Merseyside UFO Bulletin - Vol 5 No 1 - 1972

Magazine Overview

Title: Merseyside UFO Bulletin
Issue: 5:1
Volume: 5
Date: Spring 1972
Editors: John Harney and John Rimmer
Publisher: Merseyside UFO Bulletin
Country: United Kingdom
Language: English

This issue of the Merseyside UFO Bulletin, the 25th in its run, focuses heavily on the debate surrounding psychological explanations for UFO phenomena. The cover prominently features "PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES; CARL GROVES REPLIES," indicating a central theme of critical analysis of how psychology, parapsychology, and other theoretical frameworks attempt to explain UFO reports.

Editorial: Psychological Explanations

The editorial section addresses the hope among ufologists that complex UFO reports might be explained by psychological theories. However, it notes that many details in UFO reports seem to fall outside the scope of conventional psychological inquiry. The editorial also mentions that Carl Grove discusses the inadequacy of conventional psychology and warns against the application of parapsychology due to its vague concepts. It concludes that the real mystery of ufology lies in the fact that every suggested theory has serious weaknesses.

Letter to the Editor: Alan W. Sharp Replies to Peter Rogerson

Alan W. Sharp responds to criticisms from Peter Rogerson regarding Sharp's article "The New Ufology." Sharp addresses Rogerson's points numerically:

1. Sharp explains that he grouped Jacques Vallee and John Keel together because their recent books, "Passport to Magonia" and "Operation Trojan Horse," were relevant. He also referenced "Anatomy of a Phenomenon" for its discussion of terminology and mentioned Professor Agrest as an author who received attention from both Vallee and Keel.
2. Sharp denies stating that the moon was mistaken for a Martian spaceship and points out Rogerson's use of qualifying words like "usually" and "fairly" when discussing positive identification.
3. Sharp clarifies that he does not possess ESP and directs Rogerson to specific pages in "Anatomy of a Phenomenon" for clarification on certain points, apologizing for an incorrect page number citation in his previous article.
4. Sharp believes Vallee could have written more critically about certain UFO cases, suggesting it did not suit his purpose to do so.
5. Sharp states he did not make adverse comments about Vallee's earlier books but merely compared "Magonia" unfavorably with "Anatomy."
6. Sharp's impression of "Magonia" was that it was a "ramshackle collection of anecdotes of very dubious worth presented in a highly uncritical manner."
7. Sharp is glad Rogerson agrees with his assessment of the "Warminster nonsense" but notes that what is obvious to Rogerson may not be to others like Arthur Shuttlewood.
8. Regarding Mr. Cade's criticism, Sharp states that Cade does not deal with lightning strikes to the ground, which is relevant to the topic of atmospheric electricity, and that Vallee's book "The Taming of the Thunderbolts" does not make him an authority on this aspect.

Sharp further defends his critique of Vallee, stating that Vallee stresses "fairy rings" and fails to provide sensible hypotheses. Sharp argues that Vallee equates the abode of UFO entities, "Magonia," with supernatural realms like heaven and fairyland, justifying his conclusion that the entities are supernatural.

Sharp addresses the classification of "homo sapiens" varieties, noting that while Neanderthal features vary, it is difficult to be dogmatic about interrelationships. He dismisses the idea that dark, furry objects could be church steeples or cows.

He defends his treatment of the Fatima case as sensible and reasonable, believing most psychologists would agree with his conclusion. He is pleased that Rogerson does not take the Villas Boas business literally, noting Vallee's literal interpretation.

Sharp criticizes Rogerson's claim that a residuum of about 5% of "alleged phenomena of physical mediumship" are not conjuring tricks, calling it a "pious hope rather than an estimate based on fact."

Regarding the "arena of normal debate," Sharp suggests that anything described as "mystical and escaping rational analysis" falls under this category. He also corrects an error in a previous MUFOB issue, crediting John Keel with authorship of "Passport to Magonia" when it was actually Vallee.

Sharp concludes by stating he makes no apologies for his rational assessment of "new ufology" and is content if his article is seen as a "19th century contribution to Practical Mechanics," valuing common sense.

A Reply to Rogerson by Carl Grove

Carl Grove responds to Peter Rogerson's critique of Grove's earlier article on the inadequacy of psychological theories of UFOs. Grove argues that Rogerson has lost sight of the central question: can conventional psychological facts and theories explain UFO phenomena? Grove stresses "conventional" psychology and criticizes Rogerson for using "paranormal" concepts, which he claims do not have wide acceptance in psychological circles.

Grove posits that in single-witness cases, it may be logically impossible to rule out conventional hallucination (due to drugs, sensory restriction, psychosis, etc.). For "normal" hallucination, single-witness cases without corroborating information or physical evidence remain controversial. He notes the lack of empirical evidence and refers to works by Hall, Grinspoon, Persky, Johnson, and Schwarz.

