Camelot Chronicles Online

Number 1-E, Year 2005

Camelot Chronicles

The Italian Ufologic Magazine for All of You

This Not-Periodic Italian Magazine Want To Be an Important News Within the Divulgation of the Ufologic Thematics in Italy

Pag. 1-4 ( 658 KB)	Adobe Acrobat PDF Document [you can download Adobe Acrobat Reader freely from this site (almost 9.3 MB) ]
Pag. 5-8 ( 731 KB)

Presented at European UFO Congress 2005, France

Editorial - pag.1

One of the reasons that brought the constitution of the Gruppo Camelot, and of this magazine, was, and remains, to represent a meeting point for all the researchers within ufology, and not only.
In this editorial we wish to give the speech to one of the most important italian scientists, whom confidence we are proud, that in his thanks, has well picked the meaning and the aim that animates our group:
“....cultural association, for their basic support with publishing this paper, and with much appreciation for the democratic and transparent attitude of their organization, in which several issues, including the scientific one, are being treated in an harmonized way, and where scholars of different stances (skeptical and possibilists) are united together in constructive discussion and criticism.” Massimo Teodorani, Ph.D.

Have an interesting reading,
Editorial staff

My Goal in SETI Research: Open Letter
by Massimo Teodorani, Ph.D. - mteodorani@libero.it (Astrophysicist) - pag.1

My interest in SETI research started in 1992, when I decided to join my research activity in astronomy to this promising branch of science. For about 8 years I have been convinced that the Microwave Observing Project and Optical SETI were the only scientific roads to search for extraterrestrial intelligence. I presently maintain my recognition towards “standard SETI research”, because I cannot deny its intrinsic value, but since a few years I also realized very well that this way is incomplete and anthropocentric and also scientifically biased in some aspects. Standard SETI aims at the search for other intelligences that are at a comparable technological level as ours. That’s correct in principle, and a discovery in this sense would be a great result. When SETI surveys will furnish some concrete findings I think that this will inevitably bring us to the discovery of a selection effect. This is an easily predicted selection effect, in which human-like intelligences are considered while all the others are ignored, and which in the next future might permit us to construct a galactic statistics concerning all the long-duration technical civilizations similar to ours in the galaxy. The present technology of new-generation radio telescopes, amplifiers, receivers, multi-channel spectrum analyzers and new sophisticated algorithms for the extraction of the signal from the noise, represents a big potential in this sense. But that possible discovery will be just a mirror of us as we are now. It seems to me that present science, together with the establishment propelling it, needs a confrontation with similar levels as ours, but doesn’t manifest any interest in verifying scientifically the existence of a higher level of intelligence and consciousness resulting from an evolutionary scenario. Therefore, in the SETI sector, science looks to be paradoxically non-Darwinian. It is like to be interested only in the physics of the structure of stars at a standard fixed evolutionary age, such as the main sequence phase, but not in the evolution that brings a solar-type star (for instance) to become a red giant and a white dwarf. Therefore I think that standard SETI, in spite of the sophistication of the employed techniques and the tenacity of its representatives, doesn’t satisfy the completeness prerequisite of science. The Occam razor is not sufficient. I find that here it is probably opportunistic.

Is it more important to celebrate our success in science and technology after discovering other civilizations similar to ours, or to discover what we ourselves could become in the future if we are willing to know the nature of the sentient intelligence not only from a static point of view but also from an evolutionary one?

I have strong doubts that a “Type II” or “Type III” Kardashev civilization will ever use radio waves and/or powerful Laser beams to communicate with others in the galaxy. Even the common sense is able to suggest that these types of civilizations might be already able to explore the interstellar space, and not only circumstellar space such as in the case of the classically conceived Dyson spheres. Using a huge amount of energy in the radio wavelength range in order to transmit messages to distances of 1,000 to 10,000 light years to me really looks nonsense, if I were an extraterrestrial able to cross the interstellar space. Certainly this wouldn’t be a sign of intelligence, but only of cosmic catatonia. The age of such civilizations might reach one million of years or more. Our technological civilization is substantially only 100 years old, and already now serious scientific studies concerning the physics of wormholes, quantum tunneling, scalar energy, non-local phenomena, REG (Random Event Generator) experiments and the first successful experiments on particle teleportation, seem to open a new door that might bring us to the manipulation of space, time, matter and energy. Therefore my assumption is that simply Type II and Type III civilizations do not exist in the form in which they were hypothetically figured out. With few doubts civilizations of that level might be traveling everywhere in our galaxy and maybe elsewhere, while different and more efficient methods of communication might have been established. The possibility that evolved technological civilizations are able to travel in the interstellar and maybe also in the intergalactic space, would largely expand the Drake Formula with a new term named “migration factor”, a sort of multiplicative effect. So, where exactly is standard SETI correct? In spite of the intrinsic technological value of the employed instruments and in spite of the intrinsic scientific value of the used tactics, it is probably wrong strategically.

