Alternate Horizons Newsletter - Vol 1 No 1

Magazine Overview

Title: ALTERNATE HORIZONS NEWSLETTER
Issue: Volume One, Number One
Date: Fall 1966
Publisher: Foundation for Philosophic Advancement (FPA)
Editor & Executive Director: Allen H. Greenfield (A.H.G.)

This inaugural issue of the Alternate Horizons Newsletter focuses heavily on the "AR Theory" (Alternate Reality Theory), presented as a new conceptual framework for understanding UFO phenomena and related experiences. The editorial, authored by A.H.G., acknowledges the nascent stage of the theory but expresses a strong belief in its potential significance, suggesting it could fundamentally alter our understanding of human history.

Editorial: A Look at the "AR" Theory

The editorial by A.H.G. opens with a candid admission of not fully knowing where to begin, given the complexity of the subject. The AR theory aims to coordinate existing facts and thoughts about the "AR" problem, which may encompass hoaxes, psychological explanations, natural phenomena, and various types of craft. The author believes they may have stumbled upon something significant that could have "awesome implications."

The editorial outlines several preliminary thoughts on the AR theory:

1. Linked Phenomena: The UFO phenomenon and other "border" phenomena appear linked in some cases.
2. Subjective Accuracy: Contact or near-contact accounts seem to be reasonably accurate subjective experiences, but witnesses view them within their own background experience. Willful deception is also a possibility.
3. "They Walk Among Us": This concept is considered not far-fetched but likely true, potentially explaining baffling cases.
4. Multiple Entity Purposes: There seem to be groups of entities with varied purposes, suggesting some UFOs might be hostile, others unconcerned, and some friendly.

The author emphasizes that these are musings and not fixed views. The FPA intends to develop this theory further.

Key Persons and Related Works

The editorial mentions several individuals whose work is relevant to the AR theory, including Tom Comella (Peter Kor), Ray Palmer, Steve Erdmann, Jerome Clark, and Paul Thomas. It also notes that works outside the direct UFO sphere can be relevant.

Some Interesting Items in the UFology Press

This section highlights several articles and reports:

• C.A.P.I.C. Newsletter (Vol. 1, No. 3): Features a UFOlogical coincidence where UFOlogist Ronald Pelger and CAPIC Vice-president Tom Nealings, unaware of each other's presence in California, independently witnessed the same UFO. Pelger even captured film of the object.
• Saucer News (Fall 1966 Issue): Contains an article by Peter Kor (Tom Comella) titled "Perspective: Flying Saucers-Physical or Psychic." Kor proposes three explanatory frameworks: Psychic, Conventionally Physical, and Substratic (Intangible). The newsletter finds the concept of "substratic" interesting, defining it as an inherently intangible UFO phenomenon.
• Flying Saucer Review (July-August 1966): Features an article by Jerome Clark, "The Strange Case of the 1897 Airship," which questions whether witnesses accurately report what they see within their own "ecological framework."
• Atlanta Journal and Constitution (October 9, 1966): An AP release by John De Groot tells the story of Dale Spaur and other policemen who sighted a UFO. The article is praised for its unsensationalistic account of Spaur's subsequent suffering for reporting the event, highlighting the seriousness of the UFO matter.

Questions & Answers About the "AR" Theory

This section addresses common questions regarding the AR theory:

1. vs. Interplanetary Theory: The AR theory acknowledges the possibility of interplanetary visitations but suggests it's only part of the explanation. It aims to coordinate evidence that neither purely physical nor purely non-physical explanations can account for.
2. Saucer Explanation: The theory doesn't offer a definitive reason for UFOs but views them as vehicles. It also incorporates the sub-theory of phenomena being manifestations of the viewer's background experience (subjective viewing of an objective stimulus).
3. Mysterious Disappearances: The AR theory suggests that if reality is not fixed, persons or objects could enter or leave states of reality via "reality warps," explaining legends and fortean phenomena.
4. Science or Mysticism: The theory is presented as science, aiming to explain phenomena objectively using scientific terms while acknowledging the need for an expanded frame of reference.
5. Coinciding Sightings: Multiple witnesses with different backgrounds seeing the same UFO can be explained by shared ecological frameworks or, in rarer cases like the Reverent Gill incident, by the objective stimulus itself.
6. Inter-Reality Travel Mechanics: Potential mechanics include vehicular inter-reality transmission, "reality warps," and fixed "transfer points" like the North Pole.
7. Physical Laws: If UFOs are physical, they may not be fully governed by normal physical laws within our current framework of reality when observed.
8. Hostile vs. Non-Hostile UFOs: The differing behaviors suggest at least three different groups of entities, consistent with concepts like "dero, tero, and elder races."

The editor thanks Donald R. Cook, Jr. for his assistance with this Q&A section.

Contact Cases in Light of the AR Theory

Authored by A.H.G., this section applies the AR theory to alleged contactee cases.

• Plausible Rationale: The AR theory offers a rationale for contactee experiences, suggesting that contactees may hear what they want to hear based on their "ecological" premise. It also explains why individuals from less sophisticated backgrounds might have less sophisticated experiences.
• Deception: Deliberate deception could occur if entities provide false stories to a passerby or plant contradictory information among contactees to create confusion.
• "Men in Black": These cases might involve an authentic element of "knowing too much about flying saucers," though the example of the Bender case suggests limited knowledge.
• Maury Island and Brazoria County Cases: These are mentioned as potential incidents involving too much information circulating.
• Evidence of Experience: For contactees like Carol Honey or John Reeve, the motive for faking is unclear (not money or publicity). If not hoax or insanity, then deception by the entities themselves is suggested.
• Humanoid Cases: Similar to contactee cases, humanoid sightings can be evaluated within this framework.

The author proposes that AR investigators undertake a project to re-evaluate contact accounts with this perspective in mind.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the exploration and promotion of the "AR Theory" as a novel and potentially revolutionary way to understand UFO phenomena, contactee experiences, and even broader aspects of reality. The editorial stance is one of open inquiry, acknowledging the speculative nature of the theory while strongly advocating for its potential to unify disparate observations into a coherent, scientific framework. There is a clear effort to move beyond conventional explanations like simple extraterrestrial visitation and to integrate subjective and objective evidence. The publication also highlights the importance of reporting UFO sightings, as exemplified by the Dale Spaur case, and criticizes the negative consequences faced by those who come forward.