For multiple-witness cases, Grove states that simple hallucination is irrelevant as shared hallucinations are unrecognized by psychology. He dismisses the "hoax" theory as the only explanation capable of relating all UFO phenomena, suggesting that if hoaxes are ruled out, other explanations must be considered.

Grove presents two alternatives for explaining UFO reports: /1/ extramundane intelligence (including the ETH) or /2/ parapsychological interaction. Rogerson supports the latter. Grove argues that theories must be based on a minimum of inferred concepts and generate testable, preferably quantitative, predictions.

Grove finds both alternatives unsatisfactory. Extramundane intelligence lacks hard evidence, while paranormal concepts are vague and problematic. He notes that the scientific community is more accepting of extraterrestrial life than ESP concepts, as the former reflects a break with existing models of reality, while the latter represents a fundamental break.

The main weakness of the ESP approach, according to Grove, is its inadequacy as a concept, being a broad classification of puzzling events. "Paranormal" is merely a description of what current science cannot explain.

Grove argues that the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), even in its naive form, is better defined. He uses the example of the "Mars Cycle" to illustrate how the scientific method could be applied, though he dismisses Rogerson's suggestion that people might have more hallucinations when closer to Mars.

Grove highlights the weakness of the parapsychological approach by noting Rogerson's failure to describe the mechanisms of hallucinatory UFO experiences. He poses several unanswered questions:

1. If an experience is shared, why do UFO events obey perspective laws? Why don't witnesses report identical stimuli?
2. What mechanism allows for the calculation of perceptual effects of change-of-perspective for multiple witnesses simultaneously?
3. If question 2 is unanswered, does this not imply intervention by a superior, nonhuman intelligence?
4. While visual images can be "injected" like TV signals, human sensory processes are complex, and our understanding of normal perception is limited, making models of exotic processes even more challenging.

Grove clarifies that his aim is not to disprove parapsychology but to demonstrate the dangers of reasoning that concludes phenomena are paranormal simply because they cannot be explained by current science.

He questions whether any puzzling event could not be explained by a "paranormal" theory. Grove feels the parapsychological theory is weaker than the extramundane theory due to its lack of definition and inability to be disproven. He suggests the ETH is a better choice, though still insufficiently developed. Grove advocates for a less contentious inductive approach, criticizing researchers who ignore inconvenient data or selectively reject evidence.

He concludes that progress may be made if ufologists maintain a theoretically neutral position, recognizing that UFO reports often involve phenomena that, at face value, lie beyond current physical and psychological concepts. A deductive approach would fail if the final answer is a completely novel concept.

References

The issue lists several references, primarily to previous articles in MUFOB and BUFORA Journal, as well as works by R.L. Hall, L. Grinspoon, A.D. Persky, D.M. Johnson, C.H. Smiley, and A.W. Sharp.

Local UFO Reports

This section details recent UFO sightings reported in the Liverpool Echo:

• February 13, 1972: Police from three counties reported sightings of unidentified flying objects, described as a white light with a tail or a dazzling green flare. Sightings were reported across Cheshire and Abergele, Rhyl, Prestatyn, Wrexham, Mostyn, Broughton, and Birkenhead, as well as on the M6. A police spokesman suggested the sightings might be meteorites.
• February 21, 1972: A Wirral woman, Mrs. Michelle Ryan, reported that she and her husband were followed by two luminous, off-white disc-shaped objects on an unlit road near Moreton. The objects were described as peering into the car.
• March 24, 1972: A schoolboy, Gavin Hudson, reported seeing a large, silvery, unpainted cigar-shaped object moving rapidly from the south-west to north-west with no sound near Upton, Wirral.

Notes, Quotes & Queries

• New Magazine: A new UFO magazine named "GEMINI" has appeared, replacing "COS-MOS" and "SIRIUS." Edited by Mark Stenhoff, Norman T. Oliver, and C. David Oakley-Hill, it features a 1971 flap round-up and contact cases. The subscription is £1 for four quarterly issues.
• Erratum: A correction is noted for the front page, changing "Carl Groves" to "Carl Grove."
• Engagement Announcement: The engagement of Associate Editor John A. Rimmer to Miss Judith Tyrer is announced.

Publication Details

• Title: Merseyside UFO Bulletin
• Volume: 5, Number 1 (25th issue)
• Editor: John Harney
• Associate Editor: John A. Rimmer
• Science Editor: Alan W. Sharp
• Contact Information: Addresses and telephone numbers are provided for the editors and associate editor in Bromborough and Liverpool, respectively. Alan W. Sharp's contact details are also listed for Widnes, Lancashire.
• Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by the editors. Letters to the Editor are welcome.
• Publication: Printed and published by the Editors.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme in this issue is the critical examination of theoretical frameworks used to explain UFO phenomena, particularly the limitations of psychological and parapsychological approaches. The editorial stance appears to favor rational assessment and a cautious approach to speculative theories, as evidenced by Alan W. Sharp's contribution and the overall critical tone of the articles. The publication also emphasizes its role in documenting local UFO reports and disseminating information within the ufology community, including news of other publications and personal announcements.