Merseyside UFO Bulletin - Vol 5 No 4 - 1972

Magazine Overview

MUFOB, issue 5:4, published in Autumn 1972, is a bulletin from Merseyside UFO Group. The cover features the title 'MUFOB' with '5:4' prominently displayed, alongside 'Merseyside UFO Bulletin' and 'Autumn 1972'. The editorial panel consists of John Harney, John Rimmer, Peter Rogerson, and Alan Sharp. The main cover headline announces the introduction of 'an international catalogue of Type 1 reports'.

Editorial: Type I Catalogue

The editorial introduces a forthcoming catalogue of Type I UFO reports, compiled by Peter Rogerson. This catalogue is intended to be an expansion upon Jacques Vallee's 'A Century of UFO Landings 1860-1963'. The first part of the catalogue, covering the period from 1860 to the end of the nineteenth century, is slated for the next issue. The current instalment contains 46 reports, and more will be published in subsequent issues. Correspondence regarding the catalogue should be directed to Peter Rogerson.

Letter to the Editor: Alfonso Martinez Taboas

Alfonso Martinez Taboas writes in response to Alan W. Sharp's article, 'The New Ufology'. Taboas praises Sharp's article for its scientific approach, which he believes clears up nonsense and semi-scientific details in UFO studies. He agrees with Sharp that John Keel's books are unreliable and Jacques Vallee's 'Passport to Magonia' is questionable, stating that analytical and scientific minds cannot take seriously tales used to support the existence of fairies and demons. Taboas notes Sharp's demonstration that the Fatima miracle was merely the sun visible through clouds and that 'little people' near lakes were ignis fatuus. He commends Sharp's critical approach as welcome to fellow scientists.

However, Taboas then expresses his discontent with the contradictions in Keel's books, while acknowledging their value. He firmly believes that the theory of the subjective origin of UFOs and extraneous beings is insupportable. He compares Alan Sharp's writings to those of Frank Podmore, noting their critical approach and speculative structures. Taboas distinguishes between the credulous, objective, and skeptical person, placing Sharp in the latter category. He argues that the skeptical person is often as credulous as the credulous, accepting dubious conclusions to resolve 'nonsense'. Taboas criticizes Sharp's explanations for phenomena like the 'little people' and the Fatima miracle as preposterous.

Taboas references Walter Franklin Prince's observation that rational men sometimes react irrationally to facts that challenge their beliefs. He disagrees with Sharp's assertion that new ufology is antipathetic to science, suggesting Sharp should substitute 'scientists' for 'science'. Taboas believes scientists are living beings with individual opinions and that an open-minded scientist could consider the 'ultraterrestrial' theory. He quotes Charles Bowen, who argues that speculation is valid when linked to reported facts. Taboas defends the acceptance of physical phenomena in seance rooms, noting that many respected conjurors and illusionists, including Harry Price and Houdini, were convinced by such phenomena, often after initially attempting to expose mediums.

Taboas criticizes Wilbourne Christopher's book 'Seers, Psychics and ESP' as biased and distorting facts. He also notes that Alan Sharp denies the existence of ESP, which Taboas finds surprising given that Frank Podmore believed in it.

Letter to the Editor: John Keel

John Keel responds to Alan Sharp's critique, stating that he was amused by the ufological reaction to his book 'Our Haunted Planet'. Keel believes that many reviewers, including Peter Rogerson, missed the main point of his book, which he describes as a compilation of mankind's beliefs, including ufological ones, demonstrating how they are based on manipulations of an unknown power or phenomenon. Keel questions the sanity of the phenomenon itself, akin to Charles Fort. He suggests that many ufologists lack historical and philosophical knowledge, focusing too much on telescopes and ET life. Keel defends his inclusion of certain items in 'Our Haunted Planet', stating he labelled Agrest's theories as silly and took pains to present them as such. He notes that few accepted theories in ufological circles hold up under scrutiny and points to a Scientific American article on organic matter in meteorites as an example of scientific analysis contrasted with UFO-zine speculation.

Keel expresses embarrassment for Alan Sharp's critiques in MUFOB, finding them reminiscent of the 1950s and questioning Sharp's ignorance and inability to read English. Keel clarifies his position as anti-UFO, wondering if Sharp is a super-believer or super-skeptic. He recounts his experience writing a technical article on meteors, discovering a lack of hard data and that astronomers had been proven wrong. Keel states that 'Our Haunted Planet' was written before the Condon report and includes references to Vallee's book and the closing of Blue Book. He mentions that parts of 'Our Haunted Planet' were published in FSR's 'Beyond Condon' and that a detailed paper on the Allende meteor was published in Science. Keel asserts that Sharp's comments often repeat previously published material and that he has ridiculed items like Agrest's theories. He believes Sharp is demonstrating his own ignorance of UFO literature.

