition reads, “One explanation is immediately apparent-the animal did
not want to leave tracks. . . .” (BFRO 2000). This explanation fails on its own logic: If the Bigfoot (or
whatever it was) was so concerned about not leaving traces of its presence, why did it then leave a huge
fifteen-square-foot imprint in the mud for the team to find? (1)
3. Recordings
Figure 2. A frame from the film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, California in 1967. The subject is said to be a female Bigfoot.
The most famous recording of an alleged Bigfoot is the short 16 mm film taken in 1967 by Roger
Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Shot in Bluff Creek, California, it shows a Bigfoot striding through a
clearing (see figure 2). In many ways the veracity of the Patterson film is crucial, because the casts
made from those tracks are as close to a gold standard as one finds in cryptozoology. Many in the
Bigfoot community are adamant that the film is not-and, more important-cannot be a hoax. The
question of whether the film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could
not have been faked is demonstrably false.
Grover Krantz, for example, admits that the size of the creature in the film is well within human limits,
but argues that the chest width is impossibly large to be human. “I can confidently state that no man of
that stature is built that broadly,” he claims (Krantz 1992, 118). This assertion was examined by two
anthropologists, David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt (1999), who cite anthropometric literature
showing the “impossibly wide” chest is in fact within normal human variation. They also disprove
claims that the Patterson creature walks in a manner impossible for a person to duplicate.
The film is suspect for a number of reasons. First, Patterson told people he was going out with the
express purpose of capturing a Bigfoot on camera. In the intervening thirty-five years (and despite
dramatic advances in technology and wide distribution of handheld camcorders), thousands of people
have gone in search of Bigfoot and come back empty-handed (or with little but fuzzy photos). Second, a
known Bigfoot track hoaxer claimed to have told Patterson exactly where to go to see the Bigfoot on
that day (Dennett 1996). Third, Patterson made quite a profit from the film, including publicity for a
book he had written on the subject and an organization he had started.
Figure 3. Bigfoot allegedly photographed on July 11, 1995 by forest patrol officer at Wild Creek in Mount Ranier foothills, W A State.
In his book Bigfoot, John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who served as the Smithsonian
Institution’s director of primate biology, devotes several pages to close analysis of the Patterson film
(pp. 89-96; 215-220). He finds many problems with the film, including that the walk and size is
consistent with a man’s; the center of gravity seen in the subject is essentially that of a human; and the
step length is inconsistent with the tracks allegedly taken from the site. Don Grieve, an anatomist
specializing in human gait, came to the conclusion that the walk was essentially human in type and
could be made by a modern man. Napier writes that “there is little doubt that the scientific evidence
taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind.”
Other films and photos of creatures supposed to be Bigfoot have appeared, perhaps best-known among
them the Wild Creek photos allegedly purchased by Cliff Crook of Bigfoot Central from an anonymous
park ranger (see figure 3).
Bigfoot Voices
One of the more interesting bits of “evidence” offered for the existence of Bigfoot is sound recordings
of vocalizations. One company, Sierra Sounds, markets a CD called “The Bigfoot Recordings: The Edge
of Discovery.” Narrated by Jonathan Frakes (an actor who also narrated a special on the infamous
“Alien Autopsy” hoax), the recording claims to have captured vocalizations among a Bigfoot family.
The sounds are a series of guttural grunts, howls, and growls.
The Web site and liner notes offer testimonials by “expert” Nancy Logan. Logan, their “linguist,”
apparently has little or no actual training (or degree) in linguistics. Her self-described credentials
include playing the flute, speaking several languages, and having “a Russian friend [who] thinks I'm
Russian.” Logan confidently asserts that the tapes are not faked, and that the vocal range is too broad
to be made by a human. She suggests that the Bigfoot language shows signs of complexity, possibly
including profanities: “On one spot of the tape, an airplane goes by and they seem to get very excited
and not very happy about it. Maybe those are Sasquatch swear words.”
Here’s what Krantz writes about Bigfoot recordings: “One... tape was analyzed by some university
sound specialists who determined that a human voice could not have made them; they required a
much longer vocal tract. A sasquatch investigator later asked one of these experts if a human could
imitate the sound characteristics by simply cupping his hands around his mouth. The answer was yes”
(Krantz 1992, 134). As for other such recordings, Krantz has “listened to at least ten such tapes and
find[s] no compelling reason to believe that any of them are what the recorders claimed them to be”
(133).
4. Somatic Samples
Hair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. As with all the other
evidence, the results are remarkable for their inconclusiveness. When a definite conclusion has been
reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources-"Bigfoot hair” turns out to be
elk, bear, or cow hair, for example, or suspected “Bigfoot blood” is revealed to be transmission fluid.
Even advances in genetic technology have proven fruitless. Contrary to popular belief, DNA cannot be
derived from hair samples alone; the root (or some blood) must be available.
In his book Big Footprints, Grover Krantz (1992) discusses evidence for Bigfoot other than footprints,
including hair, feces, skin scrapings, and blood: “The usual fate of these items is that they either
receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In
most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no
determination could be made” (125). He continues, “A large amount of what looks like hair has been
recovered from several places in the Blue Mountains since 1987. Samples of this were examined by
many supposed experts ranging from the FBI to barbers. Most of these called it human, the Redkin
Company found significant differences from human hair, but the Japan Hair Medical Science Lab
declared it a synthetic fiber. A scientist at [Washington State] University first called it synthetic, then
looked more closely and decided it was real hair of an unknown type. . . . Final confirmation came
when E.B. Winn, a pharmaceutical businessman from Switzerland, had a sample tested in Europe. The
fiber was positively identified as artificial and its exact composition was determined: it is a product
known commercially as Dynel, which is often used as imitation hair.” In his analysis, Winn (1991)
noted that another alleged Bigfoot sign found at the site, tree splintering, had also been faked.
Hoaxes, the Gold Standard, and the Problem of Experts
Such hoaxes have permanently and irreparably contaminated Bigfoot research. Skeptics have long
pointed this out, and many Bigfoot researchers freely admit that their field is rife with fraud. This
highlights a basic problem underlying all Bigfoot research: the lack of a standard measure. For
example, we know what a bear track looks like; if we find a track that wesuspect was left by a bear, we
can compare it to one we know was left by a bear. But there are no undisputed Bigfoot specimens by
which to compare new evidence. New Bigfoot tracks that don't look like older samples are generally
not taken as proof that one (or both) sets are fakes, but instead that the new tracks are simply from a
different Bigfoot, or from a different species or family. This unscientific lack of falsifiability plagues
other areas of Bigfoot research as well.
Bigfoot print hoaxing is a time-honored cottage industry. Dozens of people have admitted making
Bigfoot prints. One man, Rant Mullens, revealed in 1982 that he and friends had carved giant Bigfoot
tracks and used them to fake footprints as far back as 1930 (Dennett 1996). In modern times it is easier
to get Bigfoot tracks. With the advent of the World Wide Web and online auctions, anyone in the world
can buy a cast of an alleged Bigfoot print and presumably make tracks that would very closely match
tracks accepted by some as authentic.
What we have, then, are new tracks, hairs, and other evidence being compared to knownhoaxed
tracks, hairs, etc. as well as possibly hoaxed tracks, hairs, etc. With sparse hard evidence to go on and
no good standard by which to judge new evidence, it is little wonder that the field is in disarray and has
trouble proving its theories. In one case, Krantz claimed as one of the gold standards of Bigfoot tracks
a print that “passed all my criteria, published and private, that distinguishes sasquatch tracks from
human tracks and from fakes” (Krantz 1992). He further agreed that it had all the signs of a living foot,
and that no human foot could have made the imprint. Michael R. Dennett, investigating for
the Skeptical Inquirer, tracked down the anonymous construction worker who supplied the Bigfoot
print. The man admitted faking the tracks himself to see if Krantz could really detect a fake (Dennett
1994).
Krantz certainly isn't alone in his mistaken identifications. One of the biggest names in cryptozoology,
Ivan Sanderson, was badly fooled by tracks he confidently proclaimed would be impossible to fake. In
1948 (and for a decade afterward), giant three-toed footprints were found along the beach in
Clearwater, Florida. Sanderson, described as a man who “was extremely knowledgeable on many
subjects, and had done more fieldwork than most zoologists do today” (Greenwell 1988), spent two
weeks at the site of the tracks investigating, analyzing the tracks, and consulting other experts. He
concluded that the tracks were made by a fifteen-foot-tall penguin.
In 1988, prankster Tony Signorini admitted he and a friend had made the tracks with a pair of cast
iron feet attached to high-top black sneakers. J. Richard Greenwell, discussing the case inThe ISC
Newsletter (Winter 1988), summed the case up this way: “The lesson to be learned within
cryptozoology is, of course, fundamental. Despite careful, detailed analyses by zoologists and
engineers, which provided detailed and sophisticated mechanical and anatomical conclusions
supporting the hypothesis of a real animal, we now see that, not only was the entire episode a hoax, but
that it was perpetrated by relatively amateur, good-natured pranksters, not knowledgeable experts
attempting, through their expertise, to fool zoological authorities.”
The experts, however are only partly to blame for their repeated and premature proclamations of the
authenticity of Bigfoot evidence. After all, other areas of science are not fraught with such deception
and hoaxing; in physics and biology, light waves and protozoa aren't trying to trick their observers.
Even when there is no intentional hoaxing, “experts” have been fooled. In March 1986, Anthony
Wooldridge, an experienced hiker in the Himalayas, saw what he thought was a Yeti (Himalayan
Bigfoot) standing in the snow near a ridge about 500 feet away. He described the figure as having a
head that was “large and squarish,” and the body “seemed to be covered with dark hair.” It didn't move
or make noise, but Wooldridge saw odd tracks in the snow that seemed to lead toward the figure. He
took two photos of the creature, which were later analyzed and shown to be genuine and undoctored.
Many in the Bigfoot community seized upon the Wooldridge photos as clear evidence of a Yeti,
including John Napier. Many suggested that because of his hiking experience it was unlikely
Wooldridge made a mistake. The next year researchers returned to the spot and found that
Wooldridge had simply seen a rock outcropping that looked vertical from his position. Wooldridge
admitted his misidentification (Wooldridge 1987).
Smoke and Fire
Bigfoot researchers readily admit that many sightings are misidentifications of normal animals, while
others are downright hoaxes. Diane Stocking, a curator for the BFRO, concedes that about 70 percent
of sightings turn out to be hoaxes or mistakes (Jasper 2000); Loren Coleman puts the figure even
higher, at at least 80 percent (Klosterman 1999). The remaining sightings, that small portion of reports
that can't be explained away, intrigue researchers and keep the pursuit active. The issue is then
essentially turned into the claim that “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”
But is that really true? Does the dictum genuinely hold that, given the mountains of claims and
evidence, there must be some validity to the claims? I propose not; the evidence suggests that there are
enough sources of error (bad data, flawed methodological assumptions, mistaken identifications, poor
memory recall, hoaxing, etc.) that there does not have to be (nor is likely to be) a hidden creature
lurking amid the unsubstantiated cases.
The claim also has several inherent assumptions, including the notion that the unsolved claims (or
sightings) are qualitatively different from the solved ones. But paranormal research and cryptozoology
are littered with cases that were deemed irrefutable evidence of the paranormal, only to fall apart upon
further investigation or hoaxer confessions. There will always be cases in which there simply is not
enough evidence to prove something one way or the other. To use an analogy borrowed from
investigator Joe Nickell, just because a small percentage of homicides remain unsolved doesn't mean
that we invoke a “homicide gremlin"-appearing out of thin air to take victims’ lives-to explain the
unsolved crimes. It is not that such cases areunexplainable using known science, just that not enough
(naturalistic) information is available to make a final determination.
A lack of information (or negative evidence) cannot be used as positive evidence for a claim. To do so is
to engage in the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: We don't know what left the tracks or what
the witnesses saw, therefore it must have been Bigfoot. Many Bigfoot sightings report “something big,
dark, and hairy.” But Bigfoot is not the only (alleged) creature that matches that vague description.
The Future for Bigfoot
Ultimately, the biggest problem with the argument for the existence of Bigfoot is that no bones or
bodies have been discovered. This is really the 800-pound Bigfoot on the researchers’ backs, and no
matter how they explain away the lack of other types of evidence, the simple fact remains that, unlike
nearly every other serious “scientific” pursuit, they can't point to a live or dead sample of what they're
studying. If the Bigfoot creatures across the United States are really out there, then each passing day
should be one day closer to their discovery. The story we're being asked to believe is that thousands of
giant, hairy, mysterious creatures are constantly eluding capture and discovery and have for a century
or more. At some point, a Bigfoot’s luck must run out: one out of the thousands must wander onto a
freeway and get killed by a car, or get shot by a hunter, or die of natural causes and be discovered by a
hiker. Each passing week and month and year and decade that go by without definite proof of the
existence of Bigfoot make its existence less and less likely.
On the other hand, if Bigfoot is instead a self-perpetuating phenomenon with no genuine creature at
its core, the stories, sightings, and legends will likely continue unabated for centuries. In this case the
believers will have all the evidence they need to keep searching-some of it provided by hoaxers, others
perhaps by honest mistakes, all liberally basted with wishful thinking. Either way it’s a fascinating
topic. If Bigfoot exist, then the mystery will be solved; if they don't exist, the mystery will endure. So
far it has endured for at least half a century.
Notes
1.
The way in which the track was discovered raises questions as well. The expedition log gives an
account of how “[Team member Richard] Noll notices an unusual impression in the transition
mud at the edge of the wallow and suddenly figures out what caused it. [Team members] Fish
and Randles note the shock on Noll’s face and come over to have another look at what he’s
examining. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of
chewed apple core nearby. The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All
conclude the animal was laying on its side at the edge of the mud, reaching out over the soft
mud to grab the fruit” (BFRO 2000). So what you have is a case where a group of people are
looking for evidence of a Bigfoot. One observer believes he sees a pattern fitting what he’s
looking for in ambiguous stimuli (shapes in mud). Once the pattern is pointed out to others,
they also agree that the pattern could match up to parts of a hominid form in a particular
contortion. The rest of the group, who might never have decided on their own that the pattern
fits a Bigfoot, then validate the initial observer’s (possibly unwarranted) conclusion. This
happens all the time, for example when a person recognizes a face or an image in clouds or
stains or tortillas. As psychologists know, observers’ expectations frequently color their
interpretations.
References

Baird, D. 1989. Sasquatch footprints: A proposed method of fabrication. Cryptozoology8: 4346.

Betts, J. 1996. Wanted: Dead or alive. Fortean Times 93: 34-35, December.

BFRO. 2000. Account of the expedition. Bigfoot Field Research Organization. Available
at www.bfro.net.

Big Disagreement Afoot. 2000. Associated Press report on ABCnews.com.

Bord, J., and Colin Bord. 1982. The Bigfoot Casebook. Harrisburg (Pa.): Stackpole Books.

Coleman, L. 1996. Footage furore flares. Fortean Times 91, October.
o
1998. Suits you, sir! Fortean Times 106, January.

Coleman, L., and P. Huyghe. 1999. The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery
Primates Worldwide. New York: Avon Books.

Daegling, D., and D. Schmitt. 1999. Bigfoot’s screen test. Skeptical Inquirer 23(3), May/June:
20-25.

Dennett, M. 1989. Evidence for Bigfoot? An investigation of the Mill Creek 'Sasquatch
Prints.' Skeptical Inquirer 13(3), Spring: 264-272.
o
1994. Bigfoot evidence: Are these tracks real? Skeptical Inquirer 18(5), Fall: 498508.
o
1996. Bigfoot. In Stein, G. (ed.) Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. Buffalo, N.Y.:
Prometheus.
o
2001. Personal communication, May 1.

Fahrenbach, W.H. 1998. Re: Interim statement on the Blue Mountain / Ohio hair. Available at
Bigfoot Field Researcher’s Homepage, www.bfro.net.

Freeland, D., and W. Rowe. 1989. Alleged pore structure in Sasquatch (Bigfoot)
footprints. Skeptical Inquirer 13(3), Spring: 273-276.

Green, J. 1968. On the Track of the Sasquatch. Cheam Publishing Ltd. Agassiz, B.C.
o
2000. Green says Skookum Cast may be proof. In BFRO press release.

Greenwell, J.R. 1988. Florida “Giant Penguin” hoax revealed. The ISC Newsletter. 7(4),
Winter.

Hubbell. J.M. 1999. Bigfoot enthusiasts discredit film. Associated Press report, January 10.

Jasper, D. 2000. Bigfoot strikes again! Weekly Planet October 26-November 1.

Klosterman, C. 1999. Believing in Bigfoot. Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio), March 24.

Krantz, G. 1992. Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry Into the Reality of Sasquatch. Boulder:
Johnson Books.

Napier, J. 1973. Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality. New York: E.P. Dutton
& Co.

Roesch, B. 2001. On the nature of cryptozoology and science. Fortean Times online, March.

Winn, E. 1991. Physical and morphological analysis of samples of fiber purported to be
Sasquatch hair. Cryptozoology 10: 55-65.

Wooldridge, A.B. 1987. The Yeti: A rock after all? Cryptozoology 6: 135.

