Magonia Supplement - No 04 - 1998 06

Magazine Overview

Title: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin
Issue: No. 4
Date: June 1998
Editor: JOHN HARNEY

This issue of the MAGONIA ETH Bulletin focuses on the pervasive issue of hoaxes within ufology and critically examines the evidence presented in favor of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). The editorial board expresses concern that some ufologists are too eager to accept cases as evidence of extraordinary physical events, often overlooking mundane explanations or discounting evidence that challenges their preferred theories.

Editorial: 'PATHETIC CHEATS' - THE UFO HOAXERS

The editorial section addresses the accusation that proponents of the ETH deliberately ignore cases with strong physical evidence in favor of those with plausible psychological explanations. The bulletin argues that ETH supporters are often unaware of or dismissive of existing explanations for cited cases, leading to a gradual erosion of their evidence base. The article highlights the susceptibility of ETH believers to hoaxes, particularly those involving alleged physical evidence, as long as they don't resemble old-fashioned contactee stories.

Ubatuba Magnesium Samples

A prime example cited is the Ubatuba magnesium samples from 1957. A Rio de Janeiro society columnist received a note claiming these samples came from a crashed flying saucer near Ubatuba, Sao Paulo. While some ufologists believed the story, scientific analysis failed to confirm the extraterrestrial origin of the samples, yet many were reluctant to dismiss the case after investing time and resources.

Trindade Isle Photographs

Similarly, ETH enthusiasts are reluctant to dismiss the Trindade Isle photographs, despite the photographer having a reputation as a trickster and the lack of corroborating statements from other alleged witnesses.

Trans en Provence Landing Case

Jerome Clark is mentioned for continuing to promote the Trans en Provence UFO landing case, which involved only one witness. This is contrasted with the detailed study by Eric Maillot that investigated the alleged landing traces, suggesting a more critical approach is needed.

When you wish upon a star

Nick Yapp, in his study of hoaxes, is quoted stating that people often leap at the opportunity presented by a hoaxer, becoming helplessly enmeshed as the hoax progresses. He suggests that people's desires and dreams make them susceptible to believing what they wish for.

Experimental Hoax

In 1970, the Society for the Investigation of Unidentified Flying Object Phenomena (SIUFOP) conducted an experiment in Warminster, Wiltshire, to assess the competence and objectivity of UFO investigators. The location was chosen for its high density of skywatching ufologists.

The Experiment

The scheme involved shining a 144-watt lamp with a purple filter towards a group of skywatchers on Cradle Hill. A fake UFO detector was synchronized to sound a buzzer. Four SIUFOP members were among the skywatchers. One member, Mr. Foxwell, pretended to take photographs. After the light disappeared, two genuine photographs were taken, along with two preceding frames that had been doctored with superimposed UFO images. These doctored images contained inconsistencies, such as street lamps being out in one frame but on in another.

Development and Publication

Mr. Foxwell asked if anyone could develop the film, and one person agreed without question. The pictures were eventually published in Flying Saucer Review (FSR). FSR's 'experts' pronounced the photographs genuine, failing to spot the deliberate inconsistencies and making glaring errors in their interpretation.

SIUFOP's Feedback

David Simpson and Ken Raine of SIUFOP attended a meeting with FSR experts and provided hints that could have exposed the hoax, but these were ignored. David Simpson later published an article in SIUFOP Newsletter No. 19 (January 1971) titled 'The Hoax of 1970?', criticizing FSR's investigations and questioning why the photographer was not interviewed. FSR's editor, Charles Bowen, dismissed these criticisms as 'lightweight'.

The Hoax Revealed

The hoax lasted two and a half years and ended when Mr. Foxwell confided in a friend who was connected to Carl Grove, a contributor to FSR. Charles Bowen then denounced the hoaxers as 'pathetic cheats'.

Simpson's Conclusion

David Simpson concluded that UFO researchers, despite their consultants, did not analyze the evidence critically. They failed to interview Mr. Foxwell, and their actions suggested a preparedness to ignore criticisms to support their cause rather than to understand a strange event.

The Fading ETH

This section discusses the misunderstanding surrounding attempts to analyze reports believed to support the ETH. The null hypothesis is that no UFO report represents a genuine extraterrestrial spacecraft sighting, with unexplained cases attributed to insufficient or inaccurate data.

Rejection of Mundane Explanations

ETH supporters are accused of rejecting or suppressing evidence that suggests a mundane explanation in favor of that which points to an alien spacecraft. If a skeptical explanation doesn't fit, they tend to accept the ET explanation rather than seek another solution.

Reliance on Puzzling Cases

The weakness of the ETH is seen in its reliance on puzzling UFO reports for support. ETH proponents are reluctant to consider mundane explanations and label anyone who explains away a cherished case as a 'debunker'. Radar-visual cases are favored, despite detailed explanations like Philip Klass's for the RB-47 case.

Psychosocial Hypothesis (PSH) Criticism

Jerome Clark's objection to the PSH is that it is 'literary criticism' rather than scientific study. However, when asked for details of reports ignored by literary critics, only old, explained cases are provided. Clark prefers to rely on the cumulative effect of numerous reports rather than detailed case analysis.

Literature and Future of Ufology

Books favoring the PSH are considered good, while those that graft ETH onto them are flawed. The article notes a trend in magazines like American UFO Magazine and Alien Encounters to cover science fiction, indicating a struggle to fill pages with substantial UFO content. British UFO magazines are criticized for having semi-illiterate or deluded proponents, while American proponents are seen as more educated but peddling lies and fantasies. The author predicts that with the decline of the ETH, ufology will fade into obscurity, becoming a subject for psychologists and folklorists.

Letters

Re hoaxing and why do Walton's gang keep it going after all this time.

Christopher D. Allan from Stoke on Trent questions the motivation behind continuing hoaxes, suggesting money plays a part due to prospects of films and TV shows. He notes that confessions after a long lapse of time are unlikely to be believed and would face skepticism from other hoaxers and potentially legal repercussions.

Adamski and Venusians

Allan also points to the 1952 incident where six people claimed to witness a desert contact with a man from Venus, signing affidavits. He notes that none have recanted in 45 years, and questions if anyone would care now or if Adamski diehards would believe such a confession.

Travis Walton Story Analysis

Peter Rogerson from Manchester analyzes the Travis Walton story, suggesting that its fantasy elements, such as meeting a hazel-eyed, sandy-haired human and descending a ramp into a room with flying saucers, are similar to George Adamski's accounts. He argues that Walton's story has added 1970s touches but the plot remains the same. Rogerson suggests that the descriptions of the night of Walton's disappearance should not be taken too literally, and that the fear of the truck occupants might have led them to exaggerate the light. He proposes that a solution might lie in law enforcement notes from the time, rather than later books that have woven the story into a narrative.

Note for paranoid ufologists

A note indicates that Peter Rogerson's letter arrived unsealed, despite having a first-class stamp and being correctly addressed and postmarked, but was delivered late.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly advocates for skepticism in ufology, emphasizing the need for critical analysis of evidence and a willingness to consider mundane explanations. The publication appears to favor the psychosocial hypothesis (PSH) over the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), viewing the latter as reliant on insufficient data and a rejection of critical inquiry. The editorial stance is critical of ufologists who readily accept extraordinary claims without rigorous investigation and highlights the prevalence of hoaxes as a significant challenge to the field. The bulletin suggests that the future of ufology is uncertain and may decline with the diminishing credibility of the ETH.