Magonia - No 17 - 1984 10

Magazine Overview

Title: Magonia
Issue: 17
Date: October 1984

This issue of Magonia, an independent journal examining the UFO phenomenon and its interaction with society and the individual, delves into the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). It features contributions from various ufologists and researchers who explore the current value and future of the ETH as an explanation for UFO sightings.

Surveying the E.T.H. - Has it a future?

The cover story, "Surveying the E.T.H. Has it a future?", sets the tone for the issue, posing a central question about the validity and relevance of the ETH in contemporary ufology. The issue includes contributions from John Harney, Peter Rogerson, Jenny Randles, Luis R. Gonzáles, Martin Kottmeyer, and Christopher Allen, as well as a piece by Nigel Watson & Granville Oldroyd titled "Venus with her Trousers Down!".

Editorial Notes

The editorial section highlights the journal's commitment to providing a platform for in-depth case histories and encourages readers to submit their investigations. It mentions potential collaborations with the international scientific UFO journal UPIAR for a joint venture on case histories. The editors express flexibility in dedicating entire issues to significant cases and emphasize the need for quality material from researchers.

Jenny Randles: NOT THE E.T.H.

Jenny Randles expresses surprise at Magonia's focus on the ETH, stating her belief that the field has become overly reliant on psycho-social theorizing, potentially distorting facts to fit existing theories. She recounts her own journey of reappraising UFO witness accounts, discovering that many sincere witnesses reported experiences that felt undeniably real, challenging her previous assumptions. Randles argues that UFO close encounters are neither purely objective nor purely subjective but represent a "Quasi-Conscious Experience" (QC Experience), a distinct niche on the spectrum of reality. She differentiates these "Exotic UFOs" from UAPs (Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena), which she considers natural and objective. Randles suggests that the subjective over-ride in QC Experiences might originate from an alien source, explaining consistent motifs and individual variations.

Luis R. González: A NEW LOOK TO THE E.T.H.

Luis R. González offers a "new look" at the ETH, having previously been a believer but now considering it largely within the realm of myth. He presents potential "improved" ETHs that might be more acceptable by addressing objections such as the improbability of alien visitation occurring precisely in our era, the defiance of known natural laws by UFOs, and the wide variety of reported UFO and alien designs. González suggests that the vast distances and energy requirements make interstellar travel highly improbable, and the lack of convincing evidence points towards a non-material explanation. He proposes that a revival of the ETH would require new, non-UFO evidence, such as detected radio signals or alien artifacts.

John Harney: PLEA FOR THE E.T.H.

John Harney criticizes the "over-emphasis on psycho-social theories" in ufology and makes a "plea for the ETH." He argues against the cosmological and psycho-sociological approaches, which suggest that intelligent life is improbable and that UFO reports are best explained by psychological issues. Harney contends that these approaches may lead ufologists astray and that the ETH should not be hastily abandoned. He points out apparent weaknesses in arguments against the ETH, particularly those concerning the improbability of life and the colonization of the galaxy. Harney suggests that the ETH, when stripped of anthropomorphic assumptions, could still provide a "nuts & bolts" explanation for UFO phenomena, possibly involving a "world-ship" of extraterrestrials.

Martin Kottmeyer: The problem of non-contact

Martin Kottmeyer expresses skepticism about any variation of the ETH being satisfactory as long as the phenomenon maintains its "hiddenness." He highlights the "non-contact" argument: if aliens are capable of reaching Earth, why do they not openly reveal themselves? Kottmeyer suggests that while conspiracies of silence can be imagined, the lack of open contact remains a significant challenge for the ETH, arguing that socio-psychological paradigms, while difficult, may be more surmountable than the non-contact issue.

Hilary Evans (via John Rimmer's response)

Hilary Evans, discussed by John Rimmer, is mentioned for his concept of the "authorised myth," a belief that gains widespread acceptance despite inadequate scientific evidence. Rimmer notes that this phenomenon extends into academic fields, citing examples in the social sciences where interpretations are shaped by pre-existing needs rather than objective evidence.

Peter Rogerson: PEOPLE OF A DIFFERENT SHAPE

Peter Rogerson examines the historical development of the ETH, tracing its roots in science fiction and early UFO speculation, particularly the "Martian" hypothesis. He notes how early ufologists often projected human motivations and capabilities onto extraterrestrials. Rogerson argues that the conventional ETH, especially the idea of "nuts and bolts" spaceships, struggles to accommodate the vast history of UFO reports and the idea of alien intelligence being fundamentally different from human intelligence. He suggests that the ETH, if it implies "arbitrary wills" to explain experiences, moves away from scientific analysis and into a realm of untestable speculation.

Nigel Watson & Granville Oldroyd: Venus with her Trousers Down!

This article explores historical accounts of phantom airship sightings from 1909-1913 and draws parallels with contemporary UFO phenomena, particularly the concept of Men in Black (MIB). The authors link the sightings of mysterious strangers in historical accounts to MIB figures, suggesting they could be terrestrial agents of UFO forces or aliens disguised to infiltrate human society. They recount incidents involving peculiar encounters, including a man seeking trousers and a mysterious figure appearing in a bedroom, drawing comparisons to modern UFO lore.

