不同公民科学数据集共享的核心异常经验 Core Anomalous Experiences Shared Across Diverse Citizen Science Datasets

Journalof

ScientificExploration

Anomalisticsand

FrontierScience

RESEARCHARTICLE

CoreAnomalousExperiencesSharedAcrossDiverse

CitizenScienceDatasets

LukeJ.Matthews

RANDCorporation,20ParkPlaza,Suite910,Boston,MA,USA

Email:lmatthew@

SUBMITTEDACCEPTEDPUBLISHED

December31,2024July25,2025

December18,2025

/10.31275/20253629

GOLDOPENACCESS

CreativeCommonsLicense4.0.CC-BY-NC.Attributionrequired.Nocommercialuse.

HIGHLIGHTS

Afreshstudyshowsthatacenturyofcitizen-ledinvestigationsintounexplainedphenom-enaformacoherentscholarlytraditionand,usingmodernmachinelearningonfourlargedatabases,revealsasharedclusterofreportsthatreflectscorethemesoftheanomalousexperience.

ABSTRACT

Scientificinvestigationofunidentifiedanomalousphenomena(UAP)extendstotheearlyoriginsofcitizenscience.Scientificactivitybynon-professionals(citizenscience)hashistoricallyproducedrealdiscoveries,oftenfocusesonsubjectsunderstudiedbypro-fessionalscientists,involvesinteractionwithspeculativefiction,andhasacentury-longhistoryofamassinglargedatabasesofanomalousevents.Throughhistoricalanalysis,Ishowthatwhileitexistsinaliminalspaceadjacenttoprofessionalscience,citizensci-enceofanomaliesisareasonablycoherentscholarlytradition.Ithenengagethistraditionbyapplyingmodernmachinelearningandartificialintelligencetoolstofouranomalouseventsdatabasestoexaminewhetherquantitativelexicalanalysiscanextractacoreanomalousexperiencethatissharedincommonacrossthem.Theanalysisidentifiesaclusterofdocumentsfromdiverseauthorshipsources.Thisdocumentclusterappearstohavegreaterfrequenciesofmanythemesthatwereproposedbypriorqualitativeanalysistobepartofthecoreanomalousexperience.

KEYWORDS

UAP,UFO,clusteranalysis,LLM,history.

INTRODUCTION

Inthefirstpartofthisarticle,Ilayoutacasethatthelinesbetweenfactandfictionareblurredinthestudyofanomalousphenomenasuchasunidentifiedflyingobjects(UFOs),recentlyredubbedandbroadenedasunidentifiedanomalousphenomena(UAP).Theseexperienceshavealiminalexistence(inbetween)factandfictionbecausetheyfrequentlyeluderigorousscientificmethodsofcontrolledobservation,buttheyalsoarenotoutsidethedomainof

sciencebecausetheyconstitutebothempiricalobserva-tionsandcreativetheories,whicharebothgristforthescientificmill.Citizen(non-professional)researchersplayanimportantroleinthisliminalspace.

Inthesecondpartofthearticle,Icombinefourdatasetsfromthepast100yearsofcitizenanomaliesresearchandanalyzethemwithacombinationofmanualandmachinemethods.Itestahypothesisthathasexistedforover100years,thatUAParemorelikelytobetrulyunexplainedundercurrentscientificunderstandings,particularlywhen

516JOURNALOFSCIENTIFICEXPLORATION•VOL.39,NO4–WINTER2025

LukeJ.MatthewsCOREANOMALOUSEXPERIENCEDATABASES

diverseauthors/sourcessharemanyofthesamefeaturesofanomalousexperienceincommon(Evans-Wentz,1911).Thelogicisthatallsortsofdifferentpeoplewouldn’tmakeanerrorinthesameway,unlesswecanidentifyacommonknowncauseamongthem,suchasbeingasleep.Afteridentifyingasmallsubsetoftheoriginaldocumentsthatcomefromdiverseclustersintermsofauthorship,Iuseacombinationofmanualandlargelanguagemodel(LLM)methodstoidentifywhetherkeycharacteristics,suchasbeingasleeporexperiencingtimeslowing,aredifferentfordocumentsinauthordiverseasopposedtoauthoruniformclusters.