What then if we limit the standard SETI search to “Type I” civilizations in the range of 10-100 light years, which might be the most reasonable range that these civilizations could reach with the limited energy amount for transmission at their disposal? This is a very small sphere of space and very little can be found, but this very small quantity could be potentially found indeed thanks to the present technology of our sensors. At least potentially, and only if the duration of such civilizations is sufficiently long.

Is there any good reason to think that a civilization of our level and type will last long? We all know that if no positive change will occur this kind and class of civilization is destined to self-destruction. If similar civilizations were not able to pass the crisis the probability that we are able to catch such exogenous but similar “intelligence products” is practically zero. Then, if these civilizations did a positive change to escape self-destruction are we really sure that they will go on using the same technology as before both for communication and propulsion aims? It is objectively difficult to make hypotheses in this sense but I might guess that both SETI and OSETI will find nothing in this case too. Therefore I am tempted to conclude that all the technology that is based on SETI science is a splendid but probably useless artifact, a brilliant but unrealistic construction of human mind, even if, in itself, the result of a tenacious work whose by-product could be extremely useful in other aspects of applied science. Scientists of the historical SETI Project have concentrated in the construction of devices but have ignored other basic factors, the most important of which is that a society like ours is destined to a quick end if no radical innovation will be introduced in our living system. A quick end means: no signals from out there too, because the duration of this kind of technical civilization would be too short to allow us a probability to intercept it. And, alternatively, a sudden positive and innovative scientific and technological breakthrough occurring in those primitive societies, for evolutionary reasons might mean the same results: no radio and Laser signals from outside.

And beyond 100 light years? I think we’ll find almost nothing, except for maybe some Laser or Laser-like beacons, because of the exponential increase of the probability that some Earth-like civilization can be found in the right evolutionary stage if we extend the radius of the sphere, and also because of the big penetrating capabilities of Laser signals in the range of 1 Petawatts or more, for instance. But in general it is expected that there is not sufficient available power to send beacons from so high distance, at least if we assume that they are at our technological level. Certainly we can improve the probability of detecting a sufficiently high number of photons if, for instance, an OSETI fast photometer and/or high-resolution Echelle spectrograph is attached to big optical telescopes such as Columbus, Keck, VLT, Subaru and SAO. But as we all know the astronomical schedules for big telescopes is not devoted to a SETI targeted search, but mostly to cosmology, extragalactic astronomy, exoplanet search and brown dwarfs studies. This practical problem concerning observational schedules, which should be considered in evaluating probabilities to find SETI beacons, certainly is not the only one. Who between our astronomer colleagues would dare to point new-generation infrared space telescopes to solar-type stars in a radius ranging from 10 to 1,000 light years in order to search for an infrared excess caused by a circumstellar Dyson sphere around those stars? None, I think. But that one would be a good and highly accessible tactics, maybe the best one, to see the effects produced by a civilization able to manipulate its interstellar environment and to extract energy from their star. Considering the high number of solar-type stars in this range, the probability to find some signature caused by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would be several orders of magnitude higher than finding radio and Laser beacons. But this research will never be done because no astronomer is going to risk his own career, when the fashion today with big and/or space telescopes consists mainly in investigating the cosmological scale in order to catch the project of God and/or of Dr. Nothing. And what about the study of high-energy sources that are showing gamma-ray bursts and at the same time a proper motion that is largely too high to be caused by hypernovae in other galaxies? No opening, it seems. Consensus already established that gamma-ray bursts are extragalactic, while the neutron nucleoquakes are not any more in fashion. So figure out if someone is willing to embark himself in searching for high-energy sources caused by matter-antimatter annihilation due to a possible propulsion of alien spacecrafts that are translating in space and that are transiently aiming their back to us. And finally, what about microwave signals that are not repeating but appear transiently inside the beam of the radio telescope? Who among us astronomers would dare to track the target by searching for a repeater inside an alpha-delta error box in order to verify if the signal is caused by a high-proper motion space vehicle that is maybe transiting inside our solar system? Maybe it could solve some of the very many false alarms recorded by the Microwave Observing Project. And… Pulsars? Are we completely sure that this stellar zoology contains only non-sentient oblique rotators located on neutron stars?

A radically different kind of technology might be used by far more advanced civilizations. What is the sense of sending a 1000 GW radio signal to communicate if the potential sender of the message can directly explore the galaxy? How long does a “monkey-like” civilization last? I would frankly hope that it doesn’t last too much. And in fact the example of our Earthly civilization seems to show that the trend cannot be maintained for a long time: the income of a slow-combustion catastrophe is just pending and maybe already started, and not because of asteroid impacts. How many like us did survive more than 2000 years in other planets? Maybe a quantum leap in science and technology and a radical paradigm shift in our system of thought is the solution to apical crises, a paradigm shift that might generate a new technology that is able to furnish both new communication methods and new propulsion systems.

