Magonia Supplement - No 32 - 2000 10

Magazine Overview

Title: MAGONIA Monthly Supplement
Issue: No. 32
Date: October 2000
Publisher: MAGONIA
Country: UK
Language: English

This issue of Magonia Monthly Supplement features an editorial on the perceived dichotomy between scientific research and UFO claims, and a lengthy article by Martin S. Kottmeyer that revisits and defends his earlier work on the cultural origins of UFO narratives. It also includes a literary criticism of a book by Timothy Good.

Editorial: SETI vs. UFO Claims

The editorial begins by recounting a complaint made by Dr. Jill Tarter of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute to a website that had headlined a contribution from her as 'searching for UFOs'. Tarter's statement that 'SETI is scientific and credible, and UFO claims and studies are not' generated significant backlash on the Internet UFO forum, UFO Updates, particularly from American subscribers who favored the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). The editorial notes the heated reactions, including personal attacks on Tarter and defenders of her stance, such as Bob Young, who was criticized for a favorable review of Curtis Peebles's book. The editor agrees with Tarter, suggesting that finding genuinely scientific ufologists is as difficult as finding a needle in a haystack, implying that many UFO enthusiasts are 'ETH-obsessed' or 'lecture-circuit liars'.

Article: Entirely Disposed by Martin S. Kottmeyer

Martin S. Kottmeyer's article, 'Entirely Disposed', revisits his 1990 Magonia essay of the same title. In his original essay, Kottmeyer explored three claims made by ufologists: that UFO and abduction case material lacked cultural provenance, that there were no ready psychosocial explanations for phenomena like flying saucers or the 'Greys', and that extraterrestrials newly arrived on Earth in 1947. Kottmeyer used his knowledge of science fiction and his correspondence with UFO buffs to demonstrate the significant foreshadowing of UFO mythology within pulp science fiction and broader cultural traditions. He credits Michel Meurger's work for extensively showing this influence.

Kottmeyer addresses recent criticisms of his 1990 essay, particularly from Anthony R. Brown, who suggested that specific films might have been the origin of abduction experiences, such as Betty Hill's nightmares possibly being influenced by 'Invaders from Mars'. Kottmeyer refutes this by stating that dreams rarely duplicate films precisely, though they can incorporate imagery and emotional tones. He cites research by Robert L. van de Castle and D. Foulkes, as well as Kelly Bulkeley's work, to support the idea that dreams do incorporate elements from memory, including films. Kottmeyer clarifies that he never asserted a film was the sole origin of Betty Hill's nightmares, noting that Keyhoe's book was also a cited source, and more recently, he has considered radiation contamination fears as a source for medical imagery in her experience, emphasizing multiple origins.

Greg Sandow offers another criticism, arguing that Kottmeyer sounds 'silly' when pointing out that abduction story elements appeared in earlier science fiction. Sandow's complaint is that Kottmeyer doesn't explain how these elements coalesce into the current abduction storyline, particularly the sexual use of abductees and the aliens' unclear motives. Kottmeyer counters that Sandow's argument is flawed because it ignores that the very point of his essay was to disprove the claim that such elements *didn't* exist in earlier culture. He argues that if early science fiction stories are considered veiled abduction memories, it undermines the framework of researchers like Jacobs, Hopkins, and Bullard, who posited aliens arrived in 1947 and that nothing predated this.

Regarding Sandow's demand for a way to separate media-influenced abductions from genuine ones, Kottmeyer sarcastically suggests obtaining mission records from aliens or using advanced technology. He then addresses the proposition that psychosocial theorists lack testable propositions. Kottmeyer reminds critics that his article 'Abduction: The Boundary-Deficit Hypothesis' predicted a high proportion of 'boundary-deficit personalities' among abduction claimants. He notes that a test instrument developed by Ernest Hartmann reliably discriminates between people with thin and thick boundaries, and that David Ritchey's subsequent testing of 14 abductees yielded low scores, supporting his hypothesis.

Kottmeyer disputes Brown's assertion that 'hysteria' is the foundation of the psychosocial model, stating that paranoia is central to his own thinking. He cites studies by Parnell, Sprinkle, Rodeghier, Goodpaster, and Blatterbauer, which found moderately elevated paranoia (Pa) scores on psychological tests among those reporting UFO experiences, particularly those with communication experiences. Kottmeyer acknowledges the common ETH interpretation that paranoia is a natural response to alien encounters but argues that examining the origins of 'Greys' in evolutionary theories and pulp science fiction provides new knowledge, contrary to Brown's claim that it teaches nothing new. He believes this historical analysis is crucial for understanding whether paranoia is directed at aliens or at misinterpreting events.

Kottmeyer concludes by stating he does not plan to offer grand unifying theories of abduction experiences. Instead, he focuses on recognizing false beliefs and fallacious arguments, believing his contributions to psychosocial thought have merit. He suggests that pursuing careers serving humanity, such as life-guarding or medicine, might be more productive than seeking definitive answers in ufology, as time has already largely determined who is right in these matters.

Literary Criticism: Unearthly Disclosure by Timothy Good

The review discusses Timothy Good's book 'Unearthly Disclosure: Conflicting Interests in the Control of Extraterrestrial Intelligence'. The reviewer notes that Good, as usual, presents sensational UFO accounts and the investigations of credulous researchers, while ignoring more skeptical perspectives. The reviewer points out that Good contacts witnesses and investigators, who often tell him what he wants to hear. The review highlights Good's occasional strain of credulity, particularly concerning the contactee Enrique Castillo Rincón's stories about 'Nordics from the Pleiades'. Despite admitting these stories are unbelievable, Good concludes they are likely a mixture of truth and fiction, offering 'fascinating story' and 'important new insights' without specifying what those insights are. The reviewer sarcastically notes Good's reluctance to engage in literary criticism.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of UFO narratives and the methodologies used to study them. The editorial clearly aligns with a skeptical, scientific approach, distinguishing it from the 'ETH-obsessed' elements within ufology. Martin S. Kottmeyer's extensive article champions the psychosocial and cultural influence perspective, arguing against the novelty of abduction narratives and emphasizing the role of media and existing cultural tropes. The literary criticism section further reinforces a critical stance by evaluating a UFO book based on its research methods and authorial bias. The overall editorial stance appears to favor rigorous, evidence-based analysis over uncritical acceptance of extraordinary claims, while acknowledging the cultural significance and psychological underpinnings of UFO beliefs.