Italsoisworthnotingthatmyapproachbeginswithalargesetofrecordedexperiencesthatwereviewedasanomalouswhentheywererecorded.OnemightalsodefineUAPasonlythoseexperiencesforwhichscientistsagreethereisnocurrentexplanation,butmanyscientists,andlikelyaconsensusofthescientificcommunity,wouldnotagreethatthereareanysuchexperiences.Stretchingabitfurther,onemightdefineUAPasthoseexperiencesforwhichsciencecannotinprinciplefindanyexplanationbecausetheexperiencesderivefromunderlyingrealitiesthattranscendourunderstandingofcausationitself.ForthisstudyIadoptedthefirstmeaningofUAP/anomalous–thattheeventwasexperiencedorrecordedassuchatthetimeitwasrecorded.

TheOntologyandEpistemologyofCitizenAnomalisticResearch

Anthropologistsfrequentlydistinguishbetweenontol-ogyandepistemology,evenwhilerecognizingthatthesecategoriesoverlapandinteract.Ontologymeansanygroupofpeople’stheoryofreality(toincludepotentialrealities);whereas,epistemologyisatheoryofknowledge,i.e.theprocessbywhichonecomestoknowreality.Itisworthnotingthatthesewordsareusedsomewhatdifferentlyinotherdisciplines.Particularly,ontologyisusedwithadifferentmeaningbyphilosophersandyetanothermean-ingbycomputerscientists,butIthinktheanthropologi-calsensesofthesewordsareinstructivetoclarifycertainperennialissuesinthestudyofUAP.

THEONTOLOGYOFUAP

TheontologyofUAPcaninvolvemanyproposedreali-ties.Manyprofessionalscientistsfocusonthepotentialforphenomenathatarethingsscientistsalreadyagreeexist(i.e.theyarewellacceptedinconsensusscientific

ontology)asapotentialcauseofUAP.Inthiscategorywouldbecasesofmistakenidentity(weatherballoons)andalsoundisclosedbutwhollyterrestrialtechnologiescreatedbytheU.S.DepartmentofWarorotherdefenseagencies.

Someprofessionalscientistswillgetabitmoreexoticandconsiderontologicalpossibilitiesthatarestillwithinourknownlawsofphysicsandbiology,butthatproposeanextraterrestrialoriginforUAP.ResearchbyformerdirectoroftheAll-DomainAnomalyResolutionOffice(AARO),Dr.SeanKirkpatrick,andHarvardastrophysicist,Dr.AviLoeb,fallintothiscategory(Loeb&Kirkpatrick,2023).Workingwithinthisontology,KirkpatrickandLoebmodeledhowbiologicalextraterrestrials,constrainedbythespeedoflightandplausiblelimitsonbiologicallifespans,mightstilluseroboticprobestosurveydistantplanetslikeourown.Dr.Loebisinthemidstofanongoingattempttousesys-tematicallydeployedandcontinuouslyoperatingopticalandothersensorstofindevidenceofUAPevenwhennohumanwitnessesarepresent(

https://projects.iq.harvard

.edu/galileo/activities).

TheseontologicaltheoriesforUAPareatodds,how-ever,withtheculturalexperienceofUAPbyU.S.andglobalcitizenswhoarenotprofessionalscientists.Theexplana-tionofUAPbeingcausedbyextraterrestrialswhooperatewithinourknownphysicalconstraintswouldnotexplaintheglobal,repeated,andlongdurationofUAPexperiences.Eithertheseexperiencesarecasesofmistakenidentity(i.e.theyarereducibletoknownphenomenabutwereuniden-tifiedatthetimeoftheexperience),ortheyarecausedbysomethingyetunknowntoscience,butitisimprobabletheycouldbecausedbyextraterrestrialswithtechnologywhosefundamentalsarealreadyknowntoourspecies.Itsimplyisveryimprobablethatextraterrestrialsusinganytechnologyknowntouscouldmaintainsuchafrequencyofcontactwhilealsoavoidingleavingbehindindisputablephysicalevidenceoftheirexistence.

