Researcher Paul Devereux, insists in chapter seven of his book, ‘Earthlights’, (Tandem Books, 1982), that the majority of UFO sightings taking place in Leicestershire, in particular, in the region of Croft Hill, are the result of Earthlight phenomena, caused by electrical discharges from the faulted Earth into the immediate atmosphere. He argues that even the most exotic UFOs (including their occupants), are merely down to the magnetic field generated by the phenomena acting on parts of the human brain and causing temporal reality distortion, with the end result on the witness being an imagined flying saucer, and attendant ‘space-men’. Needless to say, this new theory regarding the subject, brought forth a variety of responses from several ufologists of the period, who took it upon themselves to publicly comment on the book via their own individual publications etc. A small selection of the various response articles follows.

Reading Earthlights, by Paul Devereux, I found it very good in style and certainly worth spending some time on. Although the theory was fascinating, I must admit that there were times when it left me frustrated. I felt that Paul was getting close to some possible truths about the UFO phenomenon, and then moving away from them again. It is reasonable to suggest that there could be a tectonic electrical plasma discharge along the lines postulated. It is likely that a number of these light effects can at times be misinterpreted as UFOs. Furthermore, it seems possible that other electrical discharge phenomena (e.g. ball lightning) , are also misunderstood at times as being UFOs, or even as Earthlights come to that. But I do not think that the theory proves that the main core, objective phenomenon is caused in the manner proposed. The evidence proffered is not very convincing. For instance, I was not at all happy with the laboratory test, (Leicestershire being the laboratory) which seems to be an important corner stone of the theory. A review of geological literature and views of geologists would have been useful, to see if this kind of effect was already known about. Allowing that these electrical fields do exist, how common are they? They would have to be very common if they were to be a total explanation for this objective phenomenon. But the light effects reported in a UFO context seem much too varied to be explained in this one simple way. A clue might be found in the Non - Physical appearance and behaviour of UFOs and alleged occupants. The strange thing about Paul’s theory, is that the main-core phenomenon is still made out to be objective after the author has gone to great lengths to show the opposite. It has so often occurred to me how often how big a part light plays in the UFO experience. It acts as a signal to herald what follows. It is one of the few constant factors in reports. We must mention if light is merely a by-product of the process which brings these events into manifestation or an actual content of the encounter itself.

Paul’s theory of proto-entities is also interesting. I assume that he regards these mental impressions as originating partly from the cultural science - fiction ideas and partly from the unconscious mind of man. Something along the lines of Jung’s archetypes. Nothing in what Jung said however, even hints at the possibility that these images might be capable of taking on objective form or acting as the motive power behind PK effects upon an plasma energy field. These images are a reality, but not an objective one. Maybe UFO encounters are of a similar nature? The result of this postulated PK effect, on a fine and plastic energy which is objective, is the two explanation theory. There would be, as Paul proposes, an objective hard core event, and a shadow mental component. Whilst this is an important line of thinking, it is not without problems. Projecting images from the unconscious into conscious awareness, is a very different thing from projecting them into external, objective reality. What if both the cause and effect of the UFO phenomenon were internal and subjective; the result of the mind and brain producing a series of electrical imagery superimposed onto objective reality. Whilst it remains in view, it will be taken to be objective reality, which will be what is ‘seen’. I therefore do not think that the main earthlights hypothesis of Paul’s is greatly significant for ufology - but there do seem to be parts of it which ought to be considered. It seems to me, that the phenomenon is a question of intelligence working within the structure of the collective unconscious, conveying imagery (of a symbolic nature perhaps), from the depths of the psyche into conscious awareness. The motivation appears to be one of testing our ideas and concepts of reality through our search of the origin of the imagery itself. The exact kind of intelligence could be that of the human itself, or of some other kind which with careful thought we might call alien (although not in the usual E.T. sense)… It is possible that it has used other forms of imagery over the years and I feel, assuming it is not just human, that it is closely tied in with mankind. Perhaps it needs him for full expression. The driving force seems to be a form of energy akin to the electrical one, which might be called ‘psychic’. But I stress not in the lay use of this term, more in the concept used by both Freudian and Jungian psychology, talking of ‘energies’ at work within the psyche of man. It is like a seed planted into the unconscious by an intelligent act and then powered into awareness, where it appears as a series of formulated images centred on the theme of UFOs and aliens. Images which are totally subjective. The control centre for this activity is the brain, which decodes all incoming sensory information and constructs our view of what we call objective reality. If superimposed (non pathological or psychotic) images were received in this way, they could be processed and so appear to our conscious awareness as indistinguishable from objective reality. Perhaps then, no part of the UFO phenomenon is objective.

