It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“The New Ufologist” (1994-1997) – Jenny Randles and other Brits/Euros – Complete PDFs

page: 1
15

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The first sensible UFO books I bought were by Jenny Randles. I’ve bought dozens of UFO/fortean books written or co-authored by her. I have found them to be more insightful and cautious than, well, almost any other UFOs books.

So, I was interested to learn recently that Jenny Randles had co-edited a UFO periodical between 1994 and 1997 together with some of the other sober British researchers.

“The New Ufologist” published articles from Jenny herself and several other interesting researchers from England (including Ralph Noyes – formerly of the Ministry of Defence, Albert Budden, Paul Devereux, Paul Fuller, Nick Redfern and Andy Roberts) plus quite a few of the most prudent European researchers (including Anders Liljegren from Sweden, Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos from Spain and Werner Walter from Germany).

A promotional item for “The New Ufologist” included the following:


The New Ufologist is different. Launched in the summer of 1994 by a group of concerned investigators it has three key aims in mind. Firstly, to produce something that reflects serious Ufology which can update objective scientific theories, without descending into pure scepticism. Plus a medium for the most important new case histories presented in depth. This without rejecting any hypothesis, but also without the need to pander to sensationalism to sell copies. It will be sensible, progressive Ufology.

Also it is free of all group structures. Although positive contributions from any organisation will be accepted, the New Ufologist has no ties with any group. Instead it will be compiled by - and for - the UFO movement, primarily in Britain, with invited contributions from Europe and the rest of the world. At open meetings all readers will be offered a say in determining the format of the next issue. This will be a truly democratic outlet.

Finally, the publication will be non-profit making. It has no members to please and no officers expenses. All income beyond that to produce and distribute the magazine will form a central research and investigation fund. Anyone can submit ideas for a research project or more work on a significant case under investigation. At the regular open gatherings you will be able to allot grants from the fund to support the best of the suggested proposals.

In other words, without creating a new group, the New Ufologist will provide a focus for your case studies and research results. It also plans to create a repository of case files, where all can share the data provided.


The publication unfortunately folded after just 6 issues. Jenny Randles took the time today to provide me with the following comments:


I think it went the way that it did because by that time (the late 90s) UFO magazines were just not viable like they used to be and the net was really starting to be the source most used for contact and information. Also UFO groups in the traditional sense were disappearing. And various of the main folks within UFO circles in the UK that had worked on NUFON, UFOIN, New UFOlogist etc had decided that they had reached an impasse insofar as expecting any breakthroughs to appear. Many of them had become increasingly of a null hypothesis perspective as well. So for many reasons the UFO network that existed in Britain in the 70s - 90s ended with the Millennium and a new looser system replaced it. The problem always was that the most die hard UFO enthusiasts believed in the least credible things and so any publication trying to eschew the wilder shores of UFOlogy was going to be the first to become an endangered species.


Anyway, I contacted several of the people connected to The New Ufologist about putting it online. Jenny Randles kindly responded that she was “totally okay” with The New Ufologist going online and that she doubted that anyone else “would be other than delighted either”. Some others connected to The New Ufologist also gave positive responses by email and on Facebook.

So, once again thanks to our friends at the “Archives For the Unexplained” ("AFU") in Sweden doing the boring job of scanning the relevant journals, the complete collection of 6 issues The New Ufologist can be downloaded from THIS TEMPORARY LINK for the next week. After that, or if you only want one issue, you can obtain any of the issues from the AFU’s website at THIS LINK.

To give a further indication of the contents of this collection, I’ll include below the cover pages and tables of contents for the 6 issues.

edit on 8-7-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Issue 1


www.afu.se...




Issue 2


www.afu.se...





Issue 3


www.afu.se...




Issue 4


www.afu.se...





Issue 5


www.afu.se...






