Talk:Jenny Randles

Oz Factor
After discussion at Articles for deletion/Oz Factor it was decided that Oz Factor should be merged into this article. I've redirected it, please use the history to extract the relevant content. Conscious 21:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The complete text is here:

The Oz Factor is a term coined by ufologist Jenny Randles and popularized by her 1983 book, UFO Reality.

Randles defined the Oz Factor as "the sensation of being isolated, or transported from the real world into a different environmental framework...where reality is but slightly different, [as in] the fairytale land of Oz." 

This quality is reported in many accounts of UFOs and related phenomena; Randles speculates that "The Oz factor certainly points to consciousness as the focal point of the UFO encounter."

Totnesmartin 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done Totnesmartin 17:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Crop circles
She also co-authored a book in which Crop Circles were emphatically "solved" by recourse to the "scientific" theroy that atmospheric vortices were responsible for them. The theory, at first unlikely, proved absurd when complex shapes started to appear. It's part of her career I'm sure she'd rather forget, but still part of her history, and worth a mention.

Note to above - Jenny Randles still suspects that very simple crop circles have meterological causes. There is a very good reason why the plasma vortex theory couldn't explain these more complex forms - the latter are all caused by hoaxing! While there are possible examples of Early Modern reports of simple circles (i.e "the mowing devil"), the more complex forms only appeared from the mid 1980's onwards. There were(are?) numerous known hoaxing groups operating throughout "crop circle country". Some of these have even published works on their hoaxing activities and methods. From my understanding she doesn't seem that embarrassed by the plasma vortex theory - which was at least a scientific theory from the perspective of it being disprovable. One could even argue the above situation IS consistent with the plasma vortex theory - or at least with Meaden's original theory of "stationary whirlwinds".

PS: Not sure if I am allowed to comment about myself. Seems a little odd and by all means delete this from view if you wish. But I knew of no other way to reply to the above and I think I need to clarify the arguments summarized. The book was called Crop Circles: A Mystery Solved. It argued that some crop circles were hoaxed as we had exposed hoax circles first hand as far back as the mid 1980s so were very aware of their importance. In fact the index to the book has 24 lines of references to hoaxing which is surely an indication of the fact that it was well discussed in there. The book also draws back from the claim that the more complex patterns were natural in origin whilst - reasonably I think - giving Meaden the chance to explain why he thought otherwise - as his was a testable hypothesis. We discussed several investigations into hoaxed circles and predicted that increasingly complex patterns would appear from hoaxers in an effort to discredit any meteorological solution by making that theory patently absurd. That is precisely what occurred and the hoaxers Doug and Dave even stated it was why they did this. Furthermore it revealed that historical data and eye witness observations indicated that more simple circle formations were being created by air vortices and folklore treatises and some scientific literature had recorded them back into the 17th century. Proving that these were therefore really long standing natural phenomena, not supernatural or exotic in origin. Moreover that similar forces triggered some UFO encounters as well. The debate formed the basis of a conference at Oxford Polytechnic in June 1990, put together by several physicists from the UK, USA and Japan. Paul Fuller and myself were invited by these scientists to present our data at the conference as they felt it had merit to be heard alongside the research data from these university experiments those physicists had conducted. The proceedings were reviewed in Circles From The Sky (Souvenir 1991). Papers to the conference were made by Snow (Purdue), Church (Miami), Kikuchi (Nihon) and Ohtsuki (Waseda) amongst others. The second edition of our book in 1993 added extra data supporting the above and is very explicit that there is 'widespread hoaxing' occurring and that Meaden's theory might only explain a small number of circles (though, potentially, also a few more UFOs). In various places - including current (March 2015) issues of Fortean Times - I have since discussed a number of UFO cases that may well be resolved as unusual atmospheric vortices and Paul and I are proud of - not embarrassed by - our book. We stand by what we said and believe that the way the phenomenon has developed since 1993 vindicates the majority of what we argued. We did not get everything right but in essence what we said is how it was. We did leave the field after this book accepting, as we stated, that crop circles were mostly hoaxes plus the result of a few naturally occurring vortices that had always occurred. Unfortunately, the mythology surrounding the subject has made meaningful research difficult. Jenny Randles, 6 March 2015.

Citations & References
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  Nhl4hamilton (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fake characters
Randles admits to so many fake characters in her From Out of the Blue that her work seems almost fictional. In notes following part 1, she identifies 4 characters are not real (From Out page 53). It might be worthwhile for the article to explore why a supposedly non-fiction author feels the need to use this technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

From out of the blue tells the story reported by several sources who talked to me but wanted anonymity. I made clear this is why I used fake names in that text. The testimony itself was real. My book UFO Crash Landing? (Hale 1997) allowed me to retell this case without such restrictions as the witnesses had by now entered the public domain and in some cases given fuller interviews elaborating on their involvement. I was myself unhappy with the 'fictionalised' version of the case in From out of the blue. The main reason that I retold the story in open and documented form as soon as I was free to do so. In 2000 I also wrote a lengthy section of the book The UFOs That Never Were (London House, co authored with Dr David Clarke and Andy Roberts) in which I discussed the same case a final time and explained how accumulating evidence was pointing towards a potential resolution. If the evidence changes and my views on something that I have published changes with it and I have the chance to do so then I have always set the record straight at the first opportunity. As here. Jenny Randles, 6 March 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.210.111 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality
That she was once Christopher was well known to the inner UFO community (I remember seeing graffiti on the Cradle Hill gatepost in 1976?) - it does seem a bit mean to out her as a sex-change in the first paragraph, even if she has detailed it herself in public. Although interesting in a purient kind of way, and explaining her appearance and speaking voice, is it actually relevant to her oeuvre? It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

79.66.80.241 (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant: why should one believe the outlandish claims in her books when her very personage is deceptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.156.175 (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because her work has nothing to do with her sexuality or gender identification. That should be obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.86.163.189 (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be 'obvious' in any legitimate field of endeavour, but her 'work' is that of fashioning lies out of 'whole cloth'and presenting fantasy as fact. 92.14.41.137 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Education
The information about this author’s education is, according to bios she writes herself, incorrect and should be corrected here. She appears not to have a university degree in geology or physics, or indeed in any subject, and she herself does not claim to have one.