Zuefle, D. 1999. Tracking Bigfoot on the Internet. Skeptical Inquirer 23(3), May/June: 26-28.
8@347<B631:/AA@==;
BVS1OaS]TbVS1]bbW\UZSg4OW`WSa(3fO[W\SbVS3dWRS\QS
8/;3A@/<2732C1/B7=</:4=C<2/B7=<
/::@756BA@3A3@D32
3F/;7<3B633D723<13
ABC23<B327B7=<
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
BCSJFGPWFSWJFX
*U XBT $ISJTUNBT JO XIFO UIF NPOUIMZ #SJUJTI NBHB[JOF 5IF 4USBOE
QVCMJTIFE BO FYUSBPSEJOBSZ BSUJDMF *U IBE CFFO UIF GJDUJPOBM TUPSJFT PG UIF
XPSMEGBNPVT4JS"SUIVS$POBO%PZMFBOEIJTEFUFDUJWF4IFSMPDL)PMNFTUIBU
IFMQFENBLF5IF 4USBOE .BHB[JOF POFPGUIFNPTUQPQVMBSQVCMJDBUJPOT
BOZXIFSFJOUIF6,5IJTUJNFJUXBTBXPSLPGOPOGJDUJPOCZUIFBVUIPSUIBU
QVUUIFNBHB[JOFJOUIFTQPUMJHIU
A regular contributor to The Strand
the
fairies for
readers to The Strand, this time it was the pictures—two photographs in particular.
appeared to be fairies.
the advancing
because he was convinced that they were real.
organization with an interest in the occult. The group hosted a
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
fairies and believed that these photographs, which
they considered authentic, provided solid visible
evidence in support of their argument.
The photographs immediately became the talk
Others remained unconvinced and saw them as
or not they accepted the images as real, most
were very interested in where the images came
from.
B63'%>6=B=5@/>6A
Where did the pictures come from and when
taken in the summer of 1917—more than three
years before they were presented to the public in
The Strand.
The photographers themselves were
as remarkable as the photographs. The
photographs, apparently showing two young
girls interacting with fairies, were taken by the
and spent much of that summer playing beside
a creek at the bottom of the Yorkshire, England
garden. The girls would often race home with
wild stories of encounters with gnomes and
fairies, both of which they claimed lived along
skeptical of
was a serious amateur photographer. The girls
later, claiming to have taken a photograph of
them. This would be the first of the two images
that inspired the fairy story in The Strand three
and a half years later.
photo in the darkroom he had set up in the family
home. That photo showed Frances behind a bush
on which four fairies appeared to be dancing.
was staying with the family of her 16-year-old
:34B(4@/<13AE7B6B63µ4/7@73A¶
/0=D3(;725?C/@B3@>:/B31/;3@/
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
!
and had some knowledge of photographic
image like this.
This time they returned with a photograph of
Elsie sitting on the lawn, holding out her hand
to a gnome that appeared to be about a foot tall.
had an avid interest in the supernatural, and as part
of her religion, Theosophy
was beginning to believe that the photographs
with her to a lecture on fairy life. The
photographs came to the attention of that
display them at an annual conference on the topic
of the pictures and began promoting them as
evidence that fairies were real. They were soon
The Strand, and he wrote to Elsie and her father
magazine article. Arthur Wright was willing
to allow their use, but only without payment
because he was concerned that people might
think the girls were motivated by money to fake
the pictures.
The photos were immediately shown to physicist
he did not say outright that he thought they were
fairies might actually be a troupe of dancers. This
show movement in all the fairy figures, and there
is no trace whatever of studio work involving card
or paper models, dark backgrounds, painted
While he never specifically stated that the images
fakery. This was an important endorsement for
talk of the spiritualist
around the world.
opinion, so they turned to the leading film and
not the result of trickery.
reviewed the prints and concluded that the
"
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
and certify the photos as authentic. They also
said that they could reliably produce such a
picture themselves with their knowledge and
produce convincing fake images, but what
about two children?
the photographs was far beyond that of two
schoolgirls, and made this their primary defense
to critics. They failed to note that Elsie had
authenticity was to provide two cameras and 24
to see whether or not the girls could produce
more photographs.
Frances was invited to stay with the Wright family
during the school summer holiday so that she and
Elsie could try to take more pictures of fairies.
The girls returned to the creek and snapped
several photographs, two of which depicted
very familiar with both camera and darkroom
and offering Elsie a flower. Two days later, the
girls took their third and last picture of this new
that two validated the photographs as real and
one did not.
B63' >6=B=5@/>6A
At this point, they carefully packed up the camera
and the fragile glass plate negatives and shipped
were only able to take three pictures because
later found to be false, after a review of weather
living with her parents by then, and not with
thrilled with the pictures produced by the girls.
him that he remained certain the pictures were
faked and believed they were produced with
of skeptics who thought the fairies looked two-
²'SBODFTBOEUIF
-FBQJOH'BJSZ³
the girls had produced three new photographs.
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
#
²'BJSJFTBOE5IFJS
4VO#BUI³
clairvoyant
the cameras and went into the garden. With
any fairies, and returned without taking a single
pictures, which are confirmatory of our published
results. When our fairies are admitted other
psychic phenomena will find a more ready
acceptance . . . We have had continued messages
at séances for some time that a visible sign was
The critics remained skeptical and pointed
out many problems with the photos. They said
the figures looked flat, and as if they were
made of paper. They wondered why Frances
was not looking directly at the fairies in the
the clothing worn by the fairies, which was
suspiciously consistent with the latest fashions
of the time. Their arguments were often overbest-known writer. For the rest of his life, he
remained firm in his opinion that the photographs
were authentic.
and other photographic supplies. With him
ASK . . .
Do you think that Gardner and Conan Doyle
were completely “open-minded” in their
investigation of the photos?
B637<D3AB75/B7=<A
substantial in the months immediately following
Elsie and Frances also began to tire of what
married and left England, and it seemed as if
solid conclusions had been reached about the
authenticity of the then-famous photographs.
That changed in 1966 with the first of several
serious investigations of the affair. A reporter
from the Daily Express newspaper tracked down
$
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
Elsie, who by then had returned to England. What
ASK . . .
the pictures and created even more confusion.
What evidence would you need in order
to be convinced that the fairies in the
photographs were genuine?
to be suggesting that the camera was able
to photograph her mind—a claim at least as
and Frances were interviewed for Yorkshire
Television in 1976, and again made statements
that suggested the fairies were not real.
While there had been several journalistic
of the affair. That changed when James Randi
not a scientist, but an accomplished magician
and investigator of the paranormal with special
skills in identifying deception. While Randi
convincingly showed there had been at least one
double-exposure, that one was likely an accident.
British Journal
of Photography
used by the girls and published his findings in
a series of technical articles. The results of his
investigation demonstrated what he had long
suspected; the cameras were incapable of taking
photos as sharp as those published. The only
There was no longer any significant doubt that
the truth about the matter, he was sympathetic
promoted the pictures as real evidence for the
Princess Mary’s Gift Book, was likely the source
same year that the girls took their first photos.
The Strand.
fairies from the photographs with those from the
but the poses are unmistakably the same.
*/)*4#00,'-*.'-".8)*$)*/1"35%&4$3*#&45)*4*/7&45*("5*0/3"/%*&91-"*/4
5)&$055*/(-&:'"*3*&4
²5IF $PUUJOHMFZ 'BJSJFT XFSF TJNQMF GBLFT NBEF CZ UXP MJUUMF HJSMT BT B QSBOL JO UIF CFHJOOJOH 0OMZ
XIFO TVQQPTFEMZ XJTFS QFSTPOT EJTDPWFSFE UIFN XFSF UIFZ FMFWBUFE UP UIF TUBUVT PG NJSBDMFT BOE
UIFHJSMTXFSFDBVHIUVQJOBOFWFSFTDBMBUJOHTJUVBUJPOUIBUUIFZXBOUFEPVUPGCVUDPVMEOPUFTDBQF
8IFO BTLFE UP SFQFBU UIF QFSGPSNBODF UIFZ EJE TP VOEFS QSFTTVSF QSPCBCMZ CZ UIFO FOKPZJOH UIF
IPBYTPNFXIBU5PEBZUIFZGJOEJUJNQPTTJCMFUPUFMMUIFTBNFTUPSZUIFZEJETPNFZFBSTBHPQSFGFSSJOH
UP CPVODF UIF CBMM BSPVOE B CJU XJUIPVU DPNNJUUJOH UIFNTFMWFT FJUIFS XBZ 5IBU &MTJF JT TQBSJOH UIF
SFQVUBUJPOPG'SBODFTJTPCWJPVTGPS'SBODFTJTOPXFNQMPZFEJOBQPTJUJPOUIBUTIFNJHIUXFMMMPTFJGUIF
USVUIXFSFLOPXOGPSTVSF³
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
5IFJMMVTUSBUJPOGSPN1SJODFTT
.BSZµT(JGU#PPLTFFNTUPIBWF
CFFOUIFJOTQJSBUJPOGPSUIFGBJSJFT
DSFBUFECZ&MTJFBOE'SBODFT"U
SJHIUJTUIFPSJHJOBMJMMVTUSBUJPOBOE
BCPWFUIFGBJSJFTBSFDPOUSBTUFE
XJUIUIFJSQIPUPHSBQIJDUXJOT
0OQBHFMFGU
JTBQIPUPPG
4JS"SUIVS$POBO%PZMFXJUIBO
²FDUPQMBTNJDTQJSJU³UBLFOJO
%
&
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
5IJTDMPTFVQJNBHFPGUIFGBJSJFTBMMPXTGPSGVSUIFSJOWFTUJHBUJPO*NBHJOF
ZPVIBWFOFWFSTFFOB²QIPUPTIPQQFE³JNBHFCFGPSF8IBUEPZPVUIJOLJT
DPOWJODJOHBCPVUUIFNBOEXIBUNBLFTZPVEPVCUUIFJSBVUIFOUJDJUZ
JODMPTJOH
B63/2;7AA7=<
until their deaths, and neither stopped defending the authenticity
The story briefly reemerged into popular culture in 1997 with the
release of a movie version of the events, called Fairytale: A True Story.
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
'
UPUIFSFBEFS
*IBEGSFRVFOUDPNNVOJDBUJPOXJUI&MTJFGPSTFWFSBMZFBST
CFGPSF TIF QBTTFE BXBZ 4IF BMXBZT KPLFE XJUI NF CVU
OFWFSBDUVBMMZBENJUUFEUIBUUIFGBJSJFTXFSFKVTUBHBNF
TIF BOE 'SBODJT QMBZFE XJUI UIF SFTU PG UIF XPSME 5PEBZ
QFPQMFLOPXNVDINPSFBCPVUQIPUPHSBQIZCVUZFBST
BHP NPTU QFPQMF XFSF NZTUJGJFE CZ JU 4JS "SUIVS $POBO
%PZMF DFSUBJOMZ TIPVME IBWF CFFO TNBSU FOPVHI UP TPMWF
UIF IPBY CVU IF XBOUFE UP CFMJFWF JO HIPTUT TQJSJUT BOE
SBUIFSTJMMZUIJOHTPGUIBUTPSUTPIFEFDJEFEUIBUUXPMJUUMF
!
HJSMTDPVMEOµUIBWFEBSFEUPEFDFJWFIJN
be more...
James Randi
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
FYQMPSFGVSUIFSIPBYFT
B
C
D
E
F
G
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
USZUIJT
1.
software than it was for Elsie and Frances?
HMPTTBSZ
Double-Exposure
than once, usually combining multiple images
Clairvoyant
Evidence
Fairies
humans in
Gnomes
Paranormal
Skeptical
Spiritualist
separate spirit world and are capable of communicating with the living. This supposed communication
Supernatural
Theosophy
relationship between the spirit and physical matter, and still has followers today.
B631=BB7<5:3G4/7@73A
GVSUIFSSFBEJOH
7<>@7<B
Skeptical Inquirer.
The Coming of the Fairies
Fairies: The Cottingley Photographs and Their Sequel. The Theosophical
Science: Good, Bad and Bogus.
Fakers, Forgers & Phoneys,
An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural.
Flim-Flam!.
=<B63E30
The Case of the Cottingley Fairies by James Randi.
http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/movie.html
The Coming of the Fairies
http://www.archive.org/details/comingoffairies00doylrich
The Debunking of Three Hoaxes by James Opie.
http://www.rugreview.com/orr/132hoax.htm
Pranks, Frauds, and Hoaxes from Around the World
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/fraudsprankshoaxes.html
The Internet Encyclopedia of Hoaxes
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/hoax.html
The Skeptic’s Dictionary
http://www.skepdic.com/
EJTDVTTJPORVFTUJPOT
fewer? Why?
10/22/12
Condon Report, Photographic Case Studies: Cases 46 - 59
Case 46
McMinnville, Oregon
11 May 1950
Investigator: Hartmann
BACK to Chapter 3
PLATES for this Case
NCAS Editors' Note: The text of this case includes parenthesized numbers that
appear to be numbered references. Unfortunately, there is no list of references for
this case.
Abstract:
Witness I reportedly saw a metallic-looking, disk-shaped UPO. She called her
husband, they located their camera, and he took photographs of the object before it
disappeared in the distance.
Background:
Time: 7:45 p.m. PST (1,2); 7:30 p.m. (3).
Position: Approx. 10 mi. SW of McMinnville, Ore. on the farm of the witnesses: 123
19' 50" W, 45 06' 15" N (7).
Terrain: Rolling farm country, elv. 210 ft.; houses several hundred meters apart (7).
Weather Conditions: Dull with an overcast at about 5,000 ft. (2, confirmed by the
photos).
Sighting, General Information:
The sighting occurred in the back yard of a farm about 0.2 mi. S of the "Salmon River
f iles.ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm
1/15
10/22/12
Highway" (U.S. 99W (7). Witness was feeding rabbits in the back yard, S of the
house and E of the garage when the object was first sighted (1,2,3,6), apparently
toward the NE (6). Witness II was apparently in the house at this moment, as three of
the accounts (2,3,6) refer to Witness I calling to him and running into the house to
fetch him from the kitchen, although one account (1) states that they had "been out in
the back yard," and "both... saw it at the same time."
As far as Witness I could remember 17 yr. later (6), the rabbits gave no indication of
disturbance.
[[607]]
Immediately after they both saw the object, apparently as it was still in a NE
direction, moving slowly toward the W (6), they thought of their camera (1,2,3,6).
Witness II ran to the car, thinking it was there, but Witness I remembered it was in the
house and brought it (1,6). Witness II took the camera, which was already loaded.
The roll of film had been purchased during the winter and already had two or three
shots on it (4).
At this time "the object was coming in toward us and seemed to be tipped up a little
bit. It was very bright -- almost silvery -- and there was no noise or smoke" (1).
Witness II explained that he took the first picture, re-wound his film as fast as
possible and then as the object gathered speed and turned toward the northwest, he
had to move rapidly to his right to get the second picture. Both were snapped within
thirty seconds, he estimated (1). According to another early reference: "[Witness II]
elaborated, 'There wasn't any flame and it was moving fairly slow. Then I snapped
the first picture. It moved a little to the left and I moved to the right to take another
picture.'" (3). Plates 23 and 24 show the two photographs in the sequence taken.
During this interval the object was moving quite slowly, apparently almost hovering,
and it apparently shifted both its position and orientation in a complex way, changing
direction and tipping just before it moved away, as indicated in Plate 25 (2,6).
However, Witness I described it as "not undulating or rotating, just 'sort of gliding'"
(2). The UFO accelerated slowly during or just after the second photograph and
moved away rapidly toward the west (2) . Witness I ran into the house to call her
mother-in-law, got no answer, and returned outside just in time to see the UFO 'dimly
vanishing toward the west' (2).
2/15
10/22/12
Investigation:
The witnesses described the object as "very bright - almost silvery" (1); "brightly
metallic, silver or aluminum colored, with a touch of bronze...appeared to have a sort
of superstructure... 'like
[[608]]
a good-sized parachute canopy without the strings, only silvery- bright mixed with
bronze'" (2); silvery on top but with more bronze on the bottom, the bottom being
different (but, this being seventeen years later, Witness I was unsure whether it was
darker)...shiny but not as bright as a hub cap...resembling a dull, aluminum-painted
tank (which Witness I pointed out to the writer in our interview)... "awful pretty" (6).
The rather bright, aluminum-like, but not specular, reflecting surface appears, to be
confirmed by analysis of the photos (see below). There was no noise, visible exhaust,
flames, or smoke (1,3,6).
When the object tipped up, exposing its under side to the witnesses, they felt a gust of
wind which they thought may have come from the UFO. "'...there was a breeze as it
went overhead... which died down later'" (2). In the interview with the writer,
Witness I stressed this, remarking the wind was "about to knock you over," though
Witness II (interviewed separately) remarked that it made only a "very little" breeze
as it was getting ready to fly off (6).
As to size, speed, and distance, the witnesses were reluctant to hazard a guess (1,2),
as Witness II had no way of knowing its size (2), although one of the references
quotes Witness II as estimating a diameter of "20 or 30 ft." (3), and Witness I
compared its appearance (though not explicitly its size) to a parachute canopy (2,6).
As to the origin of the UFO, Witness II remarked both at the time and in 1967 that he
thought it was a secret U.S. craft (1). "'...you hear so much about those things...1 didn't
believe all that talk about flying saucers before, but now I have an idea the Army
knows what they are'" (3).
Witness II recalls finishing his roll of film on Mother's Day (4) and had it developed
locally (1). Witness II mentioned his observation and showed the pictures to a few
friends. He did not seek publicity about the pictures, admitting that he was "'kind of
[[609]]
3/15
10/22/12
scared of it'" (2,3), and "afraid they would get in trouble with the 'government' and be
bothered by the publicity" (2). However, McMinnville Telephone Register reporter
Bill Powell learned of the sighting from two McMinnville bankers, Ralph and Frank
Wortman, and followed up the story (1,2). He found the negatives "on the floor under
a davenport where the Witnesses' children had been playing with them" (2). The
Telephone Register broke the story Thursday, 8 June 1950 with a front page article
containing the two pictures and Editor's Note:
"...in view of the variety of opinion and reports attendant to the saucers
over the past two years, every effort has been made to check Trent's photos
for authenticity. Expert photographers declared there has been no tampering
with the negatives. [The] original photos were developed by a local firm.
After careful consideration, there appears to be no possibility of hoax or
hallucination connected with the pictures. Therefore the Telephone
Register believes them authentic..." (1).
Various McMinnville residents, including the bankers Wortman, offered to sign
affidavits vouching unreservedly for the reputation and veracity of the witnesses
(1,2,4).
On Friday and Saturday, 9 and 10 June, the Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles
newspapers carried the story (2,3). Life magazine carried the pictures the following
week (4). The witnesses accepted an invitation to appear on a television program
"We the People," in New York (6). Witness I remarked that they were encouraged by
the people responsible for this show to make statements they (the Witnesses)
regarded as inaccurate. The witnesses, however, did not make such statements, but
told only what they saw (6).
While in New York, the witnesses were to receive their negatives from Life
magazine, but were informed that the negatives were temporarily misplaced (6). Life
promised to return them by mail to
[[610]]
Oregon, but apparently never recovered them (6). With the cooperation of Life the
Colorado project discovered that in 1950 the negatives had been in the possession of
4/15
10/22/12
International News Photo Service later merged with United Press International. The
Project located the original negatives and was permitted to examine them.
As mentioned above, various reputable individuals volunteered to attest to the
witnesses' veracity. They appear to be sincere, though not highly educated or
experienced observers. During the writer's interview with them, they were friendly
and quite unconcerned about the sighting. Witness II was at work plowing his field
and did not even get off his tractor. From interviews throughout this district one
gained the impression that these were very industrious farm people, not given to
unusual pranks.
Two inferences appear to be justified: 1) It is difficult to see any prior motivation for
a fabrication of such a story, although after the fact, the witnesses did profit to the
extent of a trip to New York; 2) it is unexpected that in this distinctly rural
atmosphere, in 1950, one would encounter a fabrication involving sophisticated trick
photography (e.g. a carefully retouched print). The witnesses also appear unaffected
now by the incident, receiving only occasional inquiries (6).
The over-all appearance of the photographs, in particular the slightly underexposed
land foreground and properly exposed sky, is consistent with the reported time 7:30
PST (sunset being roughly a few minutes after 7:15, and twilight lasting until after
8:45). There could be a possible discrepancy in view of the fact that the UFO, the
telephone pole, possibly the garage at the left, and especially the distant house gables
(left of the distant barn) are illuminated from the right, or east. The house, in
particular, appears to have a shadow under its roof that would suggest a daylit photo,
and combined with the eastward incidence, one could argue that the photos were
taken on a dull, sunlit day at, say, 10 a.m.
[[611]]
But accepting the UFO makes scarcely less sense than arguing that the witnesses
staged a hoax at 10 a.m. and then claimed the photographs were taken at 7:30.
Densitometry of the original negatives shows that the sky itself is brighter toward the
west, as expected. It seems posslble that, half an hour after sunset, the cloud
distribution could result in a dull illumination preferentially from the NE (certainly
there will be skylight from above).
Reality of physical object. As stated previously, it is unlikely that a sophisticated
"optical fabrication" was performed. The negatives had not been tampered with.
5/15
10/22/12
Further, a geometric test was performed to determine whether the object shown in
Plate 24 in approximate cross section was the same object photographed in Plate 23
at a different angle. The apparent inclination, i, can be determined from the ratio of
the axes of the apparent ellipse in Plate 23.
i = b/a
(2)
Measures on several copies of photo 1 (the UPI print, an enlargement thereof, and
two magazine reproductions) gave sin i = 0.368, and
i = 21°.6 ± 0°.1 (est. P.E.).
(3)
Plate 26 shows enlargements from UPI print with lines of sight superimposed on the
Plate 24 "cross section" at 21°.6. The way in which these lines cut the image is in
perfect agreement with the appearance of the object in Plate 23. Judging from the
apparent position of the pole it is likely that the object has simply tipped, without
rotation, between the two photos.
The lighting is also consistent with that in the rest of the photo. Both photographs,
therefore, show real objects and that the object in Plate 23 is a view of the same
object in Plate 24, seen in different perspective.
Asymmetry of UFO. It will be noted in Plate 26 that the UFO is distinctly asymmetric.
The "pole" is off center and inclined, and there appears to be a difference in the
profiles of the right and left sides (Plate 24), the left having a more pronounced notch
defining the flange. The shading of the object also indicates a
[[612]]
more distinct flange on the left in Plate 24. The asymmetries are judged physical, not
optical effects.
Absence of rotation. The top of the "pole," barely visible in photo 1, is off center to
the left by the same amount as in photo 2. This would be rather improbable if the
object were rotating, and supports Witness II's statement that it was not rotating. This
is a rather strong argument against a fabrication using a necessarily (for stability)
spinning model similar to a "frisbee," especially in view of the fact that only 2
exposures were made in the middle of an intact roll of film.
6/15
10/22/12
Angular size of object. From measurements of recent photos (6) the photos were
scaled and the UFO diameters estimated to be:
Plate 23:
Plate 24:
1°.4
1°.3.
The P.E. is probably about 0°.1, but the object subtends a smaller angle in photo 2,
consistent with the allegation that photo 2 was made as the UFO was beginning to
depart.
It follows immediately that the distance-diameter relation is determined, and a man of
the locale (based on ref. 7) is shown in Fig. 1 with the azimuths, angular sizes, and
example, that the object was less than a meter in diameter and over the driveway.
Psychological reaction. I judge it reasonable that as the object allegedly drifted to the
left, in danger of being lost to sight behind the garage, that the observer should step
unconsciously to his right, as the photos show he did, although one might expect the
observer even more reasonably to step forward, to get in front of the garage. The
reason for the first response may have been that the second would put the observer
close to the house, where the object might be lost to sight if it moved back to the east,
while by moving away from the garage, one moves toward the open Yard SE of the
house. In summary, the movement of the observer is consistent with the alleged
observation.
[[613]]
Possibility of fabrication. The above tests all appear to be consistent with the
witnesses' testimony. The possibility of optical fabrication seems remote. A model
thrown into the air by hand appears an unlikely possibility because of the evidence
for absence of rotation.
Another possibility can be considered, however. The object appears beneath a pair of
wires, as is seen in Plates 23 and 24. We may question, therefore, whether it could
have been a model suspended from one of the wires. This possibility is strengthened
by the observation that the object appears beneath roughly the same point in the two
photos, in spite of their having been taken from two positions. This can be determined
from irregularities, or "kinks," in the wires. The wires pass between the camera
positions and the garage (left). We know from the change in orientation of the object
7/15
10/22/12
that it moved, or was re-oriented by hand, between exposures. The possibility that it
is a model hanging beneath a point on the wire suggests a further test: Is the change in
distance of the object in Plates 23 and 24 equal to the change in distance from the
wires? Measures of the disk indicate that it is about 8% further away in Plate 24.
Measures of the irregularities in the wires indicate that they are further away from the
camera in Plate 24. The amount of the latter increase from the wires (measured by the
separation of rather ill-defined "kinks") is less certain than the distance increase from
the disk, but it is measured to be about 10%. These tests do not rule out the possibility
that the object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by an unresolved
thread.
Given the foregoing analysis, one must choose between an asymmetric model
suspended from the overhead wire, and an extraordinary flying object (See Table 1).
Photometric analysis. Although it is often stated that a single photograph of an object
contains no information on the distance, this is not strictly true. Atmospheric
extinction and
[[614]]
scattering, combined, serve to reduce contrast as distance increases, an effect perhaps
best appreciated by artists. The shadowed bottom of the UFO in Plate 23 has a
particularly pale look, suggestive of scattering between observer and object, and if
such scattering is detectable, it may be possible to make some estimate of the distance
involved.
[[615]]
Table 1
Summary of Possible Interpretations
Interpretations
Optical fabrications
Double exposure
Rejected
X
Comments
UFO darker than sky
background
8/15
10/22/12
background
Retouch; drawn image
Multiple copies, recopying
X
(X)
Negatives unretouched
Overly sophisticated
Physical fabrications
"Frisbee"-type model in
flight
X
No rotation
Model suspended from wire
Under same part of wire in
each photo
Extraordinary Flying Object
Photometry suggests large
distance
[[616]]
The luminance, or apparent surface brightness at distance r of an object of intrinsic
luminance Bo (r = 0) is
B = Bsky (1 - e -Beta · r) + Bo e -Beta · r
(4)
where Beta is the scattering coefficient. The first term represents scattered light; the
second, extinction. Since all measures must be based on the witnesses' two
photographs, we will determine Beta for the given day from the photographs
themselves. Normalizing all brightnesses (measured from the film and assuming that
the images measured fall on the linear portion of the gamma curve) to that of the sky
near the horizon, i.e. on a line within a few thousand feet of the ground, where the
UFO is constrained to be by the reported cloud height and probably nearness to the
camera, we have
B = 1 + e -Beta · r (Bo - 1)
(5)
Notice that if an object is sufficiently far away, its brightness equals the sky
brightness (in physical terms, the optical depth T >> 1).
Given the brightness of an object at zero distance, Bo, and the observed brightness B,
one may solve for the distance r. The first necessary step is to determine the
scattering coefficient Beta. The original negatives were subjected to densitometric
9/15
10/22/12
analysis, and Table 2 lists observed values of B. "Hill 2" lies at a distance of about
2.2 km (7). The photometry indicates that B = .685 for the distant hill, but the
foreground foliage gives Bo = .403. This gives
= 0.289 km-1,
or
optical depth T = 1 at r = 3.5 km,
(6)
which appears consistent with the appearance of the photos.
At this point the theory was checked against objects of known distance. For example,
the roof of the distant barn ("B" in Fig. 1 ) has B = .506. If one assumes that its
intrinsic brightness equals that of the foreground garage, then Bo = .495, so that
r = 0.073 km.
[[617]]
Table 2
Values of B for Objects Photographed*
Based on densitometry of original negatives; aperture 75µ x 75µ
Object
UFO "Pole"
Illuminated right side
Illuminated left side
Shaded bottom
Garage roof
Shadows under eaves
Metallic tank:
Illuminated
Shaded bottom
Foreground underbrush
Barn (roof)
Plate 23
1.07
1.29
(1.35)
.675
.489
.396
Plate 24
.86
(.48)
.417
.91
(.40)
.389
.511
.501
1.23
1.05
.501
.426
10/15
10/22/12
Barn (roof)
Hill
1
2
House
Illuminated wall
Shadow
Sky
Upper right
Upper left
Horizon
Unexposed edge of film
.511
.501
.63
.71
.59
.66
(.77)
(.44)
(.77)
(.52)
1.29
1.51
1.00
.32
1.26
1.62
1.00
.34
Measures in parentheses have lower weight
* B values are normalized to horizon sky brightness
[[618]]
The true r is about 0.32 km, and our error is a factor 4. One can resolve the
discrepancy by assuming the barn roof was slightly (7%) darker than the garage roof.
Again, one can check the theory on the distant "Hill 1." B = .610 and Bo = .403 as
measured in the foreground foliage. This gives r = 1.5 km. The true r is in the range
1.3 to 1.9 km, depending on the part of the hill observed, and the error is negligible.
A third check, more comparable to the UFO problem, is the distant house ("H" in Fig.
1 ). Unfortunately the densitometer did not clearly resolve the illuminated white
facade from the intervening branches; however, supplementary measures with
enlargements indicate that the facade brightness should be only slightly more than
1.00, e.g. B = 1.02, and Bo = 1.04, which means that the apparent brightness nearly
equals sky brightness and hence is very insensitive to distance and gives no good
solution. There are shadows visible on the house on the white surface under the
eaves. Measures indicate B = .48. Bo for the shadows on this white surface,
illuminated by the ambient illumination, should be intrinsically measurably brighter
11/15
10/22/12
than the shadows under the dark wooden garage eaves and under the tank beside the
garage (Bo = .41), but not as much brighter as the white illuminated surface is
brighter than the darker wood. (If there were no ambient illumination, all shadows
would be intrinsically black; Bo = 0). An estimated value is Bo = .43. This gives a
distance of r = 0.32 km, only 14% less than the measured distance of 0.37 km. Naive
use of Bo = 0.41, known to he too low, would have given r = 0.44 km, 19% too great.
It is concluded that by careful consideration of the parameters involved in the case of
recognizable objects in the photographs, distances can be measured within a factorfour error. This justifies the assumption that we are on the linear part of the gamma
curve.
[[619]]
Figure 1: Sighting Locale
Click on thumbnail to see full-size image.
[[620]]
If such a good measure could be made for the UFO, we could distinguish between a
distant extraordinary object and a hypothetical small, close model.
At this point we must be explicit about the geometry of the situation. We represent the
environment as in Fig. 2 . We assume that the UFO is within a homogeneous
scattering layer with T = 1 at 3.5 km. If the UFO were far away and at an altitude
greater than the characteristic dimension of the layer (C in Fig. 2), it would be large
12/15
and extraordinary in any case. If it is relatively close, r = 1 km, the assumptions are
justified. Our objective is to distinguish between cases A and B in Fig. 2 . The sky
brightness, to which all the brightness values are normalized, must be the sky
brightness at the horizon, since this is the value characteristic of long path length
through the scattering layer.
For the solution of the UFO distance, we have two independent solutions from two
independent observations: the illuminated and shadowed surfaces of the UFO. As
was remarked above, it is the shadowed surface in particular that looks pale and
hence suggests large distance.
Immediately from Table 2 we see that B = 1.21 describes the part of the UFO, while
the illuminated part of the nearby dull aluminum-painted tank Bo = .885. Since, as the
UFO recedes, B must approach 1.00. We thus know that 1.21 is the minimum intrinsic
brightness of the UFO surface, i.e. Bo>1.21. Thus the UFO in any interpretation is
known to have a brighter surface than the foreground tank. Thus, the photometry at
once confirms the witnesses' report that the UFO was shiny, like a fresh, aluminumpainted surface, but not a specular surface.
The question is, how bright is the surface intrinsically, and what surface properties
would be consistant with both the observed illuminated and shadowed side? Fig. 3
shows two families of solutions, one for the illuminated top surface and one for the
shaded bottom side. Solutions for the latter have
[[621]]
Figure 2: Sighting Geometry
[[622]]
13/15
10/22/12
Figure 3: Brightness/Diameter/Distance Plot
[[623]]
an uncertainty introduced by the difficulty of measuring the true shadow intensity or
the tank. The distance is given as a function of the assumed increase in brightness
over the value for the illuminated or shaded side of the aluminum-painted tank,
respectively.
Fig. 3 graphically illustrates the problem. For example, if the object is a model
suspended from the wire only a few meters away, its surface is some 37% brighter
than that of the tank, and the shaded side is probably more than 40% brighter than the
shadow on the tank. But this is nearly impossible to maintain in the face of the
photometry. Although the distant house's surface is roughly twice as bright as the
tank's surface, its shadows can be only a few percent brighter, intrinsically, than those
on the tank. This is basically the problem that was suggested by initial inspection of
the photos: the shadowed side of the UFO appears to be so bright that it suggests
significant scattering between it and the observer.
The upshot is that if the top and bottom surfaces of the UFO are made out of
essentially the same material, i.e. with the same albedo, the photometry indicates that
the UFO is distant, at roughly r = 1.3 ± 0.4 km (est. P. E.). The witnesses referred to a
slightly different hue of the bottom side of the UFO: they said it was more bronze than
the silvery top side. We have assumed this change in tint had negligible effect on the
photometry, although the implication is that the bottom has slightly lower albedo. If so
the UFO would be still more distant.
There is one last possibility for fabrication which has not been ruled out. Suppose the
14/15
10/22/12
object is a small model with a pale grey top and a bright white bottom (e.g. an
aluminum pie pan sealed on the bottom with white paper). Could this account for the