Keel defends his personal experiences, explaining that his anecdote about hair dryers was based on a remarkable incident. He criticizes Sharp's questioning of his perspicacity. Keel, a professional lexicographer, discusses his interest in the etymology of ufology and his publication of glossaries. He suggests Sharp suffers from 'semantical difficulties' and that his books were 'written down' for his audience. Keel mentions research by various disciplines, including Dr. Robert C. Becker's findings on low-frequency EM waves promoting bone healing, which he speculates could relate to 'miraculous' UFO healings. He notes that the U.S. Bureau of Radiological Health and the National Institute of Mental Health are studying related phenomena, and that Keel himself has consulted for DHEW. Keel contrasts his credentials with Sharp's, calling mineralogy as useless to ufology as astronomy. He expresses astonishment at Peter Rogerson's review of 'Our Haunted Planet', believing Rogerson was blinded by emotionalism and inverted the book's meaning. Keel clarifies that his book examined cult beliefs without supporting them, drawing parallels between assassination buffs and cultists. He summarizes youth culture's interest in Indian lore, often based on visions and hallucinations. Keel concludes by stating that many scientists are investigating the UFO 'effect', with funded programs in England and advanced work in the Soviet Union.

Letter to the Editor: John Keel (Continued)

Keel continues his response, stating that it is difficult to define UFOs until the subjective can be separated from the real, a task philosophers have attempted for 2,500 years. He believes ufologists, like cuckolds, will be the last to know because they are blinded by belief and seek simplification. Keel explains that his books attempt to touch upon popular theories and evidence, but he has rejected much of it. He posits the 'ultraterrestrial theory' as a more workable frame of reference, suggesting rejection of the ETH (Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) as a first step. Keel states his work aims to uncover the cause of events and experiences, and he is dismayed by the lack of actual research among ufologists. He mentions that many of his points were documented in his US articles and that he expects readers to exercise suspension of judgment. Keel criticizes Sharp's rejection of his work as rejecting the history of mankind and dismisses the idea that his books are 'absolute nonsense' despite their potential influence on human events.

Keel and Vallee independently realized that belief is the core problem and that a rational, philosophical study of belief is necessary. Keel classified UFOs as manifestations and anomalies, moving away from the idea of machines piloted by Venusians. He has been searching for underlying causes, leading him to reconsider religious concepts. Keel suggests that readers react emotionally to his work because he is attacking their beliefs. He references Eric Hoffer's 'The True Believer' to define the average UFO buff and those who exploit ufology. Keel notes that millions accept subjective experiences as the basis for their beliefs, citing Arthur Shuttlewood as an example. He defends Shuttlewood's sincerity while questioning the intellectual integrity of Menzel and Sharp. Keel mentions upcoming publications: 'Operation Trojan Horse' and 'Our Haunted Planet'. He adds a postscript regarding the Pentagon's reaction to Condon's explanation of metal balls, stating they laughed and that such objects cannot be released from aircraft.

Alan Sharp Replies

Alan Sharp replies to John Keel, expressing regret that Keel resorted to 'literary legerdemain and invective'. Sharp dismisses Keel's concepts of 'sincerity', 'honesty', and 'integrity' as subjective opinions. Sharp addresses Keel's assertion about hair dryers causing heads to fry if one falls asleep under one for two hours, stating that hairdressing equipment manufacturers confirm strict regulations prevent harmful effects and that users often fall asleep. Sharp implies that Keel's information is inaccurate, as he did in his article when discussing Keel's book 'Operation Trojan Horse'.

Sharp then addresses Keel's accusation that the Condon team was lied to about hollow metal spheres. Sharp states that the UK Meteorological Office uses hollow aluminum spheres for radar calibration, which are useful radar targets because their cross-sections are independent of orientation. Sharp asserts that these are two concrete issues where the reader can judge between them.

Sharp then tackles other matters raised by Keel. He questions Keel's statement in 'Operation Trojan Horse' that 'Meteors and comets are vitally important to our study of unexplained aerial phenomena', noting that the chapter is devoted to celestial objects within the sphere of astronomy and mineralogy. Sharp contrasts this with Keel's letter asserting that 'mineralogy is almost as useless to ufology as astronomy', calling this an 'extraordinary volte face' and accusing Keel of ignorance and semantical difficulties.

