With this issue we are dropping the Monthly from our title and this newsletter will now be published whenever we have sufficient material for it, as the input has become too irregular for us to maintain our monthly schedule. Unfortunately, when people react to controversial items they tend to argue about them elsewhere rather than sending their comments to us. We are very grateful to those of you who have sent us articles, letters and other items, and hope that you will continue to do so.
Raymond A Moody. The Last Laugh: A New Philosophy of Near Death
Experiences, Apparitions and the Paranormal. Hampton Roads, 1999. £9.99
Accused by "scientific" parapsychologists of becoming an entertainer, for
his vision room, Moody accepts that he is just that, and that indeed the
paranormal is essentially part of the realm of entertainment. To contrast
with what he sees as the literalness of the parapsychologists and their
sceptical and fundamentalist critics, he coins the phrase "playful
paranormalist", by which it appears that he means those who bracket out
the question as to whether any of these claims are "really true" and runs
with the stories as human experiences.
There is much of interest in this often very perceptive book. The central
thesis looks very appealing, and from our own experience in ufology, a lot
rings true there too. This is that stories of the paranormal and
"paranormal experiences", like literature and the performing arts,
transport us to "other worlds". The central appeal of this material is
precisely its ambiguous "unknown" quality, its reminder that the world is
finally ungraspable. One reason why so little progress occurs in the
fields of the paranormal is that no one really wants it. If any of these
mysteries were "solved" the "believers" and "sceptics" alike would be out
of a job.
The connection with showbiz is obvious; there is often a grey
area between the two. Uri Geller is a prime example of the paranormalist
showbiz star, and who can doubt that Daniel Douglas Home was a showbiz
star of the Victorian era. We can also recall the stage appearances of the
Davenport brothers or the Fox sisters, or Lulu Hurst the electric girl.
Moody reminds us of the role of fasting girls, fire walkers, magicians and
others in the history of vaudeville. Much of what he writes here has
resonances with the ideas of the anthropologist of ritual, drama and play,
Victor Turner; and with Rogan Taylor's much neglected Death and
Resurrection Show (London, 1985). The latter argued that the showbiz
superstar was a descendant of the shaman, as of course is the psychic
virtuoso. There are also distinct echoes
of the writings of the Colin Brookes-Smith and his seance parties in the
1960s. Of course the Victorian seance was entertainment also; a dark place
where the laws of physics and sexual propriety alike could be
transgressed.
Moody argues for the comic potential of the paranormal;
taken literally it is nonsense, absurd, because it transports us outside
the boundaries of the world of daylight reason and common sense. This
clearly has echoes within ufology, where stories have been called "a
festival of absudity". Ufology has great entertainment value, and Moody is
surely right in saying we are in the game because it is fun. It also
illuminates a point made earlier by George Hansen: the play-like nature of
much the abduction business. It involves a willing suspension of disbelief
for a scary thrill, and for playing a variety of roles. It also, of
course, makes it clear why Phil Klass's demand that the FBI be brought in
to investigate Linda Napolitano's kidnapping by her two stalkers is
absurd. It would be like bringing in real police officers to investigate
the murder in a soap opera. It isn't really real, and Budd Hopkins knows
that as much as the rest of us.
There is a clear likeness between drama and dreams. Both involve journeys
to "other realms", where astounding things can happen. They can be both
places of extraordinary joy and terror, but we know that when the curtain
falls and the lights come back on, the daylight and its mundane common
sense return. Or at least we hope they do. One fault of Moody's
presentation is an over-indulgent view of play and entertainment. He
acknowledges in places the dark nature of much entertainment in the past
and notes, as part of his polemic against Christian fundamentalists, that
one of the early Christian visions of heaven was as a giant amphitheatre,
a super celestial Coliseum, from which they could look down with pleasure
on the torments of the damned in Hell. But he never really incorporates
this in his general vision. As I am writing this the papers are full of
the agonised debate over the fate of the killers of James Bulger. His
killing, the high school massacres, the kids throwing rocks at soldiers
using live ammunition in Palestine, remind us how dark and dangerous and
utterly out of control play can become.
Another interesting line of
Moody's argument is that we need to get beyond the trapped literalness of
taking everything at face value. Rather he argues we should see these
narratives as seeking to express, within our culture-bound language, some
sense of the encounter with . . . and here he notes all the language that
is used, the paranormal, the occult, the uncanny, weird, awesome,
outlandish, supernatural, fey, spooky, enchanted, strange, unknown, beyond
and, we might add, cryptic, and alien. All words hinting at something
beyond the bounds of the socially constructed given world. Perhaps the
anthropologists' notion of wilderness or wildness, or the theologians' use
of words such as "other" come in here, as might Turner's ideas of
communitas and liminality.
In Moody's own idiom he has a fine sense of the comic, but I suspect,
being a nice person, he has a less fine sense of the tragic. That being
said, this is a provocative and interesting book, which while no doubt
likely to give rise to cries of "English Literature" in certain quarters,
is definitely worth reading. Not easy in places but worth the effort.
Peter Rogerson
I wish to make the following comments about Martin Kottmeyer's review of
God and the Sun at Fatima (1999), by Stanley L. Jacky.