apparent lightness of the bottom, shaded side of the UFO?
It is difficult to defend this idea in the face of the photometry. Our analysis of the
house indicated that its shaded white surface had an intrinsic brightness of 0.43,
which is very
[[624]]
close to the value measured for the shaded part of the aluminum-painted tank. Yet
hypothetical fabrication requires a surface on the shaded bottom of the model that is
of intrinsic shaded brightness 0.68, considerably brighter than the shaded part of the
white house. In other words, the photometry appears to indicate that a very white
surface on the bottom of a small model would be required to match the appearance of
the photographs.
To the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable, (and the measurements appear
to be consistent), the photographs indicate an object with a bright shiny surface at
considerable distance and on the order of tens of meters in diameter. While it would
be exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a fabrication, it appears
significant that the simplest, most direct interpretation of the photographs confirms
precisely what the witnesses said they saw. Yet, the fact that the object appears
beneath the same part of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument
favoring a suspended model.
Conclusion:
This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric,
psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an
extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter,
and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses. It cannot be said that the
evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some physical factors
such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of the original negatives which
argue against a fabrication.
[[625]]
15/15
N'T Tell
10/24/12
You About His Investisation of the Famous McMinnville/Trent UFO-…
What Bruce Maccabee DOESN'T Tell You About His Investigation of
the Famous
McMinnville/Trent UFO-Photo Case
by Philip J. Klass
(Copyright © 1995 by Philip J. Klass - Web Version Published by Author’s Permission)
The most extensive investigation into the classic McMinnville, Ore., UFO-photo case of
1950 was conducted by Bruce Maccabee during the late 1970s and early 1980s's. A very
detailed report on Maccabee's findings were contained in a 46-page single-spaced
typewritten report in June, 1982, and six-page addendum dated May 1984. Maccabee's
paper, titled "The McMinnville Photos," was included in "The Spectrum of UFO
Research, published in 1988 by the Hynek Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).
Maccabee admitted that his time-consuming efforts to analyze the photos to determine if
they were authentic were "not completely definitive." Maccabee conceded that
"argument over the truth" of the account of the incident told by Mr./Mrs. Paul Trent
"must be based in large part on their own testimony given to reporters, investigators
and friends over the years." Maccabee admits that different versions of the incident
were reported in the McMinnville Telephone Register, The Portland Oregonian and
elsewhere, but he characterizes these as "slight differences." Maccabee opts not to
provide examples or these "slight differences."
Telephone Register, June 8, 1950 [quoting Evelyn Trent]: "We'd been out in the
back yard. both of us saw the object at the same time. The camera! Paul thought it
was in the car but I was sure it was in the house. I was right—and the Kodak was
loaded with film...." [Emphasis added.]
The Oregonian, June 10, 1950 [Partially based on recorded interview with Lou
Gillette of station KMCM]: "She [Mrs. Trent] said she was the first to see it. She
was out feeding the rabbits in the yard alongside the garage....She yelled to her
husband then ran into the house to fetch him." [Emphasis added.]
Maccabee offers the following explanations for such discrepancies:
"Two people never give completely identical reports of the same event." [Emphasis
added.]
debunker.com/texts/BSMtrentPJK.html
1/5
N'T Tell
10/24/12
"...reporters usually do not report exactly what they ore told by a witness. Even
quoted statements are not always correct. A reporter reports his interpretations of
what the witness has said interpretations which might nor accurately portray what
the witness was trying to describe." [Emphasis added.]
"A newspaper story is usually edited to make it read smoothly and to fit within a
certain space. This editing may further change the report by leaving out or
modifying the statements by the witness."
IN VIEW OF THIS BROAD-BRUSH CRITICISM OF TIIE ACCURACY OF
REPORTERS, ONE SHOULD EXPECT THAT MACCABEE WOULD
ACCURATELY QUOTE WHAT HE WAS TOLD DURING HIS TAPERECORDED TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH MRS. TRENT.
In Maccabee's paper, under the heading of "On the Possibility of Other Witnesses," he
cites a brief story in Life magazine in June, 1950, which said: "None of Trent's neighbors
saw (the) saucer." And he admits that none of the contemporary media accounts reported
any other witnesses. The first mention of any other witnesses did not come until 19 years
later when Paul Trent was being interviewed by (the late) James E. McDonald who asked
if there had been any other witnesses. Paul Trent responded that his father had also seen
the UFO. (Trent's father and mother lived about 450 ft. west.) When McDonald expressed
an interest in talking to Trent's father, he was informed that he was now deceased.
In Maccabee's paper he reports: "Mrs. Trent told me that she thought her mother-inlaw might also have seen it." [Emphasis added.]
Following are excerpts from transcripts of Maccabee's telephone interviews with Mrs.
Trent in the mid-1970s, which he provided me as part of our data exchange on the
McMinnville case:
Feb 3, 1974: Maccabee asked Mrs. Trent: "Did you ever hear of anybody else seeing
anything like what you saw..." Mrs. Trent replied: "Well, I don't know. There have been
several of them that have seen different lights and things like that."
April 15, 1975: Maccabee asked Mrs. Trent: "Do you know if anybody else saw the some
object- -the same thing at the same time you did?" Mrs. Trent replied: "Gosh, I don't
know...people were talking about it."
Feb. 22. 1976: When Maccabee--in response to my suggestion--once again asked if there
had been any other witnesses to the original incident, he got quite a different answer. Mrs.
Trent responded: "Well, the people that saw it, they're both dead." When Maccabee
asked who these two witnesses were, Mrs. Trent identified them as her husband's father
2/5
and mother. Mrs. Trent went on to say that there was still another witness "a
neighbor that lived about a mile away....She saw the same object what (sic) I did." But
Mrs. Trent quickly added that this other witness, a Mrs. Chaplin, also was deceased.
When Maccabee asked Mrs. Trent how she had first learned of Mrs. Chaplin's UFO
sighting, Mrs. Trent replied: "Word got back to me through Mrs. Worth." Mrs. Trent
explained to Maccabee that Mrs. Worth had learned of Mrs. Chaplin's sighting indirectly
through a mutual friend. But a few minutes later, Mrs. Trent changed her story and
said she had learned of Mrs. Chaplin's sighting directly from her: "She come up to me
one time in church after the service was over and she said 'you know that object...that
you guys saw and took a photo of, I think I saw the same object that same day."
Maccabee expressed an interest in talking to Mrs. Worth and asked if Mrs. Trent
could provide him with her telephone number. Mrs. Trent agreed to "try to get in
touch with her, but she usually gets in touch with me instead of me with her."
During Maccabee's March 9. 1976, telephone interview with Mrs. Trent, he asked if
she had been Able to obtain Mrs. Worth's telephone number. Mrs. Trent replied:
"She has moved since the last lime she called here...Her sister- -I got ahold of her- and she said she would try to find the address for me so I could write to her [Mrs.
Worth]. But she didn't know....She said she's been moved for about a month....So I don't
know her new address or anything yet." Later in the Interview, Maccabee asked: "How
was it that Mrs. Worth found out about it [Trent's UFO sighting]?" Mrs. Trent replied:
"She read it in the papers.. .then she said she'd seen something that looked like what we
were talking about."
Maccabee, understandably; was surprised that Mrs. Trent seemed to he claiming
that Mrs. Worth also had seen the same UFO, so he asked: "Mrs. Worth said she had
seen something?" Mrs. Trent replied: "Said she had seen things like it too but not that
close. But she thought that she had probably seen something that looked like it--same
time..."
Clearly Mrs. Worth was an important person for Maccabee to interview and so when
be next talked with Mrs. Trent on May 29, 1976, he again asked if she had been able
to locate Mrs. Worth via her sister in McMinnville. Mrs. Trent responded: "She [Mrs.
Worth's sister] was gone. She was gone to her sister- -out of state. " Maccabee said: "I
hope you will try to get in contact with Mrs. Worth when she [sister] comes back so
that I could try to call her up if she's got a phone." Mrs. Trent replied: "Yeah, I’ll try to
find out if she has one or not...They’ve moved two times since they lived here" (Yet only
two months earlier. on March 9. Mrs. Trent told Maccabee that Mrs. Worth had moved
out of McMinnville a month earlier.)
3/5
N'T Tell
10/24/12
Eight months would pass before Maccabee again called Mrs. Trent. on Jan. 31, 1977.
CURIOUSLY, HE DID NOT ASK IF MRS. TRENT HAD BEEN ABLE TO
LOCATE MRS. WORTH, AND MRS. TRENT DID NOT MENTION THE
MATTER.
More than five years later, on Sept. 6, 1982, during a telephone conversation with
Maccabee I asked if Mrs. Trent had ever been able to locate Mrs. Worth- -the last
living witness who might corroborate Mrs. Trent's story. Maccabee told me that he
had not talked with Trent in more than five years. I urged Maccabee to call Mrs.
Trent to try to locate Mrs. Worth before the 'Grim Reaper' robbed UFOlogy of this
important (alleged) witness.
But it would be three months before Maccabee got around to calling Mrs. Trent on
Dec. 9, 1982. When Maccabee asked about Mrs. Worth, Mrs. Trent responded that,
alas, Mrs. Worth (like all the other alleged witnesses) had also died—about a year
and a half earlier.
How sad that Maccabee was too busy writing his lengthy report on his investigation
into the Trent/McMinnville UFO photo case--a report which omits most of the
insightful details of his telephone interviews with Mrs. Trent which are highlighted
above.
In Maccabee's report, he said that he decided to evaluate Mrs. Trent's truthfulness
by means of Voice Stress Analysis (VSA). He submitted one of the tapes of his
telephone interview with Mrs. Trent to two VSA analysts. One VSA analyst
concluded: "that the statements given by Mrs. Trent to the interviewer on this tape ore
true to the best o/ her knowledge." A second VSA analyst concluded that "there was
little or no detectable stress in Mrs. Trent's voice when she answered questions about
the sighting, about other alleged witnesses, and about other subjects."
Philip J. Klass, Washington DC
Nov. 26, 1995
Back to The
Trent UFO Photos
The UFO Skeptic's Page
4/5
N'T Tell
10/24/12
5/5
The Chiles-Whitted Case
Montgomery, Alabama
July 24, 1948
Douglas Commercial DC-3
Dr. James E. McDonald:
Another one of the famous airline sightings of earlier years is the Chiles-Whitted
Eastern Airlines case (Refs. 3, 5, G , 10, 23, 24, 25, 26). An Eastern DC-3, en route
from Houston to Atlanta, was flying at an altitude of about 5,000 ft.. near
Montgomery at 2 :45 a.m. The pilot, Capt. Clarence S. Chiles, and the co-pilot, John
B. Whitted, both of whom now fly jets for Eastern, were experienced fliers (for
example, Chiles then had 8500 hours in the air, and both had wartime military flying
duty behind them.). I interviewed both Chiles and Whitted earlier this year to
crosscheck the many points of interests in this case. Space precludes a full account of
all relevant details.
Chiles pointed out to me that they first saw the object coming out of a distant squall
line area which they were just reconnoitering. At first, they thought it was a jet, whose
exhaust was somehow accounting for the advancing glow that had first caught their
eyes. Coming almost directly at them at nearly their flight altitude, it passed off their
starboard wing at a distance on which the two men could not closely agree: one felt it
was under 1000 ft., the other put it at several times that. But both agreed, then and in
my 1968 interview, that the object was some kind of vehicle. They saw no wings or
empennage, but both were struck by a pair of rows of windows or some apparent
openings from which there came a bright glow "like burning magnesium." The object
had a pointed "nose", and from the nose to the rear along its underside there was a
bluish glow. Out of the rear end came an orange-red exhaust or wake that extended
back by about the same distance as the object's length. The two men agreed that its
size approximated that of a B-29, though perhaps twice as thick. Their uncertainty as
to true distance, of course, renders this only a rough impression. There is uncertainty
in the record, and in their respective recollections, as to whether their DC-3 was
rocked by something like a wake. Perception of such an effect would have been
masked by Chiles' spontaneous reaction of turning the DC-3 off to the left as the
object came in on their right. Both saw it pass aft of them and do an abrupt pullup; but only Whitted, on the right side, saw the terminal phase in which the object
disappeared after a short but fast vertical ascent. By "disappeared", Whitted made
clear to me that he meant just that; earlier interrogations evidently construed this to
mean "disappeared aloft" or into the broken cloud deck that lay above them. Whitted
said that was not so; the object vanished instantaneously after its sharp pull-up. (This
is not an isolated instance of abrupt disappearance. Obviously I cannot account for
such cases.)
Discussion. This case has been the subject of much comment over the years, and
rightly so. Menzel (Ref. 24) first proposed that this was a "mirage", but gave no basis
for such an unreasonable interpretation. The large azimuth-change of the pilots' line of
sight, the lack of any obvious light source to provide a basis for the rather detailed
structure of what was seen, the sharp pull-up, and the high flight altitude involved all
argue quite strongly against such a casual disposition of the case. In his second book,
Menzel (Ref. 25) shifts to the explanation that they had obviously seen a meteor. A
horizontally-moving fireball under a cloud-deck, at 5000 ft., exhibiting two rows of
lights construed by experienced pilots as ports, and finally executing a most nonballistic 90-degree sharp pull-up, is a strange fireball indeed. Menzels 1963
explanation is even more objectionable, in that he implies, via a page of sidediscussion, that the Eastern pilots had seen a fireball from the Delta Aquarid meteor
stream. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Ref. 2), the radiant of that stream was well
over 90-degrees away from the origin point of the unknown object. Also, bright
fireballs are, with only rare exceptions, not typical of meteor streams. The official
explanation was shifted recently from "Unidentified" to "Meteor", following
publication of Menzel's 1963 discussion (see Ref. 20, p.88).
Wingless, cigar-shaped or "rocket-shaped" objects, some emitting glowing wakes,
have been reported by other witnesses. Thus, Air Force Capt. Jack Puckett, flying near
4000 ft. over Tampa in a C-47 on August 1, 1946 (Ref. 10, p.23), described seeing "a
long, cylindrical shape approximately twice the size of a B-29 with luminous
portholes", from the aft end of which there came a stream of fire as it flew near his
aircraft. Puckett states that he, his copilot, Lt. H. F. Glass, and the flight engineer also
saw it as it came in to within an estimated 1000 yards before veering off. Another
somewhat similar airborne sighting, made in January 22, 1956 by TWA Flight
Engineer Robert Mueller at night over New Orleans, is on record (Ref. 27). Still
another similar sighting is the AAL case cited below (Sperry case). Again, over Truk
Is., in the Pacific, a Feb. 6, 1953, mid-day sighting by a weather officer involved a
bullet-shaped object without wings or tail (Ref. 7, Rept. No.10). Finally, within an
hour's time of the Chiles-Whitted sighting, Air Force ground personnel at Robins
AFB, Georgia, saw a rocket-like object shoot overhead in a westerly direction (Refs.
3, 5, 10, 6). In none of these instances does a meteorological or astronomical
explanation suffice to explain the sightings.
Source: Dr. James E. McDonald, Prepared Statement on Unidentified Flying
Objects, Page 42-43, Hearings, 1968.
Contra Chiles Whitted
From The Condon Report Chapter 2 Processes of Perception, Conception, and Reporting
William K. Hartmann
6. Additional Remarks on Percepts and Concepts
The "airship effect" and "excitedness effect" apply to the Eastern Airlines case of
1948 (better known as the Chiles-Whitted case). This will serve as an example of the
difficulties of establishing any concrete evidence for "flying saucers" when one is
forced to distinguish percepts and concepts of a few witnesses in older cases.
[[962]]
Briefly, pilot Chiles and co-pilot Whitted reported flashing by them in a few seconds a
"wingless aircraft with no fins or protruding surfaces, [which] was cigar-shaped, about
100 ft. long, and about twice the diameter of a B-29 Superfortress. It seemed to have
two rows of windows through which glowed a very bright light, brilliant as a
magnesium flare. An intense dark-blue glow like a blue fluorescent factory light
shown at the bottom along the entire length, and red-orange flames shot out from the
rear to a distance of some fifty feet" (Menzel, 1963).
This case has been one of the mainstays in the arguments for "flying saucers" and
NICAP has described it as the "classic" cigar-shaped object (Hall, 1964). Hynek, as
consultant to the Air Force, and Menzel and Boyd account for it as a fireball (Menzel,
1963).
The present discussion provides definitive evidence that fireballs can be described in
just the way reported by Chiles and Whitted. The investigator is faced with the
perfectly conceivable possibility that Chiles and Whitted, suffering from the "airship
effect," became excited and reported a misconception - a cigar-shaped object with
windows and flames - just as a fraction of witnesses to spectacular fireballs are now
known to do.
A second example from my own experience illustrates the difficulties of transforming
perceptions into conceptions (and explanations). During the course of the Colorado
project investigation, I was sitting in the left side of an airliner, just behind the wing.
As I looked out over patchy clouds, I saw an object apparently passing us in the
distance, flying the other way. It came out from under our wing, not far below the
horizon, and drifted slowly behind us until, because of the window geometry, I could
no longer see far enough behind to observe it. It moved like a distant airliner, but was
a grey, ill-defined disk, with major axis about a third of the apparent size of the moon.
It was darker than the clouds, but lighter than the ground. It appeared to be a diskshaped, nebulous "aircraft," flying smoothly in an orientation parallel to the ground.
[[963]]
I was sufficiently shaken by this to pull out some paper and begin making copious
notes. During this operation I glanced out again and this time saw clearly a distant
airliner, slightly above the horizon this time, but moving in the same way. There was
no question that this was an airliner, for in spite of its having the same angular size as
the disk, I could clearly see its wings and tail. Just then, the pilot banked to the right,
raising the left wing, and suddenly the distant plane became a grey, nebulous disk. It
had passed behind the distorting exhaust stream of the jet engine, which was
suspended and obscured under the wing. The first disk, or plane, had flown directly
behind this stream, whose presence had slipped my mind.
In summary, an investigator of UFOs is in effect asking for all the records of strange
things seen, and he must be sober in recognizing the tremendous variety of sources of
distortion and misconception. Each case of misconception may involve its own
processes of error, but perhaps common to all such cases is an easy tendency to "fix"
on an early conception of a percept, by a process that is analogous to that of the
"staircase" optical illusion in which one conceives of the staircase as being seen either
from "above" or "below". Another example is the common difficulty in looking at
aerial photographs. One may conceive of the relief as being seen either "positive" or
"negative." Once the conception occurs it is difficult to dispel it. If you see a star at
night from an airplane but conceive of it as an object pacing the aircraft at only 300
yd. distance, it is easy to retain this conception. As R. V. Jones (1968) has pointed out
(reviewing his wartime intelligence investigative experience in the context of the UFO
problem), "witnesses were generally right when they said that something had
happened at a particular place, although they could be wildly wrong about what had
happened." (WKH emphasis).
THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT
CASE HISTORIES
1986: JAPAN AIRLINES 747 OVER ALASKA
Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 was near the end of the Iceland-to-Anchorage leg of its flight from
Paris to Tokyo with a cargo of wine, when its flight crew saw and tracked three unidentified
objects. On the night of November 17, 1986, the sighting of at least one of the UFOs was initially
confirmed by FAA and U.S. military ground radar.
According to Captain Kenju Terauchi, First Officer Takanori Tamefuji and Flight Engineer Yoshio
Tsukuda, two small lights and one huge lighted object were in sight on their radar for more than a
half hour. They watched as they flew 350 miles (550 km.) southward across Alaska from Ft. Yukon
toward Anchorage.
Drawings by Captain Terauchi and the crew of JAL flight 1628 of the UFOs they
observed over Alaska in November 1986. Courtesy of FAA.
Captain Terauchi, a veteran of 29 years flying, said "It was a very big one--two times bigger than
an aircraft carrier." (see drawing above) He changed altitude and made turns, with FAA
permission, in an effort to identify the objects which continued to follow him. He said the objects
moved quickly and stopped suddenly. At one time, the light from the large object was so bright that
it lit the airplane's cockpit and Captain Terauchi said he could feel heat from it on his face. He
75
added that he had been watching the UFO for six minutes before notifying anyone on the ground;
this would make the start of the sighting about 6:13 p.m.
The FAA at first confirmed the claims that several of its radar traffic controllers tracked the 747 and
the large object, and that U.S. Air Force radar did as well. Later official statements hedged on this,
and tried to ascribe the radar targets to weather effects. At the end, however, an FAA spokesman
stated, "We are accepting the descriptions of the crew, but are unable to support what they
saw."119
The summary of the communication between JAL Captain Terauchi and ground controllers was
published by the Federal Aviation Administration:
"6:19 p.m. local time - The pilot of JL1628 requested traffic information from the
ZAN (FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center, Anchorage) Sector 15 controller.
"6:26 p.m. - ZAN contacted the Military Regional Operations Control Center
(ROCC), and asked if they were receiving any radar returns near the position of
JL1628. The ROCC advised that they were receiving a primary radar return in
JL1628's 10 o'clock (left-front) position at 8 miles [13 km.].
"6:27 p.m. - The ROCC contacted ZAN to advise they were no longer receiving
any radar returns in the vicinity of JL1628.
"6:31 p.m. - JL1628 advised that the 'plane' was 'quite big,' at which time the ZAN
controller approved any course deviations needed to avoid the traffic.
"6:32 p.m. - JL1628 requested and received a descent from FL350 to FL310 (flight
level 350 and 310, meaning altitude of 35,000 and 31,000 feet, or 10,500 m. and
9,500 m.). When asked if the traffic was descending also, the pilot stated it was
descending 'in formation.'
"6:35 p.m. - JL1628 requested and received a heading change to two one zero
(210 degrees, or southwest). The aircraft was now in the vicinity of Fairbanks and
ZAN contacted Fairbanks Approach Control asking if they had any radar returns
near JL1628's position. The Fairbanks Controller advised they did not.
"6:36 p.m. - JL1628 was issued a 360 degree turn and asked to inform ZAN if the
traffic stayed with them.
"6:38 p.m. - The ROCC called ZAN advising they had confirmed a 'flight of two' in
JL1628's position. They advised they had some 'other equipment watching this,'
and one was a primary target only.
"6:39 p.m. - JL1628 told ZAN they no longer had the traffic in sight.
"6:42 p.m. - The ROCC advised it looked as though the traffic had dropped back
and to the right of JL1628, however, they were no longer tracking it.
"6:44 pm.. - JL1628 advised the traffic was now at 9 o'clock (left).
"6:45 p.m. - ZAN issued a 10 degree turn to a northbound United Airlines flight,
after pilot concurrence, in an attempt to confirm the traffic.
"6:48 p.m. - JL1628 told ZAN the traffic was now at 7 o'clock (left rear), 8 miles [13
km.].
76
"6:50 p.m. - The northbound United flight advised they had the Japan Airlines
flight in sight, against a light background, and could not see any other traffic.
"6:53 p.m. - JL1628 advised that they no longer had contact with the traffic."120
Official statements became increasingly negative as the days passed, casting doubt on the radar
confirmation of the visual observations. But at a press conference held by the FAA on March 5,
spokesman Paul Steucke stated: "As far as we know, the whole crew are people of integrity and
did report what they saw accurately." 121
The JAL case was analyzed by optical physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee, who divided it into four
phases. In the first phase, Captain Terauchi saw some distant lights below and to his left, which
seemed to pace the 747. Terauchi initially thought they were military aircraft, but was told by the
Control Center that there was no traffic in the area. The second phase was the multiple-witness
sighting by the whole crew when the lights moved abruptly in front of the aircraft. Maccabee wrote:
"The multiple-witness sighting of the arrays of lights seems inexplicable. The
sighting cannot have been a hallucination by the whole crew. The lights could not
have been stars or planets. These stars and planets were visible before the 'ships'
appeared in front of the plane and were still visible after the 'ships' had moved
away. There is no natural phenomenon that can account for the rectangular
arrangement of lights in horizontal rows, for the occasional sparking, for the
vertical rectangular dark space between the rows, for the reorientation of the pairs
of arrays from one above the other to one beside the other, for the heat which the
captain felt on his face, and so on."122
The third phase occurred as the "ships" receded and could only be seen as "two dim, pale, white
lights," but an echo was picked up by the aircraft on-board radar. While Maccabee concedes that
the echo could have been caused by "a temporary (self-repairing) failure" (as suggested by the
FAA), he added that "it seems much more likely that there was some object out there."
The last phase is perhaps the most controversial one, as Captain Terauchi was the only witness of
the so-called giant spaceship "two times bigger than an aircraft carrier." Maccabee conceded:
"It seems at least plausible that he may have misinterpreted oddly lighted clouds
which the crew had reported to be below the aircraft. Although the several ground
radar returns behind the jet were intriguing, the failure of the radar to show a
continuous track of some unknown primary target makes the radar confirmation
ambiguous at best. Therefore it seems that, at the very least, the last portion of
the sighting is not so convincing as the earlier portions.
"Even if one arbitrarily ignores that latter part of the 'Fantastic Flight of JAL1628'
one is still left with an intriguing sighting of the two 'ships' which paced the aircraft.
It seems, then, that the JAL1628 was accompanied during part of its flight by at
least two TRUFOS (True UFOs)."123
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
119. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) report, December 29, 1986.
120. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), "Chronological Summary of the Alleged Aircraft
77
Sightings by Japan Airlines Flight 1628, January 6, 1987.
121. Statement by FAA Regional Director, Paul Steucke, at March 5, 1987, press conference in
Anchorage, Alaska. See Anchorage Daily News, March 6, 1987.
122. Maccabee, Bruce, "The Fantastic Flight of JAL1628", International UFO Reporter, Vol. 12,
No. 2, CUFOS, March/April 1987.
123. Ibid.
78
Compiled by Instructor…
The Kelly Johnson UFO Incident
On December 16, Johnson and his wife Althea were visiting their Lindero Ranch near Agoura,
California, which was situated on a hillside facing the coast not far from Pt Mugu Naval Air
Station, an aircraft and missile test facility. At about 5 PM Johnson was looking through a
window at the brilliant sunset when he noticed a dark elliptical shape in the sky in the direction
of Pt Mugu cape. His first thought was that it was a lenticular cloud, or possibly a smoke trail
from an aircraft, but it remained stationary and unchanged for several minutes. He called for
Althea to bring him his 8-power binoculars and ran outside. By that time the object had begun to
move, accelerating away from him in a shallow climb in a direction opposite to the motion of the
other clouds in the sky. It seemed to be very large and distant, and moving fast, but he had no
real way of knowing its actual size, distance or speed.
At the same time, coincidentally, a Lockheed airplane was in the air on a test flight along the
Los Angeles coastline. Constellation airframe 4301 was the prototype for a Navy Airborne Early
Warning (AEW) aircraft, the WV-2 Warning Star. The WV-2 was a large four-engine transport
equipped with huge blisters housing radar antennas (a search radar unit in the belly and a
height-finder in a dorsal fairing), and was designed to fly very long standing patrols far off the
coasts of North America to provide long-range detection of incoming Soviet bombers.
Constellation 4301 was the first of a long line of Navy WV-2s and Air Force EC-121s that would
provide a vital part of the North American air defense network throughout the 1950s and '60s.
WV-2 airframe number 4301,
USN serial number 126521, the
aircraft involved in the UFO
incident
At the controls of the Warning Star were Rudy Thoren and Roy Wimmer, both highly
experienced senior test pilots in the Constellation program, assisted by Joseph F. Ware, Jr,
another longtime Lockheed engineering test pilot.[3] Also in the cockpit were Charlie Grugan,
another veteran company pilot, and Lockheed's Chief Aerodynamicist, Philip A Colman. It was
customary for Lockheed engineers to ride aboard their planes during test flights, and Johnson
himself often did so. (There are no indications that the elaborate radar systems, which required
a crew of at least a dozen men, were active during the flight.)
Philip Colman, Roy Wimmer, Lockheed flight test crew including Johnson and Wimmer
(second from right and right)
Thoren had been recruited by Johnson from their alma mater, the aeronautical engineering
school at University of Michigan, and had been Chief of Flight Test for Lockheed since 1946, in
charge of all the company's test pilots. Colman was a Cal Tech graduate who had made
valuable contributions to the P-38 program, and who would soon be tasked by Johnson with
designing the wings for the new CL-282 recon plane. All of the crewmen were top
representatives of their fields, having flown for the company for years in development programs
of a variety of sophisticated aircraft.
The exact purpose of the test flight is not detailed in the sighting reports, but such flights
typically involved calibration of airspeed vs engine power settings at various altitudes, and
therefore the crewmen were very conscious of the height of the aircraft. Altitude recording
instruments were carried on board.
Though Wimmer was technically the pilot in command, he had turned the controls over to
Thoren and was maintaining a watch for other air traffic as Thoren conducted his tests. They
had turned from a southeast heading to west, just off the coast of Long Beach, when, at 4:58
PM, Wimmer noticed a dark shape ahead at about their altitude of 14,000 feet. After watching it
for a few moments and noting that it was not moving, he jokingly pointed it out to Thoren, saying
"Look out, there's a flying saucer." Thoren turned the WV-2 a bit to the right to head toward the
object. The other men saw the object too and watched it for a few minutes with a growing sense
of curiosity. It appeared to be a very large aircraft of some type, but as it remained stationary
and unchanged in shape over at least a five minute period, they became more and more
intrigued. Thoren finally diverted from his course and headed directly at it. They flew toward it at
about 225 mph for some time without appearing to gain on it at all. Then Wimmer, who was less
occupied with piloting tasks and was able to keep a constant watch on the object, commented
that it seemed to be disappearing. Within a few moments it appeared to head west directly away
from them at high speed, remaining dark and solid-looking the entire time as it dwindled to a tiny
dot. They all felt that it was a large object at a considerable distance, and compared its size to
the largest types of transport or bomber aircraft. The men later reported that they thought little
more of the incident at the time due to their preoccupation with completing the test mission, but
Thoren was intrigued enough that upon returning home that evening he told his family about the
sighting and sketched the object.
The following day, Kelly Johnson had returned to work and was discussing the WV-2 test flight
with Thoren, who was still ruminating on the incident. A bit worried that Johnson would ridicule
him, the pilot casually mentioned the sighting. Thoren was surprised when Johnson excitedly
interrupted him and described his own sighting in detail. Both concluded that all the witnesses
had been viewing the same object at the same time. Over the course of the next few weeks
each of the pilots wrote a detailed personal account of the case, probably at Johnson's urging,
and the Chief Engineer, in his typical meticulous style, assembled them into a file (Lockheed file
LAC/149536) and drafted a personal cover letter addressed to the "Air Force Investigation
Group on Flying Saucers" at Wright Field. Then, tough and combative as he was, Johnson
hesitated to send the report. After all, he was hoping to get a foot in the door of the Air Force's
new covert strategic reconnaissance aircraft competition and was very concerned that a UFO
report might jeopardize his credibility. He may have sought the advice of his friend, Lt General
Donald Putt.
General Putt's Involvement
ARDC commander Putt, who had the responsibility for reviewing and approving new Air Force
reconnaissance projects like Johnson's CL-282, had also had a long, if intermittent, association
with the UFO problem. A former test pilot with a solid Cal Tech engineering background, Putt
was one of the stars of the Air Force, having risen to prominence as project officer for the B-29
bomber during WWII. Closely allied with Theodore von Karman's Scientific Advisory Board (he
would be its military supervisor for several years), Putt had helped make science and advanced
technology the backbone of the emerging air service. He had been commander of T-2 Air