Is our brain working correctly? Probably yes, but maybe it is not properly and/or completely used. Our brain seems to be a gift from elsewhere and we are simply trying to back-engineer it, so that we are able to use some functions only separately or sequentially, but we are not able yet to utilize the entire biophysical circuitry all together in its maximum potentiality. Is the brain a mere neural machine or only the necessary local means through which our consciousness operates from somewhere else? The way in which our world presently goes seems to favor markedly the first one. And Earth’s reactions are just our feedback: a sort of alarm clock. Is science without consciousness allowed to participate to an interstellar society? It shouldn’t, because that’s the way to collapse and to the induction of collapse to others. Due to the apical crises of monkey-like societies, in spite of the potential of our SETI technology in the future, we might find no signal even to a distance of 10,000 light years, because a non-unreasonable time-extrapolation would promptly show us that technological societies of the primitive kind are destined to fail and fall in a short time. But it might be that these crises are normal and symptomatic in the evolution of an intelligent civilization and that they are a stimulation to create an evolutionary quantum leap in the cognitive sense. All this brings necessarily to the concept of consciousness. That’s the only prerequisite to live long and safe, and this teaching was first given to us 2005 years ago by a humble man dressed in rags. The state of our world wholly shows and teaches that “mechanical thinking”, together with a moral entropy of our society, brings to suicide and destruction of our ecosphere. Therefore a quantum leap in our system of thought must occur necessarily, but but we do not know yet if it will occur inevitably because such expected radical shifts are not mechanically produced by the third principle of dynamics but by our own conscious and determinate intention to change the music. That means looking more widely to reality, in order to understand it as completely as possible and in the sole interest of the citizens (in particular, children) of our planet.

What is exactly our brain and how does it work? Are we really convinced that the frontal left side of our brain is the main factor of intelligence? What happens when all the functional sides of our brain are merged together synchronously and what kind of intelligence and knowledge might come out from this? What is exactly a “genius”? Are we really still convinced that its exclusive birth comes out by chance? In our society certainly a genius looks to emerge by chance. But if we assume that to create a genius a cognitive technique exists somewhere, a technique (and not an instinct) that can be used as a methodic discipline, then there might be a systematic technology able to train all intelligent beings to use our brain in a complete and harmonized way. It might be that we, like many others in the universe, do not know yet some universal laws.

Many strange phenomena that are naively and superficially nicknamed “paranormal” occur in the world. There is not yet a complete physical theory describing them in order that they can be produced and controlled at will in a lab, but there is some theoretical physics whose main goal is coupling the concept of “consciousness” with quantum mechanics. But presently, and wholly, that new physics seems to be produced by the sole use of the frontal left side of the brain: equations are used like a “wave-guide” and not like absolutely necessary “enslaved tools” that are invoked by a really sentient process aimed towards the goal. What happens with this if the subject of “physics of consciousness” is treated by all of the four quadrants of the brain simultaneously through the mediation of an activated “quid” called consciousness? We do not know it, except for the geniuses, probably. But certainly, even if we do not know yet the physics that is behind it, we already know that the “mind” is able to move and sometimes materialize objects, to perceive remote information, to synchronize events using a strange mechanism that doesn’t depend on distance. This was well intuited by big physicists such as Wolfgang Pauli and David Bohm. That’s the concept of “resonance inside a holographic and non-local universe”, in principle. Is there something in present physics describing it? Not yet quantitatively, if not only qualitatively. These phenomena do occur since the birth of humankind on Earth, but officially they do not exist because they cannot be controlled in a lab. Were the lab experiments planned correctly?

Or maybe there is a basic error that stands upon the entire structure of the present scientific paradigm: we are passive observers of a world that works like a watch. That’s the present scientific paradigm since the birth of Isaac Newton, the innovator of that time. But now it’s another time, and the steps of the stairs towards the future are many, not only two or three, and it is probably a long way. Certainly it is very comfortable to rest on the floor of the third step, but life teaches us that we cannot lounge randomly on that floor too long because in the long run it becomes dangerous. On the other side, another physics trend seems to exist that comes directly from the most mathematical of all the physical sciences. That trend is a rediscovery of quantum mechanics in a new light and that trend says that the observer is a creator of reality. How to brindle a creator in a lab? Or is the creator the one who decides the rules of experiments and tests? That seems to be an interaction between a hypothetical “inner world” and the manifest outer world: just to say that WE are God. Church told that there is a sort of “Father God” protecting all of us, his passive and submissive sheep. But manifest reality – material reality - tells and does demonstrate that there is NO God, and NO apparent mystery that is behind some horrible events. But maybe God is not an entity, but a state of consciousness that can be reached only at a particular condition: becoming ourselves God after throwing our artful “ego” inside a dust keeper. If not we would become Hitler. Therefore what we currently call “God” might be “sleeping energy” in its potential and rest state that could be activated by the intentions coming from our consciousness and mediated by our transducing brain. An act of “becoming God” seems much a quantum fluctuation of the zero point energy triggered by a sentient and conscious process. What’s the quantitative physics behind all of this? It must exist somewhere maybe hidden in some gorge of a hypothetical “Alexandrine cosmic library”. The problem is where and how to find it. Assuming that the conscious universe works like an informative process, our problem here seems to be the one of finding the correct “research engine” in order to find an answer to this question: “what is the physics of the Gods and where is the browser able to connect us to it?”

