PARAKEETS ON MARS

FT NEWS – IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT As we’ve said many times before, news clippings are the lifeblood of FT, and we appeal to readers worldwide to join in the fun and send us your clippings – for more info on how to get involved, turn to p78.

Existing clippers: note that we now have a new address to which you should send your stories and clippings. The old PO Box will continue to operate for a few months, but from now on, please email news stories to csjosiffe@forteantimes and address your much-appreciated clippings envelopes to:

Fortean Times PO Box 66598 LONDON N11 9EN

ERRATA

FT387:22: Martin Jenkins, feeling slightly sheepish about regularly drawing attention to our shortcomings, writes: “Sorry to do it to you again – but Alan Murdie’s done it to you. On p22, he refers to Thomas Becket haunting the Tower of London in 1140. Quite an achievement when Becket didn't die until 1170! I presume from the reference to Henry III (1216-1272) that this should have read 1240.” Richard Ecclestone also pointed out this error, as did Steve Scanlon, who found an online reference suggesting that Becket’s haunting of the Tower actually dates to 1241: “One of the first sightings ever recorded was the ghost of Thomas Becket, first seen in 1241, 71 years after his murder in Canterbury Cathedral... Although the presence of Becket’s ghost is unusual because he was not killed at the Tower, it was fitting that he returned to haunt it, because he was a Londoner who once had been Constable of the Tower. More unusual was Becket’s probable reason for haunting the Tower. It seems that the Tower’s neighbours were being disturbed by alterations made at the site and Becket’s ghost appeared to protest them. A priest reportedly saw the apparition striking the walls with his cross, whereupon they immediately crumbled.” https://occult-world.com/haunted-england/ tower-of-london/

FT389:26: In what is possibly our favourite cock-up of recent months, one which appeared to add to the gaiety of nations (or at least Twitter), we published a photo of two parakeets with the caption: “One of the recent photos from NASA’s Curiosity explorer showed an unexpected bright flash on the surface of Mars.” Martin Stubbs correctly spotted that this caption was a hangover from the previous issue (FT387:30); Rob Gandy noted that a pair of parakeets on the Red Planet would have been “something genuinely fortean”; and Dave Miles asked: “Is it just me, or does anyone else see the optical illusion of two parakeets sitting on a branch in the photo of the bright flash of light? Eat your heart out, Face on Mars!” Leslie Vinson of Tucson, AZ, thanked us “because – would you believe it? – NASA’s censors kept this news from us here in the States. I hope your fine magazine doesn’t get in trouble for printing the truth.” Perhaps the funniest response was the photo posted on Twitter by Harold Weaver Smith, reproduced above.