Few criticisms of tectonic strain hypothesis have appeared in either the professional or popular literature. Those that have appeared have tended to attack this correlational research on the basis that the data are unreliable and not comprehensive. This article reviews and comments on the criticisms and concludes that the current arguments against the theory are not valid. It is suggested that if the research can reach full experimental status, the explanation will become extremely useful and important.
EvansH. (1985) The UFO as a geopsychic artifact. Fortean Times, 44, 63–65.
3.
HendryA. (1981) UFO newsfront: Persinger's earthquake lights … ho hum. Frontiers of Science, 3, 15–16.
4.
LittleG. L. (1984a) The archetype experience. Moore Haven, FL: Rainbow Books.
5.
LittleG. L. (1984b) Educational level and primary beliefs about unidentified flying objects held by recognized ufologists. Psychological Reports, 54, 907–910.
6.
PersingerM. A. (1983) Religious and mystical experiences as artifacts of temporal lobe function: a general hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 1255–1262.
7.
PersingerM. A. (1985a) Geophysical variables and behavior: XXVI. A response to Rutkowski's critique of the tectonic strain hypothesis for UFO phenomena. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 575–582.
8.
PersingerM. A. (1985b) Geophysical variables and behavior: XXX. Intense paranormal experiences occur during days of quiet, global, geomagnetic activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 320–322.
9.
PersingerM. A. (1985c) Geophysical variables and behavior: XXII. The tectonic strain continuum of unusual events. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 59–65.
10.
RutkowskiC. A. (1984) Geophysical variables and behavior: XVI. Some criticisms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 59–65.
11.
RutkowskiC. A. (1986) Geophysical variables and behavior: XXXIV. Further comments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 18.
