• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Enigmazine: New Paranormal Magazine

Hmm, forgivable in the pre-internet era but a British Fortean magazine needs to know where Dartmoor is and spell Cryptozoology correctly on the front cover. My biggest gripe is that they haven't commissioned a single known name to write an article and yet have invested in going to print. Why not start online and get some names onboard such as Malcolm Robinson, Stu Neville, Richard Freeman (@lordmongrove), Ruth Roper Wylde (@RuthRoperWylde) etc...? Then at least I know I can trust the content and might be tempted to part with £5.99.
I've written to them offering my services but not heard back yet.
 
If I can bring myself to go to WH Smith’s I’ll have a look. Tend to a avoid the place as they persist in trying to sell me things I don’t want like big bars of chocolate.
Screenshot_20250202-184535_Google.jpg
 
Doesn't sound good, tbh! those 'Alien' pics look dire.. who is behind this?
IMHO the only magazine that's ever come close to FT, has got to be 'The Unexplained' from circa 80-83 Had well written articles, a broad spread of subjects and well laid out, and I did like the pastel style illustrations.

I think it ran for around 150 issues- I did have most of 'em...
 
Doesn't sound good, tbh! those 'Alien' pics look dire.. who is behind this?
IMHO the only magazine that's ever come close to FT, has got to be 'The Unexplained' from circa 80-83 Had well written articles, a broad spread of subjects and well laid out, and I did like the pastel style illustrations.

I think it ran for around 150 issues- I did have most of 'em...
Strange magazine was great, but didn't run for that many issues.
 
This magazine reminds me of one of those giveaway magazines they hand out to the tourists in Las Vegas to promote shows and activities in town. In a story that profiled members of a popular Beatles cover band, the author carried on about the man playing John Lennon, whose talents were best heard on the vocals of the haunting "Yesterday". :dunno:

BTW the band and show were called "Fab Four Mania" because they were carrying on for the original cover band, The Fab Four, when they left the show.
 
I've moaned about this before, to the entertainment of no-one and not even me, but why does the mass media act as if the general public are totally unaware of mysteries like ghosts, UFOs etc; and, therefore, that apparently docile and incurious public has to be introduced to such phenomena - by way of classic cases we Forteans are all very familiar with - every time it produces a new show or magazine? Every bloomin' time, there's a potted history of sightings or classic cases (or, at least, famous cases), the same ol' artists' depictions, the same ol' box-outs etc etc. Gordon Floopin' Bennett... *moans, weeps*

Maybe the media has no interest in getting to the bottom of these mysteries - it'd be bad for their business, for a start - and so I can only vainly hope that a tv show or magazine would begin from the premise that most of the public are familiar with the 'backstory'; and so any supposed investigation or examination would then have a head-start. 'Stop being contemptuous of the public's intelligence and cultural awareness', is what I'd say, after gluing myself to the BBC's 23rd-floor windows.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that most of the art looks AI generated too.

With luck, they'll garner a loyal A.I.-generated readership.

If I were involved in such a publication (a dicey business financially-speaking these days), Issue One would be immaculate: spell-and-fact-checked to within an inch of its papery life.

It's madness to have gone to print with what I've seen so far.
 
no! it'd be like kicking an injured puppy. I want this new mag to succeed, I want there to be tons of resources out there for all levels of interest and expertise :(

it's all making me sad :glum:
The problem is that if they aren't even quality checking their spelling, they are insulting the intelligence of any potential readers. It doesn't look as though they are going to be offering anything that isn't already available on the internet. Anyone bringing out a new magazine in today's market has got to offer something that you can't get by just the most cursory Google.
 
The problem is that if they aren't even quality checking their spelling, they are insulting the intelligence of any potential readers. It doesn't look as though they are going to be offering anything that isn't already available on the internet. Anyone bringing out a new magazine in today's market has got to offer something that you can't get by just the most cursory Google.

I'm wondering if it's a labour-of-love project for someone or a small group of someones. And it's all rather got away from them :(
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it is just the way of things now. Even the better U Tube offerings just stick in images that are "sort of" right. Talk about the Spartans, put in a clip of Roman re enactors, any mention of aliens, use a picture of a grey, etc.
 
no! it'd be like kicking an injured puppy. I want this new mag to succeed, I want there to be tons of resources out there for all levels of interest and expertise :(

it's all making me sad :glum:
No offence to Scottish paranormal researcher Malcolm Robinson intended but his books on the Robert Taylor, A70 Tarbrax and Falkland Hill UFO cases are just £2.99 on Kindle and so I am sure he would not have charged the earth to write an article for this magazine and at least provide it with some gravitas.
 
Perhaps it is just the way of things now. Even the better U Tube offerings just stick in images that are "sort of" right. Talk about the Spartans, put in a clip of Roman re enactors, any mention of aliens, use a picture of a grey, etc.
I'm glad you said this. Some of the AI generated images on there are horrific!
 