Intelligence during a crucial period following the end of hostilities in Europe and had been a
strong backer of Operation Paperclip, the transfer of German aeronautical scientists to Wright
Field. A widely-respected, politically savvy officer, Putt showed little evidence of the antipathy to
UFOs that many other Air Force generals exhibited. In December 1948 Project RAND missile
expert James Lipp had written a paper at Putt's request that examined the possibility that UFOs
were extraterrestrial spacecraft that used propulsion principles comparable to known or
foreseeable rocket technology. (The fascinating paper was published as an appendix to the final
report of Project SIGN.)
Just months before the Lockheed UFO incident, Putt and twenty-five USAF scientists and
officials had visited the plant of Avro Aircraft Limited in Toronto, Canada, where he had seen a
full-scale engineering mockup of an advanced, supersonic saucer-like aircraft, "Project Y," that
had been conceived by a group of ex-British engineers.
Avro Project Y mockup
He was impressed enough by the design that ARDC would begin to fund its development within
the year. The Project Y vehicle was a virtual replica of Kenneth Arnold's initial June 1947
sketches of a "spade-shaped" UFO, probably because the Avro craft's chief designer was an
avid collector of UFO data and considered Arnold's report to be reliable. The Project Y machine,
which had been under development since the fall of 1951, was somewhat similar to Nathan
Price's 1952-3 concept, and like the Lockheed saucer was intended to be able to take off
vertically, hover in midair, and climb to extreme altitudes at incredible speeds. It seems likely
that Lockheed, having originated one of the most sophisticated saucer-like aircraft concepts to
date, would have been aware of the the Avro design prior to the UFO incident.
In any case, Putt's visit to Avro was no secret. It was featured prominently in US newspapers,
particularly in the New York Times. In two articles, one in September, at the time of the trip, and
another in early October, the Times discussed Putt's interest in the Avro VTOL disc. Perhaps a
more important indicator of the effect of Putt's Avro visit was Project Blue Book's Report 12,
which was issued about eleven weeks before the Lockheed UFO incident. Report 12 devoted
several pages to a somewhat garbled history of the Avro project and its designer's attempts to
interest the US in the concept. The report noted that the Avro engineers believed that the
Soviets were responsible for many UFO reports, and that Red saucers were being launched
from submarines off the North American coasts on surreptitious overflights of the US. Avro,
Report 12 said, wanted to install their saucer in submarines too.
Oddly enough, an article touting Putt's positive comments about the Avro saucer appeared in
the December 16 edition of the magazine "People Today" -- the very day of the Lockheed
sighting.
Putt clearly made his views on the Avro saucer known within the Air Force as well. On
December 29, Maj Gen John Samford, Air Force Director of Intelligence,memoed Col George L
Wertenbaker, ATIC chief, on the Avro program.
It is my understanding that you are continuing an active interest in the 'Flying Saucer' being
developed by the Canadians. Also, you may have knowledge of General Putt's reaction to their
program from his recent trip to that country. I would appreciate your analysis of this Canadian
program. There is also an interest from both the possibility standpoint, and the time factor
required by a foreign country to achieve results in this field. If you so desire, we might be able
through our contacts with the Canadians here, to arrange ATIC representation during this
development, or phases thereof.
Kelly Johnson had close personal and professional ties with Putt and officers like him, and it's
likely that some time in early 1954 the two discussed the UFO sighting. Putt also received a
copy of the formal Lockheed sighting report from the company via some unnamed intermediary.
The general understood Johnson's concerns about the credibility problems a UFO report would
cause, and forwarded the file to Col George Wertenbaker at the Air Technical Intelligence
Center at Wright-Patterson AFB in mid-February with personal cover letter.
"This report was handed to me by Lockheed personnel," Putt informed Wertenbaker,
with the explanation that Mr. Johnson was most reluctant to write the report in the first place and
then refused to forward it on to you because of his belief that those who profess to have seen
flying saucers are not usually considered to be logical and practical hard-headed engineers.
However, I thought you should have the report for whatever value it may be in your overall
studies.
Putt's intervention would seem to have guaranteed that the incident would be taken seriously.
Nevertheless, the eventual official Blue Book evaluation was that the object was just a lenticular
cloud.
The Case File and Its Implications
Although the sighting was not highly dramatic in comparison to many UFO reports, what makes
it particularly unusual - and scientifically useful - is that it was a long-duration daylight sighting of
an object seen by two independent groups of observers. Moreover, these groups - one
stationary and one moving - were separated by very long baselines in both horizontal and
vertical planes, facilitating triangulation of the object's position. One group even had the
advantage of using optical instruments to view the UFO. Unlike many sensationalized UFO
events, these observations were recorded in a calm, professional manner by the witnesses
themselves while the details were still fresh in their minds. No media attention was sought or
desired. And most importantly, the integrity and competence of this particular group of
observers is almost unquestionable. A more qualified set of eyewitnesses would be hard to
imagine.
Because of their precise observations and careful documentation of the incident, a great deal of
information can be extracted from the account. Available weather data makes it clear that Blue
Book's rubber-stamp identification of the object as a lenticular cloud is untenable...and therefore
the object's identity is still a mystery.
There was no question in about this in Kelly Johnson’s view. He was absolutely certain that it
was no cloud, aircraft or other mundane object.
The case file reveals a multitude of intriguing threads, including references to prior sightings by
several of the engineers. Johnson furnished two signed sketches with his report. One showed
the December 1953 object, a simple flattened ellipse, but the second, dated "about November
1951," shows a strange object resembling a rounded, sweptback flying wing aircraft. In his
written account, Johnson elaborates:
I should also state that about two years ago Mrs. Johnson and I saw an object which I believed
at the time, and still do, to be a saucer, flying west of Brents Junction, California, on a very dark
night. I did not see the object itself but saw a clearly defined flame or emanation, as shown on
the attached sketch. This object was travelling from east to west at a very high speed and with
no noise. The flame or emanation was a beautiful light blue, having extremely well defined
edges. My first impression was that it was an afterburning airplane, but the lack of noise and the
pure spread of the flame eliminated that possibility completely.
(Brents Junction is a small town just east of Johnson's Agoura ranch.)
Roy Wimmer mentioned in his report that he had seen mysterious lights over Santa Catalina
Island sometime in 1951 or 1952 during a flight in Constellation 1961S, the original prototype of
the Constellation line.
Joseph Ware reported that he had previously visited a group of UFO enthusiasts at Giant Rock.
While he does not specify the group by name, it seems clear that this is a reference to
contactee George Van Tassel and his followers. Van Tassel had been a mechanic for Howard
Hughes, who was, via his airline TWA, the original customer for the Constellation airliner. Van
Tassel had later worked directly for Lockheed on the Constellation program and it's almost a
given that the Constellation test crew on board the WV-2 during the sighting would have known
him.
For better or worse, Lockheed's contactees lurk in the background of the Johnson sighting. The
likelihood is high that Johnson at least would have been aware of Van Tassel's beliefs and
activities, and probably considered that ridicule aimed at the Giant Rock group could easily have
spilled over onto his own sighting and onto the Skunk Works itself. This may explain the fact
that his sighting report file was held back from ATIC and only reached Putt through a "back
channel."
The most fascinating single point in the file is its clarification of Kelly Johnson's opinions on
UFOs. Far from sharing the skeptical attidude that Hall Hibbard displayed in 1947, Johnson
reveals himself to be committed to UFO reality:
I should state that for at least five years I have definitely believed in the possibility that flying
saucers exist - this in spite of a good deal of kidding from my technical associates. Having seen
this particular object on December 16th, I am now more firmly convinced than ever that such
devices exist, and I have some highly technical converts in this belief as of that date.
What happened circa 1948 to make Johnson a believer? Was he given intelligence briefings
that convinced him? Had he spoken to reliable pilots who had had persuasive sightings? Had he
heard of Project SIGN's legendary Estimate of the Situation that concluded that flying discs
were extraterrestrial? Had CIA's Phil Strong used Johnson as an unofficial consultant or
sounding board on UFO-related issues? [4] Since he felt that it was important to document the
sighting and ultimately forward a report to the Air Force (in spite of any embarrassment it might
cause himself or Lockheed), Johnson obviously was aware of the existence of an Air Force
UFO investigation project, but he clearly was not intimately familiar with it, since his report is
generically addressed to an "Air Force Investigating Group on Flying Saucers," rather than to
Project Blue Book by name.
It is worth noting that Johnson does not specifically state that he believed in the extraterrestrial
origin of these "devices." But
it seems clear that he regarded them as vehicles of some type, and certainly their performance
was beyond that of any known or
foreseeable manmade craft - even Avro's or Lockheed's own super-saucer concept.
Another unanswered question is what effect that Johnson's sighting may have had on his peers
in the military and the intelligence community. Given Johnson's stature, such a report must have
given the most UFO-phobic skeptics pause, and in fact there are indications that Johnson made
many of his closer associates aware of the incident over the years.
Notes
[1] The Lockheed case came to my attention through a reference in Mike Hall's and Wendy Connors'
book "Summer of the Saucers." Hall and Connors, in turn, had learned of it from one of veteran UFO
historian Loren Gross's invaluable monographs. I was intrigued by the unusual sketch of the UFO that
accompanied the report and was curious as to which Lockheed engineer was responsible. The HallConnors version of the story was drawn from the "sanitized" Blue Book files released to the public in the
1970s in which the identities of the witnesses had been obscured. Mike Hall kindly provided the Blue
Book microfilm roll containing the file. Mary Castner of CUFOS gave indispensable assistance in this
project, and Brad Sparks's encyclopedic knowledge of the CIA's interaction with UFOs, FOIA releases
and general UFO history led to recovery of unsanitized versions of the Blue Book case file which
contained vital information. This article would not exist without their outstanding cooperation.
[2] Extensive declassified documentation on CIA's interaction with UFOs makes it clear that Phil Strong
was the Agency's point man on the issue as late as 1962. While Pocock states that he considers it
unlikely that Strong was Johnson's source of information concerning the Air Force reconnaissance project
(and other Lockheed officials already knew of it), senior CIA official Robert Amory recalled that this was
the case. In any event, Johnson clearly had close ties with Strong, who was moving in rather interesting
circles. Strong had links with strategic reconnaissance studies such as the 1952 MIT/Lincoln Laboratory
"Beacon Hill" project and the reconnaissance panel of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board. At the same
time, he was involved with CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence UFO research. See
http://www/foia.ucia.gov/
[3] Wimmer and Ware would be crew members on early flights of another famous Lockheed product, the
C-130 Hercules, in 1954.
[4] According to a former senior aerospace management official who knew Johnson, USAF Chief of Staff
General Hoyt Vandenberg had given a briefing to the heads of the major aviation companies circa 1948 in
which he emphasized the Air Force’s continuing concern with UFOs and its ongoing investigation of
reports.
[5] To UFO researchers, who know of tens of thousands of sighting reports, this controversial claim
seems absurd on its face, but it may be a matter of semantics and perspective. Former CIA photoanalyst
Dino Brugioni states that he was one of the liaison points between the U-2 program and Air Force UFO
investigators. Brugioni claimed that airline pilot reports that might have been stimulated by early U-2
development flights in the Nevada area circa 1955-6 were referred to him by certain AQUATONE-cleared
Air Force personnel. He would check flight plans and inform the Air Force investigators of probable "hits."
It appears that from CIA’s point of view, many UFO reports that it learned of via this highly selective
channel were caused by the U-2.
Sources
-, United States Air Force Biography, Lt General Donald Putt,
http://www.af.mil/news/biographies/putt_dl.html
Beschloss, Michael R, Mayday: Eisenhower, Khrushchev and the U-2 Affair. New York: Harper & Row,
1986
Brugioni, Dino, correspondence with author, April 1994
Clark, Jerome, The UFO Encyclopedia, Volume 2 - entries for Angelucci, Orfeo Matthew and Van Tassel,
George W
Dwayne A Day, John Logsdon, and Brian Latell, (eds.), Eye in the Sky: The Story of the Corona Spy
Satellites. Washington, DC: Smithsonian, 1998
Francillon, Rene J, Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1987
- , Lockheed Constellation Military Variants. Wings of Fame, Vol 20
Ginter, Steve, Naval Fighters Number Eight: Lockheed C-121 Constellation. Simi Valley, CA: Naval
Fighters, 1983
Gross, Loren, UFOs: A History, 1953: August-December. Fremont, CA: 1990
Hall, Michael David and Wendy Ann Connors, Captain Edward J Ruppelt: Summer of the Saucers - 1952.
Albuquerque: Rose Press, 2000
Haines, Gerald K, "A Die-Hard Issue: CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-1990."Studies in
Intelligence Vol 0, No 1, 1997 (http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/97unclass/ufo.html)
Johnson, Clarence L, Kelly: More Than My Share Of It All. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press, 1985
Jung, Carl G, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies. Princeton University Press,
1978
McIninch, Thomas P, "The OXCART Story," Studies in Intelligence 15, 1 (Winter 1971)
Miller, Jay, Lockheed's Skunk Works. Arlington, TX: Aerofax, 1993
- , Aerograph 3: Lockheed U-2. Austin, TX: Aerofax, 1983
Pace, Steve, Lockheed Skunk Works. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks, 1992
Pearson, June, "This is a Story About Mr Van Tassel Who Lives in a Rock and Has a Time
Machine." Desert Magazine, March, 1967
Pedlow, Gregory W and Donald E Welzenbach, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead
Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974. Washington, DC: CIA, 1992
Peebles, Curtis, Dark Eagles: A History of Top Secret US Aircraft Programs. Novato, CA: Presidio, 1995
- , Shadow Flights: America's Secret Air War Against The Soviet Union. Novato, CA: Presidio, 2000
Pocock, Chris, The U-2 Spyplane: Toward The Unknown. Atglen, PA: Schiffer, 2000
Polmar, Norman, Spyplane: The U-2 History Declassified. Osceola, WI: MBI, 2001
Rich, Ben and Leo Janos. Skunk Works. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1994
Richelson, Jeffrey T., The Wizards of Langley: Inside the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001
St Peter, James, The History of Gas Turbine Engine Development in the United States...A Tradition of
Excellence. Atlanta, GA: International Gas Turbine Institute of The Society of Mechanical Engineers,
1999
Sloop, John L, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel. Washington, DC: NASA, 1978
Sturm, Thomas A, The USAF Scientific Advisory Board: Its First Twenty Years. Washington, DC: Office of
Air Force History, 1987
Wise, David and Thomas B Ross, The U-2 Affair. New York: Bantam, 1962
Zuk, Bill, Canada's Flying Saucer: The Story of Avro Canada's Secret Projects. Erin, ON: Boston Mills
Press, 2001
ORIGINAL PROJECT BLUE BOOK REPORT
Kelly Johnson Case
=======
15 February 1954
Colonel George L. Wertenbaker
Commander
Air Technical Intelligence Center
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
Dear Colonel Wertenbaker:
I am enclosing a report, prepared by Clarence L. Johnson,
Chief Engineer of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and some of his
associates, regarding a “flying saucer” incident. This report
was handed to me by Lockheed personnel with the explanation that
Mr. Johnson was most reluctant to write the report in the first
place and then refused to forward it on to you because of his
belief that those who profess to have seen flying saucers are not
usually considered to be logical and practical hard-headed
engineers. However, I thought you should have the report for
whatever value it may be in your overall studies.
Best Regards.
Sincerely yours,
D.L. Putt
Lieutenant General, USAF
Commander
1Incl:
Report
=======
January 23 1954
LAC/149536
Subject:
Sighting of Flying Saucer by Certain Lockheed
Aircraft Corporation Personnel
To:
Commander
Air Technical Intelligence Center
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
Through:
AFPR
Enclosure: (a)
Four copies each of reports by C.L. Johnson
R.L. Thoren, R.L. Wimmer, P.A. Colman,
and J.F. Ware on the Sighting of a Flying
Saucer on 16 December 1953.
1.
The enclosure is made up of a number of reports
concerning the sighting of a so called flying saucer on 16 December
1.
The reports are self-explanatory. Only one copy of the map
is attached, indicating generally where this device was seen. This
information has not been released to the press, but is submitted for
such scientific purposes as your group may be concerned with.
2.
Your comments on the sightings reported will
be
very much appreciated.
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
CALIFORNIA DIVISION
(SIGNATURE)
Clarence L. Johnson
Chief Engineer
CLJ:vmp
=======
CALIFORNIA DIVISION
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
December 18, 1953
To:
Air Force Investigating Group on Flying Saucers
On Wednesday, December 16th, 1953, my wife and I went to our
ranch, which is three miles west of Agoura, California, and one mile
north of Ventura Blvd. We arrived there about sundown, which is
close to 4:45 P.M. PST. We went immediately to our ranch house,
which is located on a hill facing southwest.
At approximately 5 o’clock (within two minutes of accuracy), I was looking
at the sunset through a large plateglass window, when I noticed above a
mountain to the west what I first thought to be a black cloud. The sun
had gone down and the whole western sky was gold and red, with several
thin layers of clouds or haze at fairly high altitude. I wondered why this
one object was so dark, considering that the sun was behind it. I
immediately thought that some aircraft had made an intense smoke trail,
so I studied the object closely. It was apparent, after my first few
seconds of consideration, that the outline of the object did not change.
Thinking it was a lenticular cloud, I continued to study it, but it did not
move at all for three minutes. I do not know how long it was there
before my attention was called to it.
When it did not move or disintegrate, I asked my wife to get me our
eight-power binoculars, so I would not have to take my eyes off the object,
which by now I had recognized as a so-called “saucer”. As soon as I
was given the glasses, I ran outside and started to focus the glasses on
the object, which was now moving fast on a heading between 240˚ and 260˚.
When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving
behind the first layer of haze. I gathered its speed was very high, because
of the rate of fore-shortening of its major axis. The object, even in the
glasses, appeared black and distinct, but I could make out no detail,
as I was looking toward the setting sun, which was, of course, below the
horizon at the time.
In 90 seconds from the time it started to move, the object had completely
disappeared, in a long shallow climb on the heading noted. The clouds
were coming onshore, in a direction of travel opposite to that of the
object. The time in which my wife and I studied this object was between
5:00 and 5:05. The object, which had hovered stationary for at least
three minutes, appeared to be very large but, not knowing its distance
from me, I could not estimate its dimensions. At all times the object
appeared as an ellipse, with a finess ratio of the larger axis to the
minor one of about 7 or 10 to 1. I estimated the position of the object to
be roughly over Point Mugu, which lies on a bearing about 255˚ from my
ranch.
On the morning of December 17th, I returned to work, having been absent for
about a week and Mr. Wassell, Assistant Chief Engineer, and Mr. Carl
(page)
Haddon, our Chief Project Engineer, came into my office with Mr. Rudy
Thoren. Mr. Thoren stated that he had seen a flying saucer the day
before. I immediately broke in, without letting him say what time and
where he had seen the object, and described my experience of the night
before. I wanted to do this so that I could get confirmation as to
whether of not he saw the same thing I saw at the time stated. Mr. Thoren
was dumbfounded, and described his experience, along with that of our
engineering test pilot, Mr. Roy Wimmer, flight engineer Joe Ware, and
our chief aerodynamicist, P.A. Colman, all of whom saw the object as
described in Mr. Thoren’s memo.
I should also state that about two years ago Mrs. Johnson and I saw an
object which I believed at the time, and still do, to be a saucer, flying
west of Brents Junction, California, on a very dark night. I did not see
the object itself but saw a clearly defined flame or emanation, as shown on
the attached sketch. This object was travelling from east to west at a
very high speed and with no noise. The flame or emanation was a beautiful
light blue, having extremely well defined edges. My first impression was
that it was an afterburning airplane, but the lack of noise and the pure
spread of the flame eliminated that possibility completely.
I should state that for at least five years I have definitely believed in the
possibility that flying saucers exist - this in spite of a good deal of kidding
from my technical associates. Having seen this particular object on
December 16th, I am now more firmly convinced than ever that such
devices exist, and I have some highly technical converts in this belief
as of that date
(SIGNATURE)
Clarence L. Johnson
Chief Engineer
CLJ:vmp
=======
January 12, 1953
FLYING SAUCER?
On Wednesday, December 16th I made a test flight in Constellation
4301. The crew in the cockpit consisted of myself as pilot, R.L. Thoren
as co-pilot, Charles Grugan, flight engineer, and J.F. Ware as flight test
engineer.
I took off late in the afternoon and ran some tests during the
climb to 5,000 feet and then made a level run for a few minutes.
I then started to climb to 20,000 feet and turned the controls
over to Rudy Thoren. We continued our climb in a south-easterly direction
and somewhere in the vicinity of Long Beach or Santa Ana between 16,000
and 20,000 feet we made a right turn onto a west heading. The sun had just
set but the air was very clear and the light was real good toward the west.
I noticed a cloud layer in the west starting somewhere east of Santa Cruz
island at about our altitude. Above this cloud layer, well out in the clear
air, I saw what I thought was a small cloud. Just for the fun of it I said,
“Boy, look at the flying saucer!”
After watching it for a few minutes we decided that it wasn’t a cloud
but some kind of object. It had a definite shape which appeared to me like
a crescent. Others on board described it as a huge flying wing. I could
not detect any details other than the shape of it. I estimated the distance
from us to be at least fifty or sixty miles and possibly much further. In
the clear air like that it is very hard to judge distance.
We flew directly toward it for about five minutes and our relative
position did not appear to change. I do not recall our exact speed, whether
we were still climbing or whether we had leveled off during the time.
As Rudy was flying the airplane, I had nothing else to do but to
watch the object. After about five minutes I suddenly realized it was moving
away from us heading straight west. In the space of about one minute it grew
smaller and disappeared. I was watching it all the time so I was able to see
it for several seconds after the rest of the crew lost sight of it. Right
up until the time it disappeared it maintained its sharp outline and definite
shape so I know it was not a cloud that dissolved giving the appearance of
moving away.
I might add that I have had considerable experience, while doing
radar bombing on P2V’s, of estimating distance where there is very little
to judge by and I am convinced this was a large object some distance away.
(SIGNATURE)
Roy Wimmer
Engineering Test Pilot
=======
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation
California Division
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
To:
Clarence L. Johnson
From: P.A. Colman
Subject:
Date January 11,1954
Dept. 72-23
Plant A-1 Ext. 8-2189
FLYING SAUCERS
This is an account of my experience of witnessing the presence of an object in
the sky. I was flying in the Lockheed WV-2 airplane with Mr. R.L. Thoren, Mr.
Joseph Ware, Mr. Roy Wimmer plus other members of the Flight Test Group. The
three individuals mentioned and I were in the pilot’s compartment of the airplane,
at approximately 5:00 p.m. on the night of Wednesday, December 16, 1953.
While flying off the coast in the vicinity of Santa Monica, I saw an object apparently standing still in the air off the coast, in the vicinity of Point Mugu.
We were flying at 16,000 ft. and to the best of my judgment the object was at
the same altitude. The object appeared as a thin black line, giving a first reaction of a B-36 type airplane, heading straight toward us and silhouetted against
a bright background. The background was bright due to the fact that the sun was
just setting. The object appeared not to move while we progressed with our tests.
For a few moments we turned the airplane toward the object but did not apparently
change our distance sufficiently to get any change of impression. I estimate that
the object was hovering in out sight for about ten minutes. Thereafter, it suddenly accelerated due west and in a time, in the order of 10 seconds, disappeared
from view.
The following day it was revealed that Mr. Clarence L. Johnson had seen the iden-
tical object while standing on the ground at his ranch. This coincidence is interesting. The difference in the positions, both horizontally and vertically
between us indicate that the object had sufficient depth to eliminate the possibility that it was a cloud phenomena. The similarity of the explanations of the
shape and actions of the object is remarkable. However, the blackness made it
impossible to discern anything but the basic outline.
(SIGNATURE)
P.A. Colman
Chief Aerodynamics Engineer
PAC:ma
=======
12-17-53
FLYING SAUCER?
On Wednesday, December 16, 1953, I participated in a test flight of a Navy
Super Constellation WV-2, taking off at 4:29 p.m.. The flight consisted
of: Roy Wimmer, pilot; myself, co-pilot; Charlie Grugan, flight engineer;
and Joe Ware, flight test engineer. We climbed out towards the ocean and
leveled off at 10,000 feet for a short test. After completing this test,
Wimmer turned the controls over to me and I started climbing to our next test
altitude of 20,000 feet. I climbed through a very thin, scattered overcast,
somewhere around 14,000 feet, avoided a couple of small clouds, and continued
to climb towards 20,000 feet.
Somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 feet, Roy Wimmer said to me, “Look out,
there’s a flying saucer.” I looked out the windshield towards where Roy was
pointing and saw some sort of an object at approximately the altitude that we
were flying. I made a slight turn heading right towards the object, expecting
to overtake it so that we could look at it more closely. I maintained
this heading for roughly five minutes, looking at the object all the time.
Wimmer, Ware and myself viewed this thing for at least five minutes, discussing
what we thought it might be. Wimmer’s first impression was that it was a small
cloud. After studying for several minutes, though, I deduced that it was
not a cloud because it had too definite sharp edges and its appearance stayed
constant. It looked to me like I was flying right directly towards it, and at
about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane. I would estimate at this time that I was somewhere between 17,000 and 18,000 feet.
Although the object appeared to be absolutely stationary, we did not seem to
be closing the gap between us and this object. even though we were flying at
some 225 miles per hour. The object then seemed to be getting smaller, and my
attention was diverted from it for a minute or so, but Wimmer mentioned that
the object was disappearing. In probably an elapsed time of somewhere around
a minute, the object had reduced in size to a mere speck, and then disappeared.
It’s direction was almost due west. At the same time, the sun had gone down below the
horizon but the sky was red, and this object silhouetted perfectly
against this red background. The atmosphere was extremely clear. When I first
sighted the object, I guessed that it was probably seven miles away. However,
looking at it in retrospect, to object must have been considerably larger than
I had estimated and, hence, the distance was probably much greater than I had
also estimated.
Looking back at the flight record taken on this flight, it was recorded that
we leveled off at 20,000 feet at 5:10. Inasmuch as we had sighted this object
when we were somewhere between 16,000 and 18,000 feet, our view of the object
started at roughly 5 o’clock, or just a little before that. We continued with
out test flight, thinking no more of this observation, and landed after 6
o’clock. We discussed other details of the flight and then went home. When
I got home, I described the so-called flying saucer to my family and made a
little sketch of what it looked like to me.
(Page)
Flying Saucer ?
- 2 -
12-17-53
This morning, I reported to work and went directly to see Mr. C.L. Johnson,
Chief Engineer, to give him a report on activities occurring in the last few
days, inasmuch as he had just returned from a trip. In attendance at this
meeting were also Mr. Jack Wassall and Mr. Carl Haddon We discussed a number
of things and, in the course of the conversation, I discussed the flight made
yesterday on this WV-2. Upon completion of the technical discussion, I casually
mentioned (for fear of being ridiculed) that I had been chasing a flying saucer
last night. Kelly snapped this up immediately, and said he knew exactly
where it was and when; and, with no further adieu he sad it was at 5:05
and the object was sighted off of Point Mugu. This literally bowled me over,
because the location of the object that I sighted was off of Point Mugu. I
had estimated that it was somewhere between Point Mugu and the Santa Barbara
Islands. Incidentally, at the time I had sighted it, we were flying over the
ocean just off of Long Beach.
Kelly then related that last night at about 5:05 p.m. he had seen an object
in the western sky and had gotten binoculars and looked at it in detail.
He described it at a wing with an aspect ratio of approximately seven. He said
that it appeared stationary for several minutes, and then heading directly west
it disappeared in one to two minutes, as I recollect his conversation. This
story jibes exactly with what we saw in flight at the same time.
I might mention that I have been very skeptical of flying saucer stories, and
have never even imagined seeing an object in the sky that I was not able to
identify. The three of us who watched it from the airplane are all pilots who
have been flying for many years on experimental test work, and are trained to
have accurate observations. Kelly also has had a lot of experience in flight
test work and has been flying for many years and is also a very trained observer. The fact that what he saw and what we saw appears to be identical, and
the time and place identical, leads me to believe that it was not exactly an
illusion that I observed.
(SIGNATURE)
R.L. Thoren
Chief Flight Test Engineer
=======
L O C K H E E D
To:
C.L. Johnson
cc: Intra-Flight Test Files
A I R C R A F T
C O R P O R A T I O N
CALIFORNIA DIVISION
A.N.V.O.
January 11, 1954
From: J.F. Ware, Jr.
72-28 5-6
8-2950
Subj: FLYING SAUCERS
On December 16, 1953, I was aboard a WV-2 airplane, LAC 4301, with Roy
Wimmer as pilot, Rudy Thoren as Co-Pilot, Charlie Grugan as Flight
Engineer. Phil Colman was also in the cockpit.
At about 5:00 PM we were over the Catalina channel area (between Avalon
and Palos Verdes hills) at 15000-16000 ft., on top of a scattered to
broken overcast. The horizon was well defined by the rays of the setting
sun and the sky above the overcast was clear.
Our attention was drawn to what looked like a large
right. We were roughly paralleling the coast at the
think mentioned, “There’s a flying saucer”. We have
deal about flying saucers since the night about two
and Bob Laird were in 1951S and sighted some lights
lights reportedly stood still for a while and moved
island and finally disappeared.
airplane off to the
time and Roy, I
kidded Roy a good
years ago when he
over Catalina. These
around over the
I was standing between the pilots and observed the object out of the copilots window in the 4301. Phil Colman’s attention was also drawn to the
object. Rudy, who was flying at the time, turned around and headed
toward the object. During this time, it seemed to be stationary, although
we did not appear to overtake it at all. My first thought was that it
was a large airplane, possibly a C-124, but after looking more closely,
it seemed to look more like a large object without wings with a maximum
thickness in the middle tapering toward either side, I could not distinguish
front or rear on the object. It seemed to be somewhat above us and to
the West, over the water, possibly in the vicinity of Santa Barbara Islands.
After looking at the object off and on for about five minutes, it became
apparent that it was moving away from us and in just a minute or two it
completely disappeared. As it was disappearing, I looked at it off and on
and gradually I could not see it at all. Roy watched it continuously and
could see it after I had lost sight of it--he actually observed it continuously I believe. It disappeared in a generally westward direction (toward the
setting sun).
I’ve been interested in flying saucers, particularly ever since one evening
during the 1951 Christmas Holidays. I was putting up a TV antenna on my
roof when I looked up toward the north over the hills behind our home and
saw a large circular object, apparently stationary. The time of day was
abut dusk and I watched the object for several minutes and called Leslie
and a neighbor, Mr. Murphy, who also looked at it. I continued working on