ThisleadsustowhytheUAPskepticismoftheprofes-sionalscientificcommunitydoesnotconvincecitizenUAPbelievers;thereisnotjustadisagreementbetweenthesegroupsaboutevidence,butthereisadisagreementaboutontology(theirtheoriesofreality/potentialrealitydiffer).ThecitizenUAPmovementisinterlinkedwiththebroadancientaliensphenomenonbecauseextraterrestrialsasacauseofUAPbecomemuchmorelogicallycoherentifoneacceptsthepossibilityofongoing(includingancient)aliencontactbyextraterrestialswithtechnologythattran-scendsourknownlawsofphysicsandbiology.Scientists

JOURNALOFSCIENTIFICEXPLORATION•VOL.39,NO4–WINTER2025517

518JOURNALOFSCIENTIFICEXPLORATION•VOL.39,NO4–WINTER2025

COREANOMALOUSEXPERIENCEDATABASESLukeJ.Matthews

likeDrs.KirkpatrickandLoebarelookingfordefinitivephysicalevidenceofUAPasaspacecraftasweunderstandthatwithourcurrentscience,butthehypothesesofUAPcitizenresearchersspecifythattheUAParegeneratedbytechnologiesthatradicallytranscendourunderstanding.Thus,thenullfindingsoftheprofessionalscientificcom-munityarenotcompellingtoUAPcitizenresearchers.Ascientistmightarguethatideasoughttobejudgedfalsewhenscientificepistemologycannotprovideevidenceforthem,butofcourse,philosophicallyitisstrangetoassertthathumanity’sabilitytoknowthingsatanyspecificpointinhistorydefinestherealityaroundus.Humanabilitytoknowclearlyisconstrained,andalthoughourabilitiestoknowhaveincreasedoverhistory,atanypointinhistory,scientistscouldhaveassertedthingsthatarewellknownnowdidnotexistbecausethey,attheirtime,wereunabletoknowthem.

Theclearcumulativenatureofscienceinvolvesanimportantcaveataboutmethods,whichisthatthemanybooksdebunkinganomaliesclearlyengageinavalidactiv-ityandformofevidence,butitisnotscientificevidence.BydebunkingImeanexaminingparticularanomalisticinstancesandthendetermining(afterthefact)whetheracausewithinscience’scurrentknowledgecouldexplainit.Idonotdisputedebunkingeffortsareevidenceandareuseful.IparticularlyrecommendAubeck’sLettersoftheDamned(2024)asagoodexampleofausefuldebunkingstudyofCharlesFort’scorrespondenceswiththepopularpress(Fortisdiscussedindetailbelow).Fort,however,par-ticularlyinhisfirstbook,whichstuckclosesttoscientificratherthanpopularpublications,correctlyspecifiedhowdebunkingisanepistemicerrorwhendoneinformalsci-ence.Amonghismanyexamples,aparticularlynotewor-thyoneishisaccurateaccountingofthecontroversythatsurroundedtheplanetVulcan,whichwashypothesizedtoexistin1859bymathematicalastronomerUrbainLeVerrierinordertoexplainorbitalanomaliesoftheplanetMercury(Fort,1919).LeVerrierprovidedexactcalculationsforthedistance,mass,andlocationofVulcan,whosegravitypull-ingonMercurywouldexplaindeviationsinMercury’sorbitfromNewtonianexpectationsthathadbeenknownfordecades.LeVerrierappliedthesamemethodtodeviationsintheorbitofUranusin1846,andNeptunewasconse-quentlydiscoveredinasinglenightbyGermanastronomerJohannGalleonceLeVerrierhadprovidedexactcoordi-nateswheretopointthetelescope(Fontenrose,1973;Kent,2011).However,whileVulcanwasagooddebunkingofMercury’sanomaliesinthatitcouldexplainthemeven

preciselyandmathematically,infactitdoesn’texplainMer-cury’sanomalies,becausethereisnoplanetVulcan.Mer-cury’sanomalisticorbitremainedunexplainedfordecades,untilAlbertEinsteinin1915demonstratedthathistheoryofgeneralrelativitypreciselypredictedtheorbitofMer-cury.MercuryismovingsofastandundersuchstronggravitationalforcethatfromthevantagepointofEarthitdoesnotprecedethroughspace-timeinthesameway(Rzetelny,2015).

