From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:43:50 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:08:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia - The Truth Is There - Harney


>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.miller4.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:48:15 +0100 (BST)
>Subject: Magonia - The Truth Is There [Was: New Mexico Governor...]

>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:07:52 +0100
>>Subject: Re: New Mexico Governor Rekindles Roswell

>>Would you please provide an example of anywhere in Magonia -
>>or anywhere in my book "The Evidence for Alien Abductions",
>>where I have said that abductees are "mad" or "should not be
>>allowed out unaccompanied", or anything like that? Or indeed
>>any other examples of regular insult and abuse.

>Certainly John;

>>From Magonia 83, December 2003:

>Dr David Jacobs, one of the most notorious abduction
>researchers, sees the whole business as physical rather than
>psychological and believes that very little can be done about
>it. He writes:

>"The secrecy surrounding the abduction phenomenon shows that the
>aliens have instituted an elaborate effort to prevent their
>detection. Detection, therefore, may be where they are the most
>vulnerable. If so, then perhaps we still have the opportunity to
>intervene. Yet so far, all our attempts at intervention and
>prevention have been ineffective. Experiments to interfere in
>abductions by using video cameras and other electronic equipment
>have, by and large, failed to stop them, although they have
>sometimes decreased their recurrence." (3)

>The Pelican has asked similar questions before, but it seems he
>needs to keep on asking: Can a person who writes something like
>the above paragraph, and who is presumably not joking, be sane?
>The Pelican's answer must be No, otherwise the concept of
>insanity loses its meaning. The thing to be done, therefore, is
>to urge people like Jacobs, Hopkins and others to seek the
>appropriate treatments for their condition. They are unlikely to
>listen, of course, so their pernicious practices, such as
>conducting hypnotic regressions while asking leading questions
>about disgusting grey aliens, should be actively denounced and
>discouraged, and their writings should be given the critical
>scrutiny which will expose them as the irrational nonsense that
>they are.

Yes, and The Pelican stands by every word of the above. This is
not insult or abuse, but plain speaking. This practice of
tinkering with persons' minds by unqualified amateurs obsessed
with mad theories about grey aliens is deplorable behaviour and
responsible people should miss no opportunity to say so.

>You are the editor. You take responsiblity for the following:
>John Harney gets infuriatingly supercilious about a recent
>addition to the UFO abduction literature:

No, I am responsible. This item appeared in Magonia Supplement,
which I started in 1998 and have edited ever since.

>Budd Hopkins and Carol Rainey, Sight Unseen: Science, UFO
>Invisibility and Transgenic Beings, Atria Books, New York, 2003

>One of them concerns the abductee Katharina Wilson who told
>Hopkins about an occasion when she flew from Portland, Oregon to
>Chicago to speak at a UFO conference

>So it seems we can indulge in any sort of fantastic speculation
>apart from the obvious one that Wilson was suffering from one of
>her mental fugues which caused her to lose an hour by wandering
>around aimlessly. This story will cause more sensible readers to
>wonder, not about a "changeable human energy field" (whatever
>that might be), but whether Wilson is fit to be allowed out on
>her own.

Wouldn't any sensible and responsible person agree that concern
for Katharina Wilson's mental health is a rather more
constructive attitude than apparently taking her story as being
a true account of objectively real events?

>Pelican 6

>As the Pelican prepared to express his deep concern for American
>ufology, and in particular for the mental health of its
>practitioners, a communication from Hilary Evans - who needs no
>introduction to our well-read readers - arrived at the
>luxuriously appointed Magonia editorial offices. This expressed
>remarkably similar sentiments. Great minds think alike! Who said
>the Pelican was a birdbrain?

>In particular, Hilary noted that American ufologists took each
>other's books seriously, even if they were as crazy as Jacobs's
>The Threat or Hopkins's Witnessed, instead of expressing concern
>about the mental states of their authors. (1) He concluded: "Are
>these people writing fun books for entertainment only? Or
>seriously, to work something out of their system? Or simply to
>make a quick buck? Sometimes I find myself hoping that it's the
>last of these alternatives."

>Meanwhile, in the UK, we have our ETHers and other nutters.
>There are the entertainers, who write silly books and give
>sillier lectures, illustrated with fuzzy video clips. There are
>the mentally unbalanced and the purveyors of numerous cranky
>theories, each of which purports to explain nearly all UFO
>reports. Then there are a few who take a practical, pragmatic
>view of UFO stories and simply try to establish the facts of
>each case, wherever this is possible. They know who they can
>trust, and who they should avoid in helping with their
>investigations, or they quickly find out.

Yes, most ufologists are a bit soft in the head. Perhaps it's
unkind to mention it but it's just one of the facts of life.

>The above took about 10 minutes to dig out. Given a little more
>time and inclination, I would have also included some of the
>countless examples of abuse towards those who hold different
>views from you. Now where have I heard that phrase before?

>So in conclusion John, you are an undoubted hypocrite of the
>worst kind.

But he didn't actually write any of this stuff, I did.

>An do me a further favour. Don't pat me on the head
>patronisingly, as you recently did with Alfred, wherebye you
>goaded him for days about not being able to come up with
>references for something or other, only to then ignore his
>efforts when he did.

>While I have, in the past, reacted negatively to calls on this
>List for your resignation, I'm beginning to feel that the time
>might now be more appropriate for such a consideration. Your
>presence here is no longer meaningful. It is, by your now own
>admission, a game, wherebye you creep into the lions den,
>raffishly tug his tail, and then run away squealing in childish
>glee, back to your similarly childish friends. It's boring and
>you must realise that you aren't taken seriously here any
>longer.

Yes, perhaps all those who like to engage in critical
examination of UFO reports and theories should un-subscribe from
this List, leaving it to the believers to indulge in the kinds
of discussions which would not upset Pollyanna or Anne of Green
Gables.


John Harney