Sharp suggests Keel's comments about qualifications sound like 'sour grapes'. While admitting he claims no expertise in journalism or psychological warfare, Sharp does not consider the lack of such 'dubious qualifications' a loss to an honest student of ufology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the nature of ufology, the interpretation of evidence, and the credibility of researchers. There is a clear division between those who advocate for a more scientific, skeptical approach (represented by Alan Sharp and implicitly Donald Menzel) and those who embrace a broader, more inclusive view that considers subjective experiences and the possibility of 'ultraterrestrial' or unknown phenomena (represented by John Keel and Alfonso Martinez Taboas). The editorial stance, as presented by the introduction of the catalogue, leans towards a systematic and cross-checked approach to collecting UFO reports, suggesting a desire for more rigorous data collection within the field. The debate between Keel and Sharp highlights the fundamental disagreements about methodology, evidence, and the very definition of what constitutes a valid UFO study.

Title: MUFOB
Issue: 5
Volume: 5
Date: June 1976 (V JUNE 5 NUMBER 4)
Publisher: MUFOB
Country: United Kingdom
Language: English

This issue of MUFOB features a critical analysis of ufologist John Keel's writings and positions on UFO phenomena. The author engages directly with Keel's statements, particularly those found in his book 'Operation Trojan Horse', and questions the consistency and clarity of his arguments.

Critique of John Keel's Ufology

The central theme of the article is a detailed examination of John Keel's stance on UFOs. The author expresses dissatisfaction with Keel's remarks, suggesting he should focus on his own 'mote' rather than criticizing others. The article highlights Keel's apparent contradictions, such as rejecting 'popular theories' like the 'Landing Theory Hypothesis' (LTH) while simultaneously stating that it would be 'very dangerous to exclude the possibility that a very small residue of sightings may be very real.' This is described as an evasive tactic, akin to 'leaving the back door open' or 'coppering one's bets.'

Keel's acceptance of the possibility that 'there may be billions of inhabitable planets within our galaxy, and there is always a chance that living beings from those planets might have visited us in the past, are visiting us now, or are planning to visit us in the future' is contrasted with his rejection of 'anomalous space debris.' The author finds this position 'highly illogical and inconsistent.' Further confusion arises from Keel's statement that his 'clearly-stated position is really anti-UFO,' which leads the author to question why he is studying ufology at all. The article also notes Keel's assertion that 'It is really most difficult to define the term UFO,' which the author sees as a circular argument.

Keel's Conclusion on Cosmic Patterns

The article then turns to Keel's conclusion on page 300 of 'Operation Trojan Horse,' which is described as a 'cataclysmic avowal.' Keel states: "But I am now inclined to accept the conclusion that the phenomenon is mainly concerned with undefined (and undefinable) cosmic patterns and that mankind plays only a small part in these patterns." The author finds this statement problematic, questioning Keel's role as a 'professional lexicographer' and highlighting the vagueness of 'undefined (and undefinable) cosmic patterns.' The author notes that Keel is only 'inclined' to accept this conclusion after nearly 300 pages of text, suggesting it is not a firmly held belief and contributing to his sensitivity to factual criticism.

The author asserts that Keel's conclusion is based on a 'basic refusal to countenance sensible explanations of UFO phenomena' and labels Keel as one of many ufologists holding 'irrational beliefs' and 'strongly anti-scientific opinions.'

Correspondence and Author's Stance

The article acknowledges a letter from Alfonso Martinez Taboas, who is described as being of a similar ilk to Keel, with an 'equal dislike of reasonable answers to ufological puzzles.' Despite this, the author thanks Taboas for his letter, written in a foreign language from a considerable distance.

The author concludes by stating their own position: rejection of all supernatural 'explanations,' including 'paraphysical hypotheses,' and disbelief in past or present extraterrestrial visitation. However, the author expresses willingness to change this opinion if 'compelling evidence becomes available.'

Editorial Information

The issue also lists the editorial panel for the 'Merseyside UFD Bulletin,' which includes John Harney, John A Rener, Peter Rogerson, and Alan W Sharp. The publication is noted as being printed and published by the editors.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of prominent ufologists' theories, the definition and classification of UFO phenomena, and the author's personal stance on evidence-based reasoning versus what is perceived as irrational belief within ufology. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of unsubstantiated claims and favors rational, scientific explanations, while remaining open to changing views based on credible evidence. The issue emphasizes the importance of clear definitions and logical consistency in discussing UFOs.