Mostofthetime,sciencefindsitselfinNeptunesitua-tions–wejustneedsomeadditionalobservationorbettermeasurement–andanomaliescanbeexplainedthroughreferencetoalreadyknownconsensusreality.Butsome-timesthat’snotthecase.Sometimesanomaliescanonlybeexplainedafterwereviseourviewofconsensusreality(Natarajan,2017).Scienceproceedsbygeneratingpredic-tionsaheadoftimethataretestedwithsystematicobser-vations(controlledexperimentsbeingonepowerfulformofthis).Justestablishingthatknowncausescouldexplainanyparticularanomalyisn’tenough,andFortresoundinglycalledoutsuchbehaviorbyscientistsaremerelyanewformofdogmaakintopasttheologies.

ThepointofrevisitingVulcanisbecauseithighlightsthathypothesescanbetestedonlyiftheyareputforward,andcurrentscientificconsensusisjustoneontologicalframeforposinghypotheses.Yes,thescientificconsensusisthebestbetatVegas6daysfromSunday,butonceinawhileitstillisgoingtobeincorrect,andweneedtoconsiderotherontologies.Theancientaliensconceptisonesuchalternative(toscientificconsensus)ontologythat,eveniffalse,stillgenerateshypothesesandisinternallycoherent.Theancientaliensconcepteliminatesanotherwisedeeplyproblematicimprobabilityinaliencontacttheoriesthat,eveniftheprobabilityoflifebeyondEarthislikelycloseto100%,theprobabilityofaliensinitiatingfirstcontactwithEarthduringanyparticularmomentseemsfantasticallysmall.Theancientaliensontologyeliminatesthisimprob-abilitybyassertinghighlyadvancedaliensactuallyalwayshavebeenincontactwithEarth.

UndoubtedlyoneofthemostimportantprintinfluencesthathasspreadthisontologyinrecentdecadesisErichvonDäniken’sChariotsoftheGodsbook(firstpublished1968),whichasAubeck(2022)pointsouthassoldover63mil-lioncopiesin32languages(Aubeck,2022,p.277).Aubeck(2022)helpfullynotesseveralauthorswholikelyinflu-encedvonDänikendirectly,amongthembeingPauwelsandBergier’sMorningoftheMagiciansbook(firstpublished1960).Colavito(2004,2012)maintainsthatMagicians

LukeJ.MatthewsCOREANOMALOUSEXPERIENCEDATABASES

JOURNALOFSCIENTIFICEXPLORATION•VOL.39,NO4–WINTER2025519

wasaprimaryinfluenceonvonDäniken,butaccordingtoAubeckitwasjustoneofmany.InparticularAubeckpointstoan1823bookbyFrancoisCharbrieraslikelytheearli-estancientaliensmotiftogaintractionwhenitsclaimswererepeatedwidelyinpopularpressofthetime(Aubeck,2022,pp.277–282).

Withinthemixofthisintellectualhistory,IthinkitisparticularlyfruitfulforunderstandingtheontologicalimplicationsofancientaliensbyexploringinmoredetailthesciencefictionofHowardP.Lovecraft(1890-1937),whoPauwelsandBergierciteasamongtheirinfluencesfortheirowndevelopmentoftheancientaliensmotif(Pauwels&Bergier,2009,pp.131,302).Lovecraftpossesseddeepinterestandengagementasacitizeninvolvedinastron-omy(Sleigh,2016).LovecraftwasnotthefirstpersontosetEarthlyinteractionwithextra-terrestrialsintothepast(Aubeck,2022),buthehadaparticularinfluenceonthehistoricaldevelopmentofthisideasasapopularphenom-enoninparanormalistculture(Colavito,2004,2012).ManyofLovecraft’sstoriesfeaturealienspeciesthathadcometoEarthbeforetheevolutionofhumanity,andthevestigesoftheirpresencebecomeanomaliesencounteredbyanthro-pologicalinvestigatorslikeantiquariansandarcheologists.