I wish to inform
Martin of these new data in the cause of scientific truth. The book cited
is a too belated critical version on the Fatima events: as a Portuguese
historian with my colleague Fina d'Armada we published in 1982 a first
460-page volume - The Fatima Apparitions and the UFO Phenomenon - with the
first non-apologetic analysis of the phenomena which occurred in 1917. At
least, you would accept that we have a better knowledge of our sources and
language and, during six years of intensive research, we did not conduct a
distant study of foreign documents but a profound and systematic reading
of the ORIGINAL and official records at the Sanctuary, the only true
sources we can trust to reconstruct the full picture. The book by Jacky is
based on the religious documents edited in 1992 and 1999 by a Catholic
commission committed to it. Based on what? The original documents among
those we can trust and others produced over the years by Lucia dos Santos
after her monastic seclusion: that was how the so exciting "Third Secret"
was born as result of a long period of advice and influence by . . . the
Jesuits. Who else?
It's a pity that the Portuguese language could not until now be used by the
researchers and critics. In the Fatima case we found dozens of "essays"
repeating "ad nauseam" third-hand reports full of errors,
misinterpretations and exaggerations. As Martin noted and we agree. All
these sold like solid and original research!
I think you agree also that
we are in a better position to tell the Fatima story. There are here,
without any doubt some elements that can be very usefully compared with
the UFO-like phenomena of our urban and spatial cultures. Certainly it's
true. But we are in a position to discuss and observe some ideas and
hypotheses presented by Martin which not fit with physical data and
minimal aspects obtained from our filed research: we went to the living
witnesses themselves and also the personal literature where we dug out
interesting material concerning the "solar phenomenon" 13 October 1917.
We verify the following new data:
1. The witnesses who reported physical sensations and psycophysiological
effects were all within a frame of an area near the "contact spot" at Cova
da Iria, which was some 70 metres wide by 100 metres long. We were able to
select 100 first-hand witness reports and among these a lot of people who
described the "solar" phenomenon were WITHIN that area. At the precise
moment of the "solar object" fall - STRAIGHT DOWN TO THE HEIGHT OF A TREE
- the cited witnesses on the spot noticed:
a) intense and sudden heat; b) sudden drying of their clothes which were
made very wet by the previous rain; c) a few reports of healing of people
in the cited area.
2. The "solar phenomenon" was observed by independent witnesses NOT
included in the crowd at Cova da Iria, but at four distant spots of the
region, far enough, 15, 20 and 30 km away, not to know what was going on
at that very moment at Cova da Iria.
We have some reports which denied
that was the Sun falling from the sky, but another body or object, since
those people insisted that the Sun never came down!
3. The "halo hypothesis" proposed by Menzel perhaps could be evaluated by
authorised witnesses among the crowd. Could it explan all the three kinds
of effects cited above? Could a halo spin down and return up the same way
showing different features in its dimensions? Where is the scientific
literature which could verify these complex paths? I would very much like
to get this infornation.
I guess we are all honest and sincere seeking the truth. But the truth can
not be so simple and sure.
I advise that we are not UFO fanatics or ET militants. We are following
strictly historical and scientific methods.We have recognised work here in
Portugal and what we need is new ideas from foreign scientists and
thinkers, not easy speculations constructed with distorted and manipulated
data or biased interpretations based on Catholic dogmas and background.
I
hope these remarks will contribute to a new perspective on these
extraordinary events under specific sociological and cultural conditions
from time to time.
Thank you very much and my best regards to Martin Kottmeyer.
Joaquim Fernandes, Center for Transdisciplinary Study on Consciousness,
University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal
In a review on the Internet last year Georgina Bruni said she had found
over 50 factual errors in the chapter on Rendlesham in the book The UFOs
That Never Were by Randles, Clarke and Roberts. The Rendlesham chapter was
written by Jenny Randles. We now hear from UFO Magazine that Larry Warren
has told the magazine that he identified 197 factual errors in Georgina
Bruni's recent book on the case You Can't Tell the People! To complete the
triangle, as it were, perhaps Jenny Randles can tell us how many errors
she discovered in the Warren/Robbins book Left at East Gate, a book that
was sent to several leading MPs and even the Prime Minister soon after
publication in 1997.
Why is the Rendlesham case so littered with errors? Why can't people get
their facts right? It must be those cover-up guys again, spreading
disinformation. We need a definitive book to end all definitive books!
Christopher D. Allan, Stoke-on-Trent
In Magonia 72 it is noted that streams of audio tape with curses on them
have been found outside churches and at road junctions. This reminded me
of the story of a UFO witness called Peggy, who not long after her
sighting in 1967, saw two men with expressionless faces string silver tape
over the telephone lines near home. They did not seem to have an official
vehicle, so she called the police. They were not much help, and all they
could say was: "Oh, the silver tape again." (Beyond Condon, FSR Special
Issue No. 2, June 1969, p. 37.)
The same edition of Magonia mentions Cooper and his involvement with the
Zapruder film of the assassination of President Kennedy. Fortean Times
numbers 121 and 122 provide background information showing how this came
about, though I wonder what will happen next?
I really felt that I had entered a Ufological Ground Hog day when I saw
the latest Fortean Times (No. 142) emblazoned with the "Ghost Squadron"
cover. Inside there is an article by Roy Bainton, titled Spirits in the
Sky. Could this be a slightly altered version of "Spirits in the Sky" by
Roy Bainton published in Uri Geller's Encounters Magazine (No. 9, June
1997)? Are things so bad at FT that they have to use such blatantly
recycled material?
Nigel Watson, Plympton, Devon