Issue 6


www.afu.se...




edit on 8-7-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
By the way, the scans produced by the AFU were scanned as double-paged (i.e. the lefty and right hand side scanned together). I’ve split the scans into single-paged by using a cropping method I found online. I’d welcome suggestions for a quicker method. The cropping method I used involved the following: Using Adobe Acrobat, open the pdf, open the "pages" index on the left side, right click on the first page, select "crop pages" and then set a crop that retains only the left-hand side of the PDF, press return, set page range as "all", then hit OK. Save the resulting document as "document-left" or something like that. Press Control-Z to undo the crop and regain the double-scan. Follow the above steps to crop the right side. Now you have a "left pages" pdf and a "right pages" pdf. Combine the two using Adobe’s option to create a PDF by combining files. Each page then has to be slot into the right place (which I did using the thumbnail navigation view). While this does not take a massive amount of time, it is rather tedious – so I’d welcome a more efficient technical solution!



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Great thread. Total kudos.

This is how it used to be, when we first got into UFOs in the 90s before the net. It was just that, UFO groups. The net has sobered up the scene.

I long for the good old days, when the second half of a story to weeks to find, you maybe heard of a magazine or article through a friend, then you went out and found it or ordered it through the newsagents.

It was mysterious back then, now it's cold, full of CGI, less exciting.

Thanks for posting. You've taken me back to a time when I witnessed the end of an era, if only I were 20 years older and I were conscious in the 70s when it was 10 times more exciting.



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi




The publication unfortunately folded after just 6 issues. Jenny Randles took the time today to provide me with the following comments:




I think it went the way that it did because by that time (the late 90s) UFO magazines were just not viable like they used to be and the net was really starting to be the source most used for contact and information.......


Thanks once again Isaac.

It may just be the time of year but it seems like even interest on the net (at least here on ATS) is waning now for UFO material.

Once upon at time there would be over 100 flags for posts like this. Recently we've seen a massive dip. I know that doesn't include non-members and this is also picked up on the Twitter and facebook feeds. But there is definitely a downturn.

Maybe the truth is out there but it isn't the truth a lot of people thought it was and they've lost interest?


edit on 8/7/16 by mirageman because: clarification



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Beautifully said.

It's just like with "spirituality".

If you research deeply enough for long enough, you are eventually forced to grow up.

It's not that there is "nothing there", but it's completely devoid of happy, prancing unicorns, paternal sky entities and paradise realms for not so important after all organic critters.

In the end, you either choose to be mentally and emotionally unstable; to give up the search for "truth", or keep investigating with humble expectations and no preconceptions.

My 2 cents.

Kev



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: mirageman

Beautifully said.


Same goes for your post.

Isaac, with mirageman and KPB's posts in mind, I can't help but ask (interestingly enough, I was thinking in the same lines a bit earlier today) - how do you find the will to keep going after the UFO enigma, and do it in such a concise professional manner? How did you get involved with UFOs in the first place?

Feel free not to answer, as I understand it might cause thread drift, though I'm sure many posters would find this interesting.

P.s. Thank you, once again, for the interesting reads that you provide. Haven't heard of The New Ufologist, and just going through the list of contents - seems like some interesting, level-headed material ahead.
edit on 8-7-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: IsaacKoi

Thank you so much IsaacKoi.

I love all that you bring to ATS!



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Many thanks for this, IsaacKoi. I enjoyed reading the Northern UFO News information bulletins that were written by Jenny Randles between the early 1980s and 2001, and I was always impressed by her open minded, honest and sceptical (when required) attitude to the UFO phenomenon. In fact, she helped me appreciate that very ordinary things can look rather extraordinary under poor viewing conditions. I remember sending her a letter in late 1985 about an orange oval object that I had seen in the night sky in October 1985 when I was out looking for Halley's Comet. This had excited me at the time, but she responded by saying that it was almost certainly the underbelly of a bird lit by streetlights. This was confirmed for me in early 1987 when I saw exactly the same thing, except that this time the bird was low enough for me to be able to see its wings!

