Desmond, Adrian, and Moore, James. Darwin—The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (Warner Books, 1991).
Desmond, Adrian. Huxley—The Devil’s Disciple (Michael Joseph, 1994).
Eisenstein, Alex. “The Time Machine and the End of Man,” Science Fiction Studies (July, 1976).
Gentleman’s Magazine, September 1981, reprinted in Philmus, Robert M. and Hughes, David Y. H.G. Wells: Early Writings in Science and Science Fiction (California University Press, 1975).
Herman, Arthur. The Idea of Decline in Human History (Free Press, 1997).
Hughes, David Y. A Critical Edition of The War of the Worlds (Indiana University Press, 1993).
Hillegas, Mark R. The Future as Nightmare: H.G. Wells and the Anti-Utopians (Southern Illinois University Press, 1974).
Kottmeyer, Martin. “Ishtar Descendant,” The Skeptic (1995).
———. “Varicose Brains: Entering a Gray Area” Magonia (February 1998).
Lamarck, Jean-Baptist. Zoological Philosophy: An Exposition With Regard to the Natural History of Animals (Hafner Publishing, 1963). Originally published in 1809.
Little, Gregory. Grand Illusions (White Buffalo Books, 1994).
Nye, Robert A. “Sociology: The Irony of Progress” in Chamberlin, J. Edward, and Gilman, Sander L. Degeneration: The Dark Side of Progress (Columbia University Press, 1985).
Paradis, James and Williams, George C. T.H. Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics with New essays on its Victorian and Sociobiological Context (Princeton University Press, 1989).
Philpotts, Beatrice. The Book of Fairies (Ballantine, 1978).
Pinvidic, Thierry. OVNI vers une Anthopologie d’un Mythe Contemporain (Editions Heimdal, 1993).
Smith, David C. H.G. Wells: Desperately Mortal (Yale University Press, 1986).
Spencer, Herbert The Principles of Biology (D. Appleton, 1875).
POSTSCRIPT: In UFO lore, the Grays are sometimes good and sometimes evil, but generally they are amoral. In other words, they represent multiple aspects of the human personality—especially the contemporary human (or humanoid)—for good or ill.
They are usually described as sexually neuter and perform their hybrid breeding experiments, for the most part, through artificial insemination. The gray color symbolizes neutrality in morals, sexuality, and emotions. It also symbolizes “gray matter” or intelligence. The eyes are large and black (without pupils) like a shark’s eyes—uncaring, one might say. The hairlessness of the Grays is derived from the assumption that we are losing our animal characteristics—but to be replaced by emotionless clones.
The Grays aren’t exactly the good guys or the bad guys—they’re in a “gray area,” as Martin Kottmeyer has pointed out. They represent human evolution and its uncertain future. They are analogies of ourselves.
—RONALD D. STORY
Great Falls (Montana) movie On August 5 or 15, 1950 (the exact date is not known with certainty), Nick Mariana, thirty-eight at the time and the general manager of the local “Selectics” baseball team, in the company of his secretary, nineteen-year-old Virginia Raunig, were at the Great Falls Legion Ball Park in preparation for that afternoon’s game. It was about 11:30 A.M., and, as was his habit before every game, Mariana checked the wind direction by watching the steady stream of white smoke issuing from a towering Anaconda smokestack located about a mile northwest of the stadium. Mariana said: “As I looked up I saw two silvery objects moving swiftly out of the northwestern blue. They appeared to be moving directly south. My first thought was, ‘Get the camera—they’re flying discs!’ Then I thought again, ‘Don’t be stupid—they must be planes in a bank and I’ll see their wings in just a minute.’ Then as they got closer and more distinct, I realized there were no wings—these were not banking planes, they were flying saucers!” (Saunders, 1968) objects appeared to hover or stop in midair.” (Saunders, 1968)
One of the frames (cropped) from Nick Mariana’s 16mm movie shot over Great Falls, Montana, in August of 1950
The witness then called to his secretary, who came running, as Mariana himself raced from the grandstand to his car where he always kept a 16mm movie camera in the glove compartment. After losing a few more seconds to turn the telephoto turret lens into position, he managed to film the objects for sixteen seconds while standing by his car. The duration of the whole sighting was about one minute. Miss Raunig arrived in time to see “two silvery balls,” but Mariana’s description was more detailed. He said the objects were definitely disk-shaped, apparently “about fifty feet across and about three or four feet thick.” Also, “the discs appeared to be spinning, like a top.” (Saunders, 1968)
The distance was estimated at about two miles, altitude at 5,000 to 10,000 feet, and the objects’ speed at between 200 and 400 miles per hour. Mariana also claimed that at one point, just before he started filming, “the objects appeared to hover or stop in midair.” (Saunders, 1968)
Computer enhancement of the Great Falls, Montana, UFOs
The Montana movie was submitted to the U.S. Air Force for analysis in 1950, but the military investigators did not seem impressed. Project Grudge regarded the UFOs simply as “the reflections from two F-94 jet fighters that were in the area.” (Ruppelt, 1956) Sunlight from the fuselages washed out the other details and that was why Mariana had been fooled. Mariana, however, claimed that both he and Raunig saw the jets in another part of the sky just after seeing the UFOs.
