Magonia Supplement - No 34 - 2001 03 04

Magazine Overview

Title: MAGONIA Supplement
Issue: No. 34
Date: 4 March 2001
Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of Magonia Supplement features an article by Kevin McClure titled 'Rendlesham Remembered', which critically examines Georgina Bruni's book on the Rendlesham Forest UFO mystery. The supplement also includes a 'Letter' section with commentary from Peter Rogerson and Hilary Evans, and an 'Editorial' that questions the nature of government secrecy regarding UFOs. The 'HOAX!' section announces a future focus on UFO hoaxes.

Rendlesham Remembered by Kevin McClure

Kevin McClure begins by expressing his long-held embarrassment about his early involvement in the Rendlesham case, primarily conducted over the telephone in 1981. He admits to making a 'dog's breakfast' of the task, losing his notes, and consequently avoiding reading much about the case, believing much of it was spun after the events.

McClure takes issue with Georgina Bruni's book, 'You Can't Tell The People: The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery', particularly her claim that the title originated from a conversation with Margaret Thatcher in 1997. He questions the provenance of this conversation, noting the lack of details regarding location, time, and witnesses, and speculates on Thatcher's state of mind at the time. McClure suggests Bruni's book is influenced by her support for Nick Pope, who writes the introduction.

McClure recounts his initial steps in investigating the case, being asked by Jenny Randles to contact Paul Begg, who provided him with the number for 'David Potts', an alleged radar operator. Potts confirmed the US Air Force had requested recordings for the night of the events but had not noticed anything unusual on screen and did not mention vehicle interference.

McClure's memory becomes vaguer regarding subsequent contacts, mentioning a conversation with someone else between 'Potts' and later Dot Street and Brenda Butler. This person, he believes, was peripherally present at the 'event' and mentioned confusion about the dates, including a 'false alarm' a day or two later, but no suggestion of events on three nights.

Of particular interest to McClure was the description of what was seen: an object described as 'solid, light, reflective, possibly burning, even, appearing to be in a tree.' He notes it was of unusual size and appearance, attracting attention, but its primary action was to glow and possibly burn. He understood men were watching it from the ground. McClure dismisses the 'lighthouse' theory as inconsistent with the descriptions he received. His own conclusion at the time was that the cause might be debris that had fallen into the tree and was alight, which could explain the official interest.

McClure recalls writing to Lucius Farish regarding a serviceman who allegedly returned to the US for mysterious reasons, and Farish later sent details on a postcard. He notes that after moving house, he lost his notes from these conversations. At the time, he felt there was a viable, conventional explanation for a seemingly unusual event that happened to occur near a US base.

He laments the commercial exploitation of the Rendlesham case, which he feels began long after the events. McClure emphasizes the importance of thorough and aggressive investigation from the outset, and the need to revisit implausible cases built on speculation. He suspects most explanations, whether skeptical or belief-based, are tainted by individual preconceptions and tend to reject much of Bruni's writing, but is certain that 'Bob Easton' did not do what she claims.

Letter

Peter Rogerson's comments on Moody's 'Last Laugh' prompt a reflection on American UFO conferences, which often include entertainment like songs, music, and comic sketches, contrasting with a perceived seriousness in European UFO research. Rogerson also recalls an anecdote from Jacques Vallee's journals about J. Allen Hynek prioritizing duty-free shopping over meeting fellow UFO students.

Another observation is the inclusion of 'saucerian jokes' in even serious American UFO bibliographies, citing Lynn Catoe's 1969 work. Rogerson notes the difference in tone between letters in Jim Moseley's 'Saucer Smear', with American letters often devolving into personal attacks rather than serious discussion.

He questions Hynek's nomenclature for 'third kind' encounters, suggesting it was almost as if he knew it would be used for a Hollywood movie. Rogerson also comments on the 'childlike jubilation' of some ufologists when invited onto popular talk shows.

Hilary Evans responds to Peter's point about the inappropriateness of calling in the FBI to investigate UFO sightings. Evans argues that while he practices critical evaluation, he found the 'Witnessed' scenario too barmy to seriously consider. He expresses dismay that people who can be intelligent and rational can also accept such flawed premises without question, citing 'The UFO Enigma' giving significant consideration to the Trans-en-Provence case.

Evans longs for a ufologist who can offer a balanced perspective, suggesting that some authors are embarrassed by their predecessors' work. He humorously suggests that authors of books like 'Left at East Gate' or 'The Day after Roswell' might need psychiatric treatment, or that 'Communion' implies a need for paranoia testing. He questions whether these are fun books, serious attempts at understanding, or simply ways to make money, ultimately hoping for the latter.

Editorial

The editorial addresses a common question: how could governments keep crashed saucers and ET pilots secret for many years? It argues that government agencies can only keep secrets about matters they control. If UFOs are ET visitors, earthly governments have no control over them, and evidence could easily surface anywhere on Earth, making secrecy impossible, akin to hiding volcanic eruptions or meteor showers.

The editorial poses the question it intends to keep asking: "How does a government agency hush up something which it can neither predict nor control?"

HOAX!

Magonia plans to publish articles on UFO hoaxes in future issues and invites readers to send any interesting and informative contributions on the topic to the editor, John Rimmer, or via email.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly emphasizes critical analysis and skepticism towards sensationalized UFO claims, particularly those presented in popular books. Kevin McClure's article directly challenges the credibility of a recent book on the Rendlesham incident, highlighting issues of provenance and factual accuracy. Hilary Evans's letter echoes this sentiment, criticizing the lack of critical rigor in some UFO literature and the acceptance of questionable cases. The editorial further reinforces this stance by questioning the feasibility of government secrecy regarding UFOs if they are extraterrestrial in origin, implying that the phenomenon's nature makes it inherently difficult to control and conceal. The magazine appears to advocate for a more grounded, evidence-based approach to UFO research, while also acknowledging the public's fascination and the potential for sensationalism and exploitation of such events.