Ufology Handbook 080713/Alleged reactions and effects

It is occasionally reported that some UFOs induce temporary or permanent effect on its surroundings, and on any people, animals and artefacts present during a sighting.

a: Biological Reactions:

CE I reports (i.e. those relating to UFO-induced transitory effects) often pertain to sensations of prickly skin (or "pins and needles"), heat, dizziness and nausea, static electrical-like "bristling" of body-hair, temporary paralysis or weakness/numbness in specific body-regions and feelings of externally-originating pressure and tension upon the body. Such temporary effects are harder to determine in the case of animals, but numerous incidents relate to pets, farmyard and wild beasts showing signs of agitation and alarm just prior to a UFO observation.

The lesser CE II-level effects (at least in regards to humans) relate to protracted body-pains, numbness and headaches. More seriously, both animals and people have exhibited rashes, tanning, hair/fur loss and skin-burns following a reported UFO encounter. In particular, a UFO-induced reaction similar to "klieg conjunctivitis" is often claimed; in humans this manifests as a reddish, watery puffiness around the eyes present for several days or more. Pet dogs have (in several instances) have shown apparent wariness (even fear) of supposed UFO "landing sites".

b: "Oz Factor" manifestations:

The "Oz factor" is a term (first coined by UFO researcher Jenny Randles in the early 1980's) used to describe an "aura of unreality" noted during some UFO incidents. Often this relates to an abnormal absence of traffic, people and ambient sounds just prior to a sighting. Possibility related to the "Oz factor” are reports from witnesses of UFOs seen over highly-populated areas, which nobody else seemingly observed. Oz Factor events also involve sensations of "inner peace", states of personal "disassociation", distorted perceptions of the environment and marked differences between witness-estimated and actually-elapsed time.

c: Mechanical Effects:

UFO-induced transient effects on mechanical devices include the presence of heavy signal interference on radios and televisions, detrimental effects on compasses and watches, the dimming or extinguishing of lights and electrical power cut-offs; all of which reportedly return to normal once the UFO leaves the sighting-vicinity. Cars are also effected in the same manner; their headlights and engines falter (or stop working altogether), but kick back again into life almost the instant the UFO moves away. It is claimed that diesel-engine vehicles are less susceptible to this UFO-induced "stalling" effect, but this is by no means definite.

Permanent mechanical effects are much rarer than transitory ones. It is sometimes alleged that batteries are drained of their stored energy during a UFO incident. Sometimes, damage is supposedly inflicted on mechanical systems and electronic circuitry, and the external structure of some devices reportedly suffers impact-like damage.

In ufological literature these effects are often labelled Electromagnetic (or EM) phenomena, even though there is no real evidence (to date) that electromagnetic processes are responsible for generating them!

d: Environmental Effects:

As with all UFO-instigated effects they can be divided into transient and permanent categories;

Transient environmental effects relate to "strong-wind" like buffeting of trees, man-made features, grass, waves and dust lying directly beneath a UFO. Permanent environmental effects relates to damage supposedly caused by a "landed" UFO. These include spaced indentations suggestive of "landing-pad" marks, also extensive craters, furrows, holes, scooped-out areas of earth and even damaged tarmacadam surfaces. These may be associated with so-called "UFO nests"; an often circular area of burnt, bare, crushed or swirled and flattened grass or other flora. Surrounding tree-limbs and other adjacent plant-matter can also show signs of being burned, crushed, dehydrated and/or discoloured.

"Crop Circles"

During the summer of 1980 three round, swirled depressions (spaced some 137 metres apart) were found in a wheat field near Westbury, Wiltshire. Thereafter, throughout the 1980's many similar circles were appearing in arable land each summer, mainly in the counties of Wiltshire and Hampshire. By then, the "circles" had largely assumed more complex configurations; some surrounded by one or more concentric rings, others arranged in a cross or triangular pattern, others still with a single line - or "spur" - jutting out from one end (or a combination of these features). By the early 1990's even more complex crop-circle patterns (termed "Pictograms") had become notably common. These comprised of anything from a very large lineal arrangement of circles joined by a thin line of flattened crop (surrounded by several other level or bent lines), up to massive triangular, lozenge, dumbbell, snake-like, snail-like, wheel-shaped or "Mandelbrot set" configurations. The circles were, by this time, being extensively promoted by the media, virtually eclipsing UFOs in popularity.

Except in a very few notable occasions, there were no witnesses to the formation of the majority of crop circles. This resulted in considerable and varied speculation regarding their origin. Due to their similarity to so-called "UFO nests", some believed crop circles were the result of UFO activity (despite the lack of inexplicable sightings prior to their appearance). Others proposed an invisible "non-human intelligence" or a "plasma vortex" (a hypothetical natural phenomenon related to tornadoes and funnel clouds). All sides, however, agreed that a sizable proportion of circles could not be hoaxes; they were too many and their internal and external structure were too complex, showing no obvious indication of being fabricated. However, on the 9th September, 1991 the crop-circles community was shaken by a front-page "Today" newspaper story featuring the account of two middle-aged artists (Doug Bower and Dave Chorley), which stated they had faked the first crop circles (and others subsequently). To confound matters further, evidence was also uncovered of a diversity of crop-circle faking groups and singular hoaxers, who had reportedly been fabricating circles independent of Bower and Chorley.

Despite these revelations, quite a number of circle advocates still maintain that anomalous crop circles do exist, rejecting outright the possibility that the "circles mystery" is totally attributable to hoaxing. The few documented eyewitness accounts of alleged circle- formation describe an invisible wind-like force (sometimes associated with glows and a humming/whirling sound) laying down crops in a basic singular, circular pattern. Coupled with some possible historical references to "crop circles" (such as the "Mowing Devil" pamphlet of 1678) a good case can still be made for a (albeit rare) circles effect phenomenon, able to create single circular depressions in flora. Whatever the case, there is still no good evidence to link UFOs with the modern deluge of crop circles. Does the fact they resemble "saucer nests" infer a direct UFO connection, or is it simply due to Bower and Chorley being "inspired" by reports of a "saucer nest" discovered at Tully, Australia in 1966? The circles controversy clearly shows the prudence of suspicion towards any "mysterious" ground trace whose mode of formation is totally unknown. In 2007 elaborate "pictograms" still appear in various parts of the UK (in particularly Wessex). Numerous groups have claimed responsibility, with even a crop circle fakers' handbook being published in 2005; but some still claim these patterns have an anomalous origin, although they are now predominantly seen as man-made "landscape art".

Previous Chapter:	Main Page:	Next Chapter:
Alleged attributes of True UFOs	Ufology Handbook 080713	UFO Entities