Then in 1952, according to former Project Blue Book chief Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, the investigation was reopened “at the request of the Pentagon.” (Ruppelt, 1956) This time, the airplane-reflection theory was studied a little more closely. Though Mariana and his secretary had testified to seeing two jets roaring by in the opposite direction just two minutes after the UFO sighting, the Air Force investigators understandably wanted something more solid. With information obtained through an intelligence officer at Great Falls Air Force Base (now Malstrom AFB), the landing pattern of the planes that were in the vicinity on August 15th was carefully established. Ruppelt said: “The two jets just weren’t anywhere close to where the two UFO’s had been. Next we studied each individual light and both appeared to be too steady to be reflections.”
“We drew a blank on the Montana Movie—it was an unknown.” (Ruppelt, 1956)
When the film was returned, Mariana claimed that some thirty frames at the beginning had been removed. It was in those frames that the oval shape of the UFOs could be seen. The Air Force denied editing the film except to remove a single frame because of damaged sprockets. Mariana claimed he had a letter about the removal of the thirty frames, but was unable to produce it.
In 1953 the CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel examined the Mariana film. Their scientists believed that aircraft could account for the images on the film, so they concluded that the film probably showed sunlight reflected from aircraft.
The film was analyzed again in 1955 by Dr. Robert M. L. Baker, Jr., a specialist in celestial mechanics, then employed by the Douglas Aircraft Company. Dr. Baker shot comparative films of planes at varying distances reflecting the sun, using a 16mm movie camera similar to Mariana’s. But none of the images came close to resembling those on Mariana’s film, convincing Baker that if Mariana had filmed two jets “at the largest distances compatible with their speeds and the angular rate of the images…[their structure] would have been identifiable on the film.” (Baker, 1972).
Baker did not believe the images were the result of any known natural phenomena. He determined that the objects were two miles from the camera, and his experiments showed that jet fighters would have been identifiable as aircraft. Baker considered the case unexplained.
It wasn’t until the Condon Committee investigation in 1966 that the film was again examined. All the previous investigations were reviewed and Mariana was re-interviewed. The principal photo analyst for the Condon study, Dr. William K. Hartmann (an astronomer), found that the objects had a constant elliptical shape consistent with the “resolution of disks oriented parallel
with the ground.” (Baker, 1972) Hartmann concluded, however, that the evidence of the film was not sufficient to draw a final conclusion about the objects.
In the end, none of the studies produced any evidence that the film had been faked. Data indicated that the objects were basically disk-shaped and that the images on the film were consistent with highly polished metal surfaces.
Because these pictures consist of 290 continuous frames of 16mm color movie film, the possibility of a hoax in this case is generally considered by skeptics and proponents alike to be extremely remote. And, if Mariana’s accompanying testimony is given any credibility at all, this case would have to rank as one of the “best” of all time. Dr. David R. Saunders, a psychologist and member of the former University of Colorado UFO Project, considered it “the one sighting of all time that did more than any other single case to convince me that there is something to the UFO problem.” (Saunders, 1968)
Along with the photos taken at McMinnville, Oregon, also in 1950, this is the one other photographic case which defied all efforts by the Condon team to arrive at a completely satisfactory explanation. Dr. William K. Hartmann, chief photoanalyst for the University of Colorado UFO Project, wrote in the Condon Report that: “The case remains unexplained. Analysis indicates that the images on the film are difficult to reconcile with aircraft or other known phenomena, although aircraft cannot be entirely ruled out.” (Gillmor, 1969)
Most UFOlogists believe the photographic evidence, as well as the eyewitness testimony suggests that the aircraft explanation is unlikely.