This article seems to agree rather well with my own evolving ideas. Ian’s arrival at the concept is certainly independent. Once again evidence of simultaneous conception, or an idea finding the right time to blossom?

Works which advance ideas that their authors imagine to be adequate explanations of the UFO enigma, are certainly of interest to ufologists, and this book offers what its author feels to be the explanation of Unidentified Flying Objects. However, what he imagines that his book achieves, and what it actually does, are two different things. It is quite possible in fact, that the basic idea advanced in this book to explain UFOs, might well apply in a few cases, although nothing that the author offers, I personally found convincing. Mr. Devereux is certain that he is on the right track, for he postulates but one explanation for UFOs, (he excludes those which have psychological causes), that they are the product of energy originating from within the Earth itself, in short, a geophysical explanation. To support his case, Devereux offers us a catalogue of sightings, although it is not clear whether any of these were adequately investigated. We are simply offered summaries of those cases which he imagines support his idea with some clarity. Some of his readers will, like the present writer, differ on this. In fact, it is difficult to see, in most instances, what the supposed connection is, for one does not have to be a genius to recognise that similarity in appearance does not establish association, or imply that identical factors govern the production of the object/s observed and reported. Indeed, can we be sure that the witness has offered us an accurate description of what he/she claims to have seen? The key ‘discovery’ Mr. Devereux offers to support what he sees as a link between Earth energy, whatever this may be, and UFOs, is what he claims to be a correlation between areas of geological faulting and UFO reports, claiming that all UFO reports, including those from Warminster, are from areas where faults are to be found. Now this is superficially impressive, but that is all it is. Anyone familiar with the techniques of geological mapping, will be well aware that our survey maps only show a partial picture of the faulting pattern, and that due to events in the long geological history of Britain, a great many faults remain concealed, for example, under the very extensive boulder clay deposits in Yorkshire. It follows then, that the problem is not to correlate sightings with faults, but not to be able to find them. This means that if the Devereux hypothesis be correct, we should expect a far larger number of UFO sightings, particularly in areas of tectonic instability, yet there is no evidence that this is so, indeed, in both Japan and Italy, areas of considerable Earthquake activity, UFO sightings are, if anything, lower in number than from areas of geological stability. However, having said this, it might also be worth pointing out that the occurrence of UFO sightings in zones of faulting, does not establish a connection. Devereux sites as evidence the Earthquake light phenomenon seen in several places, notably Japan, but these depend upon considerable tectonic instability, and furthermore, although likened to UFOs, Earthquake lights are more of a glow in appearance, as the illustrations reproduced in Earthlights show, rather than the traditional UFO. Earthquake lights are the product of what is called the ‘piezoelectric’ effect, which refers to the setting up of an electrical potential in some rocks, particularly those rich in quartz, as the result of variations in stress, and this has been demonstrated in the laboratory, as Devereux points out. However, all that this shows, is that rock subjected to pressure, can split, and produce minute balls of light, which have a life span of a fraction of a second. There is a very big difference, between the average ball of light type UFO, and the product of rock stress, and Devereux does not demonstrate how the one becomes the other. In fact, it seems that there is no reason to equate the Earthquake light phenomenon, about which, incidentally, there is some debate as to what actually produces it, the late Professor J. E. McDonald for example, who investigated the Earthquake light phenomenon, which occurred during the Hebgen Lake Earthquake in Montana, suggested it was the result of aerodynamic drag caused by a landslide, which was itself produced by an Earthquake, thus excluding Earth energy as a main causation factor. McDonald, who became well known for his UFO studies, finally, did not associate Earthquake lights with UFOs. One might add at this point that the faults we see in rocks, are, as often as not, as much fossils as are Trilobites, and there is no reason to look on them as being in any way active, or the source for the extrusion of energy whatever they represent in respect to past activity. In many respects, Devereux’s case is based on what could be said to be guilt by association, but he fails to show the essential connections. The same is true of his lengthy promotion of what he feels are ideas and notions held by ancient societies, which gave us the celebrated Henge monuments. What these were for is anyone’s guess, and all manner of notions abound. I suspect they are of secular character, although perhaps having an agricultural application by helping to establish dates of the seasons. What I am certain of however, is that they have about as much association with the Earth energy concept as does the average lamp post. Ancient men knew absolutely nothing about Earth energy, whatever this may be, and this book offers not a solitary bit of evidence that they did, unless one accepts Devereux’s speculations as evidence, and the findings of a particular project, which do not establish that ancient men knew of energy sources, but simply show that contemporary men have located what may be such a thing. Mr. Devereux is wise enough to use the term ‘probably’ to qualify his claim of there being but one explanation for UFOs, (psychological cases apart), so he has an escape clause if his championship of such a single explanation gets from others the treatment he gives to the extra-terrestrial hypothesis. However, read his book for yourself, form your own conclusions, mine I state now, it is that before very long, Earthlights will fade into obscurity, becoming a forgotten curiosity of UFO literature.