my TV antenna, glancing at the object now and then, with more and more
(PAGE)
FLYING SAUCERS.
1-11-54
Page 2
time between glances, and finally the object was gone.
There is a small airstrip at Giant Rock, and I have visited the group of
people there who have devoted their life to flying saucers. They have
many photographs and books on the subject, and figuratively eat and sleep
saucers.
(SIGNATURE)
J.F. Ware, Jr.
Section Supervisor - Flight Test
JFW:bjr
Handwritten:
I have marked on attached
map my estimate of
our position when we
saw the “saucer” and my
estimate of the position of
the saucer
J.
Not A Ghost!
A Skeptical Eye on the Paranormal
Home
Archiv es
Subscribe
03/20/201 2
The Lockheed UFO Case Revisited
The 1 953 Lockheed UFO case has become a fav orite among UFO enthusiasts. The case was unknown for decades,
hidden in the files of Project Blue Book, but has gained many fans since being championed by sev eral prominent
UFO researchers. Canadian filmmaker, Paul Kimball, featured it in his oft-cited documentary , Best Ev idence:
T op 10 UFO Sightings (it was number fiv e). UFO researchers often refer to the case as a solid ex ample of an
unex plainable UFO ex perience.
A refreshing aspect of the Lockheed case is that it hasn't been tainted by dubious interv iews decades after the
ev ent, like the supposed Roswell Incident, for instance. V irtually ev ery thing known about the sighting is
contained in the Air Force's Project Blue Book file. The entirety of the ev idence consists of only 8 pages of
testimony from the actual witnesses. But as we will see, UFO believ ers can still manage to obscure and confuse
things, ev en when the ev idence is so easily digested.
A quick note: I painstakingly created and maintain a facsimile transcript of the sometimes hard-to-read Blue
Book microfilms and I encourage interested readers to take a look at the ev idence for themselv es. I also
welcome corrections to my transcript.
Download Johnson Case Transcript
Y ou can see the Project Blue Book microfilm record here.
The Case
The main witness in the Lockheed case was someone intimately familiar with
unusual things in the sky , hav ing himself created some legendary and nearmy thical aircraft.
As chief engineer for Lockheed, Clarence “Kelly ” Johnson designed cuttingedge aircraft like the U-2 spy plane and SR-7 1 Blackbird. He was also influential
in the creation of the SkunkWorks, the secret projects div ision of Lockheed.
Johnson certainly qualifies as one of the most famous of UFO witnesses.
On the late afternoon of December 1 6th, 1 953, Johnson, noticed a dark object
in the sky to the west of his ranch near Agoura, California. The object was a
long thin distinct black ellipse with no v isible detail. Johnson v iewed it for a couple of minutes as it seemed to
stand motionless against the brilliant sunset sky . He then sensed that the object was mov ing directly away as it
got smaller and smaller and, after about 90 seconds, disappeared.
If that was the only thing that happened, this surely would hav e been a rather forgettable sighting.
lancemoody.typepad.com/notaghost/
1/31
But the nex t day , Johnson learned something startling. One of the Lockheed test
pilots, Rudy Thoren, began to tell Johnson about his own UFO sighting while fly ing a
Constellation WV -2 on a test run the day before ov er the Santa Barbara channel.
Thoren, was quickly interrupted by Johnson as the chief engineer interjected his
own story and the men decided that they had seen the same thing in the sky : a dark
distinct object against the brilliant sunset that disappeared to the West. The
witnesses in the plane were Roy Wimmer (pilot), Rudy Thoren (co-pilot/Chief Flight
Test Engineer), Phil Colman (Chief Aerody namics Engineer), Joe Ware, Jr. (Flight
Test Superv isor) and Charlie Grugan (Flight Engineer).
Johnson wrote his personal account of the ev ent the nex t day and, ov er the nex t month, four of the fiv e men in
the plane also wrote their own accounts (Grugan did not file one). Despite some reluctance by Johnson, fearing
how fly ing saucer stories might affect his reputation, these accounts were forwarded to the Air Technical
Intelligence Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and ev entually ended up in the Blue Book files.
We don't know what the Air Force did with the case. We
don't know if a full-fledged inv estigation followed or if the
entire thing was ignored. All we hav e is their terse
unadorned conclusion as to what caused the sighting: a
lenticular cloud.
UFO proponents hate this. For them, this conclusion
besmirches the name and talents of Johnson and his team.
Paul Kimball, in a recent interv iew, said, "If these guy s, the
top test pilots and aerody namic engineers and flight
designers of their time, would mistake a lenticular cloud for
a structured aircraft or object of some sort, no reasonable
The Blue Book Conclusion: Lenticular Cloud
or responsible military would continue to employ these
guy s...the military gav e a bogus ex planation." Another UFO site calls the Air Force conclusion a "rubber stamp
ex planation".
My knowledge of lenticular clouds was limited, I don't think I hav e ev er seen one in the sky but I hav e seen many
photos of lenticulars, usually in UFO books. Most UFO authorities agree that lenticular clouds do sometimes
cause UFO reports. But since lenticular formations are relativ ely rare, these mistaken reports must also be
pretty rare. And any way , the photos I had seen of this ty pe of cloud didn't really seem to hav e much in common
with the Lockheed testimony . So I agreed that the cloud ex planation seemed unlikely , especially after seeing the
Best Ev idence presentation of the case, which was faithfully parroted by other UFO web sites.
2/31
I decided to delv e into the actual ev idence, the testimony of the men, and found a disturbing trend. In the v ideo,
it was obv ious that the ev idence was being looked at from one particular perspectiv e, a pro-UFO one, and
ev idence that didn't tend to lead to a UFO conclusion was often being ignored or misinterpreted.
Here's a few of the things I object to in this account:
1 . The film uses a sort of faux -science to suggest that the
location of the object can be accurately "triangulated" by
using the known location of Johnson at his ranch and the
location of the plane. In reality , the testimony does not
allow us to know precisely where the plane was, much less
its v ector to the dark object. The graphic at right shows the
true story of what we can determine from the ev idence
about the location of the object and plane. This is not really
a major point but it does show how UFO researchers
pretend to hav e some degree of precision in order to
The white shaded area defines where the object
bolster their authority .
might hav e been according to Johnson's testimony .
The green and blue lines enclose the area in which
2. The film takes the words of the witnesses literally , when
the plane may hav e been. The red shaded area is
the meaning may hav e been figurativ e. For instance,
where the plane was when the object was first
sev eral of the witnesses describe the object as looking like a
sighted. Image Created by Stray Cat at JREF
fly ing wing headed straight at them, which could
Forums
reasonably be interpreted as a featureless ellipse, much like
Johnson described. Indeed all of the witnesses agree that they could discern no details in the black shape. Notice
how the v ideo takes this description and runs with it, clearly showing a fly ing wing-ty pe aircraft. But now it isn't
fly ing straight at us: we see it in the v ideo from a low-angle. The object stops looking like a fly ing wing and
actually becomes a fly ing wing with details that none of the witnesses ev er reported.
3. One of the most obv ious ex amples of how the v ideo goes for max imum ooga-booga instead of truth is
demonstrated in the descriptions of the "departure" of the object and how long that ev ent lasted. Here is how the
actual witnesses estimated that time:
3/31
"In 90 seconds from the time it started to mov e, the object had completely disappeared." -Johnson
"In the space of about one minute it grew smaller and disappeared." -Wimmer
"In probably an elapsed time of somewhere around a minute, the object had reduced in size to a mere speck
and disappeared." -Thoren
"In just a minute or two it completely disappeared" -Ware
So far so good. The men all seem in agreement of the basic time it took for the object to disappear. Wimmer and
Johnson both v iewed the object almost continuously so their estimates are probably the most important ones.
But now we come to one last estimate:
"...in a time, in the order of 1 0 seconds, [the object] disappeared from v iew." -Colman
Can y ou guess which estimate was used in the film and presented as absolutely precise and enabling them create
to all sorts of other amazing figures like 1 30G acceleration? That's right. They chose the ten second figure! This is
UFO science at its most impressiv e!
A Solution?
One thing that did strike me as I read the accounts is that these men weren't try ing to fabricate any thing. They
seem to be honestly attempting to report what they saw without embellishment.
One of their first guesses as to the nature of the object was that it was a cloud.
"Thinking it was a lenticular cloud, I continued to study it." -Johnson
"I saw what I thought was a small cloud." -Wimmer
After v iewing it for a while, they all decided that it couldn't be a cloud, mainly because its edges were too
distinct. Indeed most of the images I hav e seen of lenticular clouds still look more or less like clouds. So I was
fairly amenable to abandoning the lenticular ex planation.
But then I came across this startling photo:
Photo Courtesy Mark Mey er Photography (photo-mark.com)
This photo, taken in Wy oming, shows a v ery compact lenticular cloud much more like what the men described
seeing in 1 953. Of course, this is still clearly a cloud. But I began to wonder what this cloud might hav e looked
4/31
like from much further away . In the photo abov e, either the
cloud is v ery large or the camera is v ery close to it. It fills a
good portion of our v isual field. This was not the case for
the Lockheed witnesses. Johnson doesn't say how large the
object was in the sky but he strongly implies that it was
rather small, comparing it to an aircraft fly ing near Point
Mugu, some 30 miles away . From my work in v isual effects,
I know that taking an object with fuzzy edges like a cloud
and making it smaller causes the edges to become more
distinct. So I decided to simulate what the same cloud
might hav e looked like from much further away . This is not Johnson's own drawing of the object.
a real photo; it was created as a demonstration using
Photoshop (click on the image for a larger v iew):
This photo has been manipulated in Photoshop for demonstration purposes only .
This is much more like what the men described. The edges of this cloud are now so distinct that it loses it's cloud
properties and just becomes a dark object with no discernible detail. In other words, it looks ex actly like what
was being described by the Lockheed staff. And note that I used the entire real cloud to make this image,
including the wispy tail on the left. But details like the tail disappear as y ou get further away (here simulated by
making the cloud smaller). Another detail that v astly improv es the illusion of a solid object is the silhouette
effect caused by the brilliant sunset, ex actly the same conditions during the Lockheed sighting
"...the sun had gone down below the horizon but the sky was red and this object was perfectly silhouetted
against this red background." -Thoren
So now I began to think that there could be something to the cloud idea but there were still some issues to
consider. Other than its distinctness, what else conv inced the men that they weren't seeing a cloud?
Well, there isn't much. Johnson say s that the fact that it didn't mov e was one factor. This may show that Johnson
wasn't really v ery familiar with lenticulars, which v ery often hang in the sky held motionless by two opposing air
masses until they dissipate.
5/31
Of course, one other part of the account must be addressed: the departure. As I
looked at v ideos of lenticular clouds dissipating, I noticed how, as the clouds
got smaller, there was sometimes the impression that they were mov ing away .
Here is an imperfect demonstration of this principle. I realize that these clouds
don't look that much like saucers but hopefully y ou can get a feeling for the
illusion of motion.
This is part of my working theory of the case: that the departure was actually
the dissipation of the cloud.
The way that the witnesses described the departure certainly fits in with this
theory :
Sequence courtesy Donald
Collins
"the object had reduced in size to a mere speck, and then disappeared." -Thoren
"I suddenly realized it was mov ing away from us heading straight west. In the
space of about one minute it grew smaller and disappeared." -Wimmer
"When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already mov ing behind the first lay er of haze. I
gathered its speed was v ery high, because of the rate of fore-shortening of its major ax is." -Johnson
Johnson also reported that the object took a long shallow climb (this was not reported by the men in the plane,
interestingly ). I am suggesting that this apparent climb is also caused by the dispersing cloud as the top or
bottom disappeared unev enly .
One nagging issue for me was that I honestly had no idea how long it would take for a cloud to dissapate. The
theory requires it to be around a minute. I started work on writing this article without knowing the answer to
this question but I knew that this one issue could inv alidate the whole idea.
Som e Additional Info
Earlier this y ear, Tim Printy , publisher of the skeptical UFO newsletter (SUNlite) pointed out a thread at the
JREF forums discussing this case and I was happy to see that sev eral folks there had independently seized upon
this same scenario. The thread generated much helpful data, including some ev idence from UK forecaster, Nigel
Bolton, that the December 1 6th, 1 953 weather conditions were ripe for the formation of lenticular clouds.
Just a few day s ago I found some amazing lenticular cloud v ideos on Y ouTube that were shot right near the same
locations of the Lockheed case. Here's one taken in Santa Clarita, looking to the west towards Santa Barbara:
6/31
I spoke with Chris, who shot these clouds (and many more, check out his site) and shared the theory with him. I
was delighted with his reply :
Indeed y our theory is quite likely . Lenticulars can form in a nearly limitless v ariety of sizes and shapes.
When y ou add v ariations in lighting (sun angles, etc.) and point of v iew, many v isual effects are possible.
A cloud which is forming or dissipating more-or-less ov erhead would be difficult to mistake for solid object
mov ing towards or away from the v iewer. Howev er, when Lenticulars are at a distance, they would be
much closer to the horizon and v iewed on edge. A well-formed saucer-shaped cloud could look quite solid,
especially with help from a setting sun. Any change in size could be interpreted as mov ement closer or
further away from the v iewer. Since Lenticulars do change size, shape and position depending upon the
direction, speed, temperature and humidity of the airflow which they are forming, they may also appear to
be mov ing left or right.
The speed at which they form and dissipate can be quite rapid... A huge cloud may take only 20 minutes to
appear or completely disappear. Smaller ones only a minute or two.. I hav e watched (and less often filmed)
areas of Lenticular activ ity in which smaller, saucer-shaped formations seem to pop in and out at random as
the air currents shift around. I’v e missed many a shot because the cloud v anished before I could get my
camera set up.
Hav ing this opinion from someone who is intimately familiar with lenticular clouds certainly strengthens the
theory .
Final Thoughts
I hope the reader doesn't feel that I am suggesting that these witnesses were ignoramuses. I'm not. I think all of
the witnesses did an incredible job of reporting the facts as best they could. The theory abov e postulates that
sev eral factors came together that did fool the witnesses:
1. Com pact lenticular cloud.
2. Silhouetted against brilliant red sunset.
3. Seen from enough distance that the edges bcam e totally sm ooth.
7/31
In short, I am suggesting that nature conspired to create a sort of illusion that fooled these observ ers.
It should also be noted that this theory is not presented as the final word on this case. I am delighted to hear
confirming or disconfirming information.
Please feel free to share y our own comments below.
I wa n t t o t h a n k T i m Pr i n t y , Ma r k Mey er , Don Ecsedy , Don a l d Col l i n s, Fr a n k St a l t er , Mi ch a el A l l en ,
Ch r i s@ DCM a n d t h e ga n g a t t h e JREF for u m s, pa r t i cu l a r l y St r a y Ca t , 23_T a u r i , A kh en a t en , GeeMa ck,
Pu ddl e Du ck, T JW, T om T om ken t a n d u fol ogy a n d a l so m y wi fe for t h ei r h el p i n pr epa r i n g t h i s a r t i cl e. T h i s
a r t i cl e wa s sl i gh t l y r ev i sed on 3/23, h opefu l l y sl i gh t l y i m pr ov i n g t h e t on e.
255
70
Posted by Lance Moody on 03/20/201 2 at 02:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (37 ) | TrackBack (0)
Favorite
Reblog (0) |
Digg This
|
Tw eet
|
0
|
|
Like
47 |
07 /1 5/201 1
Saucers, Lies and Audio Tape
The UFO field has produced more than its fair share of frauds and charlatans. One of the most amusing and y et
appalling things about this fact is that, ev en after ex posure, many of these hoax ers are warmly welcomed back
into the arms of believ ers.
George Adamski (L) and Dan Fry
George Adamski, the UFO contactee, for instance, was outed as a complete
fraud in a definitiv e and dev astating ex posé published by my friend, Jim
Moseley (Saucer News, October 1 957 ). And y et Adamski is still has many
apologists. Their rationalizations usually take the form of claiming that
Adamski saw something "real" initially but then hoax ed his later photos and
sightings, all for the good cause of fostering fellowship between man and the
Space Brothers. Recently , the prolific (and none too picky ) paranormal
author, Nick Redfern's "Contactees: A History of Alien-hum an
Interaction" treated the claims of many known frauds as serious and
worthy of discussion, instead of silly and worthy of laughter. One does what
one must in order to sell books, I suppose.
An amusing glimpse of how these con men work was seen when Daniel Fry , another contactee, was publicly
deconstructed on a radio program (The Betty Grobley Show, Nov ember 1 966) by Phillip Klass. In that
program, Klass sy stematically shows that Dr. Fry 's claimed PhD came from a "univ ersity " that doesn't seem to
actually ex ist. He also got Fry to admit that many of his claimed professional credentials were fraudulent. It is
fascinating (and v ery funny ) to hear Fry in action on that program. For instance:
Betty :
"Did y ou say y ou are y ou a graduate engineer? Y ou hav e a BA?"
Fry :
"I am not a graduate engineer in the sense that would be accepted..."
Betty :
"Where did y ou get y our BA from?
8/31
JREF IN thE CLaSSROOm
Dowsing: Science or Pseudoscience?
©2012
JameS randi educational foundation
all rightS reSerVed
Student edition
© 2012 James Randi Educational Foundation
All Rights Reserved
DOWSING: SCIENCE OR PSEUDOSCIENCE?
about the
i
JREF
Our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable
information about paranormal and supernatural ideas, which are widespread in our society today.
The James Randi Educational Foundation was founded in 1996 to help people defend themselves from
paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. The JREF offers a still-unclaimed million-dollar reward for
anyone who can produce evidence of paranormal abilities under controlled conditions. Through
scholarships, workshops, and innovative resources for educators, the JREF works to inspire this
investigative spirit in a new generation of critical thinkers.
Your support helps the JREF to . . .
• Expose paranormal and pseudoscientific frauds in the media, and hold media
organizations accountable for promoting dangerous nonsense.
• Support scientific research into paranormal claims.
• Provide grants and free teaching modules to help educators inspire an investigative
spirit in the next generation of critical thinkers.
• Award scholarships that encourage scientific skepticism among students.
• Support grassroots skeptics’ groups with tools to help them organize and promote
skepticism and critical thinking.
• Digitally publish the important works of skepticism for distribution on the iPad, Kindle,
and other e-readers.
• Organize major conferences and other gatherings that bring the entire skeptical
community together.
Supporting the work of the James Randi Educational Foundation
The James Randi Educational Foundation relies on the support of people like you in order to
carry out its mission. Whether it is our renewed support of grassroots skeptic outreach, our
investment in resources for educators and students, our expanding digital educational offerings
such as digital books and videos, or Randi’s lecture tours, your financial donations help make our
programs possible.
You may support the JREF by joining us as a contributor online at randi.org. You may find that you
can be more generous by making a pledge of monthly support. For more information about pledges,
please contact [email protected].
* Donations are tax deductible for U.S. residents to the full extent of the law.
ii
This module from the James Randi Educational Foundation explores
the history, methods, and science of dowsing. Dowsing is examined by
students in a way that promotes well-reasoned critical examination of
unproven and pseudoscientific claims.
Grade Level and Context
Grades 8-12
This exercise is suited for students in any science class that addresses research methods or the
scientific process.
The activity can be completed in one or two class periods. The time will vary depending on the depth
of the introduction and the number of trials performed.
National Science Content Standards Addressed:
• Unifying Concepts and Processes
• Science as Inquiry
• Science in Personal and Social Perspectives
• History and Nature of Science
AAAS Science Literacy Benchmarks Addressed:
• The Scientific Worldview
• Scientific Inquiry
• The Scientific Enterprise
AcknowledGments
This module was developed with the assistance of James Randi, D. J. Grothe, Sadie Crabtree, Travis
Dick, Daniel Loxton, Chip Denman, Barbara Drescher, Matt Lowry, and Kylie Sturgess.
1
to the reader . . .
We’re introducing you to the subject known as
“dowsing.” This is said to be an ability that some
people have to find water or oil—or even gold, silver,
or dangerous explosives—above or under the ground
just by holding a forked wooden stick, a pendulum, or
a pair of straightened coat-hanger wires as they walk
across a plot of ground. Millions of people here in the
USA and in dozens of other countries believe this, and
we’ll examine the evidence to see if it’s really true.
This is an important subject to investigate, today more than ever before, because it’s costing lives. How?
There are vendors taking advantage of the worldwide fear of terrorism by selling devices that look as if
they’re electronic and might actually work to detect explosives, but are based on the same “dowsing”
idea—and they don’t work, at all! Yes, innocent people—both military and civilian in the Near East—are
dying because they depend on these fakes, and it’s happening every day…
You’ll read about the interesting “ideomotor effect” in this discussion, and I can tell you that unless
you’ve actually experienced it, you just can’t imagine how strong and convincing it is. I’ve personally
tested dowsers and dowsing literally hundreds of times, all over the world, because some 80% of the
applications for the JREF’s million-dollar challenge are for this claimed ability! These are applications
that come from, mostly, honestly self-deluded people who are convinced they have this ability, and I
hope that when you’ve completed this course, you’ll have a much greater understanding of the fact that
people often can, and do, talk themselves into accepting fiction as fact.
When you turn the last page of this lesson, I believe that you’ll be well prepared to join us in explaining
to others the truth about this phenomenon. So, welcome to a critical look at a wonderful, spooky, scary
notion, folks. And, thank you for letting us share our expertise with you!
James Randi
2
WHAT IS DOWSING?
ORIGINS AND HISTORY
Dowsing (sometimes called rhabdomancy) is
traditionally defined as a method for locating
sources of ground water, minerals, or other
underground or hidden materials using only a
simple object such as a forked stick, a pendulum,
or a pair of rods to direct the dowser towards a
desired target.
Various forms of divination with similarities to
dowsing have existed for several thousand years.
Ancient literature contains abundant references
to rituals connecting magical characteristics
with branches and wooden rods. Because they
appear independently in the writings of different
cultures and geographical regions, it is difficult
to know exactly where and when dowsing first
originated. Historians have found illustrated
texts from 16th-century Europe with references
to dowsing methods using Y-shaped rods, which
vary little from divining instruments used by selfproclaimed dowsers today.
Dowsers have offered various explanations
for their claimed abilities. The most common
explanation is that substances, including
water, possess a natural “energy” that may be
electromagnetism or hold some unknown force.
Dowsers believe that under certain conditions
or with proper training, humans can not only
detect this “energy” but also recognize its
frequency and intensity, which are said by
some to be unique to each material. This is not a
scientific explanation: there is no evidence that
substances emit a characteristic energy field and
no evidence that human beings would have the
ability to detect such a field if it existed.
Because there is no scientifically recognized
mechanism that could explain how dowsing
might work, dowsing is said to be a form of
divination. Divination is the attempt to discover
knowledge through occult methods. Believers
in dowsing usually attribute this knowledge to
paranormal or supernatural sources.
Dowsing has been associated with the occult
and witchcraft since its contemporary origins in
Europe. The 16th-century priest and theologian
Martin Luther said that it was “Devil’s Work.”
Many Christian churches today still condemn
dowsing as a “Satanic” activity.
The most significant of these books is Sebastian
Münster’s landmark work in the field of
cartography Cosmographia. The book, first
published in 1550, features a woodcut illustration
of a mining operation. A dowser searching for
minerals with a forked rod appears prominently
in the illustration.
While its historical references are often found
alongside other ancient beliefs that have long
since been abandoned or replaced, dowsing
remains in widespread use today. Amazingly,
claims regarding the capabilities and
effectiveness offered by modern dowsers have
changed very little in more than 700 years. This,
despite the many profound advances in scientific
understanding and technological development.
In fact, modern dowsers have even greatly
expanded the scope of dowsing’s applications
far beyond its historical uses. No longer limiting
themselves to locating wells and mineral
deposits, today’s dowsers claim to be able to
accurately locate nearly anything, including
money, archeological sites, missing persons,
lottery numbers, ghosts, diseases, drugs, bombs,
and much more.
DOWSING DEVICES
area. Dowsers claim that the end of the stick will
twitch or dip when they approach the material
they are hoping to discover.
L-shaped wire dowsing rods are increasingly
popular. They are made from metal wire, bent at
a right angle and set inside loose-fitting handles
that allow the rods to freely rotate. Dowsers
normally use them in pairs, claiming that the
rods cross each other when the desired material
is located.
The diversity of dowsing devices has increased
along with the growing list of materials to be
found. The familiar wood Y-shaped rod dates
from dowsing’s beginnings and remains quite
popular among modern practitioners. Some
dowsers are not concerned with the type of wood
used. Others are quite particular, citing freshly
cut sticks from hazel, willow, and peach trees as
the most desirable. Rods like these are gripped
with two hands, each grasping a branch of the
forked side. The remaining middle section points
forward as the dowser walks around the search
Fig. 3: L-shaped dowsing rods
pop QUIZ: WHICH WITCHING IS WHICH?
Match the specific kind of divination at left with the definition on the right . . .
Geomancy
Necromancy
Pyromancy
Crystallomancy
Chronomancy
Gyromancy
Gastromancy
Tasseomancy
Palmistry
3
A. Summoning the dead, or spirits/souls
of the dead
B. Predicting the future by making yourself
dizzy to see where you fall in a circle of
letters or numbers.
C. Listening to sounds made by the stomach.
D. Reading of palms.
E. Reading tea leaves.
F. Related to unlucky and lucky times
and dates.
G. Using crystal balls to predict the future.
H. Interpreting markings on the ground, or the
way earth or soil lies when thrown.
I. Using fire to make predictions.
4
Most of the tools used by dowsers are simple
and homemade, but some companies have
manufactured more complicated-looking devices
and sold them for thousands of dollars.
The one thing that all dowsing devices have in
common is a sensitive mechanism that is difficult
to keep balanced or stable. This unbalanced
state, sometimes called unstable equilibrium,
allows the device to move as result of even subtle
movement by the operator. A state of unstable
equilibrium can be created using wires in tubes,
pendulums, springs, elastic bands, metal coils, or
balls. Dowsing is occasionally conducted with no
device at all.
carefully reviewed those results, however,
argue that the studies, which appear to confirm
dowsing, were not properly conducted and lack
the needed controls to give reliable results or
draw valid conclusions. In properly controlled
studies, dowsers have performed no better than
if they had simply guessed at the location of the
materials without dowsing.
Critics of dowsing call it a pseudoscience, a
claim, belief, or practice that proponents present
as scientific, but is not based on empirical
evidence or the scientific method.
Many pseudoscientific beliefs have existed for
ages. Astrology and other divination systems
have been around at least since the beginning of
recorded history.
Pseudoscientific beliefs and claims are often
presented in ways that are not scientifically
testable, often with special explanations for the
lack of evidence that could validate the claim.
For example, some who believe in dowsing
claim that dowsing rods move because of a
special energy field that cannot be detected by
scientific instruments.
Fig. 4:
The pendulum
By contrast, a scientific hypothesis has to be
framed in such a way that it can be accepted or
rejected by observations or experiments.
A PSEUDOSCIENCE?
DOES IT WORK?
The modern scientific community has soundly
rejected dowsing as a method of locating objects
or substances. No properly conducted study of
the practice has ever shown dowsing to work.
Major studies have been conducted in all relevant
fields, including hydrology, geology, biology,
and physics. People with a skeptical mindset
believe that if an idea has been repeatedly and
thoroughly examined scientifically, and there is
no evidence supporting it, then the idea should
be regarded as false.
More than 20,000 dowsers are operating in the
United States alone, and even more in Western
Europe. They are sometimes even hired by
governments and big corporations. Yet the
evidence shows that dowsing is superstition,
not science. So why has dowsing not been
completely abandoned?
However, dowsers and their supporters have
claimed that scientists have never done adequate
research into dowsing and have dismissed it
without proper investigation. Other advocates
for dowsing claim that scientists have studied the
practice and have demonstrated its effectiveness.
They cite findings in support of dowsing that
they claim are scientific. Scientists who have
Some people believe in dowsing because they
notice that dowsers often seem to find what
they are searching for. In most parts of the
world, you can dig a hole almost anywhere
and hit water if you dig deep enough. People
have an unconscious tendency to selectively
gather information that is consistent with their
expectations or beliefs. This tendency, called
confirmation bias, can make it difficult to
critically examine all of the available evidence.
Because of this, we often cling to beliefs in spite
of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
5
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? SCIENCE VS. PSEUDOSCIENCE
Critics of dowsing say that it is a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience refers to a claim, belief, or practice
that is described as scientific but not is unsupported by scientific observations or experimentation.
Supporters of various pseudosciences often try to justify or explain their claims using scientificsounding words. This can make it difficult to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Below is a list of common differences between science and pseudoscience.
SCIENCE
Findings are expressed primarily through
scientific journals that are reviewed by other
scientists who are experts in the field and maintain
high standards for honesty and accuracy.
PSEUDOSCIENCE
Publications are aimed at the general public. There
is no review—no standards, no verification, and no
demand for accuracy and precision.
Science demands reproducible results:
experiments must be precisely described so that
they can be duplicated exactly or improved upon.
Results cannot be reproduced or verified. Studies, if
any, are not described in detail. It is difficult to figure
out exactly what was done or how.
Studies that fail to prove a hypothesis are taken
seriously and examined closely for information
that could lead to unexpected predictions and
guide future research.
Studies that fail to demonstrate the pseudoscientists’s
preferred conclusion are ignored, excused, hidden,
lied about, discounted, explained away, rationalized,
or forgotten.
As time goes on, more and more is learned about
the physical processes being studied. This body of
knowledge is always growing.
No physical phenomena or processes are found or
studied. The field rarely progresses.
Scientists use evidence and arguments based
upon logical or mathematical reasoning, and make
the best case the data will permit. When enough
new evidence contradicts old ideas, the old ideas
are abandoned.
Proponents of pseudoscience may ask you to believe
something in spite of the facts, not because of the facts.
They won’t abandon their ideas, even when provided
with evidence against it.
Does not promote or sell unproven practices
or products.
Proponents of pseudoscience often sell questionable
products (such as books, courses, and dietary
supplements) or services (such as horoscopes,
character readings, spirit messages, and predictions).
WHAT’S GOING ON?
If there’s no outside force acting on dowsers’ rods, sticks, and pendulums, then why do they cross,
twitch, and rotate at all? Psychologists say the movement of dowsing rods is best explained by a
phenomenon called the ideomotor effect. The ideomotor effect occurs when conscious ideas or
expectations cause a person to make involuntary movements of which they are usually unaware.
Typically, the movements are too subtle to recognize, but during dowsing, the unstable equilibrium
of the device amplifies this effect. The resulting movement of the rod, pendulum, or branch is so
significant that it can be very convincing to those unaware of how the ideomotor effect works.
6