SomehavesuggestedthatLovecraftoriginallygottheideaofancientaliensfromCharlesHoyFort(Pauwels&Bergier,2009,p.131).CharlesHoyFort(1874-1932)wasatfirstajournalistwhothenbecameperhapsthefirstwritertomonetizeparanormalistspeculativenonfiction.Regard-ingancientaliens,itismorelikelythatFortwasbutoneinfluenceamongothersonLovecraft’slaterfiction(Haden,2024).ThisisbecauseLovecraftcitesFortonlyonce,inthestory“TheWhispererinDarkness”,andlettersbyLovecraftseemtoindicatethathehadreadFortonlyshortlybeforepenningWhispererin1930.Lovecraft’sarguablemaster-work,“TheCallofCthulhu”,clearlyreferencedtheancientaliensconceptandwascomposedin1926,butancientaliencontactappearsmoststronglyinsomeofLovecraft’slaterwork,suchashisnovellaAttheMountainsofMadness(written1931).

H.P.Lovecraftisacentralinfluenceinthedevelopmentofmodernsciencefictionandspeculativescienceoftheparanormal.Inhisstorieshedevelopsnotjusttheancientaliensconceptbutalsoarticulatesbodysnatching/mindswapping(“TheThingontheDoorstep”,“TheShadowoutofTime”,alienabduction(“Whisperer”),travelbetweendimensions(“TheDreamsintheWitchHouse”),andartifi-cialintelligence(AttheMountainsofMadness)inwaysthatwouldnotbecomecommonplaceforseveraldecadeslater

(Klinger,2014).Atestamenttothecompellingqualityofhisfiction,atonepointLovecraftappearedtolamentthathisfictionsweretoocompellingbecausereaderssometimesconfusedhiscontrivanceswiththetruth-seekingofpara-normalistslikeFort(Colavito,2004).Hisinfluenceshouldnotbemistakenwithpopularity–Lovecraftwasknownduringhislifetoarelativelysmallfollowingofreadersofpulpweirdfictionmagazines.Hediedpoor,separatedfromhiswife,withoutchildren,andwithnoestatetoinherithiswritings.HebecameinfluentialposthumouslywhenotherwriterslikeAugustDerlethpublishedandpopularizedhiswork.

EventhoughLovecraftovertlywantedtowritefiction,aclosereadingofhislaterworksrevealsthathetoomayhavebeencapturedbyhisownideasandbeguntospecu-lateastowhethertheymightbepossible.Ibasethiscon-jectureonseverallinesofevidence.Firstly,Lovecraftwasanotoriousracist.“HerbertWest:Reanimator”(1921-1922)wasaserializedparodyofMaryShelly’sFrankensteinandexpresseddeeplyracisttropesagainstBlackAmericans.LovecraftwasbrieflymarriedtoaJewishwoman,SoniaGreene(Lovecraft)Davis,whomheexpressedwasbroughtintothefoldofAmericaonlybyvirtueofhismarryingher.Antisemiticandloathingnonwhitesandimmigrantsgen-erally,LovecrafthatedthebrieftimehespentlivingwithSoniaintheRedHooksectionofBrooklyn,andfromthisexperiencepennedanotherracistandanti-immigrantstory“TheHorroratRedHook”(1927).

However,twoofLovecraft’slastworksexhibitsympathyforthereligioussymbolismandsuperstitionofSouthernandEasternEuropeanCatholic/OrthodoxChristianswhowereamongthegroupshedespised.In“TheDreamsintheWitchHouse”and“TheHaunteroftheDark”,Catholic/Orthodoxsuperstitiouspracticesleadtobothawarenessandadaptiveavoidanceofdarkentities.Inallhispriorsto-ries,immigrantengagementofanysortwiththeoccultwasnegative,andusuallyinvolvedthembeingderangedcultists.Oneexplanationforthisuniquepatternofhisverylatestoriesmightbethathebegantosuspectsomesuper-stitionscouldbeofrealvalue,perhapsifnotalldarkenti-tieswerewhollyimaginary.