So, assuming that the “shaman knowledge” is transformed into a true technology that is based on a very precise physics, what happens then? This big inquiring might be the real basis of where and how to search for extraterrestrial civilizations that are much older than ours. This would be the basis of the True SETI research of intelligent communications, and the first step to investigate it scientifically probably doesn’t stay in astronomy but in neuroscience, cognitive science and theoretical physics matched all together. So, what is consciousness? Is there a scientific basis of it or do we want to go on believing that it must necessarily belong to the realm of philosophy and religion? In more explicit terms: a) does the soul obey to some still-unknown rules of universal physics? B) Is there a universal communicative and informative network in the universe that is based on a non-shaman but physical technique through which mental transmission of data is possible, independently from distance?

This dichotomy, the one between science and religion, between the left and right hemispheres of our brain, between intelligence and consciousness, I think, is the main cause of our huge ignorance on how really the universe works and on what is our real role in it. Our society has created two separated activities, both highly bureaucratized, and both created in order to build up a system of power from which citizens should know mechanically and not consciously what is good and what is not. The way in which this world has been growing, both morally and ecologically, is teaching us that this present human aptitude is affected by a serious bias. That bias might be defined as “cosmic stupidity”, which is the result of a lack of freedom caused by induced chains created by some blackmailing power mechanisms, the same ones for which mainstream science is entirely serving. That’s the reason why funds for scientific research, or important jobs of command, are released only to whom have an iron ball at their foot. I often wonder how much this cosmic cretinism (coupled with a manifest dishonesty towards all the citizens of the world, who in their turn are all afraid to object) is diffused in the universe. How long does stupidity coupled with the arrogance of power, last inside an alleged planetary “civilization”?

Every citizen, every person knows inside her/his own consciousness that true “religion” is NOT an institutional activity but only an inner motion of basic importance in the economy of the universe, a sort of gasoline, while science, the engine, is an exclusive and omni comprehensive activity. If this assumption is more courageously explicated, then what would finally remain outside? Only one Big Science, able to study the physics of the material things, of the still improperly called “spiritual things” and of their interaction together, inside an Universe that is much bigger and wider than any possible conception. THIS is Science, all the rest is only a part of it, or anyway, useful microstructures and/or abilities that cannot lead a science but only serve it as a facility. And this is the science that is probably used by other types of civilization that are able to send messages in real time, and to cross the galaxy from a place to another: civilizations that accepted to evolve. Let’s assume per absurd that all of this is true what should we see outside?

From this question my real operational research, which deals with the physical study of light phenomena in our atmosphere, starts.

Outside we would see anomalies that we are not able to explain. But what is an anomaly exactly? If it is not the product of our technology or the misidentification of a known natural or artificial phenomenon, it can be two things: 1) unknown natural phenomena, 2) the signs of an exo-intelligence. In the course of my physics research in this specific field I have ascertained some signatures of the first ones, which can be explained satisfactorily using standard physics. And what about the second? To answer to this I must confirm that I could verify the presence of overlapping and transiently occurring phenomena that are unexplainable with the current physics terms. Of course so far I can offer no scientific proof of the presence of alien intelligence interacting with us here on Earth, but, like a never-grown child, I am wondering what kind of signature should this intelligence produce when/if it decides to interact with our world. In my experience I have realized that the best way to verify this is to use a sort of sieve-driven strategy. This can be done using standard physics together with high accuracy in data acquisition and analysis, and high caution in data interpretation. Using this method it is not so difficult to verify that some strange physical phenomena are present in our atmosphere and lithosphere. They have triggered the fantasy of many ufologists, they have caught the expectations of many persons affected by delusional sickness, but some of these light phenomena can be indeed explained using our common physics. The knowledge and the use of our physics are extremely useful because it teaches us on what are the borders between a realm and another. Using it we can learn in a very satisfactory way how much we are deceived by our wrong perceptions, and at the same time how deep is the ocean of our ignorance. But it is a fact that something else remains outside of the evaluation of standard physics, and any attempt to make some phenomena reenter forcefully inside the old dogmatic paradigm is a huge act of dishonesty and a crime against all the citizens of Earth. Some phenomena might be the possible mark of an exo-intelligence, and this is a legitimate working hypothesis. To verify this we should try to analyze these peculiar data very rigorously and classically in several ways, but we should also search for the sign of intelligence, which can be potentially revealed using a sort of cryptographic analysis applied, for instance, to the way in which a luminous phenomenon varies its luminosity. Inside that there might be a message that must be decoded, and we have the duty to verify if this is true or not. Certainly that message would have been prepared just for us at the stage in which we presently are, so it should be rationally interpretable. That’s the language to communicate with us in a first phase and the only way to render us acknowledged on the possible presence of alien intelligence on Earth.