This one correspondence convinced me to be a bit more critical about UFO sightings, and it is why I am not interested in reports of lights in the sky unless they exhibit extremely unusual characteristics and/or movements. There are too many possible rational explanations for these "lights" to waste time on them otherwise.
edit on 11-7-2016 by Mogget because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ch1n1t0
I can't help but ask (interestingly enough, I was thinking in the same lines a bit earlier today) - how do you find the will to keep going after the UFO enigma, and do it in such a concise professional manner?


With difficulty.



Seriously, I have periods of activity in relation to ufology followed by periods in which I wonder why I bother.

I often myself wondering whether I should walk away or whether I should raise the stakes a little (e.g. by inviting others on ATS to participate in a few of the more obvious research projects - such as obtaining UFO documents from certain archives around the world). There are lots of things that could be done within ufology to push things forward without the expenditure of a vast amount of time or money - but I'm not convinced ufology is worth the effort.

I've been tempted for a fairly long time to post a few challenges to the ATS community and see what response I get.

edit on 11-7-2016 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman


Maybe the truth is out there but it isn't the truth a lot of people thought it was and they've lost interest?


I think its just lack of new information, not sure peoples opinion are changing. It would be nice if organizations like MUFON had the funding to really dig into some of the sightings they showed on Hangar18.

Its shameful the recreations they put together based on the little bit of notes they had on most of those cases. Some of them showed real promise and are relatively unknown by most people since MUFON is the only with the reports.

One of the better cases they covered occurs at 33:20 in this episode




posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Yes. Hangar One is an entertaining show but they don't seem to exercise any in depth analysis of the cases.
Is it lack of funding though? Surely this show has made them a fair wedge as it's shown in a large number of territories (especially the wealthier ones).

I get the impression that MUFON has gone the way of many favourite 'UFO researchers' and simply decided to join the UFO Infotainment business.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Yes. Hangar One is an entertaining show but they don't seem to exercise any in depth analysis of the cases.
Is it lack of funding though? Surely this show has made them a fair wedge as it's shown in a large number of territories (especially the wealthier ones).

The cases analyzed were all done years before the show was ever a thought, I dont know why the various cases were so poorly studied, or at least appear to be based on what little you can read about each one in their database(From the show it is obvious the files are incomplete as they give additional information not contained in their online database). Many of them do seem promising, BUT then there is your next point



I get the impression that MUFON has gone the way of many favourite 'UFO researchers' and simply decided to join the UFO Infotainment business.


Billy Cox looked into this and discovered they pretty much had to give complete control to the History channel if they wanted the show to become a reality at all. It appears to me the History channel decided to Hollywood up the cases they thought they could do a good recreation on and there you have it.

I understand History channel side of it, they got to make money, but still it would have been nice if MUFON had the resources to really at these cases back when they occurred. But it isnt just MUFON, Kevin Randle has the same kind of thought concerning the Leveland case, no real indepth analysis was done at the time for an extremely credible case.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Just wanted to say thanks on this thread to Isaac for doing this amazing work with the team in Scandinavia who have doing a superb job of this kind even before there was an internet. This is a job for which you all deserve a Rossy - or whatever we would call a UFO 'Oscar'.

Oh, and Mogget, it was so lovely to read your post. I often wonder what became of the hundreds of people like you that I must have written to over the years who took the time to send me a letter about their sightings. Nice to see the resolution and that my cautious reply did not diminish your inquisitive thinking about this fascinating subject.

I do read threads in here when I have time but rarely post, because my time and involvement in the field is not what it once was due to family responsibilities. However, I am still as interested as ever.

So if I can ever help answer any questions then I will try to find the time if someone directs me toward the thread. Just do not think I have been abducted or am reporting to DI 61 if you do not hear from me that fast. Jaycee (Jenny Randles)



new topics

top topics



 
15

log in

join