Computer enhancements by William Spaulding at GSW (Ground Saucer Watch) add further support to the conclusion that the Great Falls/Mariana movie is one of the strongest photographic cases of apparently genuine UFOs on record.
—KEVIN D. RANDLE & RONALD D. STORY
References
Baker, Robert M.L., Jr. “Motion Pictures of UFO’s” in Sagan, Carl and Page, Thornton, eds. UFO’s—A Scientific Debate (Cornell University Press, 1972; W.W. Norton, 1974).
Gillmor, Daniel S. and Condon, Edward U., eds. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (E. P. Dutton/Bantam Books, 1969).
Randle, Kevin D. “Great Falls (Montana) movie” in Story, Ronald D., ed. The Encyclopedia of UFOs (Doubleday/New English Library, 1980).
———. Conspiracy of Silence (Avon Books, 1997).
———. Scientific UFOlogy (Avon Books, 1999).
Ruppelt, Edward J. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
Saunders, David R. and Harkins, R. Roger. UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong (Signet/NAL, 1968).
Story, Ronald D. UFOs and the Limits of Science (William Morrow, 1981).
Guardians of the Universe? (St. Martin’s Press/New English Library, 1980). Ronald Story makes a case that alleged evidence for ancient astronauts is a psychological projective test based on faith and hope, not verifiable facts.
Despite the contention of Erich von Däniken and other proponents, the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt and other megalithic monuments never required a level of technology which was beyond “the capacities of Earthmen working on their own in the normal context of their own cultures.” Much of the evidence used in support of ancient visitation by aliens, especially artistic representations on cave and temple walls, takes the form of psychological projective tests in which the book authors plant interpretive ideas in the minds of readers, substituting propaganda for logic.
—RANDALL FITZGERALD
Gulf Breeze (Florida) incidents Since the late 1980s, Gulf Breeze, Florida, has become a “window” area of UFO sightings and other paranormal events. (See WINDOW AREAS) It all began on November 11, 1987, with a foiled abduction attempt. Local building contractor Edward Walters happened to glance out the window of his home office when he saw an unusual glow behind some trees. Grabbing his Polaroid camera, he headed outside just in time to snap five pictures of a spectacular UFO heading towards his house. Then, as the UFO hovered silently above him at an altitude of about 200 feet, Ed was struck by a paralyzing blue beam which shot down from the bottom of the object. Screaming as the beam lifted him up, he resisted with all his power while a “voice” communicated with him telepathically from the UFO saying “calm down” and “stop it.” Ed answered by screaming “screw you!”. Then, just as a plane flew by, the UFO let him go and disappeared out of sight.
After discussing the matter with his wife and son, Ed submitted the photos anonymously to the local weekly newspaper, The (Gulf Breeze) Sentinel. Soon after Ed’s story and the photos were published in the Sentinel on November 19, 1987, the whole area became a UFO hot spot. First dozens, then hundreds, of other witnesses came forth to report their own UFO sightings and experiences. These included sightings of UFOs, jets chasing UFOs, and abductions.
By the time the first Gulf Breeze flap had subsided in July, 1988, there had been over 100 sightings involving over 200 people (with many multiple witness sightings). Twenty-four of these sightings were reported by Ed Walters who, understandably, became a highly controversial figure—especially because of the multiple photo opportunities afforded him—making Walters as contentious as George Adamski and Billy Meier before him.
The first photo taken by Ed Walters on November 11, 1987
Although some investigators consider the whole series of sightings to be explainable as a hoax by Walters, followed by misidentifications and attempts by other witnesses to gain public recognition, the fact is that numerous witnesses with no connection to Walters have provided detailed descriptions of objects that appear to have been what he photographed.