(3); SERIOUS FAULTS - Earth Lights An extended review by Leicestershire UFO researcher, Kevin McClure.

There is no doubt at all that this book is as important as the attention so far paid to it. Paul Devereux is one of the best British writers in the paranormal field. The book reads very clearly and easily, and it looks smart; Turnstone do produce books well. The range of material presented is breathtaking, and it makes the book impossible to review in a manner that can give a clear idea of all the ideas in it. Broadly speaking, it is an unusual mix of an individual’s search to understand, first, one highly exotic UFO experience. Consequently, a whole range of mysteries of the Earth and air. It is perhaps Paul’s personal involvement in his quest that makes the book so consistently interesting. Not all of the material is original - much play is made of the sort of piezo-electricity theories, related to seismic activity, that has been popularised in this country by Persinger and Lafreniere in their ‘Space-Time Transients and Unusual Events’, and there is also much of the Dragon Project, megaliths, and the possible wisdom of Neolithic Man. Paul particularly argues - and it is an original argument so far as I’m aware - (to quote the blurb) that ‘UFOs are geophysical pockets of energy that are responsive to mental cues: ‘planetary ectoplasm’ produced in areas of geological faulting’. What he means, I think, is that the stuff of UFOs is a natural, physical phenomenon, and that the shape of UFOs is also a natural, but mental one. Super ESP to an amazing degree. Certain influential members of ASSAP have, probably for very good reasons (research has to start from some premise or other, and this is both current and British) decided to throw considerable time and resources into research related to ‘Earth Lights’. I very much hope to be able to chronicle their results in Common Ground , for new, original material is hard to come by at present. The success or otherwise of their work will probably constitute the most accurate judgement of Paul’s theories. However, I am of the opinion that there are some notable shortcomings in the book, and amid the general welter of unstinting praise, I must point out a few of these at least; those that relate to subjects about which I have actually been involved in the original research or, in the case of the Leicestershire material, where I am in a position to check up on the claims that have been made. Most of this material falls in the seventh chapter of the book, I.e. ‘UFOs as Earth Phenomena’, which opens the third part, ‘Towards a Synthesis’. It is in this chapter that Paul, and the geologist Paul McCartney, look to prove that areas of high UFO incidence in the U.K. ‘window areas’ to use the jargon, are closely related to fault lines, and thus to seismic activity, and also to the sites of prehistoric constructions or monuments. Four particular areas of the British Isles are singled out for attention; the Warmister area, Dyfed in South Wales, Barmouth in North Wales, and Leicestershire. It is probably worth noting that Paul was born and raised in Leicestershire, and now lives in Wales. And that Warminster is the most famous UFO centre in the country. Of Warminster I will say little, Anyone who has followed FSR, or even, the popular press over the years, will be aware that the reports of UFO activity there were much less than they seemed; for anyone who still has any doubts, I would suggest reference to Ian Mrzyglod’s ongoing analysis in ‘Probe’. That Paul quotes the notorious Arthur Shuttleworth, ‘he considered the hill to be one of the gateways in the Warminster district from which UFOs issued’, says little for Paul’s judgement. The