It is true that her publishers (Simon and Schuster) make this assertion, on her official publisher’s page: “Jenny Randles, who specialized in physics and geology at university,. . . “ Amazon duplicates the info verbatim in some of its About the Author sections. Now so does this Wiki article.

What she states herself is as follows (bio submitted to 38th Annual UFO Conference, Austin, TX, Sept 2001):

“Trained to be a science teacher, specialising in geology. Then worked in making educational videos and obtained a Diploma (with distinction) in Media Communications (Manchester, 1978).”

This partly confirms a longer bio from the Gale Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (which appears from the level of detail to be written or based on material supplied by Randles herself):

“Jenny Jennifer Christine Randles [sic] “British ufologist. She was born on October 30, 1951, in Bacup, England, and studied chemistry, mathematics, and physics, receiving advanced level General Certificates of Education in these subjects. She went on to post advanced level [i.e. post A-level] studies in geography and geology, receiving City and Guilds Certificates with distinctions in audio-visual technology and education. She was a teacher at a Cheshire Middle School (1972-74), a Research Coordinator on the council of the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA) (1975-77), and an audio-visual technician in a college of education, servicing teachers (1977-78).” (Source: )

All a little confusing, as what these “post advanced level studies in geography and geology” were is not clear, not least because she had not studied these subjects at A-level and because they may have been part of what was basically a vocational training diploma ("City and Guilds Certificates . . in audio-visual technology and education").

There is a further puzzle over what “(Manchester, 1978)” – the diploma granting body cited in her own bio – refers to. If this is what is now known as the Manchester Metropolitan University, it was a polytechnic operating under the local civic authority until 1989 and was not granted university status until 1992. City & Guilds is an international organisation, originally founded in the City of London, that provides vocational training and is not itself a university. It offers various qualifications, with the distinction between awards, certificates and diplomas described as follows: “Awards are the smallest and require the least time to complete, certificates are larger and diplomas are the largest and usually contain a lot more units.” Randles’ qualification is variously given as a “Diploma” (by herself) and as a “Certificate” (in the Gale Encyclopedia entry quoted above). Diplomas are granted by British universities (and Manchester has a well-known university), but the subject is a bit complicated and as Randles does not appear to claim that she has attended a university I assume that she is not referrng to a university diploma. Such diplomas are awarded after what is either a shorter course than a full degree or a post-grad course.

In summary, Randles' education and relevant employment go as follows: 1. GCE A levels in chemistry, maths and physics (these are taken in last year at school); 2. Vocational training as a media technician/teacher, with unspecified “specialisation” in geology and possibly geography; 3. Two years employment teaching ?geology at a “Middle School” (these were schools that took ages between 8 and 13); 4. One year as an audio-visual technician.

Apart from the ambiguous reference to "Manchester, 1978" there is no mention of a university, and her actual qualifications are a far cry from a university degree. I submit this info because of the concern at the many inflated – and many totally spurious – educational/qualificational claims made by people in the ufology field. Unfounded claims to advanced (university level) qualifications in a science subject are especially disturbing as they confer special status on the claimant’s statements (authority, objectivity, scientific expertise etc). Randles appears not to be making such doubtful claims herself, but it is odd that she should allow markedly incorrect information given by her publisher to stand uncorrected. If untrue, it is particularly irksome that such info should appear in Wikipedia as many people use it as an authoritative reference, or at least a first port of call, in checking on someone’s background.

It also should not stand because she publishes under titles that indicate scientific topics. Examples are: Science and the UFOs (with Peter Warrington, 1991), Time Travel: Fact, Fiction and Possibility (1995), and Breaking the Time Barrier: The Race to Build the First Time Machine (2005). Her publisher's statement that she "specialized in physics and geology at university" could lead readers to expect a scientifically rigorous treatment by one qualified to provide such a treatment.

I’m a newbie here, so I leave it to someone more experienced to modify the entry.

Romillyh (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It is fair to make these points. There is a lot of nonsense published about me on the internet. This is based I presume on things cobbled together from numerous sources, including misleading tabloid stories, and then adding errors to these and in some cases just making other things up. I have certainly not myself exaggerated any qualifications to publishers or to any of the sources in the web articles referenced. I deplore that sort of thing so am happy to make clear my background here. I did take maths, physics and chemistry to A level and passed all three. I went straight to the University of Manchester and took a year of classes in astronomy and physics, but I never took this further and so have no degree though I note others may have wrongly implied that I do. But I do not posses, and have never claimed to possess, a degree. I then took some teacher training and specialized in geology but I never worked as a teacher outside of this training other than in an unofficial way when asked to do various projects with schools, which I sometimes did after becoming an author. I finally took a two year course in media and audio visual communications which involved making educational videos and radio broadcasts and I did from that receive a vocational diploma. In 1978 after qualifying from the above I became a full time writer when I obtained a rolling contract from Robert Hale. Jenny Randles, 6 March 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.210.111 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a very honest and open summary. Could you also specify which parts of your career were pursued as a man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.88.125 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jenny Randles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908112358/http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/ufofiles/522/jenny_randless_ufo_top_ten.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/ufofiles/522/jenny_randless_ufo_top_ten.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119235215/http://www.nufonews.co.uk/ to http://www.nufonews.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)