Related,“WitchHouse”(written1932,published1933)appearstobeLovecraft’sonlystoryinwhichhespeculatesarationalmechanismforthesupernaturalphenomenainoneofhisstories.Throughouthiscorpus,Lovecraftgen-erallyofferedfewscience-basedmechanismsforhowhisotherworldlyentitiesacted,butin“WitchHouse,”heaccu-ratelycitescontemporarymathematicaltheoriesforthe

COREANOMALOUSEXPERIENCEDATABASESLukeJ.Matthews

520JOURNALOFSCIENTIFICEXPLORATION•VOL.39,NO4–WINTER2025

proposedmechanismofdimensionstorealitythatexistoutsideofconventionalspace-time(note12onpage648andnote13onpage650ofKlinger,2014).Again,thetimingissuggestiveofalate-developedinterestbyLovecraftinwhetherandhowhisimaginedentitiesmightorcouldactuallywork.

SuchlatedevelopmentsforLovecraftareinfactsensibleintermsofhispersonalbiographyinthatacrosshiscorpusLovecraftdisplaysadetailedknowledgeofChristianityandWesternocculttraditions.Forexample,“TheDunwichHorror”isessentiallyaparodyoftheGospelaccountofChrist.In“TheHaunteroftheDark”,hereferstotheBookofDzyan,whichisanunverifiedtextthatthefounderofTheosophy,MadameBlavatsky,claimedtohavereadwhileinTibet(note14onpage790ofKlinger).Thepointisthatyes,Lovecraftisaccuratelyregardedastheatheisthepub-liclyandconsciouslyavowedtobe,butcertainlyhewasanunusuallybroadlyinquisitiveonetohavereadallthisreligious,spiritual,andoccultcontent.

Evenmoreimportantly,conceivingLovecraft’sfictionsaspotentiallyrealismeta-consistentwithLovecraft’sself-de-claredphilosophyofcosmicism,whichparadoxicallylogi-callyunderminesLovecraft’smaterialism.Inhiscosmicism,Lovecraftassertedthatthematerialcosmoswasvastbeyondhumancomprehensionandalsothatthisvastincomprehen-sibilityimpliesthecosmosismorallyindifferenttohumanexistence.HegroundedcosmicismwiththefactthathumanintellectitselfevolvedinaparticulartimeandplacethroughDarwinianevolution.Thisobservationleadstothelogicalconclusionthatthereoughttoberealitiesinthecosmosthattranscendhumanity’scomprehension,andevencom-prehensionviaourscientificmethods.Darwinhimselfalsomadethisobservationinaletterthatwhencontemplatingabstractphilosophicalandtheologicalquestions(hewaswritingspecificallyaboutwhetherevolutioncontainedanypurpose),hehadthe“horriddoubt”thatbecauseourmindsevolvedfromlowerorganismsandforparticularadaptivepurposesthatweredisconnectedfromabstractphiloso-phizing,thatweoughtnottrustanyofourconclusionsonsuchmatters(Matthews&Robertson,2024).Paradoxi-cally,butperhapslogically,Lovecraftextendsthisreason-ingthroughhisfictiontosuggestthatextraterrestrialand/orinterdimensionalbeingscouldexist,couldinteractwithourworld,butbecausetheyexistoutsidetheforcesthatevolvedourownminds,theyarefundamentallyincompre-hensibletousandeventohumanscience.Thus,regardlessofhowLovecraftintendedhisworkatvariouspointsinhislife,hisfictionallinkageofprehistorywithextraterrestrial

encountersisoneofthemorerobustlydevelopedontolo-giesforwhyancientaliensmightexistevenwhencurrentsciencehasdifficultydemonstratingtheirexistence.Itisthisontologyofancientandtranscendentaliensthatmakessearchingfortrulynewinformation(notjustmistakeniden-tity)inUAPencounterslogical.