Dyfed material displays only too clearly the care with which the dates supporting natural phenomena, occurring at random, have been chosen. Paul has, in other parts of the book, used cases, some hundreds of years old; here, he concentrates only on 1977. Of course, he finds many reports, but then he would; that they were mostly the product of popular fantasy, and wretched investigation standards, does not seem to matter - he is looking only for numbers of reports in an area apparently heavily faulted. To do so he has chosen the one year since the beginning of recorded history, that would support his theory; I would like to see how UFO records in Dyfed look over the past 30 years; I’ll bet that they are very little above average for the U.K. If any other random year had been chosen, it must be said that this part of the theory would be rendered meaningless. The same has to be said of his use of the 1904-05 material, that derives almost exclusively from what was collected by Sue and I in ‘Stars and Rumours of stars’, concerning anomalous light events in North Wales during the religious revival of those years; events that were closely related to the leading evangelist, Mary Jones. If any other year had been chosen, there would no evidence to support the theory at all. How many modern reports have there been on the coast between Barmouth and Harlech? I understand that the last seismic activity in this area had been in 1903; Paul provides no explanation as to the sudden burst of activity at the end of 1904. But it is worse than that. Not only do the phenomena only relate to only eight months in the past 75 years, (what happened - did all the faults disappear?, did the Earth stop moving?), and not only that, they do not actually tie in with any seismic activity at all. The reports of the phenomena as Sue and I found and recorded them, mostly in papers and in letters from eye-witnesses to the S.P.R. , bear no resemblance to any sort of ‘Earth Light’ observed or imagined by anyone but Paul Devereux! The method used is that made famous by Berlitz and Von Daniken; picking the scraps of evidence you want to use, and ignoring the rest. Amid daft comments like ‘We here have the description of the birth of a UFO’, he picks out cases completely unparalleled in the UFO literature, but which appear to imply that the phenomena started at ground level. It is necessary to read the book (which I urge everyone to do) to appreciate how irrelevant to the theory these cases are, but these are the ones the author believes help it along. The ones he ignores, the lights that appeared over the homes of those who were later to be converted, over the chapels at which Mary Jones was later to speak, the luminous arch over a mile long, the ‘enormous luminous star’ moving several miles in different directions in front of a number of responsible adults, the ‘oval mass of grey, half open, disclosing within a kernel of white light’ that hovered over two horse-drawn carriages one night near Barmouth, the lights that only appear 100 feet off the ground, the group of lights that followed a carriage for over a mile - these are far more important. Reports concerning the lights appearing indoors at revival meetings are clearly regarded as irrelevant, as are the concurrent visions of humanoid figures and a giant made of light. How a light could have travelled across the water from Egryn to the Lleyn Peninsula also goes unexplained. Simply, no evidence is presented to even suggest that any of these events were the result of underground activity; the experiments so far done with piezo-electricity bear no relation to these reports. I do not know what caused these phenomena, but at least I don’t pretend to.

