article which should be of interest to anyone engaged in "AR" studies. The article, "Perspective: Flying Saucers—Physical or Psychic." is by Peter Kor. In this article, Kor poses three possible frameworks of explanation for the saucer phenomena: 1. Psychic; 2. Conventionally Physical; 3. Substratic (intangible).
"Each of these frameworks has unique consequences," Kor points out, "which can be tested by fundamental trends in the saucer evidence. Which one do you think best fits the history and facts of the flying saucer saga?"
While the degree of Greenfield 's agreement with Kor's alternatives is "tenuous" (in his own words), he did find much of what Kor had to say of interest. "Here we apparently have a new term introduced to the field: substratic. Let's not make a mistake, 'substratic' is not the same as 'alternate realities.' It seems to mean a UFO phenomenon that is inherently tangible. It would be interesting to hear how, within this framework, Mr. Kor accounts for cases of physical evidence."
At about the time interest in Greenfield 's comments on the AR theory had attracted a number of "inner circle" researchers in the New York area, who had gathered mainly for the purpose of discussing plans for the 1967 Congress of Scientific Ufologists. Mr. Greenfield continued by stating that "Another article can be gleaned from the July- August, 1966 issue of the outstanding British journal, Flying Saucer Review. The article by Jerome Clark, 'The Strange Case of the 1897 Airship' poses a very basic question about the nature of UFO and contact accounts: Are they accurate to the extent that the witnesses are reporting what they have seen within the witnesses' own ecological framework? If the answer is affirmative, the implications are quite vast.
The following series of informal questions concern, generally, the "AR" theory, and were asked of Mr. Greenfield over the course of many deep conversations on the subject.
In relation to the so-called "interplanetary" theory of saucers, what does the AR theory have to offer:
"As you know there are inconsistencies in the interplanetary theory, that is, in relation to the evidence. The AR theory does not rule out the possibility of interplanetary visitations, but rather says that this may be only a part of the explanation for the phenomena observed. Pure physical phenomena might explain some of the evidence submitted, but there is a large body of evidence that it does not explain. Similarly, a wholly non-physical phenomenon would not explain all the evidence. The AR theory seeks to coordinate all the evidence into a single coherent pattern."
How then, Mr. Greenfield, does the AR theory account for saucers, per set
"At this point, a theory does not offer a definite reason for UFOs. There does not seem to be the idea that they are vehicles of a sort, though their exact nature and reason for existence is unsure. There is also the matter of the sub-theory of seeing the phenomenon as a manifestation of the viewer's own background experience, that is as subjective viewing of an objective stimulus, the exact nature of which is currently unknown."
Does the AR theory account for mysterious disappearances?
"Yes, if one accepts the idea that reality is not fixed (at least not fixed in our present understanding of reality), it is not difficult to understand how persons or objects might be caught in some sort of reality warp and enter or leave a given state of reality. This would serve to explain many legends and Fortean phenomena as well."
In relation to the above answer we pointed out to Mr. Greenfield that many sightings are made by more than one person, each of at least a slightly different background, yet their descriptions normally coincide to a large extent. His reply was well thought out.
"Firstly, persons coming from the same general ecological framework would probably see a given UFO in generally the same way. Secondly, there are cases where persons of totally different backgrounds