This is a part (at least as I intend it), of what some of us call generally “Local SETI”. This is by my opinion the true SETI research, the one in which we have the highest chance of finding something real, if we shall accept, if necessary, to change our old system of thought and mentality and to catch only what of this old system can be useful for the initial part of these investigations. I have several good reasons to think that a possible contact here on Earth would be twofold. At first we would receive some messages that are intelligible rationally (our current system of thought) and in a second phase, if we’ll accept to decode them, we might be instructed to change our mind totally. That means activation of our brain in its correct pattern. That would mean real-time interaction with other intelligences, and that’s is exactly what humankind needs in order to know better itself. My opinion is that humanity in its entirety – I am devoted to it in my research and not to the academia – certainly does not aim at the discovery, in the next 20 years, of 1-3 twin monkey-civilizations at a distance of 100 light years after carrying out all-sky surveys arc second by arc second and accurate targeted searches of the entire celestial sphere. All this labor only to look at ourselves in a mirror! Probably it will happen, and that will be a triumph anyway of the huge work done by the old SETI pioneers: they surely deserve an award for their technical tire.

But they must know that since a few years one parallel SETI research will be done independently, and with no compromise with the SETI traditional establishment. That’s neither a race nor a competition at all, and it is open to everyone and, most of all, it is certainly open to the dialogue with the representatives of traditional SETI establishment. Dialogue but no compromises. That’s only an alternative and friendly way born from some free thinkers, a way that, as well as the traditional one, is intended to use scientific methods and means but with an open door to new methods and new means.

Maybe the origin of the exogenous intelligence that we are searching for is not so important. What matters here is the substance of that intelligence and, above all, what we can learn from it for the well of our own civilization. Surely we have to maintain in our minds the possibility that the probably inhabited universe is not only a single floor with many rooms but also maybe it is a skyscraper made of many flats. After all the theory of “multiverses” and extra-dimensions is treated unconstrained by several theories of theoretical and mathematical physics. The nature of the message and the content of the shown technology is just what are needed because we also have to learn to make the same performances.

Therefore these remarks from me are an invitation to my scientist colleagues and to the general public to meditate on these issues and, if interested, to concentrate on the strategies and the (certainly scientific and traditional, initially) techniques that should be used for this research.

I want finally to thank space scientist and friend Gerry Zeitlin for his invitation to join the Open SETI Initiative. And I wish to all of my colleagues who accepted to join our organization any best result in their specific fields, skills and choices.

Cesena, 10 February 2005

(NdR: see also on the Open Seti Web Site: http://openseti.org )

Ufology Today: Which Possible Future (In Italy)?
by Carlo Sabadin, sabinsky@tiscali.it (Member of Gruppo Camelot, Fondazione Sentinel Italia, HWH22 and MOSAC) - pag.1

Introduction – This article was originally written for Stargate magazine and it is the fundamental basis of a speech and debate I conducted with CICAP (CISCOP Italian equivalent) some years ago, in Pavia, Italy. Below, I present my last version of this [a], and I examine the most recent and fundamental happenings in our country.

Prospectives, new sectorial studies, new hypothesis, new theories - A long time ago on a digital TV channel [b], I watched a special realised by the journalist Gianni Bisiach, in 1972. What undoubtedly impressed me, was the absolute novelty of the program, which disconcerted me, for a while. I thought over the observations, dated as well, by one of the greatest opponents of the UFOs phenomenon reality: James Oberg. He was an astronautics expert, a writer, and was famed as a major “anti-ufologist” being around (he won a New Scientist prize for the best article on UFOs: “The Failure of the ‘Science’ of Ufology”, in 1979). The author, after an accurate scrutiny of the inconsistencies and mistakes made by ufologists – but, may be we should say certain ufologists – stated that, after decades of senseless speculations, no scientific theories, worthy of this name, would have been produced by ufology and, therefore, it is a sterile science. Others [c], pointed out the objective failings of such an approach, and who’s writing has often claimed how the recent formulation of the UAP (Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena) category – related to unexplainable sightings, not recollected to the UFOs phenomenon but to some other, still unexplainable, anomalous natural phenomena – represents the evidence not of the ufology failure –as Oberg wished – but the failure of those who fervently wished that the “very, very little” behind a small fraction of tens of thousands of UFOs reports on file, this “small residue” – to quote Oberg – that, despite all, still remained, was to disappear, as well. Actually, it didn’t happen. Quite the opposite, elaborating ever new IFO categories, like that of UAP, even using clear distortions (as, for example, for the globular lightnings) was not sufficient even if it became necessary or indispensable, for those who a priori had already dismissed the phenomenon. On the other hand, this type of approach is no more completely acceptable, after the recent publications by Massimo Teodorani, about the elaboration of an electrochemical containment plasma model (on the basis of physicist David Turner’s studies), which would allow to explain about the 80%-90% of anomalous luminous phenomena, recorded in several areas of the world. It would still remain, however, an overlapping to that 80-90%. An overlapping of completely unknown objects.
However, let’s go back to the specific subject of my article: I wondered if, in current Italian research we had any study, discussion about the hypothesis that could, in some way, face the question, advanced by Oberg on the elaboration of a theory which could be – really – considered as a scientific, not reliable or falsifiable one. Have we got something like that in Italian modern ufological research overview? In such a context, it is advisable to analyse some aspects considered, wrongly or not, connected to the UFO phenomenon, before!