Maybe I am a little too personally involved in assessments of the events that Paul describes as the ‘Barmouth flap’ - so let me return to a less contentious issue. This concerns the Leicestershire material. As a source, the only one in which a wide time span has been used, it is extremely shabby. Apart from one BUFORA report, and no mention whatsoever of the archived LUFOIN data, the UFO reports used to prove that Leicestershire UFOs on and around Leicestershire fault lines have been taken from the Leicester Mercury, a local daily newspaper. Covering the period 1953 - 1974, the authors claim to have sorted the ‘really curious’ cases from the dross, leaving them 130 cases to work with. Over 22 years, I make this just under 6 cases a year. As these are completely un -investigated cases, we might, actually, be generous in assuming that 10% of them would be genuinely unexplainable. 13 cases, perhaps; much less than one a year ‘unidentified’. Undeterred, however, all 130 cases are accepted as evidential. This amounts to just over 6 cases each year to be spread over what we are told is the ‘862 square mile land area of the county’. The authors find that nearly 25% of the reports - under one and a half a year - fall within a five - mile radius of an undistinguished quarried hump called Croft Hill, but conclude that there are four or five other ‘windows’ in the county. Presumably, these share the other 4 and a half or so ‘curious’ reports between them. With their customary combination of the apparently scientific and the speculative mystical, the authors write of Croft Hill; ‘There is at least one minor, local fault in the base of the hill, part of which has been uncovered by erosion to reveal a great slab of rock, so regular as to look artificial, protruding from the lower slopes. Near the foot of the hill is an ancient church dedicated to St. Michael - a dedication often associated with locations of geomantic significance’. There is a photo of this ‘exposed fault’, as well as a diagram showing supposed correlations between UFO and geophysical activity. Mark Brown of Coalville - a highly respected UFOIN and BUFORA investigator, - also a Co-Director of the Leicestershire UFO Investigation Network, has researched some of the claims regarding Croft Hill. I am indebted to him for access to his findings. He took the trouble to speak to Dr. Peter Crowther of the Geological Department of Leicester Natural History Museum. There, working from both the latest geological survey maps of the county, and from site reports completed since, it was found that there is no fault, major or minor, in or near Croft Hill. Granite and Syenite are there, certainly, but there is no fault to permit the production of visible light effects. As to the photo, Mark suggests that this might be simply of ‘weathered beds of differing rocks’. Clearly, the author’s claim that ‘zones of peak incidence (of UFOs) are related to tectonic activity’, is not helped at all by the Leicestershire material. Both cases put are actually negative, and seriously devalue the book as a whole. How much of the remainder is as bad? Is it asking a great deal of any author, to check all his sources, because a hypothesis is only as convincing as the evidence that supports it; in this case, it is clear that much of the ‘UFO’ evidence, simply just will not do. If other researchers are to base their approach on this work, they must proceed with the utmost care. Unfortunately, it does seem that other areas may be equally unsatisfactory. In the chapter titled ‘The UFO Pageant’, 43 supposed evidential cases are cited by number. Some of the cases lack dates, and for some reason Joseph Smith of Mormon fame is included. But so also is the reported BVM appearance at Knock, Eire, in 1879. Paul’s source for this is the book ‘Passport To Magonia’, by Jaques Vallee’, which he quotes as gospel. Unfortunately, Vallee’s own source is a single romanticised chapter in a general, unquestioning collection of BVM accounts titled ‘A Woman Clothed With The Sun’ - Eight Great Appearances of Our Lady. Where Vallee’ makes a mistake, Paul repeats it. And the unquestioning belief of the original source comes out in ‘Earth Lights’ as ‘It is an example of the proto-entity phenomenon par excellence. Actually, it never was anything of the sort.

This is a good read, stimulating and entertaining. Many of the ideas are interesting, and worthy of discussion. But the research is clearly much less than adequate, and the conclusions consequently are open to attack and ridicule. I would not like to see ASSAP place too many of its eggs in such an ill-woven basket.

______________________________________________________________________________