One of the most explicit descriptions was given by a medical doctor and his wife who saw the object at rather close range (a few hundred feet) for many seconds hovering over the Pensacola Bay near their home. They could see light from the object reflected off the water.
From July, 1988 through late November, 1990, the sighting rate diminished somewhat, there being about 120 sightings over that time period. About a dozen or so of these involved Ed Walters. In late November a new series of sightings began which had a distinctly different nature. The new sightings were of a light moving through the sky, which had peculiar properties. Usually it was first seen by witnesses as a red light (although sometimes it was initially seen as white and would then turn red), moving at a steady pace through the early evening sky within an hour of darkness. The light would remain red for a period of time—from many seconds to several minutes—and then it would suddenly turn white and start flashing brightly. Quite often glowing lights were seen to drop downward from the light as it began flashing. Then it would go out.
Lights such as this were seen so often that a group of local residents began a nightly “skywatch,” broken only by bad weather, which existed from November, 1990 through 1995—even though the first major wave of sightings ended in July, 1992, by which time there had been about 170 recorded events. Here “recorded” means multiply witnessed and generally recorded on video and sometimes with telephoto photography as well. Starting in September, 1991, yet another type of moving object was seen. Witnesses observed (and recorded) rings of light, that is, individual lights forming a circular pattern moving through the sky. This author was a witness to one such ring of eight white lights forming an octagon, which appeared in the sky above Gulf Breeze at about 8:30 P.M. on the night of September 16, 1991. A crude triangulation combined with photographic data showed it to be many feet, perhaps several tens of feet, in diameter. It simply appeared in the sky and then moved upward and perhaps toward the 30 or so witnesses to this event and then, after 70 seconds, disappeared.
Enlargement of the “UFO”
The red light and its “relatives” (two red lights traveling in parallel, a ring of lights, a cluster of lights) seen over the year and a half period, were early on referred to as “bubba” (slang for “brother”). These “bubba” sightings were observed by several TV camera crews as well as the local residents and visitors who came
from all over the world to see the Gulf Breeze UFOs.
The bubba sightings have never been satisfactorily explained. The initial thought was that some sort of balloon carrying a road flare could explain some of the reported phenomena. However, it could not have been this simple. “Bubba” was never observed to rise into the sky and travel along. Instead, it always appeared at some altitude, hence requiring remote ignition or a long-burning, hidden fuse. A simple red road flare could not explain the sudden change of color to extremely bright white and the subsequent many-second-long duration of rapid white flashing, often at a high rate comparable to the frame rate of a TV camera (30 complete frames per second). If a bubba were a pyrotechnic display, it would have to have been some special formulation.
Moreover, an experiment was performed to compare the optical spectrum of bubba with the spectrum of a red flare. A diffraction grating was placed inside a camera that was then used to photograph both a bubba light and a red road flare. Analysis of the resulting images showed conclusively that the color spectra of the two were different, with bubba having more blue light than a road flare—a color shift that was obvious to the witnesses who saw both the bubba light and the flare that was burned almost immediately afterward.
Several of the bubba lights were simultaneously witnessed by observers separated by considerable distances (up to several miles) thereby allowing for accurate triangulations. For several of the triangulated sightings it was possible to calculate a speed of up to 50 miles per hour, much faster than any wind at the time, and even a crosswind. If this was a hoax, it would require a motorized transport system, such as a model plane or a very small blimp. Yet, there was never any engine noise associated with a bubba sighting. The triangulated altitudes were a few thousand feet.
Except for one crude attempt at a hoax, which was identified immediately by the witnesses, there was not one shred of hard evidence, such as debris found on the ground or floating on the water around Gulf Breeze, that the bulk of the bubba sightings were hoaxes, even though one would expect that with nearly two hundred recorded events there would have been some mistake at some time by the hoaxer(s). Had they been hoaxes involving some pyrotechnic display, they would have been illegal and highly dangerous (a lighted flare falling on a building could cause a fire; in some cases the bubba was over a thousand feet high and in the vicinity of the landing pattern for Pensacola airport). Of course, the balloon-flare hypothesis could not explain the rings of lights and other sightings of even more complex light arrangements.
The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters Page 44