The ideomotor effect is also involved in other
paranormal and pseudoscientific divination
methods, including talking boards, facilitated
communication, and automatic writing. It also
appears in some pseudoscientific methods for
diagnosing disease.
CAUSE FOR CONCERN
If you’re not trying to find water or mineral
deposits, the question of dowsing’s
effectiveness may seem trivial. Dowsing is
seen by many as an antiquated and harmless
belief. But it has recently been used in
applications that can have drastic and even
fatal consequences.
One example is the ADE 651 remote substance
detector. The simple device is nothing but a
dowsing rod with sophisticated-looking but
useless accessories. Thousands have been
sold for use as explosives detectors in some of
the world’s most dangerous war zones. Most
famously, advisors from both the U.S. and
British governments helped the Iraqi security
forces put the detectors to use sweeping for
bombs at security checkpoints.
The James Randi Educational Foundation
recognized that a fraud was being committed,
warned officials, and worked to raise public
awareness about the ineffective detectors.
The JREF offered to give the makers of the
ADE 651 $1 million if they could demonstrate
that it performed as advertised under
laboratory conditions. The manufacturer,
ATSC Limited, never accepted the challenge.
Testing done by several independent
organizations, including the respected Sandia
National Laboratories, confirmed that the
ADE 651 was incapable of detecting bombs or
anything else.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi government
purchased nearly 1,000 of these worthless
bomb detectors at a total cost of over
$80 million. It is unknown how many lives
have been lost as a result of this costly scam.
Fig. 5 [background] Ouija™ Board
Fig. 6 ADE 651
try it!
Follow these instructions to make your own set of
dowsing rods and test their effectiveness.
SUPPLIES
• 36 inches of 14-gauge or 16-gauge uncoated
metal wire
• two ink pens with removable tip, ink tube,
and cap
• wire cutters
• metal file
• pliers
• six coffee cups with lids
• six bottles of water
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Using the wire cutters, cut the metal wire into two
18-inch lengths. File down any sharp spots on the
cut ends.
2. Measure six inches from one end of one of the cut
pieces of wire. At this point, use the pliers to bend
the wire 90 degrees to form an “L” shape. Repeat
with the other wire.
3. Using pliers, remove tips, ink tubes, and caps from
pens, leaving just the hollow outer tubes.
4. Place the six-inch section of your wire rods into
the hollow pen tubes. Use the tubes as handles,
allowing the rods to move freely.
5. Your dowsing rods are ready. To use them, move
around the area you want to search, keeping the
rods parallel to the ground and about 10 inches
apart. According to dowsers, the rods will cross
each other forming an “X” when you are close to
the object or substance you are searching for.
6. Someone not participating in the experiment
should place twenty clear water bottles around
the room on the floor. Half should contain water
and half should be empty. Make sure that there is
an equal distribution of water/no water in terms of
distance from the dowser’s starting point.
7. Walk around the room holding your dowsing rods
as described above. Do the rods cross when they
are over a bottle of water? Crossing rods over full
Steps 1-4:
Dowsing rod assembly
7
8
bottles are “hits.” If the rods fail to cross in close proximity to a full bottle or do cross when over
an empty bottle, record a “miss.” This should be repeated several times. Determine the number
of trails to be conducted by each participant before the experiment begins (more is better). Make
sure to use the same number of trials for each subject. Have others try this and compare your
results.
8. Try it again but without being able to see which bottles contain water. Repeat step six, but this time
use opaque closed containers. Again, half should be filled with water and half should be empty.
Make sure the dowsers cannot detect the contents. They should be completely opaque and not be
“sweating.” Styrofoam coffee cups work best.
9. Attempt to use the dowsing rods to determine which cups contain water by repeating step seven.
Run the same numbers of trials using the same criteria for “hits” and “misses.”
How did you do? Compare your accuracy in locating visible water and hidden water.
Did you see the ideomotor effect in action?
glossary
Automatic Writing
Writing that is produced by a writer who claims to have had no conscious control over the content.
Proponents of automatic writing believe that the writing is influenced by outside spiritual sources or
subconscious thoughts.
Cartography
The art and science of making maps.
Controls
Elements of a study that eliminate alternative explanations for findings.
Empirical Evidence
An observation or set of observations that provide support for a claim or fact.
Facilitated Communication
A process in which one person supports the arm or hand of a severely disabled person, moving it over
a keyboard or other pointing device. Proponents of facilitated communication claim that this process
allows the disabled person to communicate, but careful scientific studies suggest that the helper is
producing the resulting words, either consciously or unconsciously.
Hydrology
The study of the distribution, movement, and quality of water sources.
Ideomotor Effect
A psychological phenomenon where people make subtle subconscious movements based on
expectations or suggestion.
Occult
Secret practices in the areas of magic, mysticism, astrology, or other supernatural systems for gaining
knowledge.
9
Paranormal
Explanations for events and phenomena that are inconsistent with our scientific understanding of
nature. When carefully examined, paranormal claims are often shown to be misinterpretations or
misunderstandings of normal events.
Examples include psychic powers, ghosts, alien visitations, and divination.
skeptical
Cautiously suspending judgment on a claim until sufficient evidence has been presented.
supernatural
Not existing in our observable universe or explainable by natural laws. Ghosts, spells, and spirits are
all examples of things described as supernatural.
talking Board (or ouija™ Board)
A flat board typically marked with the letters of the alphabet and the numbers 0-9. The user moves a
small heart-shaped plastic or wood piece (called a planchette) around the board with their fingers,
selecting various letters and producing phrases. Believers claim this is a means for communicating
with the spirit world.
read more
IN PRINt
Randi, James (1982). Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions, Prometheus Books.
Bird, Christopher (2000). The Divining Hand: The 500-year-old
Mystery of Dowsing, Schiffer Publishing.
Vogt, Evon and Ray Hyman (2000). Water Witching,, University
of Chicago Press.
ON thE WEB
The Skeptic’s Dictionary
http://www.skeptdic.com
The Matter of Dowsing (James Randi Educational
Foundation)
http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 7 , No. 3, pp. 219-239, 1993
0892-33 10193
O 1993 Society for Scientific Exploration
A REVIEW OF NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES
MICHAEL SCHROTER-KUNHARDT
Psychiatrisches Landeskrankenhaus Weinsberg, 74189 Weinsberg,Germany
Abstract-Near death experiences (NDEs) have been reported throughout
time in essentially all cultures. The contents of modem NDEs is independent
of gender, age, and profession. The frequency of occurrence is estimated to lie
between 10 and 50 percent of all near-death situations. This frequency could
be higher still, perhaps even 100 percent, were it not for the dreamlike and dissociative character of the experience and the amnesia-prone participation of
the temporal lobe causing a clear tendency to forget the NDE. A number of
similar elements are common to NDEs, such as an out-of-body experience
(OBE) in which the physical body and its surroundings are observed from
various external vantage points, often from above. Numerous cases exist in
which the reality of the OBE-observation can be independently 'verified, by
external conditions, situations, people, objects, etc. Even previously non-religious ND experiencers subsequently show a markedly decreased fear of
death and a corresponding increase in belief in life after death. Certain elements of NDE-like experiences can be induced by, for example, electrical
stimulation of the right temporal lobe or the use of hallucinogenic substances.
It is possible that hallucinogenic transmitters (and endorphins) of the brain itself play a role in the NDE. Nevertheless, there are NDE-elements, such as
the frequently reported life-review and certainly the acquisition of external,
verifiable information concerning the physical surroundings during the experience, that cannot be explained by physiological causes. Wish-fulfillment,
death-denial or other defense mechanisms of the brain are also not adequate
explanations. The large body of NDE data now accumulated point to genuine
evidence for a non-physical reality and paranormal capacities of the human
being.
Introduction
To this day mainstream science ignores, rejects or isolates paranormal and religious (mystical) experiences which threaten scientific biases and the "common-sense conception" of the world. This suppression correlates with the denial of death, which also threatens all human efforts, and especially with the
scientific devaluation of religions and their conviction of life after death.
The psychiatrist and psychotherapist Stanislav Grof, who once prepared incurable cancer patients for their deaths by evoking near-death like experiences
with LSD (3), comments on this official suppression:
In connection with our success- and efficiency-oriented philosophy, aging and dying
are not integrated parts of life, but a defeat and a painful reminder of our limits in controlling nature. Dangerously ill or dying people in our culture are considered, and see
themselves, as losers.
220
M. Schroter-Kunhardt
Contemporary medicine is a slave to technical procedures and overspecialized bodymechanics and has forgotten the holistic aspect of real healing. Its conception of dying
is dominated by the effort to overcome and postpone death at any price. Fighting for the
mechanical prolongation of life, the quality of the patient's last days and his psychic
and spiritual longings do not receive enough attention. We see the tendency to shut out
the old and dying people from family and daily life and to pack them off in nursing
homes and hospitals, where human contacts are compromised by complicated instruments: oxygen chambers, infusion tubes, monitors of vital functions, etc. (4, p.7-8; my
transl.).
Meanwhile, accompanying dying people is a new scientific field of business; but professionals in this area seldom systematically address the point of
whether there is life after death. This question seems not to be answerable scientifically, therefore it is left to the dying individual or the priests. But in recent years the (completely unsuspected) records of near-death experiences
(NDEs) have shown that there is a scientific, neurobiological basis for the belief in life after death. Especially the growing paranormal capacities of the
dying suggest the existence of a time- and space-transcending, and therefore
immortal, soul. But what are the results of the NDE- research?
Elements of the NDE
As a consequence of modern resuscitation-techniques NDEs have become
more and more frequent; popular publications (1 1; 12, 13; 14; 15; 16 etc.), lectures and workshops- especially from Elisabeth Kiibler-Ross- have attracted the interest of many people. About ten years ago science began to examine
this phenomenon systematically. Participating in the "International Association for Near-Death Studies" (IANDS), which was founded in 1977, wellknown scientists - especially psychologists, psychiatrists and medical doctors of other specialties, parapsychologists, philosophers and scientists of
religion- began their studies (14; 17; 18; 19; 22; 41 etc.). The psychiatrist,
Bruce Greyson (University of Connecticut), is president of the American parent-IANDS, which publishes the quarterly "Journal of Near-Death Studies"
(JNDS). Worldwide the IANDS has more than 1,000 paying members and a
growing number of scientific study groups (20a-i; 2 1a-m; 22a-x; 15 1a-i).
Meanwhile roughly one hundred studies have been published, mostly done
by psychiatrists, psychologists, cardiologists and pediatricians (11; 12; 14;
20a-i; 21a-m; 22a-x; 23-31; 42; 152; 153; 156; 157; 158, 159, etc.). They
showed that up to one third of all people who were nearly dead have had an
NDE. A representative poll of the well-known Gallup Institute confirmed
these numbers: about 34% of all adult Americans who at sometime in their life
were resuscitated have had an NDE (32).
Studies comparing content and frequency of so-called deathbed-visions in
different cultures have had similar results: From 20 to 67% of conscious dying
subjects saw deceased human beings and/or landscapes from beyond and experienced heightened sensations. (35-36). Other facts support these figures:
Paranormal NDE-elements, for example, are quite frequent even in normal
Near Death Experiences
221
consciousness; up to half of the normal Western population is estimated to
have experienced them in their lives (22b-g; 37-40). Especially the frequency
of spontaneous (i.e., not experienced in conditions of imminent danger) outof-body-experiences (OBE) is quite similar to the NDE-incidence: approximately 28% of the population of Western societies. OBEs actually resemble
NDEs in many aspects and are their most important component (22b-c; 37;
139).
Other facts speak in favor of a still higher incidence of NDEs. They also illustrate some special results of the research work in recent years:
1) Fearing disbelief (as having hallucinated) many NDEers keep their experiences secret, even from their family members (1 3; 15; 17; 24; 41;
153).
2) In European hospitals nobody systematically inquires about NDEs; only
in Holland have some hospitals participated in a study (13; 42; 152;
153).
3) Like dreams, NDEs are quite often dissociated activities of the brain and
can only be remembered when the normal consciousness has access to
them (22a; 30; 43; 44; 118; 147; 149). Actually in Western societies
there exists a tendency to take refuge with unconsciousness when confronted with the fear of death. Just this reaction psychodynamically is
nothing else than a dissociation. Since dissociation normally is associated with amnesia, we are amnesiac for most of our dreams and NDEs
(22b, 22v, 22w). Therefore some NDEers remember their experience
only under hypnosis (22d) or months to years later, when they come into
contact with an appropriate association (for example another NDEer)
(22d-e; 43).
4) Temporolimbic epilepsy sometimes activates NDE-elements and is also
accompanied by an amnesia of variant depth (22a; 108; 148). Since the
NDE neurophysiologically seems to be connected with the temporolimbic region, an amnesia can be expected. This is confirmed by the fact that
we observe a significant increase of psychical (psi or ESP) capacities
after the NDE, which are possibly triggered by or located in the temporolimbic area (22a; 45).
5) The fact that also those people who were nearly dead without having a
NDE experience an increase of psi-capacities signals a forgottenlsuppressed (partial) NDE even in their cases (22b).
6) Perhaps particularly negative NDEs are suppressed (6; 21n; 55; 155).
7) Most NDEs are of short duration; their remembrance should therefore be
expected to be poor because research has shown that NDE-remembrance
increases statistically significantly with the duration of the experience
(220).
8) Especially old people, who are predisposed to near-death situations, have
a reduced capacity to perceive during the NDE and to remember it (220).
222
9) The accuracy of the memory of NDE-details decreases statistically significantly with the time between the NDE and its remembrance (22e; 220).
10) Certain personalities are embarrassed about the occurrence of an NDE.
They fight against imminent death and so restrain their consciousness
from experiencing an NDE (22b; 29; 30).
11) Many people with life-threatening illnesses are under the influence of
anesthetics or psychotropic drugs. These medicaments interfere with
perception during an NDE or block it completely (13; 220; 41). Altogether these facts demonstrate that possibly the majority of those who
once (or several times) were nearly dead experience an NDE.
Now, are there any personality traits that predispose some people to experience an NDE? Astonishingly, sociological, demographic or psychological
variables do not influence the occurrence of the NDE (13; 17; 18; 22d; 3 1 ; 4 1 ;
43; 48; 57, etc.). Also, even very young children experience NDEs (32). NDEs
and OBEs do not signal any psychopathology; people with mental diseases do
not experience them more frequently than normal human beings. On the contrary NDEers and OBEers are possibly mentally healthier as a group (18; 41;
43; 69, etc.).
And when do NDEs happen? NDEs are experienced at the moment of real or
anticipated death, i.e., before biological death (17; 21a; 22f). They are triggered by various situations such as accident, life-threatening illnesses, suicide
attempts, operations or births (13; 22b; 25; 27; 34; 43; 49, etc.) which do not
influence the content of the NDE (41 ;43). Quite often the NDEers are clinically dead, i.e., without heartbeat and respiration. Some NDEs occur during an
isoelectric EEG (13; 17; 22g; 50), some others even in the morgue (after giving up resuscitation) (15; 5 1). This is possible because the definite moment of
biological death cannot be exactly determined and the latter quite often is insufficiently diagnosed (13; 43; 52-54; 154). Finally up to 37% of NDE-like
experiences occur in non-life threatening illnesses/accidents or are not associated with physical illnesses/accidents (21 m).
Actually the contention that death means mere unconsciousness is purely
theory, because this can neither be experienced nor verified (110). The last
thing we know from a dying person is his NDE! Only the brain knows exactly
the "point of no return" (of biological death). Pictures are the primary language of the brain, representing all somatic and psychic processes. The brain is
able to control these pictures effectively (via biofeedback, imagination or autogenetic training). The NDE as a visual experience provides the most objective information about the imminent moment of biological death!
What does the NDEer experience directly before his irreversible death? In a
more or less chronological order and a descending order of frequency the NDE
consists of the following elements:
1) Increase of mood with feelings of euphoria, happiness, joy, well-being,
223
2) Out-of-body-experience (OBE) with the dying person looking down on
his physical body. His rational consciousness continues working during
this state and sometimes undertakes different tests to verify this new existence. Even blind people can see during the OBE - and their perceptions can be verified! Upon leaving the body the OBEer suddenly loses
any pain; as an OBEer, he can pass through and see through physical objects and sometimes verifiably read the thoughts of other people (1 3; 17;
43, etc.).
3 ) Entering a tunnel-like dark transition zone (1 3; 29; 49, etc.).
4) Perception of a golden light which emanates infinite love, evoking enormous happiness in the NDEer. He sometimes merges with this light and
then has the mystical feeling of omniscience and all-oneness (1 1; 17;
22d; 22h; 48; 49; 5 1; 156; 157; 159, etc.).
5) Perception of a heavenly or hellish landscape (1 1; 22d; 22m; 56; 58;
155, etc.).
6) Encounter with deceased relatives, religious figures or beings of light
with whom the dying person communicates telepathically; these figures
often initiate the dying person's return (22b; 22m; 41; 159, etc.).
During this or the above mentioned earlier stages, certain other NDE-elements may appear:
7) Experience of a life-review with known and unknown verifiable details
of one's life, whereby the NDEer observes himself acting and feeling
again all specifics of a situation, including those of all other participants. This entails an unequivocal ethical evaluation of all thoughts,
words and deeds under a normative measure of love (19; 26; 27; 29,
etc.).
8) Precognition: parts of the OBEer's or the worlds future are seen (13;
21b; 22p; 41).
9) Different temporal perception: time slows down and simultaneously
thought and picture frequency speeds up (17; 49).
10) Sometimes, almost from the beginning, some kind of (heavenly) music
is heard (1 1; 29; 49).
Some other rare elements, not covered here are described in NDE literature.
The number of details of an NDE correlates with its depth, i.e., with the imminence of actual or expected death (17; 24; 41; 59). At the end of his experience
the NDEer has to return into his body. This happens very quickly. Often he is
reluctant to return (1 1; 13; 30; 43; 58, etc.).
With a frequency from about 0 to 25% the NDEs are negative: The NDEer
also experiences an OBE and a dark transition zone, but under unpleasant feelings of fear or panic. He then encounters bad forces or beings and enters a hellish environment (6; 13; 17; 21n; 22g; 22x; 25; 49; 51; 55; 128; 155, etc.).
Surprisingly extensive changes in personality can occur after a NDE. The
NDEer can go through such a revolution of values and opinions that after-
224
wards he is at odds with his environment, where his old values are still operative. Divorces, career changes and a significant psychosocial stress can result.
He can experience a phenomenon called "culture-shock," which is well known
from people who immigrate into a new culture (13; 22i; 220). Some NDEers
actually develop depressions from being forced to return to this "vale of tears"
called earth (22i; 220).
What are the new positive values NDEers bring with them?
1) In different controlled studies a statistically significant decrease of fear
of death (as the supposed end) was found, which was an effect of the
NDE and not merely a consequence of having been nearly dead (13; 14;
15; 17; 27; 61; 156; 157; 158, etc.). At the same time a decrease of neurotic (life) anxieties is observed (18; 27).
2) After an NDE, all NDEers are absolutely certain that there is life after
death (11; 12; 13; 17; 18; 22b; 60; 158, etc.). One observed consequence: some NDEers mourn less because they know that there is life
after death(41).
3) We found a distinct increase of religiousness, consisting in the above
mentioned two points and the real knowledge of the existence of (a) God
(and other religious beings) which is often obtained by contacting religious beings (of light). Furthermore, a priority of religious/ethical values in this life and the life beyond emerge from an NDE (13; 17; 22i; 25;
6 1, etc.).
These are the following values:
4) Unconditional love for all human beings and aU things (13; 17; 22i; 22f;
5 1, etc.);
5) More harmony, tolerance and sympathy with other humans together
with a high evaluation of human relationships (17; 18; 220; 27, etc.);
6) Engagement in social-charitable activities (17; 61, etc.);
7) Turning away from materialistic, external or superficial values, prestige
and competitive struggle lose importance (13; 18; etc.);
8) Higher evaluation of the self together with more joy of life and more
self-reliance (18; 19; 27, etc.);
9) Enhanced perception of the brevity and preciousness of one's own lifetime (13; 27, etc.);
10) Higher evaluation of the harmony with nature (1 3; 18, etc.);
11) A feeling of higher responsibility for one's life, resulting especially from
the life-review (13; 17; 19, etc.);
12) Higher esteem of knowledge of oneself and wisdom (13; 17; 18, etc.);
13) Distinct increase of psychical (PSI or ESP) capacities, especially of
healing abilities (17; 22b; 41 etc.);
14) Higher evaluation of noetic qualities (17; 41, etc.);
15) Healing of psychic or psychiatric diseases, especially of addictions (13;
17; 27; 41; 141, etc.);
225
16) NDEs have shown to be the best prevention against suicide; in particular
the real knowledge of a life after death and the firmly established religiouslethical values resulting from the life review seem to contribute to
this effect (17; 27; 29; 30; 43; 61, etc.);
17) Sometimes a complete turn-around of criminals is observed (13; 17;
20a; 21b, 21c; 21d);
18) Finally the NDEers develop a feeling of being elected and become a kind
of missionary for the knowledge and values learned through their NDEs
(17; 19; 27; 30; 43, etc.). Actually all of these changes are consequences
of the NDE (49). These changes seem to correlate with the extent of the
NDE and degree of imminent death (1 7; 18; 22b; 49).
Most astonishing is not just the frequency and structural similarity of all
NDEs in the United States and Western Europe, independent of sociological,
demographic and psychological variables, but that similar experiences with
the same efSects have been made for thousands of years across completely different cultures (17; 34; 58; 68; 123-125; 129). The Gilgamesh epic, the oldest
written testimony of mankind, contains a near-death experience:
Gilgamesh... began... his search for the other world. A long time afterwards he discovered behind the oceans at the edge of this world the river Chubur, the last barrier before
the kingdom of the dead.
Gilgamesh left the world and crawled through a dark endless tunnel. It was a long,
uncomfortable way... but at last he saw light at the end of the dark tube. He came to the
exit of the tunnel and saw a splendid garden. The trees carried pearls and jewels and
over all a wonderful light emitted its rays. Gilgamesh wanted to rest in the other world.
But the sungod sent him back through the tunnel into this life.
There he met Enkidu, who at first had experienced misfortune. Thousands of maggots had molested him in another part of the other world. They had buried themselves
painfully into his body, until there was left only a shadow without flesh. Finally a
friendly god gave him back his body in order to be able to leave the hell and tell his
friend Gilgamesh of the horror of hell in full detail. (62, p.8; my transl.).
Also the medieval Christian-Catholic religion recognized the NDEs. The
first case records stem from Pope Gregory the Great (5th Century A. D.) (17;
58).
The Chinese and Japanese Amida-Buddhists were more focused on the enlightening NDEs and their artificial induction via meditation; but they also
knew hellish NDEs. These Buddhists compiled the second NDE-case collection in the 7th Century A.D. Comments in this collection sometimes reach the
level of the near-death research of our days (22j; 22k).
Finally, the NDEs of modem non-Westernlnon-Christian cultures are essentially comparable with those of the industrial countries in so far as they are interpreted as other-world-contact and result in an intensified religious life. This
applies for example to the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea with some interesting differences: tunnel and light-phenomena (sometimes also the OBE)
seem to be absent, heaven and hell correspond to their different religious concepts, and the life-review is replaced by a trial. The NDE content is shaped dif-
226
ferently, according to the particular religion, culture and mentality (17; 64; 65;
66; 67; 68).
The American anthropologist, D. Shields, found that 95% of 57 non-Western cultures today are familiar with OBEs, the most important component of
the NDE (43). Interestingly enough, no review of a former life is described in
the NDEs of culture believing in reincarnation. This could be an indication
that the concept of reincarnation is a misinterpretation of the contact with the
(former) life of another deceased human being (143; 144).
How can these universal, similarly structured and interpreted experiences of
so many human beings throughout time and all cultures be explained? At first
there is a clear indication, that all conceptions of God originate in the NDE: it
is a fact that the most common NDE-element- the light of the other worldbecomes a sungod for Gilgamesh, a divine Bodhisattva for the Amida-Buddhist, the God of love (and of light) for the Christian and even causes the unbelieving scientist or rationalist to believe in divine forces.
Historical Perspective
With the minds of all NDEers throughout the history of mankind interpreting the NDE unequivocably as proof for life after death, could this be reality?
Is this similar interpretation together with the similar structure and the similar
effects- i.e., the changes of personality in the direction of an enforcement of
the religious/ethical aspects of man- not good evidence for a biological (and
genetical) basis for the NDE and thereby all (mystical) religious experiences?
I will attempt to answer these very important questions by first falsifying the
arguments of the skeptics.
1) NDEs are not a sign of a psychic disorder of the NDEer (see above).
2) NDEs are not products of a larger capacity for imagination on behalf of
the NDEer. Actually neither the NDEers nor the OBEers have a larger
capacity for imagination than the general population (22d; 22i; 22k; 72;
75; 76; 77, etc.).
3) Before the NDE, NDEers (most likely) do not have a higher hypnotizability or influence susceptibility than the general population. The latter
possibility only increases after the NDE (22f; 43; 74, etc.).
4) NDEs are not the result of previous knowledge about the NDE. Even
children who have never heard about NDEs have similarly structured
near-death experiences. Sometimes these children are too young to even
speak, and therefore could have never heard of NDEs (13; 16; 22d; 24;
25; 43; 78; 324, etc.). Even if the children have learned from certain (religious) expectations of their parents, their NDEs do not correspond to
their parents' beliefs (6; 15; 17; 22c; 221; 49; 65; 324, etc.). Different
studies have actually shown that most NDEers do not have any prior information about NDEs (17; 18; 43; 49; 57, etc.). Even those who have
previous knowledge of NDEs do not necessarily experience a correlation between previous beliefs and the actual content and shapes of their
NDE (57).
227
5) NDEs are not the result of fulfilling a desire. Desires are always idiosyncratic while NDEs and have many common elements, independent of the
belief-system of the NDEer (1 3; 17; 43; 48; 5 1, etc.). In many cases the
NDEs evidently do not correlate with the desires of the experiencers (13;
16; 221; 22m; 34; 41; 49; 50, etc.). NDEs are also experienced in those
cases where the patients are sure to recover again, i.e., against their own
desires and expectations (6; 34).
The verifiable OBE-perceptions of resuscitation and other objects and
events can be differentiated from previous personal conceptions (15).
Quite often the NDEer did not know or know about the deceased ones
who appeared in the NDE, so that could not have been a desired experience (22d; 5 1 ; 78). Fulfilling a desire is usually a flight from reality but a
NDEer having an OBE is confronting himself with a frightful situation
(1 3; 18; 50). Besides, just a flight from reality would never result in such
massive positive changes of personality (13; 17; 50). Particularly the
culture-shock phenomenon contradicts the supposition of fulfilling a
desire, because we usually only desire pleasant things. Finally a psychological explanation can only say something about the mechanism but
nothing about the reality of an experience (25; 57; see below).
6) The NDE is not merely an archetype of the Jungian collective unconscious. This model is only a controversial undemonstrable theory and
therefore explains something unknown by some other unknown thing
(13; 43; 47; 79). In dreams for example, we do not find an NDE-archetype. This also could not explain the verifiable OBE-perceptions (13).
Interestingly, C. G. Jung himself had an NDE which changed his life and
strengthened his belief in life after death (34; 43). Possibly the other
world is even a source of all of our symbols (17).
7) The NDE is not a birth-recall. Actually the NDE is just the opposite of a
birth experience: an easy-floating trip through the tunnel does not resemble the painful passage through the birth-canal. The obstetrician is experienced as a threat and not as a wonderful light. Birth is always painful
while the peak experience of an NDE is characterized by painlessness.
The birth hypothesis also cannot explain the appearance of deceased
people. In general perception during birth is by no means as differentiated as perception during a NDE. Finally, cesarean sections should also
entail other NDEs that have not been observed. Altogether, the birth hypothesis reduces all religious/mystical experiences to kinds of birth recall that are surely untenable (13; 18, etc.).
8) Psychological theories cannot say anything about the objective reality
of the NDE. Many psychologists forget this when they try to reduce the
NDE to purely theoretical contentions (25; 50; 47; 79). Concerning the
most important theories, the following must be said: Palmer postulates
that the imminent death threatens the body and self-concept of a human
being. The OBE then reestablishes self-identity via primary process.
This theory can neither explain the perspective above nor the verifiable
228
perceptions during the OBE (73). Especially the fact that the OBEer regards the threatening thing (i.e., the seemingly dead body) itself without
fear, is the opposite of what could be expected if the NDE were merely a
flight away from an awful reality. When do we want to flee into the direction of danger? Actually NDE-OBEs are rather blocked by fear of one's
own death (50). To explain the mystical NDE-elements as regression into
the state before ego-differentiation is already phenomenologically wrong,
because the whole NDE is experienced with a completely intact egoidentity. Also the concept of depersonalization cannot explain the NDE
which by definition is not depersonalization (13; 17; 25; 28; 43, etc.).
9) The NDE (OBE) cannot be explained by subliminal perception. This is
defined as acoustic perception of emotionally important and especially
threatening information during operations or in coma. The concomitant
helplessness and feeling of distorted reality of one's own experiences in
this state contribute to the appearance of psychophysiological disturbances afterwards. Even pain is suddenly again perceived (15; 53; 80;
81; 82; 83; 84). Contrary to this, the NDE (OBE) is characterized mainly
by optical perceptions of important and less important things in a state of
very rational (OBE) control and absolute certainty of the reality that one
sees. During this experience the NDEer experiences complete painlessness. The psychic aftereffects are primarily positive (see above).
10) The statement that NDEs contain perceptions of (this and another) reality cannot be falsified. The reason is that the current definition of a hallucination is grounded on an antiquated reality-concept (of a simple realism) (77; 116). Also, the perception-psychological assumptions of this
definition after which reality is imaged in the brain via our sense organs
are wrong (22a; 77; 86; 87, etc.). The fact is that we do not even know
the neurophysiological correlates of hallucinations (77; see below). We
know reality only by its image in our brain; this image however is very
selective, dependent on our state of consciousness. This reality is never
objective. Therefore in the conventional psychiatric sense all perceptions are illusions. Physical and epistemiologically standard NDEs,
however, open a reality which exists as surely as nuclear particles or the
feeling of love exist (43; 76; 77; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 91; 92, etc.).
11) The verifiable perceptions of the NDEer7s real surroundings, the
thoughts of people present, his own past, the imminent death (in a scenic
form) and sometimes also of the future are by definition not hallucinations. These perceptions are first of all perceptions of the external and
bodily reality which are already in the terminology of conventional psychiatry no hallucinations (70; 77; 79).