Have to admit, I find AI art to be 'soulless'. I can't really explain that feeling any better, unfortunately. I admire the cleverness of it all but find much of it empty of emotion. Though, admittedly, this reaction could just be that I'm unused to AI art as compared to viewing decades and even centuries-worth of art directly created by humans.
 
I've moaned about this before, to the entertainment of no-one and not even me, but why does the mass media act as if the general public are totally unaware of mysteries like ghosts, UFOs etc; and, therefore, that apparently docile and incurious public has to be introduced to such phenomena - by way of classic cases we Forteans are all very familiar with - every time it produces a new show or magazine? Every bloomin' time, there's a potted history of sightings or classic cases (or, at least, famous cases), the same ol' artists' depictions, the same ol' box-outs etc etc. Gordon Floopin' Bennett... *moans, weeps*

Maybe the media has no interest in getting to the bottom of these mysteries - it'd be bad for their business, for a start - and so I can only vainly hope that a tv show or magazine would begin from the premise that most of the public are familiar with the 'backstory'; and so any supposed investigation or examination would then have a head-start. 'Stop being contemptuous of the public's intelligence and cultural awareness', is what I'd say, after gluing myself to the BBC's 23rd-floor windows.
Part of the problem is not wanting to get to the bottom of things - entertainment over investigation - and part is trying to find a good place to start.

I read a book about the origins of WQXR, the first US classical radio station. A challenge was finding the right mix between the basics and more obscure music. If the listeners never heard Beethoven's fifth or Eine kleine Nachtmusik, they're fine programming choices. But classical fans would want something more challenging that could turn off the newbies.

That's why I like FT. They know how to get you up to speed, but then provide new information and theories, healthy scepticism, and often some light humor. For the same reason I like The Why Files on YouTube. A recent episode about the Peter Williamson disappearance (below) tells the story with a good amount of detail, but then goes on to express serious doubt because of a lack of primary sources of information. They then go on to more about quantum mechanics and the Many Words theory, saying there is still some possibility that the worlds do communicate with one another.

I would argue that most of the art looks AI generated too.
I'm of two minds on this. Cheesy AI and CGI images can annoy, but you still need something to fill the time and space if you don't have a lot of real documentary material. I've seen countless UFO and cryptozoology shows that pad the visuals with the same generic CGI footage over and over, and it gets tired quickly. But consider the same two examples I've used already: FT has covers and story splash pages that are created with computer assistance, but guided by human hands. And The Why Files has lately been illustrating its stories with AI footage, but it's there to tell the specific story. Despite a few details being off in this video - steering wheels on the wrong side, a shoulder patch that reads "ROLICE" - it saves us from staring at the host for the whole show.


BTW if you're new to this series, don't worry; you actually get to like the wisecracking goldfish after a while. And it may take some viewing of early episodes to get some inside jokes. (Mrs. Williamson looks a lot like the host's wife.)
 
It takes a huge effort to write even a blog post (just text) that provides something interesting and maybe a bit original. Then you are expected to add visuals to it, maybe do a video, etc. It's awful that people just can't settle for reading anymore. Now, everything gets cheapened in the name of "content". I always appreciate the effort that goes into making an issue of FT. People really do good work there.
 
I'm of two minds on this. Cheesy AI and CGI images can annoy, but you still need something to fill the time and space if you don't have a lot of real documentary material. I've seen countless UFO and cryptozoology shows that pad the visuals with the same generic CGI footage over and over, and it gets tired quickly. But consider the same two examples I've used already: FT has covers and story splash pages that are created with computer assistance, but guided by human hands. And The Why Files has lately been illustrating its stories with AI footage, but it's there to tell the specific story. Despite a few details being off in this video - steering wheels on the wrong side, a shoulder patch that reads "ROLICE" - it saves us from staring at the host for the whole show.

I think some of the worry is that the entire thing is just an AI Jamboree though. I'm still unsure of my own opinion on the use of AI in creative outlets but a lot of the places that use AI to make art don't edit it to make it look better.
 
I'm of two minds on this. Cheesy AI and CGI images can annoy, but you still need something to fill the time and space if you don't have a lot of real documentary material. I've seen countless UFO and cryptozoology shows that pad the visuals with the same generic CGI footage over and over, and it gets tired quickly. But consider the same two examples I've used already: FT has covers and story splash pages that are created with computer assistance, but guided by human hands. And The Why Files has lately been illustrating its stories with AI footage, but it's there to tell the specific story. Despite a few details being off in this video - steering wheels on the wrong side, a shoulder patch that reads "ROLICE" - it saves us from staring at the host for the whole show.


BTW if you're new to this series, don't worry; you actually get to like the wisecracking goldfish after a while. And it may take some viewing of early episodes to get some inside jokes. (Mrs. Williamson looks a lot like the host's wife.)
Over on YouTube, many of the AI images are there just because the actual channel is really a podcast, and therefore not designed for visuals. They shove a few AI images of something generic in, and put it up on YouTube. I don't know how the figures go, re podcast versus YouTube channel, but I suspect you can monetise YouTube in a way you can't with podcasts. So it's a way for someone to add cheap visual interest to what was designed to be spoken word only.
 