By the English term Abduction we usually mean the kidnapping of humans against their will, by extraterrestrial beings. The first events of this kind reported in UFOs research, date back to the 1950s and 1960s. In such an astonishing matter, several researchers sought a suitable key to come to an acceptable end and hypnosis appeared a reliable methodology. The very few scientific papers dealing with this topic [d] [e], didn’t explain what abductions are (or even if they exist, indeed!), but they, certainly, excluded the reliability of such a technique as an answer to recover memories. This happened also for some Italian hypothesis, which are absolutely unknown out of the national confines and which somebody tried to present in the last few years, actually raising a certain interest in who’s writing. Otherwise, the right expectations of those who saw the appearance of a hypothetical identification of several alien interference levels, as well as a diversified extraterrestrial typology characterization and the understanding of the logical reasons at heart of these (alleged) intrusions, finally came across with the “harsh reality”. But, if it is true that the considered hypothesis (Malanga) [f] would lead to the elaboration of a scheme that, thanks to analysis data, found smooth confirmations, consequently, conforming with previously suggested data, it is also true that those “smooth confirmations” ignored all the least observances for the rules of a “formal scientific communication”; data were merely alleged (as well as the analysis were) so, they could not be proposed in any scientific arena, as those “conforming” data were the only reported information... This self-made anti-abduction “final” solution was, then, really risible. This is why, except for a few, very small areas, (where the whole stuff becomes a profession of faith), some recent suggested correlations and implications – suggested also by who’s writing [g]– together with new prospectives (meant to find a “really safe” system allowing the overcoming of useless and old techniques) and the possibility of finding “new probative” methodologies, with the help of suitable means and professionists, let us wish – also in this field and in our country - a possible improvement.

About crop circles, all kind of stuff has been written and its direct opposite. Any possible connection of this themes to ufology is still controversial and unconfirmed. I treated this subject in several occasions with articles (as well as in several conferences and radio and TV programs) which indirectly reported the “scientific” papers in object. As I often mentioned, there is a rich bulk of works, now, that in regard to a number of analysed crop circles, is clearly inclined to the NON-conventionality of the phenomenon (again: as regards to the analysed formations) [h]. Two “comments” must be added to this (Deadorff and Haselhoff). The only acknowledged critics, against this “scientific literature”, would be then, “new contrasting scientific publications”. It didn’t happen. Actually, it haven’t happened since a very short time ago, with the publication of a paper “Balls of Light: The Questionable Science of Crop Circles” (Journal of Scienfific Exploration”, by Grassi, Cocheo and Russo - all CICAP members). The authors analyse with a skeptic interpretation, not only a noted hypothesis advanced by the Dutch engineer Haselhoff about an alleged way of creating crop circles, but, above all, they face topics about the first and most noted papers supporting the phenomenon non-conventionality. Thus, even if we can’t claim (as in our previous version of this article) that Haselhoff theoretical model perfectly answers Oberg’s objections (for the present, waiting for possible similar but opposite papers), it is undeniable that, from a scientific point of view, the question is still open.