Book Reviews

The "Book Reviews" section includes a review of "Extraterrestrials: Where Are They?" by Michael H. Hart and Ben Zuckerman, which represents a "new scepticism" regarding extraterrestrial life, arguing that the absence of astronomical evidence and aliens on Earth suggests no advanced extraterrestrial intelligences exist. The review criticizes the anthropocentric and ethnocentric nature of some arguments. Another review discusses Gordon Little's "The Archetype Experience," which proposes that UFO sightings result from interactions between an individual's archetypal system and external archetypal systems, potentially influenced by synchronicity and external archetypes that are not merely projections.

Letters

Christopher Allan writes that while he was once a believer in the ETH, his views have changed due to space discoveries and the lack of new evidence. He questions the number of alleged CE3 cases, finding them statistically unimpressive compared to mental health issues, and notes the uneven geographical distribution of these reports. Allan emphasizes the need for new, non-UFO evidence to revive the ETH.

Martin Kottmeyer reiterates his skepticism regarding the ETH due to the problem of non-contact, questioning why aliens capable of reaching Earth would not openly reveal themselves.

Tom Harney discusses the idea of a "cashless society" and a "universal numbering system" as part of a conspiracy, linking it to the number 666 and the Apocalypse. He speculates about future "UFO sightings" potentially occurring through computer networks.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) as an explanation for UFO phenomena. Contributors grapple with the limitations of the ETH, the rise of psycho-social and sociological explanations, and the need for empirical evidence. There is a clear divide between those who advocate for the ETH, albeit in modified forms, and those who find it increasingly untenable. The journal's stance, as indicated by its editorial notes and the selection of articles, is to provide a platform for diverse viewpoints and rigorous debate within the field of ufology, encouraging critical thinking and the submission of quality research.

This document is page 20 of the magazine "Flying Saucer Review", volume 27, issue 20, published in 1981. The primary content is a review of the book "Project Identification: the first scientific field study of the UFO phenomena" by Harley Rutledge, published by Prentice Hall in 1981, with a cover price of $10.95. The review is written by P.R. and includes commentary from Hilary Evans.

Review of "Project Identification" by Harley Rutledge The review begins with a brief mention of a previous book, possibly by Dr. Little, which is described as having a coherent theoretical structure but requiring unwarranted assumptions and excessive speculation about spiritualism and prophecy. Despite minor defects in language and proofreading, the reviewer suggests it is stimulating for the open-minded ufologist.

The main focus is on Harley Rutledge's "Project Identification". The reviewer expresses disappointment, stating that the "seven year in-depth scientific field study" actually consisted of a series of skywatches held informally from April 1973 and formally from May 1973 until April 1974. The personnel involved were Rutledge, members of the S.E. Missouri Astronomy Club, and some university students, but a complete list is not provided. The reviewer compares this effort unfavorably to the average skywatch organized by more established UFO societies like BUFORA or MUFON, describing Rutledge's enterprise as "very amateurish and shambolic."

The reviewer highlights Rutledge's "ufological naivety" and "strong 'will to believe'". An example cited is Rutledge's account of seeing nine unusual lights from an aircraft on May 11, 1973, which overwhelmed him with the conviction that "UFOs really exist." The reviewer notes that even before this incident, on the first informal skywatch, Rutledge saw five 'UFOs', some of which a skeptical astronomy professor attributed to car headlights.

The review suggests that Rutledge sees more 'UFOs' than most ufologists due to his background and approach. Many of these sightings are described as ambiguous lights (LITS) considered anomalous for reasons such as unusual lighting configurations, lack of noise (suggesting not a helicopter), or sudden blinking out (suggesting not a satellite). The reviewer is surprised that Rutledge makes calculations to 'demonstrate' a UFO was half-a-mile long without questioning his own errors or his use of the term 'craft'.

Rutledge claims that lights react to his presence and thoughts, but the examples are deemed unimpressive. The reviewer suggests that shifts of attention on the part of the observer might be a better explanation. The review also references "pseudo-stars" that hide among constellations and disappear when looked at, a phenomenon previously associated with Warminster days, which few ufologists took seriously then and for which there seems no reason to do so now.

Reasonable explanations for sightings include aircraft lights, astronomical objects obscured by cloud, and tiredness-induced hallucinations. The reviewer notes that ufologists have generally abandoned skywatches because they provide optimum conditions for fatigue, eyestrain, expectation, anxiety, and 'atmosphere' conducive to misidentification. When combined with ufological naivety and a strong 'will to believe', the results inspire little confidence.

The reviewer expresses a growing credibility gap and questions why competent people have praised this "upmarket Warminster Mystery". The reviewer speculates that they might be awestruck by the author's PhD, without considering that a degree in "photoelectric emission from strontium oxide" is not necessarily a qualification for observing celestial phenomena. The reviewer rhetorically asks if a book written by Bert Figgis of the Ballspond Road UFO Club would have gained notice outside of 'how not to do it' sections of investigators' manuals.

The book is illustrated with photographs of light streaks, which the reviewer states prove nothing, concluding that the same can be said of the whole book.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance The magazine, through this review, adopts a critical and skeptical stance towards poorly executed UFO research. It emphasizes the importance of rigorous methodology, objective observation, and avoiding confirmation bias or a "will to believe." The review highlights common pitfalls in ufology, such as misidentification of conventional objects and phenomena, and the unreliability of skywatches as a scientific tool. The editorial stance appears to favor critical analysis and scientific skepticism over sensationalism or unverified claims, even when presented by individuals with academic credentials.