Magonia Supplement - No 14 - 1999 04

Magazine Overview

MAGONIA Monthly Supplement, Issue No. 14, dated April 1999, is an English-language publication from the UK, edited by JOHN HARNEY. It focuses on "Interpreting contemporary vision and belief" with a strong emphasis on ufology.

Editorial

The editorial section questions the reliability of UFO cases that support the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). The editor, John Harney, points out that the primary weakness of such cases is the lack of confirmation from independent witnesses. He notes that when witnesses are present, their testimony is often unavailable, suggesting that truly well-witnessed, inexplicable UFO incidents are rare. He invites readers to provide a list of such cases.

Latest BUFORA Bust-Up

This section details a recent crisis within BUFORA (British UFO Research Association), marked by the resignations of key members. The author attributes this to a perennial problem in ufology: the conflict between members who want UFO organizations to reinforce belief in flying saucers and those who seek objective investigation. The article criticizes UFO organizations for inventing details to entertain believers and for rejecting rational explanations in favor of pseudoscience. It notes that while such turmoil is not new, there's a growing intolerance for the inclusion of 'cranks, publicity seekers and the mentally unbalanced' in lecture programs, citing Malcolm Robinson's policy. The author recalls that even in 1968, Magonia's predecessor, Merseyside UFO Bulletin, was founded because BUFORA and its affiliates were found "insufferable." The resignation letter of Dr. David Clarke, BUFORA Press Officer, is quoted, expressing his initial impression that his journalistic skills would be valued for promoting BUFORA as a high-standard national UFO study group.

The article traces the history of such conflicts back to the MUFORG Bulletin in 1966, where skeptical members contributed content that was often rejected by believers seeking 'uplifting stories about blond-haired Venusians.' Disputes over content and editorial direction led to shouting matches and disagreements, such as the one in January 1967 following critical reviews of the BUFORA Annual General Meeting.

The author reflects on the "BUFORA in-group" as a subject for organizational psychologists, describing their plots and counter-plots as Machiavellian. He suggests that their behavior stems from a lack of new ideas and an inability to adapt, leading to pomposity and a dismissal of criticism. The article posits that most ufologists prefer to hear about 'space people' rather than engage in study and investigation, and that if UFOs are accepted as spacecraft, the only response is to panic and await announcements.

Richard Beet of the Surrey Investigation Group on Aerial Phenomena is mentioned for his dismay at the situation and his emphasis on the need for organized groups. However, the author argues that organized UFO groups often serve to entertain believers and spread disinformation. He suggests that a strict selection procedure, rather than allowing anyone to join, would make groups more effective and respected, noting that "sensible and intelligent folk who take a healthily sceptical interest in UFOs" are rare.

Book Reviews

The Threat by David M. Jacobs

This review discusses David M. Jacobs' 1998 book, "The Threat," which explores his research into UFO abductions. Jacobs, a professor of history, began researching UFOs in 1966 and, after conducting hypnotic regressions on over a hundred abductees, came to believe he had uncovered information solving the "UFO mystery." His theory posits that aliens, unable to reproduce, are abducting humans for a breeding program to create human-alien hybrids who will eventually take over the world. He estimates millions of Americans have been abducted, some multiple times. The reviewer notes that Jacobs' theory, if true, should perhaps not have been published, given the supposed advanced surveillance by aliens. The reviewer questions how Jacobs obtains consistent evidence for something potentially unreal, suggesting that "missing time" could be due to people entering trances, and that abduction memories might be screen memories for ordinary sexual abuse.

The review highlights Jacobs' use of special terms like 'gray' and 'hybrid' and his non-leading questions, suggesting his interpretation might influence the abductees' recall. It also questions the consistency of the stories, drawing parallels to Jungian psychology and the idea that collective unconscious can produce similar dreams. The reviewer concludes that if Jacobs is correct, the scientific community will not take him seriously, leading to a grim future.

X-Treme Possibilities: A Comprehensively Expanded Rummage Through Five Years of The X-Files by Paul Cornell, Martin Day and Keith Topping

This book is described as a guide to the origins of the "wacky ideas" presented in The X-Files, suggesting the show reflects a nation betrayed by its leaders, leading to belief in cosmic conspiracies. The review notes that "The Greys" are blamed for US democracy's shortcomings, externalizing guilt about abortion, experimentation, and other societal issues. The book provides an episode-by-episode guide to the show's plots and their relation to popular culture, described as an entertaining and insightful read.

Letters

Letter from Jenny Randles regarding Nigel Watson's review of "UFO Crash Landing? Friend or Foe?"

Jenny Randles writes in response to Nigel Watson's review of her book, expressing puzzlement at Watson's apparent bias against the Rendlesham Forest incident. She argues that Roswell is "ridiculous" to compare to Rendlesham, given that Roswell's witnesses are mostly deceased and the case is heavily obscured by modern hype. Randles states that Rendlesham offers a better prospect for investigation because many witnesses are alive and talking, allowing for collation of testimony and physical evidence. She defends her book's approach, which involves presenting evidence, pros and cons, and considering multiple scenarios, including military experiments like the Cobra Mist project, as a means of investigating the truth. She criticizes Watson for dismissing her work as a "great laugh" and questioning her "gullibility," arguing that he lacks understanding of the complex case. Randles suggests that the fostering of alien stories might have been a deliberate tactic to create a climate of disinterest in mundane explanations.

Nigel Watson's Reply

Nigel Watson replies to Jenny Randles, expressing shock that she considers Rendlesham a better prospect for truth than Roswell. He argues that Randles' description of Rendlesham—full of "misidentification, distortion, exaggeration and probably confabulation. There are government botch ups and cover ups"—could equally apply to Roswell. He questions Randles' motive, suggesting she might be acting as a subversive agent trying to reveal government secrets, and asks about her social responsibility.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently promotes a skeptical yet open-minded approach to ufology. It criticizes organizations that prioritize belief over evidence and highlights the importance of rigorous, objective investigation. The editorial stance appears to favor scientific explanations and rational analysis, while acknowledging the complexity and enduring mystery of UFO phenomena. There is a recurring theme of internal conflict within ufological communities, particularly concerning the balance between belief and investigation. The magazine also engages with popular culture, such as The X-Files, to explore the roots of contemporary UFO beliefs.