Hessdalen luminous phenomenon is being scientifically studied since 1984, when a panel of researchers headed by the electronic engineer Erling Strand, led to the creation of “Project Hessdalen”. In 1984, thanks to an instrumental measurement effort, it was confirmed that the light phenomenon is correlated to magnetic perturbances, produces sharp radar tracks, and causes, sometimes, sudden leaps of the radio emission. Immediately after 1994, when a very important international conference aimed to discussing the phenomenon took place in Hessdalen, a collaboration was born between Project Hessdalen and the astrophysicist Massimo Teodorani. Then, a number of research projects pointed out a notable – but not exhaustive – correlation with the solar activity. In 1995 the CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche – Italian National Research Council) was involved, in the person of Prof. Stelio Montebugnoli, director of the Medicina Radioastronomy Station, in Bologna, Italy. By this way, the basis for Project EMBLA were laid; a project that would lead, subsequently, also to the undertaking of some Italian scientific missions in Hessdalen. In 1998, Prof. Strand set up AMS (Automatic Measurement Station), a real computerized observatory, with automatic video cameras, magnetometer, radio and radar spectrum analyser to monitorize the Hessdalen light phenomenon real time. It is not difficult to claim that the Norwegian small valley is a real UFO laboratory and “Project Hessdalen” represents, from a certain point of view, the scientific achievement by which we were able to find the “smoking gun” as UFOs hard reality evidence. In such terms, using the achieved data, it is still impossible to find a unique and definitive interpretation to the phenomenon that, on the other hand, takes on an undeniable level of dignity, from an academic poit of view. Furthermore, we can reasonably identify a theoretical model perfectly correlated with data achieved on the field by Teodorani... at least, as regards for most of the observed phenomena. By the way, it is possible to glimpse the construction of a system, a generic analysis, the setting of the different elements of research in a hypothesis that, for the most part, intends to become “theory”, as Oberg purported. Actually, speculating that, at the basis of “Hessdalen” event, there is a source of energy of unusual intensity, in other words, a natural and spontaneous mechanism able to exploit to the zero point energy (a mathematically well developed hypothesis but as regards to FLA, overcome by most recent studies) in certain areas of the planet, has undoubtedly represented an excellent attempt of theoretical “construction” of the creative, natural but unknown mechanism causing the anomalous aerial phenomena, popularly called UFOs. It is useless for this analysis goals, pointing out that – evidently – the possibility of some sort of technological and/or energetic “extraterrestrial intelligence” can’t be completely dismissed, in any way, even if we could explain – as it becomes more and more clear - a good part of those phenomena with a “natural” hypothesis. On the contrary, it is my very personal opinion that, it comes out, in a certain way, paradoxically enforced, at least, in a ETH “version”, not “pure” but, formost “neutral”, that is to say an overlapping of non-conventional – thus, NOT natural – technology. What is, instead, significant to stress, is how such an impressive bulk of data and records led UFOs research (or, at least, a research of this kind), in its first stage, inside the official science arena, subsequently obtaining concrete successes, through an undeniable important scientific paper on the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE). Those successes represent a fundamental and, above all, exciting “starting point” where, the absolutely peculiar characteristics of a phenomenology “overlapping” on a possible natural phenomenon are being subjected, at present, to an accurate analysis. According to this perspective, Oberg’s critics becomes obsolete, today, while other, more recent “Italian external critics” are “completely ignored” (with the only exception of a “virtual ghetto” where the “admirers” can be counted on the fingers of one hand), not being endorsed by any scholars of the field, and above all, any other “real” scientific publication which could even be faintly compared with the JSE. But we can look further.

Massimo Teodorani’s paper, that you can find in this Camelot Chronicles’ dossier, is the best example of the achievements in this field and, the permission granted by Dr B. Haisch and the British Interplanetary Society to publish on-line (on Sentinel ITALIA website) the scientific paper “Inflation-Theory Inplications for Extraterrestrial Visitation”, - thanks to the clever translation by Lavinia Pallotta ( www.fondazionesentinel.org ) - represents a new sort of collaboration between scientists and ufologists (better say: certain ufologists). In the light of these thoughts I think it is – thus – possible to overcome the apparent starting impasse. As a consequence, apart from the legitimacy of certain positions, in my opinion it is difficult not to support that the current “lines of research” (in particular that one elaborated by Teodorani) have widely overcome those - only apparently – insurmountable problems, like an alleged technological inadequacy of ufologists and scientists dealing with those “pionieristic subjects” that didn’t allow their access in official science field. We can try a further step.
On the basis of most recent sectorial studies, derived from an inductive sort of methodology (general rules would be derived through particular observations) and with an interdisciplinary optic, we could define the case of UFOs as a question whose answer implies a theoretical and technical knowledge from several subjects. Such an approach allows the identification of very significant correlations and, even the possibility to advancing comparative critics using also absolutely new data. Borrowing the term superstructure from historical materialism, we could try to define those recent studies as a superstructure of an even more extensive, not sectorial and completely exhaustive theory involving a good part of the so called “Fortian phenomena”. This would be a general system, necessary derived from deductive methodologies (moving from the universal to the particular) that, at the present stage is, gradually starting to shape up.