Over on YouTube, many of the AI images are there just because the actual channel is really a podcast, and therefore not designed for visuals. They shove a few AI images of something generic in, and put it up on YouTube. I don't know how the figures go, re podcast versus YouTube channel, but I suspect you can monetise YouTube in a way you can't with podcasts. So it's a way for someone to add cheap visual interest to what was designed to be spoken word only.
In some cases it's even worse. I've seen videos that are a string of AI, clip art, and semi-relevant film clips, narrated by an annoying computer-generated voice, sometimes with a script ripped off from another channel. These things are hobbled together so sloppily that they won't correct the narrator's mistakes, like treating the periods in initials as full stops or reading roman numerals as individual letters.
 
Part of the problem is not wanting to get to the bottom of things - entertainment over investigation - and part is trying to find a good place to start.

I read a book about the origins of WQXR, the first US classical radio station. A challenge was finding the right mix between the basics and more obscure music. If the listeners never heard Beethoven's fifth or Eine kleine Nachtmusik, they're fine programming choices. But classical fans would want something more challenging that could turn off the newbies.

That's why I like FT. They know how to get you up to speed, but then provide new information and theories, healthy scepticism, and often some light humor. For the same reason I like The Why Files on YouTube. A recent episode about the Peter Williamson disappearance (below) tells the story with a good amount of detail, but then goes on to express serious doubt because of a lack of primary sources of information. They then go on to more about quantum mechanics and the Many Words theory, saying there is still some possibility that the worlds do communicate with one another.


I'm of two minds on this. Cheesy AI and CGI images can annoy, but you still need something to fill the time and space if you don't have a lot of real documentary material. I've seen countless UFO and cryptozoology shows that pad the visuals with the same generic CGI footage over and over, and it gets tired quickly. But consider the same two examples I've used already: FT has covers and story splash pages that are created with computer assistance, but guided by human hands. And The Why Files has lately been illustrating its stories with AI footage, but it's there to tell the specific story. Despite a few details being off in this video - steering wheels on the wrong side, a shoulder patch that reads "ROLICE" - it saves us from staring at the host for the whole show.


BTW if you're new to this series, don't worry; you actually get to like the wisecracking goldfish after a while. And it may take some viewing of early episodes to get some inside jokes. (Mrs. Williamson looks a lot like the host's wife.)
As regards that YouTube video on the Peter Williamson case (that sadly seems to be fiction, see the Time and Dimensional Slips thread), I'm 20 seconds in and the narrator is already adding their own extraneous details not in the original source material e.g. Peter was not "silhouetted" by the lightening flash and we do not know who was "flipping burgers on the grill'
 
As regards that YouTube video on the Peter Williamson case (that sadly seems to be fiction, see the Time and Dimensional Slips thread), I'm 20 seconds in and the narrator is already adding their own extraneous details not in the original source material e.g. Peter was not "silhouetted" by the lightening flash and we do not know who was "flipping burgers on the grill'
According to the story he was 'roasting meat' rather than having a barbecue. Not quite sure how this would work, but maybe 'roasting meat' was the nearest they could come to defining a barbecue in those far off years.
 
As regards that YouTube video on the Peter Williamson case (that sadly seems to be fiction, see the Time and Dimensional Slips thread), I'm 20 seconds in and the narrator is already adding their own extraneous details not in the original source material e.g. Peter was not "silhouetted" by the lightening flash and we do not know who was "flipping burgers on the grill'
According to the story he was 'roasting meat' rather than having a barbecue. Not quite sure how this would work, but maybe 'roasting meat' was the nearest they could come to defining a barbecue in those far off years.
I have seen "barbecue" mentioned elsewhere. The video does say they got details from a variety of sources. I don't know enough about the case to know if any discrepancies are from those sources, are honest mistakes, or are embellishments.

Yes, as the video points out later, the story does seem to be fiction. The general format of the show is to tell the story and then debunk where warranted but keep an open mind where that's warranted as well.
 
I have seen "barbecue" mentioned elsewhere. The video does say they got details from a variety of sources. I don't know enough about the case to know if any discrepancies are from those sources, are honest mistakes, or are embellishments.

Yes, as the video points out later, the story does seem to be fiction. The general format of the show is to tell the story and then debunk where warranted but keep an open mind where that's warranted as well.
The original source (Colin A. Parsons) states "... a meal of barbecued food".

Anyway, let's hope they didn't burn the sausages on their fictional barbecue in this (sadly) fictional tale.
 
I expect most of these new publications are mostly written by AI with little original content.

"100% probability AI generated" when I ran the Black-Eyed Kids article through both GPTZero and CopyLeaks.

Obviously not conclusive, but it's unusual for both platforms to be so confident.

These claims from their advertising media pack are interesting:
CleanShot 2025-02-09 at 05.00.36@2x.jpg


390k monthly forum users - very impressive. Perhaps time to shutter this place!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top