The other NDE-elements can also be distinguished from usual hallucinations and also therefore from dreams which by definition are hallucinations in
229
a) While they are always individually unique, NDEs show a surprising
similarity (6; 15; 77; 87, etc.);
b) Hallucinations of mentally ill people can clearly be distinguished from
the contents of an NDE (24; 34; 50; 65; 93); 80% of hallucinations have
a negative content while about 90% of the NDEs are positive (34; 94);
c) Usually it requires long-lasting hallucinations to have a psychopathological effect (77; 132) while just one short NDE may entail great changes
of personality in the direction of mental health;
d) Scientists who have experienced hallucinations differentiate clearly between NDEs, dreams and hallucinations (22a; 49; 43; 5 1 , e t ~ . ) ;
e) The OBE is no heautoskopic hallucination (1 3; 43; 50, etc.), sometimes
it can be verified experimentally (43; 50; 70);
f) The fact that at the moment (or hour) of death dying people sometimes
can be seen far away from their deathbed by living, mentally healthy
human beings, indicates a kind of real appearance (35) which can be
compared to the appearance of deceased ones in the NDE. This also correlates with the imminent death of the NDEer. If the NDEer sees living
persons in this phase of his NDE, their appearance correlates quite often
with the imminent death of the seemingly living person (13; 16; 78). The
fact that the unknown deceased one looks the way he looked when he
was living also indicates a paranormal process and possibly an appearance of a ghost (1 3; 35, etc.);
g) The existence of an elevated hallucination index does not increase the
frequency of NDEs (34; 50; 65).
The intercultural, inter- and intra-individual differences between NDEs
whose content, interpretation and effects clearly correlate with culture, religion and (therefore) mentality of the experiencer do not speak immediately for
their hallucinative character. There could simply be other different worlds. A
correlation does not say something about the cause (17; 22d; 22j; 22k; 58; 64).
Scientifically this problem cannot be solved as easily as some people want
(see point 10):
It seems reasonable to assume that in ancient times those who suffered a near-fatal injury or became seriously ill and appeared dead, but later revived bearing spectacular accounts, would have been regarded uncritically as revealing something of the hidden
mysteries of death. This raises the intriguing possibility that some and perhaps much of
the folklore imagery of the after-life could be derived by NDEs, and that cultural expectations not only determine NDE imagery but are themselves also derived from it
(57, p. 61 2; my italics).
In the light of results of parapsychological research on the mechanisms of
extrasensory perception (ESP) (95; 96; 97) an intermediate position might be
correct: the other world's pictures of NDEs consist of a mixture of individual
hallucinations and true ESP, the latter representing- perhaps still on the level
230
of human images- the different "mansions in the house of God" that Jesus
mentioned (John 14,2).
In any case the astonishing uniformity of the near-death experiences of
mankind refers to the importance of religious values and other worldly conceptions of humans. This uniformity and many other facts even speak for a biological (and genetic) base of (this) religious experience and therefore religiosity in general. What do we then know about the neurophysiology of the
NDE- and can this knowledge help our understanding of the meaning of this
universal experience?
In principle the significance of neurophysiological findings is limited. They
are only correlates of the NDE which cannot say anything about its objective
reality nor its meaning for the NDEer. Actually it is not clear if the neurophysiological correlates, for instance of schizophrenia, are cause or consequence of
this disease. Then each physiological correlate of the color red, for example, is
only secondary; we would not understand it without knowing first what red is.
Finally we cannot reduce one perception (of the color red or the appearance of
a deceased person) to another (neurophysiological) perception because both
are only perceptions. So physically and neurophysiologically neither the color
red nor the deceased person exist; colors, forms, smells, joy, love and pain are
unknown in these disciplines, like the NDE they (seem to) exist only in our
brain. If we would know all neurophysiological processes of the perception of
the rising sun, nowhere would a light emerge. We would only remain in the description of material particles and fields of energy (22a; 2211; 43; 45; 50; 77;
85; 98).
Neurophysiology of the NDE
In so far as neither the physiological base of hallucinations nor the complex
states of consciousness like schizophrenia, depression and fear (not to mention
love or dreams) are really known after years of research (22a; 77), our knowledge of the neurophysiology of NDEs is very small, particularly because
NDEs have only been discussed and investigated for a short time.
What we know is the following: certainly the NDE is based on a functioning
brain, working in an Altered State of Consciousness (ASC) during the NDE.
Especially the psychical (PSI or ESP) capacities are increased in this state of
mind. Indeed an isoelectric EEG does not exclude discharges of deeper brain
structures (13; 99). Actually many NDEs are experienced by persons only experiencing imminent death, i.e., not clinical death, and therefore without damage to brain functions (21a; 21m). Furthermore, some elements- especially
the PSI components- of the NDE are more or less common for human beings
who are not at all near death; some can be caused by hallucinogens (LSD, ketamine) or electrical stimulation of the brain (3; 17; 55; 87; 100; 101 ; 102;
140).
Neither hypoxia nor hypercapnia are necessary to cause an NDE. However
both are often present (in a combination) and the latter can cause some NDE-
231
elements artificially. Actually NDEs can be found with normal, increased or
decreased pC02 and p 0 2 (3; 15; 17; 18; 21a; 21m; 22a; 22f; 25; 43; 57, etc.).
We do not know NDE-specific transmitter-constellations. There are only
two important assumptions. First: Endorphins/encephalins could play a role;
but the evidence is contradictory. These substances on the one hand do not
have an hallucinogenic effect (13; 15; 22a; 22n; 59; 91; 103; 118; 146). On the
other hand they participate in many important experiences of man so that their
activation during the NDE is not exceptional (22a; 22n; 87; 91; 103). Assumptions concerning the participation of serotonin are safer. LSD and ketamine
(possibly also hypercapnia), for example, inhibit neurons in the midbrain
which contain serotonin; this inhibition again activates the temporolimbic system whose epileptogen discharges could be the common final pathway of all
neurophysiological mechanisms (22a; 22f; 2211; 24; 101; 102; 104).
Actually the temporolimbic region contains numerous endorphinlencephalin receptors (22a; 22n). Furthermore, the long-term memory may be located here (105). Then the electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe could
evoke fragments of a life review, d6ji-vu phenomena and also an OBE (17;
22a; 22f; 43; 87; 100; 106; 148). In a small case study, OBEs, d6ji-vu phenomena and other psychical (PSI or ESP) elements of NDEs were associated with
possible temporal lobe symptoms (PTLS). Quite often, patients with these
symptoms hear sounds which sometimes resemble the initial sounds of NDEs.
Even in a religious conversion, feelings of blessedness and all-oneness are described in connection with temporal lobe symptomatology (15; 22a; 26; 43;
45; 85; 98; 100; 106; 107; 108). NDEers in and after the NDE show a significant increase of psychical (PSI or ESP) capacities which are possibly located
in the temporolimbic system (see above) (22a; 22b). Finally antiepileptic
medication like sedatives and hypnotics often interfere with the genesis of
NDEs that can be explained by their influence on the limbic system (15; 22c;
220; 57; 104; 109).
However, this interference does not always take place. NDEs have occurred
under the influence of these medications (22h; 29; 43, etc.). We should not forget that all meaningful human behavior is connected with the temporolimbic
region. Its activation during the NDE is nothing special (22a). Finally, temporal lobe epilepsies usually do not have any similarity with NDEs; their symptoms, on the contrary, are emotionally negative, idiosyncratic, and uncontrollably automatic. Furthermore, the NDE does not show all the sensorial,
motorial, autonomic and (gustatory, olfactorial, haptic and thermic) hallucinative symptoms of the temporal lobe epilepsy. The visual hallucinations of this
disease are visual disturbances and not intact images as in NDE perceptions.
An isoelectric EEG is inconceivable with a temporal lobe epilepsy but has
been observed during some NDEs (13; 15; 17; 18; 22a; 50; 100; 108; 110,
etc.). So NDEs are not temporal lobe epilepsies; some indices however point at
a special participation of the ternporolimbic system.
By no means can the NDE be psychopathologized on the grounds of the
above mentioned neurophysiological assumptions. While some critics main-
232
tain that the NDE is a dysfunction of the brain, this would entail a dysfunctional, confused/incoherent and individually different experience which has destabilizing, disintegrating and psychopathologizing effects for the experiencer.
But the NDE is just the opposite: it constitutes a completely unexpected peak
capacity of the human brain and has psychohygienic/psychotherapeutic effects which exceed those of many psychotherapies.
In the light of their complexity, their relative uniform structure and their
enormous efliciency it can be postulated that the NDE neurophysiologically
consists of a controlled, selective activation of certain (though mainly unknown) biologically founded hierarchical neuronal structures (22a). However
the fact is that quite different causes (i.e., acute bronchial asthma, postpartal
embolism, intracerebral bleeding, operation, birth, coma or pure psychological expectation of imminent death) with different neurophysiological correlates always produce very similar NDEs. This indicates the participation of a
determined brain-structure otherwise we would expect an individually different unstructured organic psychosyndrome.
Furthermore, the fact that hallucinogens can produce NDE-like experiences
under certain psychic and therefore neurophysiological conditions (setting) (3;
21c; 102; 140; 142) confirms the existence of a specific neuro-biological involvement in the NDE. The psychiatrist Stanislav Grof experimented with
LSD-induced NDE-like experiences on incurable cancer patients. The patients, like the normal NDEer, lost their fear of death, became more positive in
their outlook, came out of depression, and experienced a release of pain (3).
That is the reason why in many cultures hallucinogens taken during the ritual
of initiation are also used to assist entrance into the world of the gods, religious experiences of death and the other world (13; 17, etc.).
Just as synthetic morphine-antagonists proved the existence of endogenous
opiates and their neurons and receptors, the effects of LSD and other hallucinogens are a clear indication for the existence of engogenous hallucinogens.
Scientists have just discovered, isolated, coded and cloned the gene which produces the receptors for hashish in the human brain (198)- a strong indication
for the existence of endogenous hashish, which has been discovered just some
weeks ago (162). Also derivatives of tryptophan, the precursors of serotonin,
are potent psychedelics (178; 150). The release of these endogenous hallucinogens during an NDE then has to happen within a complex hierarchical,
neuronal structure which produces at the moment of death the specific and
complex pattern of the NDE.
The fact is that the mystical quality and the efSects of the NDE can be compared with the religious-mystical experiences of all cultures of mankind and
therefore constitutes the continuously reproduced base of the other world-conceptions of all religions (3; 57; 68; 102; 106; 111; 112; 113; 114; 115; 116;
117; 118; 119; 120; 121; 122; 123; 124; 125; 126; 133; 134; 135, 160; 161,
etc.) and the neuro-biologically-based core of all religious experiences on the
233
Moreover, the implicit statement of nearly all religious experiences to represent the reality of another world cannot be falsified by neurophysiological
correlates. Even if someone would label all of these religious experiences as a
psychopathological, antiquated concept of reality and a definition of hallucinations based on this concept, the universal occurrence and psychohygienic
effects of these experiences with whole systems of meaning (i.e. religions)
founded upon them would always demonstrate the opposite (17). Dr. V. M.
Neppe, Director of the Division of Neuropsychiatry at the University of Washington School of Medicine, sums it up as follows:
... these results... may imply that there is an organic base which allows the experiencing
of an endogenous or exogenous reality which others, by virtue of their more conventional pattern of functioning, may not be able to experience... the same common pattern
of functioning that predisposed the percipients to gustatory or haptic hallucinations deriving from within the brain may allow the experiencing of a different kind of reality
deriving exogenously (i.e., outside the brain) and manifesting as SPE (subjective paranormal experience, my suppl.) (45, p. 1 1 - 12).
On the other hand in the "British Medical Journal" the psychiatrist L. Appleby concedes:
Explanations have included the spiritual, the psychoanalytical, and the purely neurological, all sharing only one attribute: each requires a form of faith. And, though the
features of the near death experience are reproduced in drug-induced states, this points
to a physiological substrate rather than to their etiology (98, p. 976).
Concluding Remarks
As a human experience (127) the NDEs really demonstrate the maximum
capacity of the brain. In most cases we observe an exceptional increase of psychical (PSI or ESP) capacities (50; 55; 62; 130; 131; 136; 137; 138). This sudden and completely unexpected increase of extrasensory and extracorporeal
perception just directly before biological death indicates clearly that the brain
prepares the dying human being for another life, a life beyond the body and
consequently one with extrasensory perception. That is the neuro-biologically
founded interpretation of the NDE, confirmed by the brain of all NDEers.
Therefore, all other (reductionistic) interpretations, products of the normal
waking consciousness as only one state of mind, might be more or less rational
illusions which have to be left behind when death is coming. At this point an
altered state of consciousness and understanding begins.
References
1 ~ r z t e b l a tBaden-Wiirttemberg
t
10189,701..
2 Ernest Becker, Dynamik des Todes: Die Uberwindung der Todes-furcht (Giitersloh: gold-
234
3 Stanislav GrofIJoan Halifax, Die Begegnung mit dem Tod (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1980)
4 Stanislav und Christina Grof, Jenseits des Todes: An den Toren des Bewuatseins (Munchen:
Kosel Verlag 1984)
5 Arzteblatt Baden-Wurttemberg 6190,396
6 Dr. med. M. Rawlings, Jenseits der Todeslinie: Neue klare Hinweise auf die Existenz von
Himmel und Holle (CH 5400 Baden: Verlag Christiche Budhhandlung 0.J.)
7 SPIEGEL 5/90,66 - 74
8 ZEIT 20188
9 PSYCHOLOGIE HEUTE 7188 12 - 13
10 RHEIN-NECKAR-ZEITUNG 19.2.90
11 Dr. med. R. A. Moody, Leben nach dem Tod: Die Erforschung einer unerklarten Erfahrung
(Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag BmbH 1977)
12 ders., Nachgedanken uber das Leben nach dem Tod (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag
GmbH 1978)
13 ders., Das Licht von druben: Neue Fragen und Antworten (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt
Verlag 1989)
14 K. Ring, Sur la frontikre de la vie (Paris: Editions Robert Laffont 1982)
15 Dr. M. B. Sabom, Erinnerung an den Tod: Eine medizinische Untersuchung (Berlin: Goldmann-Verlag 1 9862)
16 E. Kiibler-Ross, Uber den Tod und das Leben danach (MelsbachINeuwied: Verlag 'Die Silberschnur' Gmbh 1986)
17 Carol Zaleski, Otherworld Journeys: Accounts of Near-Death Experience in Medieval and
Modern Times (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 1987)
18 H. GiesekeIR. van Quekelberghe, 'Near-Death Experiences' und ihre biographischen Nachwirkungen (Landau: Festschrift der Erziehungswissenschaftlichen Hochschule Landau
1989)
19 P. M. H. Atwater, Coming Back to Life: The After-Effects of the Near-Death Experience
(New York: Ballantine Books Edition 1989)
20 IANDS News Bulletin United Kingdom
a 811989
d 2/86
g 5/88
b 10190
e 3/86 - 87
h 6/88
c 1/85 - 86
f 4/87
i 7/89
21 Revitalized Signs: Newsletter for the International Association for Near Death Studies
i 913, 1990
m VS 113, 1992
a 911, 1990
e 813, 1989
b 812, 1989
f 714, 1988
j 1012, 1991
n 112, 1992
c 814,1989
g 811, 1989
k 1013, 1991
d 914, 1990
h 912, 1990
1 Vital Signs (VS) (new name) 111, 1992
22 Journal of Near-Death Studies
a 714, 1989
g 111, 1979
m 212, 1982
s 913, 1990
b 812, 1989
h 311, 1983
n 211, 1982
t 914, 1990
c 613, 1988
i 611, 1987
o 712, 1988
u 1014, 1992
d 312, 1983
j 112, 1981
p 711, 1988
v 814, 1990
e 713,1989
k 411,1984
q 911, 1990
w 1111,1992
f 811, 1989
1 512, 1985
x 1013, 1992
r 912, 1990
23 Melvin Morse, A Near-Death Experience in a 7-Year-Old Child (Am J Dis Child, Vol 137,
Oct 1983,959 - 961)
24 Melvin Morse, MD; Paul Castillo, MD; David Venecia, MD; Jerrold Milstein, MD; Donald
C. Tyler, MD, Childhood Near Death Experiences (Am J Dis Child, Vol 140, Nov 1986,
1110- 1114)
25 Melvin Morse, MD; D. Conner; D. Tyler, MD, Near-Death Experiences in a Pediatric Population: A Preliminary Report (Am J Dis Child, Vol 139, June 1985,595 - 600)
26 R. Noyes Jr., MD; R. Kletti, MA, Panoramic Memory: A Response to the Threat of Death
(Omega, Vol8(3), 1977,181 - 194)
27 R. Noyes, Jr., Attitude Change Following Near-Death Experiences (Psychiatry, Vol43, Aug
1980,234 - 242)
28 R. Noyes, Jr., MD; P. R. Hoenk, M. S. W., Samuel Kaperman, B. A. and D. J. Slyman, M. S.,
Depersonalization in Accident Victims and Psychiatric Patients (The Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, Vol 164, No. 6, 1977,401 - 407)
235
29 K. Ring, S. Franklin, Do Suicide Survivors Report Near-Death Experiences? (Omega 12,
198112,191 - 208)
30 D. H. Rosen, MD, Suicide Survivors: A Follow-up Study of Persons Who Survived Jumping
from the Golden Gate and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (West J Med 122, Apr 1975,
289 - 294)
3 1 B. Greyson, MD, Incidence of Near-Death Experiences Following Attempted Suicide (Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol 16(1), Spring 1986)
32 G. Gallup, Jr./W. Proctor, Adventures in Immortality: A Look Beyond the Threshold of
Death (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company 1982)
33 H. Schreiber, Ganz ruhig, in einem himmlischen Zustand: Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen im
Grenzbereich des Todes (SPIEGEL 2611977,84 - 10 1)
34 C. R. Lundahl (ed), A Collection of Near-Death Research Readings (Chicago: Nelson-Hall
Publishers 1982)
35 E. Mattiesen, Das personliche ~ b e r l e b e ndes Todes (Berlin und Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter
& Co 1936)
36 K. Osis, Deathbeg Observations by Physicians and Nurses (New York: Parapsychology
Foundation 1982)
37 H. J. Irwin, Flight of Mind: a Psychological Study of the Out-of-Body Experience (New
York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1985)
38 Allensbach Archiv, Internationale Wertestudien 1981182
39 I. Stevenson, MD, Research into the Evidence of Man's Survival After Death (The Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease Vol. 165, No. 3, 1977, 152 - 170)
40 PSYCHOLOGIE HEUTE 211990, p. 9 - 10
41 K. Ring, Den Tod erfahren-das Leben gewinnen: Erkenntnisse und erfahrungen von Menschen, die an der Schwelle zum Tod gestanden und uberlebt haben (Bern, Munchen, Wien:
Scherz-Verlag 1984)
42 Research lay-out der IANDS Niederlande
43 G. 0 . GabbardIS. W. Twemlow, With the Eyes of the Mind: An Empirical Analysis of Outof-Body States (New York: Praeger Publishers 1984)
44 Prof. Dr. A. Heim, Notizen uber den Tod durch Absturz (Jahrbuch des Schweizer Alpenclub,
27, 1892,327 - 337)
45 V. M. Neppe, Temporal Lobe Symptomatology in Subjective Paranormal Experiments (The
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 77 (1), Jan. 1983, 1 - 29)
e
21.6.1990, p. 27
46 ~ r z t Zeitung
47 D. S. Rogo, The Return from Silence (Kent: The Aquarian Press 1989)
48 B. Greyson, MD, A Typology of Near-Death Experiences (Am J Psychiatry 142:8, August
1985)
49 B. Greyson, MD; I. Stevenson, MD, The Phenomenology of Near-Death Experiences (Am J
Psychiatry 137: 10, Oct 1980)
50 M. Grosso, Toward an Explanation of Near-Death Phenomena (Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 75, 1981,37 - 60)
51 M. Grey, Return from Death: An Exploration of the Near-Death Experience (Guernsey:
ARKANA 1985)
es
nach dem neuen Gegenstand52 Dr. A. Wischnik, Mediscript-Reihe: ~ k o l o ~ i s c hStoffgebiet
skatalog fur den zweiten Abschnitt der frztlichen Prufung (Munchen: Mediscript-Verlag
1979)
53 M. Kurthen, D. B. Linke, Teilhirntod und Ethik (Ethik Med 1989, 1, 134 - 142)
54 D. B. Linke, G. Lamberti, Welche Methode begrundet die Praxis?- Stellungnahme zu den
Entgegnungen von Kinzel, Laros und Lehrl zu "Das Diamed-Testsystem (Systemhaus Konig
& Partnzr 1984)- Eine Rezension", Heft 4 (1989), 202-206 d.Z. (Rehabilitation 28, 1989,
207-208)
55 PSYCHOLOGIE HEUTE 4/89, p. 8 - 9
56 Prof. Dr. R. van Quekelberghe, Erfassungssystem veranderter Bewufltseinzustande (EBV):
Fragebogen (EWH Landau 1990)
57 G. RobertsIJ. Own, The Near-Death Experience (British Journal of Psychiatry 1988, 153,
607 - 617)
58 P. Dinzelbacher, An der Schwelle zum Jenseits: Sterbevisionen im interkulturellen Vergleich
(Freiburg: Herder Taschenbuch Verlag 1989)
59 R. Kastenbaum, Ph.D (ed), Between Life and Death (New York: Springer Publishing Company 1979)
60 G. 0 . Gabbard, MD; S. W. Twemlow, MD; F. C. Jones ED.D, Do 'Near-Death Experiences'
Occur Only Near Death? (The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 169, No. 6,
1981,374 - 377)
61 B. Greyson, MD, Near-Death Experiences and Personal Values (Am J. Psychiatry 1405,
May 1983,618 - 620)
62 P. M. Perspektive 1411989
63 E. F. Jung, Der Weg Ins Jenseits: Mythen Vom Leben Nach Dem Tode (Wiesbaden: Fourier
Verlag Gmbh 0.J.)
64 S. Pasricha, Ph.D; I. Stevenson, MD, Near-Death Experiences in India: A Preliminary Report (The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Vol 174, No. 3, 1986)
65 I. Currie, Niemand stirbt fur alle Zeit: Berichte aus dem Reich Jenseits des Todes (Berlin:
Goldmann-Verlag 1985)
66 B. LangIC. McDannell, Der Himmel: Eine Kulturgeschichte des ewigen Lebens (Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag 1990)
67 A. Resch (Hg.), Fortleben nach dem Tode (Innsbruck: Resch Verlag 1987)
68 E. F. Jung, Der Weg Ins Jenseits: Mythen Vom Leben Nach Dem Tode (Wiesbaden: Fourier
Verlag GmbH 0.J.)
69 J. T. Tobacyk, Ph. D; T. P. Mitchell, Ph.D, The Out-of-body Experience and Personality Adjustment (The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease vol 175, No. 6, 1987,367 - 370)
70 J. Ehrenwald, MD, Out-of-the-Body Experience and the Denial of Death (The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 159, No. 4, 1974,227-233)
71 H. J. Irwin, Ph.D, The Psychological Function of Out-of-Body Experiences: So Who Needs
the Out-of-Body Experience? (The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Vol. 169, No. 4,
198 1,244-248)
72 C. S. Alvarado, Phenomenological Aspects of Out-of-Body Experiences: A Report of Three
Studies (American Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 1984,78, (3), 219-240)
73 S. J. Blackmore, A Psychological Theory of the Out-of-Body Experience (Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 48, Sept. 1984,201-218)
74 S. J. Blackmore, Spontaneous and Deliberate OBEs: A Questionnaire Survey (Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 53, No. 812, Jan. 1986,218 - 224)
75 A. M. CooklH. J. Irwin, Visuospatial Skills and the Out-of-Body Experience (Journal of
Parapsychology, Vol. 47, March 1983,24 - 35)
76 J. GuckenbachlS. LaBerge (ed): Conscious Mind, Sleeping Brain: Perspectives on Lucid
Dreaming (New York: Plenum Press 1988)
77 M. Spitzner, Halluzinationen: Ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen und klinischen Psychopathologie
(Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag 1988)
78 E. Kiibler-Ross, Kinder und Tod (Ziirich: Kreuz Verlag 1983)
79 G. 0 . Gabbard, MD; S. W. Twemlow, MD, Explanatory Hypotheses for Near-Death Experiences (Revision Vol. 4, No. 2, 1981,68-72)
80 R. S. Blacher, MD, Awareness During Surgery (Anesthesiology 61: 1-2, 1984)
81 B. M. Reuter, D. B. Linke und M. Kurthen, Kognitive Prozesse bei BewuBtlosen? Eine
Brain-Mapping Studie zu P300 (Arch Psychol. 141, 1989, 155-173)
82 A. Chekin, Ph.D; P. Harroun, MD, Anesthesia and Memory Processes (Anesthesiology 34,
1971,469-474)
83 J. La Puma, MD; D. L. Schiedermayer, MD; A. E. Gulyas, MA; M. Siegler, MD, Talking to
Comatose Patients (Arch Neurol., Vol. 45, Jan 1988,20 - 22)
84 Arzte Zeitung 2.4.1990, 13
85 D. B. Linke, M. Kurthen, Parallelitat von Gehirn und Seele: Neurowissenschaften und LeibSeele-Problem (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag 1988)
86 S. LaBerge, Hellwach im Traum: Hochste BewuBtheit in tiefem Schlaf (Paderborn: Jufermann-Verlag 1987)
87 J. HooperlD. Teresi, Das Drei-Pfund-Universum: Das Gehirn als Zentrum des Denkens und
Fuhlens (Dusseldork, Wien, New York: Econ Verlag 1988)
88 Dr. A. Hofmann, Die Wechselbeziehung von innerem und auBerem Raum (Wege 8912, 8 14)
89 R. Ornstein, Multimind: Ein neues Model1 des menschlichen Geistes (Paderborn: Junfermann 1989)
90 Dr. med. B. Siegel, Prognose Hoffnung: Heilerfolge aus der Praxis eines mutigen Arztes
(Dusseldorf, Wien, New York: Econ Verlag 1988)
91 Dr. Med. J. Achterberg, Die Heilende Kraft der Imagination: Heilung durch Gedankenkraft
Grundlagen und Methoden der Neuen Medizin (Bern, Munchen, Wien: Scherz-Verlag 1987)
92 P. KruseIV. Gheorghiu, Suggestion, Hypnose, die Kategorie des UnbewuSten und das
Phanomen der Dissoziation: Ordnungsbildung in kognitiven Systemen (Hypnose und Kognition Bd. 6, Heft 2, Oktober 1989,49-61)
93 B. Greyson, MD, The Near-Death Experience Scale (The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, Vol. 17 1, No. 6, 1983)
94 G. HuberIG. Gross, Wahn: Eine deskriptiv-phanomenologische Untersuchung schizophrenen Wahns (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag 1977)
95. Hans Bender, Umgang mit dem Okkulten (Freiburg im Breisgau: Aurum Verlag 1984)
96 Hans Bender, Verborgene Wirklichkeit (Munchen: R. Piper GmbH & Co. KG 1985)
97 Walter von Lucadou, Psyche und Chaos: Neue Ergebnisse der Psychokinese-Forschung
(Freiburg im Breisgau: Aurum Verlag 1989)
98 L. Appleby, Near Death Experience: Analogous to Other Stress Induced Psychological Phenomena (British Medical Journal Vol. 298, 1989,976 - 977)
99 E. A. Rodin, MD, The Reality of Death Experiences: A Personal Perspective (The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 168, No. 5, May 1980)
100 W. Penfield, The Twenty-Ninth Maudsley Lecture: The Role of the Temporal Cortex in Certain Psychical Phenomena (The Journal of Mental Science, 101,1955,451 - 465)
101 R. H. Bolle, Am Ursprung der Sehnsucht: Tiefenpsychologische Aspekte veranderter Wachbewul3tseinszustande am Beispiel des Anasthetikums KETANEST (Berlin: Verlag fur Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1988)
102 H Leuner, Halluzinogene: Psychische Grenzzustande in Forschung und Psychotherapie
(Bern, Stuttgart, Wien: Huber, 1983)
103 PSYCHOLOGIE HEUTE 1211988
104 W. ForthID. HenschlerIW. Rummel, Pharmakologie und Toxikologie (Mannheim, Wien,
Zurich: Bibliographisches Institut, 1977)
105 DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT 911990
106 Julian Jaynes, Der Ursprung des BewuStseins durch den Zusammenbruch der bikamralen
Psyche (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, 1988)
107 M. Mumenthaler, Neurologie (Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1986)
108 H. F. DurwenID. B. Linke, Neuropsychological Evaluation of Patients with Temporolimbic
Epilepsy (Advances in Neurosurgery, Vol. 15, 1987,152 - 157)
109 U. BorchardIC. Haring (Hrsg.), Nutzen und Gefahren der Therapie mit Benzodiazepinen
(Darmstadt: Steinkopff Verlag , 1986)
110 Commentaries on "The Reality of Death Experiences: A Personal Perspective" by Ernst
Rodin (The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 168, No. 5, 1980,264 - 274)
11 1 W. James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1961)
112 J. Pennachio, Near-Death Experience as Mystical Experience (Journal of Religion and
Health, Vol. 25, No. 1, Spring 1986,64 - 72)
113 M. Eliade, Schamanismus und archaische Ekstasetechnik (Frankfut am Main: Suhrkamp,
1982)
1 14 C. F. von WeizackerIG. Krishna, Die Biologische Basis der Religivsen Erfahrung (Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp, 1988)
115 L. Sannella, MD, Kundalini - Psychosis or Transcendence? (Washington: H. S. Dakin Company, 1978)
116 S. Grof, Geburt, Tod und Transzendendenz: Neue Dimensionen in der Psychologie
(Miinchen: Kosel, 1985)
117 A. Dittrich, Atiologie-unabhangige Strukturen Veranderter Wachbewul3tseinszustande:
Ergebnisse Empirischer Untersuchungen uber Halluzionogene I. und 11. Ordnung, Sensorische Deprivation, Hypnagoge Zustande, Hypnotische Verfahren sowie Reizuberflutung
(Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag, 1985)
1 18 A. DittrichIC. Scharfetter (Hrsg.), Ethnopsychotherapie (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag,
1987)
119 S. Grof, Topographie des UnbewuBten: LSD im Dienst der Tiefenpsychologischen
Forschung (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1983)
238
120 T. Leary, Ph.D; R. Metzner, Ph.D; R. Alpert, PhD, The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual
Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead (New York: University Books, 1971)
121 W. Y. Evan-Wentz (Hrsg.), Das Tibetanische Totenbuch (Olten und Freiburg im Breisgau:
Walter-Verlag 1983)
122 H. H. Taeger, Spiritualitat und Drogen: Interpersonnele Zusammenhange von Psychedelika
und Religios-Mystischen Aspekten in der Gegenkultur der 70er Jahre (Markt Erlbach: Raymond Martin Verlag, 1988)
123 Imam 'Abd ar-Rahim ibn Ahmad al-Qadi, Das Totenbuch des Islam: "Das Feuer und der
Gartenw-Die Lehren des Propheten Mohammed uber das Leben nach dem Tode (Bern,
Munchen: Scherz Verlag, 198 1)
124 Agyptisches Totenbuch, ubersetzt und kommentiert von Prof. Dr. phil. Gregoire Kolpaktchy
(Bern, Munchen: Scherz Verlag, 1985)
125 P. Arnold, Das Totenbuch der Maya: Der Kreislauf von Leben und Tod aus der Sicht der
Maya (Munchen: Droemersche Verlagsanstalt Th. Knauer nachf. 1984)
e
23.7.1990, p. 15
126 ~ r z t Zeitung,
127 A. A. Maslow, Psychologie des Seins: Ein Entwurf (Frankfurt am Main: Fische Taschenbuch
Verlag GmbH, 1985)
128 George G. RitchieIElizabeth Sherrill, Ruckkehr von Morgen (Marburg an der Lahn: Verlag
der Francke-Buchhandlung GmbH, 1986)
129 C. E. Schorer, M. D., Two Native American Near-Death Experiences (Omega, Vol. 1612,
1985 - 1986, 111 - 113)
130 David Lorimer, Survival? Body, Mind and Death in the Light of Psychic Experience (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984)
13 1 Michael Grosso, The Final Choice: Playing the Survival Game (Walpole, New Hampshire:
Stillpoint Publishing, 1985)
132 Jurg Zutt (Hrsg.), Ergriffenheit und Besessenheit: Ein Interdisziplinares Gesprach uber Transkulturell-Anthropoligische und Psychiatrische Fragen (Bern: A. Francke AG Verlag, 1972)
133 Hanscarl LeunerIMichael Schlichting, Symposion " ~ b e rden Derzeitigen Stand der
Forschung auf dem Gebiet der Psychoaktiven Substanzen" (Berlin: Express Edition GmbH,
1986)
134 M. SchlichtingIH. Leuner (Hrsg.), 2. Symposion uber Psychoaktive Substanzen und Veranderte BewuBtseinszustande in Forschung und Therapie (Gottingen: ECBSIECSC, 1988)
135 M. SchlichtingIH. Leuner (Hrsg.), 3. Symposion uber Psychoaktive Substanzen und Veranderte BewuStseinszustande in Forschung und Therapie (Gottingen: ECGSIECSC, 1989)
136 Kenneth Ring, Paranormal and Other Non-Ordinary Aspects of Near-Death Experiences:
Implications for a New Paradigm (Essence, Vol. 511, 1981,33-51)
137 A. Ernst, Parapsychologie heute: Methoden, Probleme und Ergebnisse einer Grenzwissenschaft (TW NEUROLOGIE PSYCHIATRIE 3, NovemberIDezember 1989,563 - 570)
138 Christian Stephan, Die Bedeutung Veranderter BewuStseinszustande fur die parapsychologische Forschung (TW NEUROLOGIE PSYCHIATRIE 3, NovemberIDezember 1989,573 585)
139 Susan J. Blackmore, Beyond the Body: An Investigation of Out-of-the-Body Experiences
(Aylesbury, Bucks: Paladin Grafton Books, 1983)
140 Ernst Benz, Halluzinogen-Unterstiitzte Psychotherapie: Erhebung bei der Schweizerischen
~ r z t e ~ e s e l l s c h afur
f t Psycholytische Therapie (Zurich: dissertation 1989)
141 Claudio Naranjo, Die Reise zum Ich: Psychotherapie mit Heilenden Drogen (Frankfurt am
Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1979)
142 Stanislav Grof, LSD-Psychotherapie (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1983)
143 Ian Stevenson, Wiedergeburt: Kinder Erinnern sich an Fruhere Erdenleben (Grafing: Aquamarin Verlag, 1989)
144 Ian Stevenson, Reinkarnation: Der Mensch im Wandel von Tod und Wiedergeburt (Freiburg
im Breisgau: Aurum Verlag, 1976)
145 Colin A. Ross, Multiple Personality Disorder: Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Treatment
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989)
146 T. Oyama, T. Jin, R. Yamaya, Profound Analgesic Effects of S-Endorphin in Man (Lancet,
Jan. 19, 1980, 122-124)
t
147 R. Gross, Unser Gedachtnis (Deutsches ~ r z t e b l a t10190,498-499)
148 S. Mullan, MD, W. Penfield, MD, Illusions of Comparative Interpretation and Emotion
(A.M.A. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, Vol. 81, March, 1959, p. 269-284)
239
149 J. Wilson, Auf dem Boden der Traume; Die Biologie des UnbewuBten (Weinheim und Basel:
Beltz Verlag 1986)
150 C. Ratsch (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch fur Ethnomedizin und BewuBtseinsforschung 111992 (Berlin:
Verlag fur Wissenschaft und Bildung 1992)
151 Bulletin De L'Association Internationale Pour L'Etude des Etats Proches del la Mort
(IANDS France)
a No 111988
d No. 411989
g No 711990
e No 511989
h No 811990
b No 211988
c No311988
f No611989
i No911991
152 Merkawah-Research: Progress Report on the Research into Near-Death-Experiences, Jan.
1990
153 Merkawah-Research: Letter from R.v. Wees, 27.8.1992
154 Tankred Koch, Lebendig Begraben: Geschichte und Geschichten vom Scheintod (Leipzig:
Editin Leipzi'g, 1990)
155 B. Greyson, N. E. Bush, Distressing Near-Death Experiences (Psychiatry Vol. 55, February
1992, p. 95 - 1 10)
156 E. Eysseric, E. Schmitt, Exptriences de L'Imminence de la Mort (Thkse de Doctoral en
MCdecine, Arvillard: Editions Prajna, 1985)
157 P. Dayot, Eptrience de 171mminencede la Mort: Approche Traditionnele (Thkse de Doctorat
en MCdecine, Arvillard: Editions Prajna, 1984)
158 EANDS-France, La Mort Transfigurt: Recherches sur les exptriences vCcues aux approches
de la mort (NDE) (Paris: L' Age Du Verseau, 1992)
159 Melvin MorselPaul Perry, Closer to the Light: Learning From Children's Near-Death Experience (London: Souvenir Press Ltd. 199 1)
160 Physis: Medizin und Naturwissenschaften 11190
161 Stanislav Grof: Das Abenteuer der Selbst: Entdeckung (Miinchen: Kosel-Verlag 1989)
162 Die Welt January 9, 1993, P. 7
Through the Invisible
Near-Death Experiences and
the Quest for Immortality
I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
some letter of that After-life to spell:
And by and by my Soul return'd to me,
And answer'd "I Myself am Heav'n and Hell."
—Omar Khayyam, The Rubaiyat
I
n 1980 I attended a weekend seminar in Klamath Falls, Oregon, on
"Voluntary Controls of Internal States," hosted by Jack Schwarz, a
