Pre-1947 UFO Bulletin - 1981 No 7

Magazine Overview

Title: Pre-1947 UFO Bulletin
Issue: No. 7
Volume: Vol 9
Date: August 1981
Publisher: Awareness
Country: United Kingdom
Language: English

This issue of the Pre-1947 UFO Bulletin features a detailed exchange of correspondence regarding the article "Was H.G. Wells an Unwitting Contactee?" and "The Time Machine." The primary focus is a letter from Brian J. Burden, dated July 22, 1981, responding to criticisms of his previous article. Burden addresses five specific points raised by the author (presumably Nigel Watson, as he is listed as the contact person at the end of the text).

Correspondence and Debate

Brian J. Burden begins by acknowledging a minor typographical error on page one of the original article but states it doesn't alter the overall thesis. He then outlines five ground rules for criticism:

1. Understanding before attacking: Burden insists that the critic must fully understand the argument before attempting to refute it. He notes that his article did not attempt to define contactee experience and that he did not exclude the possibility of Jungian unconscious eruptions, though he points out Jung's theories are unproven.
2. Crediting homework: Burden suggests that a reading of H.G. Wells's collected short stories would demonstrate Wells's significant interest in drugs, implying this is relevant to the contactee argument.
3. Rationalization: He challenges the idea that if Mrs. Andreasson's experience was influenced by "The Time Machine," then those involved in her hypnotic regression must have been incompetent or crooked, questioning the likelihood of this.
4. Collective consciousness: Burden posits that human minds might be collectively affected by certain universal forces at specific historical periods, citing Arthur Koestler and sharing this view, despite the lack of scientific evidence.
5. Pattern analysis: He criticizes the logical fallacy of smashing a pattern by examining its fragments, likening it to a lawyer's trick, and suggests a re-reading of "The Country of the Blind" as a warning against rigid belief systems.

Nigel Watson provides his answers to Burden's points:

1. Contactee definition: Watson points out that Burden himself does not define 'contactee experience' and that while he might not exclude other explanations, his article ignores them, implying a need for mind-reading.
2. Wells and drugs: Watson counters that Wells's knowledge of drugs does not prove he used them, nor does drug use prove he was a contactee.
3. Hypnotic regression: Watson states that many hypnotic regression cases involving UFO percipients reveal experimenter inexperience due to the complexity of the subject. He argues that Mrs. Andreasson being influenced by "The Time Machine" does not automatically mean those involved were incompetent or crooked.
4. Universal forces: Watson clarifies that while universal factors like environment, age, race, and status influence human behavior, he questions what Burden means by 'certain universal forces.' He also notes that a relationship between "The Time Machine" and "The Andreasson Affair" can hardly be called a pattern.

Watson concludes that Burden's points do not substantiate the thesis that H.G. Wells was an unwitting contactee. He describes "The Time Machine" as a clever adventure story speculating on mankind's fate, influenced by the political ideology of its time rather than drugs or extraterrestrials. In contrast, he views "The Andreasson Affair" as an emotional, dream-like story with religious overtones, likely an articulation of Mrs. Andreasson's personal preoccupations that her conscious mind could accept.

Watson acknowledges the possibility of being ruled by 'certain universal forces' but warns against the trap of 'rigid belief-systems,' advocating for critical analysis of data. He finds Burden's thesis imaginative but ultimately superficial.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the analysis of alleged contactee experiences through the lens of literary influence and psychological interpretation. The editorial stance, as represented by Nigel Watson's responses, is one of skepticism towards simplistic explanations and a strong emphasis on critical thinking and logical analysis when examining paranormal claims. The publication appears to encourage debate and detailed examination of evidence, while cautioning against the adoption of rigid belief systems without rigorous scrutiny.