TheEpistemologyofUAP

WhileLovecraftisacentralfiguretothedevelopmentoftheontologyofancientaliensandUFOsubculture,CharlesFort’smethodsofamassingthousandsofnotesbecametheepistemicmodelforagreatdealoffuturecitizenscienceoftheparanormal.Fortwasnotafictionauthor,butpos-siblythefirstauthortomonetizehighlyspeculativepara-normalistnonfiction.Hewrotefourworksofspeculativenonfictionintheearly20thcentury.LikeLovecraft,Fortengagedincitizenastronomy(Steinmeyer,2008).Hiswifeexpressedhowheknewagreatdealaboutthestarsandspenthoursstudyingthem.Fortdevelopeddeepmisgiv-ingsaboutprofessionalsciencethatheincorporatedintohisfourbooksonanomalies.HeusedtheancientaliensmotifinhisfirstbooktosolvetheFermiparadox,whichheanticipatedpriortoFermi.Fortaskedessentially,whyhavewereceivednoaliencontact?Hisanswerwasthatthislikelyisbecauseitalreadyhappenedlongago,andnowweandourplanetare,unknowntous,alreadythepropertyofsomealienspeciesthatwarnseveryoneelseoff(Fort,1919).FortcombinedthesespeculationsinhisbookswithhundredsofobservationsofanomalisticsightingsakintoUFOs,aswellasfallsfromtheskyofstrangeobjectslikefrogs,fish,andstones,andreportspsychicphenomenaliketelekinesis.HisbookWildTalents(published1932)isamongthefirstarticulationsthatpsimightaccountforpoltergeistexperiences(Fort,1974).

Fortwasfamousnotjustforhisbooks,butforthevastcollectionofpapernotesheconstructedwhileresearch-ingthem.FortconductedmostofhisresearchattheNewYorkPublicLibraryandattheBritishMuseum.ThenoteswerepreservedbyTiffanyThayerandarehousedtodayattheNewYorkPublicLibrary.Thayermademoneyworkinginadvertisingandwritingpulp(somemightarguesmut)fiction(Nichols,1956;Norris,2013),butregardlessofhowoneregardsThayer’swriting,heappearstohavebeenrig-orouslydevotedtothepreservationofFort’snotes(Sleigh,2016).MostofFort’snotesareabbreviatedcitationstosci-entificjournals,butsomeareextendednoteswrittenbyFortaboutthecontentsofagivenarticle(Figure1).

LukeJ.MatthewsCOREANOMALOUSEXPERIENCEDATABASES

Fortfoldedandpaperclippedtheseextendednotestogethersothattheywouldbethesamesize(roughly1.5by2.5inches)asthecitationtypesofnotes.Insomecases,thesestillarepaperclippedtogetherwithinthearchive,whileinothercasestheclippedtogethernoteshavebeencarefullysegregatedwithpaperenvelopesandcardstoindicatehowForthadarrangedthem(Figure2).

AfewcardsprovideevenmoredirectevidenceaboutThayer’sarchivingprocessandthathewasthepersonbehindit.Figure3showsanoteaboutthearchivingpro-cesssignedT.T.(undoubtedlyTiffanyThayer)andanothercardindicatingwhere“Kathleen”begantranscription.Thayer’slastwifewasnamedKathleenMcMahon(Gene-alogyTraitsHistoryGroup,accessed12/30/2024),andthe“transcription”wouldappeartobeareferencetoThayer’songoingprojecttopublishallofFort’soriginalnotesinissuesoftheForteanSocietyMagazine,Doubt.

ThayerpublishedmanyofFort’soriginalnotesinDoubt.DoubtbecameanoutletfortheideasofThayerandothers,andittookFort’suseofanomaliesinamoreconspirato-rialdirection(Sleigh,2016;Steinmeyer,2008).AlthoughthismaynothavebeenFort’sintent,Iwouldreiteratethatthebestscholarlywo