man well known to practitioners of alternative medicine and altered
states of consciousness. According to literature advertising the seminar,
Jack is a survivor of a Nazi concentration camp, where years of isolation,
miserable conditions, and physical torture taught him to transcend his
body and go to a place where he could not be hurt. Jack's course was
intended to teach the principles of mind control through meditation.
Mastery of these principles allows one to voluntarily control such bodily
functions as pulse rate, blood pressure, pain, fatigue, and bleeding. In a
dramatic demonstration, Jack took out a ten-inch-long rusted sail needle
and shoved it through his biceps. He didn't wince and after he pulled it out
only a tiny drop of blood covered the hole. I was impressed.
The first part of the course was educational. We learned about the color, location, and power of our chakras (energy centers intersecting the physical and psychospiritual realms), the power of the mind to control the body
through use of these chakras, the cure of illnesses through visualization,
73
74
Part 2 Pseudoscience and Superstition
becoming at one with the universe through the interaction of matter and
energy, and other remarkable things. The second part of the course was
practical. We learned how to meditate, and then we chanted a type of
mantra to focus our energies. This went on for quite some time. Jack
explained that some people might experience some startling emotions. I
didn't, try as I might, but others certainly did. Several women fell off their
chairs and began writhing on the floor, breathing heavily and moaning in
what appeared to me as an orgasmic state. Even some men really got into it.
To help me get in tune with my chakras, one woman took me into a bathroom with a wall mirror, closed the door and shut off the lights, and tried to
show me the energy auras surrounding our bodies. I looked as hard as I
could but didn't see anything. One night we were driving along a quiet
Oregon highway and she started pointing out little light-creatures on the
side of the road. I couldn't see these either.
I took a few other seminars from Jack and since this was before I was a
"skeptic," I can honestly say I tried to experience what others seemed to—
but it always eluded me. In retrospect, I think what was going on had to do
with the fact that some people are fantasy-prone, others are open to suggestion and group influence, while still others are good at letting their
minds slip into altered states of consciousness. Since I think near-death
experiences are a type of altered state of consciousness, let us examine this
concept next.
What Is an Altered State
of Consciousness?
Most skeptics would agree with me that mystical and spiritual experiences
are nothing more than the product of fantasy and suggestion, but many
would question my third explanation of altered states of consciousness.
James Randi and I have discussed this subject at length. He, along with
other skeptics like psychologist Robert Baker (1990, 1996), believes that
there is no such thing as an altered state of consciousness because there is
nothing you can do in a so-called altered state that you cannot do in an
unaltered state (i.e., normal, awake, and conscious). Hypnosis, for example,
is often considered a type of altered state, yet hypnotist "The Amazing"
Kreskin offers to pay $100,000 to anyone who can get someone to do
something under hypnosis that they could not do in an ordinary wakeful
Chapter 5 Through the Invisible
75
state. Baker, Kreskin, Randi, and others think that hypnosis is nothing
more than fantasy role-playing. I disagree.
The expression altered states of consciousness was coined by parapsychologist Charles Tart in 1969, but mainstream psychologists have been aware
for some time of the fact that the mind is more than just conscious awareness. Psychologist Kenneth Bowers argues that experiments prove that
"there is something far more pervasive and subtle to hypnotic behavior
than voluntary and purposeful compliance with the perceived demands of
the situation" and that "the 'faking hypothesis' is an entirely inadequate
interpretation of hypnosis" (1976, p. 20). Stanford experimental psychologist Ernest Hilgard discovered through hypnosis a "hidden observer" in
the mind aware of what is going on but not on a conscious level, and that
there exists a "multiplicity of functional systems that are hierarchically
organized but can become dissociated from one another" (1977, p. 17).
Hilgard typically instructed his subjects as follows:
When I place my hand on your shoulder (after you are hypnotized) I shall be able
to talk to a hidden part of you that knows things are going on in your body, things
that are unknown to the part of you to which I am now talking. The part to which
I am now talking will not know what you are telling me or even that you are
talking... . You will remember that there is a part of you that knows many things
that are going on that may be hidden from either your normal consciousness or
the hypnotized part of you. (Knox, Morgan, and Hilgard 1974, p. 842)
This dissociation of the hidden observer is a type of altered state.
What exactly do we mean by an altered state or, for that matter, an
unaltered state? Here it might be useful to distinguish between quantitative
differences—those of degree—and qualitative differences—those of kind. A
pile of six apples and a pile of five apples are quantitatively different. A pile
of six apples and a pile of six oranges are qualitatively different. Most differences between states of consciousness are quantitative, not qualitative.
In other words, in both states a thing exists, just in different amounts. For
example, when sleeping, we think, since we dream; we form memories,
since we can remember our dreams; and we are sensitive to our environment, though considerably less so. Some people walk and talk in their
sleep, and we can control sleep, planning to get up at a certain time and
doing so fairly reliably. In other words, while asleep we just do less of what
we do while awake.
Still, sleep is a good example because it is so different that we do not
normally mistake it for a waking state. The quantitative difference is so
76
Part 2
Pseudoscience and Superstition
FIGURE 7:
EEG recordings for six different states of consciousness.
great as to be qualitatively different and thus count as an altered state.
Though the EEG readings in figure 7 are only quantitatively different, they
are so much so that the states they represent may be considered as
different in kind. If a coma is not an altered state, I do not know what is.
And it cannot be duplicated in a conscious state.
Consciousness has two characteristics: " 1. Monitoring ourselves and our
environment so that perceptions, memories, and thoughts are accurately
represented in awareness; 2. Controlling ourselves and our environment so
that we are able to initiate and terminate behavioral and cognitive activities" (Kihlstrom 1987, p. 1445). Thus, an altered state of consciousness
would have to interfere with our accurate monitoring of percepts, memories, and thoughts, as well as disrupt control of our behavior and cognition
within the environment. An altered state of consciousness exists when there
is significant interference with our monitoring and control of our environment. By
significant, I mean a dramatic departure from "normal" functioning. Both
sleep and hypnosis do this, as do hallucinations, near-death experiences,
out-of-body experiences, and other altered states.
Psychologist Barry Beyerstein makes a similar argument in defining
altered states of consciousness as the modification of specific neural sys-
Chapter 5
11
tems "by disease, repetitive stimulation, mental manipulations, or chemical
ingestion" such that "our perception of ourselves and the world can be
profoundly altered" (1996, p. 15). Psychologist Andrew Neher (1990) calls
them "transcendent states," which he defines as sudden and unexpected
alterations of consciousness intense enough to be overwhelming to the
person experiencing them. The key here is the intensity of the experience
and the profundity of the alteration of consciousness. Do we do anything in
an altered state that we cannot do in an unaltered state of consciousness?
Yes. For example, dreams are significantly different from waking
thoughts and daydreams. The fact that we normally never confuse the two
is an indication of their qualitative difference. Further, hallucinations are
not normally experienced in a stable, awake state unless there is some
intervening variable, such as extreme stress, drugs, or sleep deprivation.
Near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences are so unusual that
they often stand out as life-changing events.
No. The differences are only quantitative. But even here, it could be
argued that the differences are so great as to constitute a qualitative difference. You can show me that the EEGs recorded when I am normally
conscious and when I am hallucinating severely are only quantitatively
different, but I have no trouble experiencing and recognizing their dramatic difference. Consider the near-death experience.
The Near-Death Experience
One of the driving
forces behind religions, mysticism, spiritualism, the New
Age movement, and belief in ESP and psychic powers is the
desire to transcend the material world, to step beyond the
here-and-now and pass through the invisible into another
world beyond the senses. But where is this other world and
how do we get there? What is the appeal of some place we
know absolutely nothing about? Is death merely a transition
to this other side?
Believers claim that we do know something about the other side
through a phenomenon called the perithanatic or near-death experience
(NDE). The NDE, like its related partner the out-of-body experience (OBE),
is one of the most compelling phenomena in psychology. Apparently,
upon a close encounter with death, some individuals' experiences are so
similar as to lead many to believe that there is an afterlife or that death is
a pleasant experience or both. The phenomenon was popularized in 1975
78
substantiated by corroborative evidence from others. For example, cardiologist E Schoonmaker (1979) reported that 50 percent of the more than
two thousand patients he treated over an eighteen-year period had NDEs.
A 1982 Gallup poll found that one out of twenty Americans had been
through an NDE (Gallup 1982, p. 198). And Dean Sheils (1978) has studied the cross-cultural nature of the phenomenon.
When NDEs first came into prominence, they were perceived as isolated, unusual events and were dismissed by scientists and medical doctors
as either exaggerations or flights of fantasy by highly stressed but very creative minds. In the 1980s, however, NDEs gained credibility through the
work of Elisabeth Kiibler-Ross, a medical doctor who publicized this nowclassic example:
Mrs. Schwartz came into the hospital and told us how she had had a near-death
experience. She was a housewife from Indiana, a very simple and unsophisticated
woman. She had advanced cancer, had hemorrhaged and was put into a private
hospital, very close to death. The doctors attempted for 45 minutes to revive her,
after which she had no vital signs and was declared dead. She told me later that
while they were working on her, she had an experience of simply floating out of
her physical body and hovering a few feet above the bed, watching the
resuscitation team work very frantically. She described to me the designs of the
doctors' ties, she repeated a joke one of the young doctors told, she remembered
absolutely everything. And all she wanted to tell them was relax, take it easy, it is
all right, don't struggle so hard. The more she tried to tell them, the more
frantically they worked to revive her. Then, in her own language, she "gave up"
on them and lost consciousness. After they declared her dead, she made a
comeback and lived for another year and a half. (1981, p. 86)
This is a typical NDE, characterized by one of the three most commonly
reported elements: (1) a floating OBE in which you look down and see your
body; (2) passing through a tunnel or spiral chamber toward a bright light
that represents transcendence to "the other side"; (3) emerging on the other
side and seeing loved ones who have already passed away or a Godlike figure.
It seems obvious that these are hallucinatory wishful-thinking experiences,
yet Kiibler-Ross has gone out of her way to verify the stories. "We've had
people who were in severe auto accidents, had no vital signs and told us how
many blow torches were used to extricate them from the wreck" (1981, p.
86). Even more bizarre are stories of an imperfect or diseased body
becoming whole again during an NDE. "Quadriplegics are no longer paralyzed, multiple-sclerosis patients who have been in wheelchairs for years say
that when they were out of their bodies, they were able to sing and dance."
Chapter 5
79
Memories from a previously whole body? Of course. A close friend of mine
who became a paraplegic after an automobile accident often dreamed of
being whole. It was not at all unusual for her to wake in the morning and
fully expect to hop out of bed. But Kiibler-Ross does not buy the prosaic
explanation: "You take totally blind people who don't even have light perception, don't even see shades of gray. If they have a near-death experience,
they can report exactly what the scene looked like at the accident or hospital room. They have described to me incredibly minute details. How do you
explain that?" (1981, p. 90). Simple. Memories of verbal descriptions given
by others during the NDE are converted into visual images of the scene
and then rendered back into words. Further, quite frequently patients in
trauma or surgery are not totally unconscious or under the anesthesia and
are aware of what is happening around them. If the patient is in a teaching
hospital, the attending physician or chief resident who performs the surgery
would be describing the procedure for the other residents, thus enabling
the NDE subject to give an accurate description of events.
Something is happening in the NDE that cries out for explanation, but
what? Physician Michael Sabom, in his 1982 Recollections of Death, drew on
the results of his correlational study of a large number of people who had
had NDEs, noting age, sex, occupation, education, and religious affiliation, along with prior knowledge of NDEs, possible expectations as a
result of religious or prior medical knowledge, the type of crisis (accident,
arrest), location of crisis, method of resuscitation, estimated time of
unconsciousness, description of the experience, and so on. Sabom followed
these subjects for years, re-interviewing them as well as members of their
families to see whether they altered their stories or found some other
explanation for the experience. Even after years, every subject felt just as
strongly about his or her experience and was convinced that the episode
did occur. Almost all stated that the experience had a definite impact on
their outlook on life and perception of death. They were no longer "afraid"
of dying nor did they "mourn" the death of loved ones, as they were
convinced that death is a pleasant experience. Each felt that he or she had
been given a second chance and, although not every subject became
"religious," they all felt a need to "do something with their lives."
Although Sabom notes that nonbelievers and believers had similar
experiences, he fails to mention that we have all been exposed to the JudeoChristian worldview. Whether or not we consciously believe, we have all
heard similar ideas about God and the afterlife, heaven and hell. Sabom also
does not point out that people of different religions see different religious
80
Part 2
Pseudoscience and Superstition
figures during NDEs, an indication that the phenomenon occurs within the
mind, not without.
What naturalistic explanations can be offered for NDEs? An early,
speculative theory came from psychologist Stanislav Grof (1976; Grof and
Halifax 1977), who argued that every human being has already experienced
the characteristics of the NDE—the sensation of floating, the passage
down a tunnel, the emergence into a bright light—birth. Perhaps the
memory of such a traumatic event is permanently imprinted in our minds,
to be triggered later by an equally traumatic event—death. Is it possible
that recollection of perinatal memories accounts for what is experienced
during an NDE? Not likely. There is no evidence for infantile memories of
any kind. Furthermore, the birth canal does not look like a tunnel and
besides the infant's head is normally down and its eyes are closed. And why
do people who are born by cesarean section have NDEs? (Not to mention
that Grof and his subjects were experimenting with LSD—not the most
reliable method for retrieving memories, since it creates its own illusions.)
A more likely explanation looks to biochemical and neurophysiological
causes. We know, for example, that the hallucination of flying is triggered
by atropine and other belladonna alkaloids, some of which are found in
mandrake and jimsonweed and were used by European witches and
American Indian shamans. OBEs are easily induced by dissociative
anesthetics such as the ketamines. DMT (dimethyltryptamine) causes the
perception that the world is enlarging or shrinking. MDA (methylenedioxyamphetamine) stimulates the feeling of age regression so that things
we have long forgotten are brought back into memory. And, of course,
LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) triggers visual and auditory hallucinations and creates a feeling of oneness with the cosmos, among other effects
(see Goodman and Gilman 1970; Grinspoon and Bakalar 1979; Ray 1972;
Sagan 1979; Siegel 1977). The fact that there are receptor sites in the brain
for such artificially processed chemicals means that there are naturally produced chemicals in the brain that, under certain conditions (the stress of
trauma or an accident, for example), can induce any or all of the experiences typically associated with an NDE. Perhaps NDEs and OBEs are
nothing more than wild "trips" induced by the extreme trauma of almost
dying. Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception (whence the rock group The
Doors got its name) has a fascinating description, made by the author
while under the influence of mescaline, of a flower in a vase. Huxley
describes "seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation—the
miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence" (1954, p. 17).
Psychologist Susan Blackmore (1991, 1993, 1996) has taken the hallucination hypothesis one step further by demonstrating why different peo-
Chapter 5
81
FIGURE 8:
Spiral chamber and striped tunneling effects of near-death experiences. Such effects are also
produced by hallucinogenic drugs.
pie would experience similar effects, such as the tunnel. The visual cortex
on the back of the brain is where information from the retina is processed.
Hallucinogenic drugs and lack of oxygen to the brain (such as sometimes
occurs near death) can interfere with the normal rate of firing by nerve
cells in this area. When this occurs "stripes" of neuronal activity move
across the visual cortex, which is interpreted by the brain as concentric
rings or spirals. These spirals may be "seen" as a tunnel. Similarly, the
OBE is a confusion between reality and fantasy, as dreams can be upon
first awakening. The brain tries to reconstruct events and in the process
visualizes them from above—a normal process we all do when "decentering" ourselves (when you picture yourself sitting on the beach or climbing
a mountain, it is usually from above, looking down). Under the influence
of hallucinogenic drugs, subjects saw images like those in figure 8; such
images produce the tunneling effect of the NDE.
Finally, the "otherworldliness" of the NDE is produced by the dominance of the fantasy of imagining the other side, visualizing our loved ones
who died before, seeing our personal God, and so on. But what happens to
those who do not come back from an NDE? Blackmore gives this reconstruction of death: "Lack of oxygen first produces increased activity
through disinhibition, but eventually it all stops. Since it is this activity
that produces the mental models that give rise to consciousness, then all
this will cease. There will be no more experience, no more self, and so
that... is the end" (1991, p. 44). Cerebral anoxia (lack of oxygen), hypoxia
(insufficient oxygen), or hypercardia (too much carbon dioxide) have all
82
been proposed as triggers of NDEs (Saavedra-Aguilar and Gomez-Jeria
1989), but Blackmore points out that people with none of these conditions
have had NDEs. She admits, "It is far from clear, as yet, how they are best
to be explained. No amount of evidence is likely to settle, for good, the
argument between the 'afterlife' and 'dying brain' hypotheses" (1996, p.
440). NDEs remain one of the great unsolved mysteries of psychology,
leaving us once again with a Humean question: Which is more likely, that
an NDE is an as-yet-to-be explained phenomenon of the brain or that it is
evidence of what we have always wanted to be true—immortality?
The Quest for Immortality
Death, or at least the end of life, appears to be the outer limit of our consciousness and the frontier of the possible. Death is the ultimate altered
state. Is it the end, or merely the end of the beginning? Job asked the same
question: "If a man die, shall he live again?" Obviously no one knows for
sure, but plenty of folks think they do know, and many of them are not shy
about trying to convince the rest of us that their particular answer is the
correct one. This question is one of the reasons that there are literally
thousands of organized religions in the world, each claiming exclusive
knowledge about what follows death. As humanist scholar Robert Ingersoll
(1879) noted, "The only evidence, so far as I know, about another life is,
first, that we have no evidence; and secondly, that we are rather sorry that
we have not, and wish we had." Without some belief structure, however,
many people find this world meaningless and without comfort. The philosopher George Berkeley (1713) penned this example of such sentiments: "I
can easily overlook any present momentary sorrow when I reflect that it is
in my power to be happy a thousand years hence. If it were not for this
thought I had rather be an oyster than a man."
In one of Woody Allen's movies, his physician gives him one month to
live. "Oh, no," he moans, "I only have thirty days to live?" "No," the doctor
responds, "twenty-eight; this is February." Are we this bad? Sometimes. It
might be splendid if we were all to adopt Socrates' reflectiveness just before
his state-mandated suicide: "To fear death, gentlemen, is nothing other than
to think oneself wise when one is not; for it is to think one knows what one
does not know. No man knows whether death may not even turn out to be
the greatest of blessings for a human being; and yet people fear it as if they
knew for certain that it is the greatest of evils" (Plato 1952, p. 211). But most
people feel more like Berkeley and his oyster, and thus, as Ingersoll
83
was fond of pointing out, we have religion. But the quest for immortality is
not restricted to the religious. Wouldn't we all like to live on in some capacity? We can, indirectly, and, if science can accomplish what some hope it
will, perhaps even in reality.
Science and Immortality
Because purely religious theories of immortality—based on faith, not reason—are not testable, I will not discuss them here. Frank Tipler's Physics
of Immortality is the subject of chapter 16 of this book, as Tipler's work
requires extensive analysis. Suffice it to say that by "immortality" most
people do not mean merely living on through one's legacy, whatever it
may be. As Woody Allen said, "I don't want to gain immortality through
my work; I want to gain immortality through not dying." Most people
would not be content with the argument that parents are immortal in the
sense that a significant part of their genetic make-up lives on in the genes
of their offspring. From an evolutionary viewpoint, 50 percent of a person's genes live on in their offspring, 25 percent in their grandchildren,
12.5 percent in each great grandchild, and so on. What most of us think of
as "real" immortality is living forever, or at least considerably longer than
the norm. The rub is that it seems certain that the process of aging and
death is a normal, genetically programmed part of the sequence of life. In
evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins's (1976) scenario, once we've
passed reproductive age (or at least the period of intense and regular participation in sexual activity), then the genes have no more use for the body.
Aging and death may be the species' way of eliminating those who are no
longer genetically useful but are still competing for limited resources with
those whose job it now is to pass along the genes.
To extend life significantly, we must understand the causes of death.
Basically there are three: trauma, such as accidents; disease, such as cancer
and arteriosclerosis; and entropy, or senescence (aging), which is a naturally
occurring, progressive deterioration of various biochemical and cellular functions that begins early in adult life and ultimately results in an increased
likelihood of dying from trauma or disease.
How long can we live? The maximum life potential is the age at death
of the longest-lived member of the species. For humans, the record for the
oldest documented age ever achieved is 120 years. It is held by
Shigechiyo Izumi, a Japanese stevedore. There are many undocumented
claims of people living beyond 150 years and even up to 200 years; these
84
frequently involve such cultural oddities as adding the ages of father and
son together. Data on documented centenarians (people who live to be 100
years old) reveal that only one person will live to be 115 years old for
every 2,100 million (2.1 billion) people. Today's world population of
slightly over five billion is likely to produce only two or three individuals
who will reach 115 years old. Life span is the age at which the average
individual would die if there were no premature deaths from accidents or
disease. This age is approximately 85 to 95 years and has not changed for
centuries, and probably millennia. Life span, like maximum life potential,
is probably a fixed biological constant for each species. Life expectancy is
the age at which the average individual would die when accidents and disease have been taken into consideration. In 1987, life expectancy for
women in the West was 78.8 years and for men 71.8 years, for an overall
expectancy of 75.3 years. Worldwide, in 1995 life expectancy was estimated at 62 years. The numbers are continually on the rise. In the United
States, life expectancy was 47 years in 1900. By 1950 the figure had
climbed to 68. In Japan, the life expectancy for girls born in 1984 is 80.18
years, making it the first country to pass the 80 mark. It is unlikely,
however, that life expectancy will ever go higher than the life span of 85 to
95.
Though aging and death do appear to be certain, attempts to extend the
biological functions of humans for as long as possible are slowly moving
away from the lunatic fringe into the arena of legitimate science. Organ
replacements, improved surgical techniques, immunizations against most
major diseases, advanced nutritional knowledge, and the awareness of the
salubrious effects of exercise have all contributed to the rapid rise in life
expectancy.
Another futuristic possibility is cloning, the exact duplication of an
organism from a body cell (which is diploid, or has a full set of genes, as
opposed to a sex cell, which is haploid, or has only a half set of genes).
Cloning lower organisms has been accomplished but the barriers to
cloning humans are both scientific and ethical. If these barriers go down,
cloning may play a significant role in life extension. One of the major
problems with organ transplantation is the rejection of foreign tissue. This
issue would not exist with duplicate organs from a clone—just raise your
clone in a sterile environment to keep the organs healthy, and then replace
your own aging parts with the clone's younger, healthier organs.
The ethical questions associated with this scenario are challenging, to
say the least. Is the clone human? Does the clone have rights? Should
there be a union for clones? (How about a new ACLU, the American
Clone Liberties Union?) Is the clone a separate and independent individ-
Chapter 5
85
ual? If no, then what about your individuality, since there is one of you living in two bodies? If yes, then are there two of "you"? For that matter, if
you replace so many organs that all your original organs are gone, are you
still "you"? If you believe in the Judeo-Christian form of immortality and
you clone yourself, is there one soul or two?
Finally, there is the fascinating field of cryonic suspension, or what Alan
Harrington calls the "freeze-wait-reanimate" process. The principles of the
procedure are relatively simple, the application is not. When the heart
stops and death is officially pronounced, all the blood is removed and
replaced with a fluid that preserves the organs and tissues while they are in
a frozen state. Then, no matter what kills us—accident or disease—sooner
or later the technologies of the future should be equal to the task of reviving and curing us.
Cryonics is still so new and experimental that the ethical questions
have yet to come to public attention. For now, cryonic suspension is considered by the government as a form of burial, and individuals are frozen
after they are declared legally dead by natural means, never by choice. If
cryonicists could succeed in reviving someone, the distinction between the
living and the dead would blur. Life and death would become a continuum
instead of the discrete states they have always been. Certainly, definitions
of death would have to be rewritten. And what about the problem of the
soul? If there is such a thing, where does it go while the body is in cryonic
suspension? If an individual chooses to be put into cryonic suspension
before he is actually dead, then is the technician committing murder?
Would it be murder only if the reanimation procedure failed to revive this
suspended individual?
If cryonic suspension technology ever matches the hopes and expectations of cryonicists, it may be feasible that someday one could choose to be
frozen and reanimated at will, maybe even multiple times. Perhaps one
could come back for ten-year stretches every century and essentially live a
thousand years or more. Think of future historians able to write an oral
history with someone who lived a thousand years before. But alas, as yet
the entire field remains high-tech scientific speculation, or protoscience.
Here are just a few of the problems:
1. We do not know whether anyone frozen to date or anyone who will
be frozen in the foreseeable future will ever be successfully revived. No
higher organism has ever been truly frozen and brought back alive.
2. The freezing technology appears to do considerable damage to
brain cells, though the exact nature and extent of such damage have yet to
be determined since no one has been revived to put it to the test. Even if
the physical damage is slight, it still remains to be seen whether memory
86
and personal identity will be restored. Our scientific understanding of
where and how memory and personal identity are stored is fairly unsophisticated. Neurophysiologists have come a long way toward an explanation
of memory storage and retrieval, but the theory is by no means complete. It
is possible, though seemingly unlikely, that complete restoration will still
result in memory loss. We just do not know without an actual test case. If
cryonic revival does not result in return of considerable personal memory
and identity, then what's the point?
3. The entire science of cryonics presently depends on future technological developments. As cryonicists Mike Darwin and Brian Wowk explain, "Even the best known cryo-preservation methods still lead to brain
injuries irreversible by present technology. Until brain cryo-preservation is
perfected, cryonics will rely on future technologies, not just for tissue
replacement, but also for repair of tissues essential to the patient's survival"
(1989, p. 10). This is the biggest flaw in cryonics. Ubiquitous in the cryonics literature are reminders that the history of science and technology is
replete with stories of misunderstood mavericks, surprise discoveries, and
dogmatic closed-mindedness to revolutionary new ideas. The stories are all
true, but cryonicists ignore all the revolutionary new ideas that were wrong.
Unfortunately for cryonicists, past success does not guarantee future
progress in any field. Cryonics presently depends on nanotechnology, the
construction of tiny computer-driven machines. As Eric Drexler (1986) has
shown, and Richard Feynman demonstrated as early as 1959, "There's
plenty of room at the bottom" for molecular-size technologies. But theory
and application are two different things, and a scientific conclusion cannot
be based on what might be, no matter how logical it may seem or who
endorses it. Until we have evidence, our judgment must remain,
appropriately enough, suspended.
Historical Transcendence— Is It
So Small a Thing?
Given these prospects, where can the nonreligious individual find meaning
in an apparently meaningless universe? Can we transcend the banality of
life without leaving the body? History is the one field of thought that deals
with human action across time and beyond any one individual's personal
story. History transcends the here-and-now through its fairly long past and
near limitless future. History is a product of sequences of events that come
87
together in their own unique ways. Those events are mostly human actions, so
history is a product of the way individual human actions come together to produce
the future, however constrained by certain previous conditions, such as laws of
nature, economic forces, demographic trends, and cultural mores. We are free, but
not to do just anything. And the significance of a human action is also restricted
by when in the historical sequence the action is taken. The earlier the action is in a
sequence, the more sensitive the sequence is to minor changes—the so-called
butterfly effect.
The key to historical transcendence is that since you cannot know when in the
sequence you are (since history is contiguous) and what effects present actions
may have on future outcomes, positive change requires that you choose your
actions wisely—all of them. What you do tomorrow could change the course of
history, even if only long after you are gone. Think of all the famous people of the
past who died relatively unknown. Today, they have transcended their own time
because we perceive that some of their actions altered history, even if they were
unaware that they were doing anything important. One may gain transcendence by
affecting history, by actions whose influence extends well beyond one's biological
existence. The alternatives to this scenario—apathy about one's effect on others
and the world, or belief in the existence of another life for which science provides
no proof—may lead one to miss something of profound importance in this life.
We should heed Matthew Arnold's beautiful words from his Empedocles on Etna
(1852):
Is it so small a thing, To have enjoyed the sun,
To have lived light in the Spring,
To have loved, to have thought, to have done;
To have advanced true friends, and beat down baffling foes—
That we must feign a bliss Of doubtful future date,
And while we dream on this, Lose all our present state,
And relegate to worlds. . . yet distant our repose?

critical thinking anomalous phenomena reader

Transcription

Similar documents

Sssisssend warm - Platinum Weekly Newspaper

Lotus Speculos

International Offshore Powerboat Race 2012 (Sarnia)

the jewish star - The Storch Agency

SoundSpeak

AF8000E AF10000E manual

and Shrine of Saint John Vianney, Curé of Ars est. 1931 Rev

The bad news is that according to Free Online