“...that of UFOs is surely a case one should not drop...” [i]

Notes:
[a] - My special thanks to Lavina Pallotta.
[b] - RAISAT Album (Sky Channel).
[c] - In particolar,Russo stressed how the real difference between ufologists and debunkers lies in this “little but not marginal, or rather, significant residue”, that is still observed in those events with a high degree of strangeness and probability. See: References.
[d] -
     - John Mack, M.D “The Alien Abduction Phenomenon” Noetic Sciences Review, Autumn 1992.
     - Norman S. Don, Kairos Foundation and University of Illinois at Chicago e Gilda Moura, Kairos Foundation “Topographic Brain Mapping of UFO Experiencers” JSE(1997).
     - M. Cigada & G. D'Ambrosio “Alcune raccomandazioni sull'impiego dell'ipnosi con soggetti che riferiscono esperienze del genere Incontri Ravvicinati del Quarto Tipo” World Congress of the International Society of Hypnosis "Monaco 2000" (Germany), October 2000.
     - Cardena, Etzel; Lynn, Steven J. Krippner “Varieties Of Anomalous Experience: Examining The Scientific Evidence” Published: January 2000 - American Psychological Association/ The Journal of Parapsycology (2001 marzo).
     - DSM IV “National Council for Hypnotherapy (2002).
[e] - See also relations by C. Sabadin in II° Congresso Interregionale dei Gruppi di Ricerca, 3° Simposio Internazionale di Ufologia (Bordighera), 11° CONVEGNO "IL CORAGGIO DELLE IDEE" (Montegrotto Terme). See: http://www.forumfree.net/?f=116330
[f] - See: http://semiasse.altervista.org/portal/html/index.php and http://www.forumfree.net/?t=2927455
[g] - E. Ballini “Brain Fingerprint ® : a new instrument for scientific ufology”. See: http://europeanufosurvey.com/en/abduction.php
[h] -
     - Levengood, W.C. & Talbott, Nancy P. (1999) ”Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations” Physiologia Plantarum 105:615-624.
     - Levengood, W.C. & Burke, John A. (1995) ”Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with a Crop Formation” Journal of Scientific Exploration 9:2, 191-199.
     - Levengood, W.C. (1994) ”Anatomical anomalies in crop formation plants”Physiologia Plantarum 92:356-363.
[i] - Carlo Rubbia.

References:
- J.Oberg, "Il fallimento della scienza dell'ufologia ", UFO Forum n. 11, october 1998.
- E.Russo, "Una ragione di orgoglio", UFO Forum n. 12, march 1999.
- C.Sabadin, "Le forme degli UFO", Relation of "La notte degli UFO" (Pavia), july 2002.
- M.Teodorani, "Le luci di Hessdalen e la scienza", Relation of Conference in Ispra, november 2001.
- M.Teodorani.& E.P.Strand (2001), "Data Analysis of Anomalous Luminous Phenomena in Hessdalen", CIPH Articoli e European Journal of UFO and Abduction Studies. See: www.itacomm.net
- M.Teodorani, "Embla 2000", UFO, december 2000.
- Teodorani M.,”Hessdalen e Oltre”, Conferenza in Pavia, 18 september 2003. See Camelot Chronicles: http://www.camelotchronicles.com/Altro/teod2003conf.htm
- C.Sabadin, Relation of Symposium "Angeli, dèi, Astronavi;Dagli Esseri di Roswell alla Spiritualità Cosmica”, Mostra Millennium (Brescia), 13 march 2004. See: www.mostramillennium.com
- M.Teodorani, “Sfere luminose danzanti, il mistero si dirada”. HEOS, n°10, 12 march 2004. See: www.heos.it
- M.Teodorani, “Some final notes on the "rebuttal” phenomenon”, Camelot Chronicles. See: http://www.camelotchronicles.com/Altro/teod2004eng.htm
- R.Cabassi, "Gli UFO di Hessdalen - La dignità di un fenomeno: gli Oggetti Volanti Non Identificati. See: www.ufodatanet.org
- C.Malanga, “Gli UFO nella mente: : interferenze aliene”, Bompiani, 1998.
- N.Conti & A.Zaini, “Caso Lonzi. Gli Ufo nella mente: ipnosi e considerazioni di metodo”, UFO Forum, n.11 october 1998.
- C.Malanga, “Rapimenti Alieni, ultimo atto", Relation of Conference in Milan (Associazione Culturale Coscienza e Salute), june 2002.
- C.Sabadin, “Oltre le interferenze aliene;Il mistero dei Rapimenti Alieni”, Relation of Conference in Budrio (BO), 15 genuary 2004.
- A.Perego,”Gli extraterrestri sono tornati”, Edizioni CISAER, 1970.
- P.Toselli, “Jacques Vallee e l’ufologia parafisica”. See: CISU.
- J.C.Bourret, “La nuova sfida degli UFO (ultima inchiesta scientifica)”, De Vecchi, 1977.
- A.Magenta, "Per il bene dell'uomo", Notiziario UFO, october 1998.
- J.Deardorff, B.Haish, B.Maccabee and H.E. Puthoff;“Inflation-Theory Inplications for Extraterrestrial Visitation”,Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 58, pp.43-50, 2005 . See: http://www.fondazionesentinel.org/documenti_ufo/implicazioni.htm
- M. Teodorani, (2005) ‘An Alternative Method for the Scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life: The Local SETI’, (14 pages). In: J. Seckbach (ed.) Book: Life as We Know It, Springer, COLE Books, Vol. 10. Accepted 26 December 2004.