Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: UFO UpDate: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing? - Hale

Expand Messages
  • Joe McGonagle
    ... From: To: Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 4:50 PM Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Is Ufology
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <ufoupdates@...>
      To: <- UFO UpDates Subscribers 04 - :>
      Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 4:50 PM
      Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing? - Hale


      > From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@...>
      > To: <ufoupdates@...>
      > Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:07:36 -0000
      > Subject: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
      >
      >
      > >From: Joe McGonagle <joe@...>
      > >To: <ufoupdates@...>
      > >Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:40:21 -0000
      > >Subject: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
      >
      > >"So UFOlogy will never go back to the way it was. It has
      changed,
      > >forever, and the UFO community that once controlled what was
      said
      > >and done has lost the say in its own subject. Indeed,
      UFOlogists
      > >have almost become an irrelevance - at best lumbering behind a
      > >litany of advertisers, hype merchants, web site designers, and
      > >sci-fi entrepreneurs."
      >
      > >So, is ufology dead, or just dozing?
      >
      > >Joe
      >
      > Hi,
      >
      > Slightly disappointed in my opinion.
      >
      > The Web is just a new way of getting a lot of data on UFOs to
      > people around the world, who probably never had any chance of
      > doing so before. It also stinks of 'stuck in the past' ufology.
      >
      > How many people wish to go to lectures to hear a ufologist,
      > bumbling on about their own opinions? Lecture attendances have
      > dropped since the web appeared, simply because of the ease
      > which info on UFOs is to get.
      >
      > Does the logic that Ms. Randels puts across, also apply to UFO
      > writers, and the hype that goes along with that? Or is this
      > elitism in its raw form?
      >
      > I personally know a hell of a lot of web based UFO researchers,
      > who put a tremendous effort into the info on their site, I feel
      > they will not be too happy with this cheap dig.
      >
      >
      > Roy..
      >
      >
    • Joe McGonagle
      Crosspost from UFO updates ... that ... approach ... kept ... very ... to ... via ... vomit,
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Crosspost from UFO updates
        ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@...>
        > To: <ufoupdates@...>
        > Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:54:12 -0000
        > Subject: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
        >
        >
        > >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@...>
        > >To: <ufoupdates@...>
        > >Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:16:52 -0500
        > >Subject: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
        >
        > >How does one differentiate between good and bad research (or
        > >information) on the Internet?
        >
        > Common sense? Reading opinions from other users of such sites?
        > Internet based News groups such as Updates?
        >
        > >There are many good researchers who have placed their material
        > >on the Internet, but how does someone new to the field know
        that
        > >one site is better than another? Do we take the Art Bell
        approach
        > >and simply let the audience decide for themselves?
        >
        > You mean you would like to stream line data, so that only your
        > opinions and what you want people to know, should stand? I feel
        > you are heavily underrating the internet surfer, you seem to
        > imply, that they do not have the intelligence to decide for
        > themselves?
        >
        > The problem with old ufology was that a lot of the data was
        kept
        > within a hierarchy, which in some cases proved near impossible
        > to gain access too, And I am afraid' many researchers, were
        very
        > happy to keep it that way!
        >
        > Don't you think it is a good thing that the UFO witnessing
        > public, now has the chance to read the DATA first hand?
        >
        > >Are we in a scientific pursuit of knowledge or do we remain a
        > >loosely knit group of people who happen to share a similar
        > >interest and have the ability to communicate with one another.
        >
        > What's wrong with people having experience's, and finding any
        > scientific data they can along the way? UFO research works best
        > when we can relate to each other in many ways, I am not a white
        > coat man looking for specific establishment answers, if they
        > come then I will be pleased, but it isn't always the case, that
        > is why UFO researchers are still talking about 50 year old UFO
        > cases!
        >
        > And what about those web based people around this planet, who
        > are taking the time ( and believe me they commit many hours )
        to
        > place their own UFO experiences, so that many others can read,
        > relate, question, submit, ponder, interact, discuss, support,
        > fund. I feel these people are the unrecognized ones, I commend
        > their commitment to a subject which is vast, complex,
        > mysterious, fascinating, taxing, enjoyable ( when your answers
        > come in ), and bloody hard work too! The problem with UFO
        > research is, that someone writes a book , gets loads of
        > publicity, walks on water for a few moths, disappears with all
        > the credit, and the other people who are doing the same, but
        via
        > the web' get a main researcher, slapping them down with cheap
        > digs about hype and advertising, and the death of ufology!
        >
        > And please, if I hear "Armchair Uufology" once more I will
        vomit,
        > anyone who spends more than five minutes on the web looking at
        > UFOs, hey guess what?! You're an armchair ufologist!
        >
        > Roy..
        >
        >
      • Joe McGonagle
        Crosspost from UFO updates ... interests, ... refer ... a ... internet ... perceived. ... say ... or ... links. ... articles ... Solomon/Lassiter/Sheridan ...
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Crosspost from UFO updates
          ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Roy Hale <roy.hale@...>
          > To: <ufoupdates@...>
          > Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 17:13:56 -0000
          > Subject: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing?
          >
          >
          > >From: Joe McGonagle <joe@...>
          > >To: <ufoupdates@...>
          > >Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:57:01 -0000
          > >Subject: >
          >
          > >There are a few things which I do like about the lecture
          > >circuits-the opportunity to meet people with similar
          interests,
          > >the opportunities (occasionally) to discuss specifics with a
          > >presenter, the knees up in the bar afterwards. I would hate to
          > >see all of these things totally supplanted by the internet.
          >
          > Yes, drinking after lectures can be fun, depending on the
          > company, the problem is, I prefer fruit juice to alcohol, and
          > that isn't often served in bars over here.
          >
          > >I can't speak for Jenny, but my understanding is that her
          > >remarks go deeper than just the effect of the internet; It
          > >includes the procedural and ethical attitudes of groups and
          > >individuals involved in UFO research, for example, the lack of
          > >standardisation, the total absence of a clear focal point for
          > >witnesses to report their sightings to or for the media to
          refer
          > >to.
          >
          > Jenny is quite passionate about this subject, but alas, new add
          > ons to ufology is always happening, I feel this is now the way
          > for ufology.
          >
          > >Personally, I was more interested in Jenny's suggetion towards
          a
          > >solution, which included harnessing the benefits of the
          internet
          > >to nurture a positive effect on ufology and how it is
          perceived.
          >
          > Humans are humans, not everyone will agree on everything, so I
          > feel that is a far overlooked piece of thinking, but I would
          say
          > that there is some general consensus on certain ufo matters.
          >
          > >I agree that there are some excellent sites out there covering
          > >ufology, but there is also a hell of a lot of inaccurate,
          > >outdated, and in some cases, totally unfounded articles. I am
          > >also possibly guilty of propogating false stories, not
          > >deliberately of course, but because I have forwarded a story
          or
          > >a link without thoroughly researching it.
          >
          > >While there are some excellent articles at your web site:
          >
          > >http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk
          >
          > Thank you, I have given some writers the space to let people
          > view their work, ideas, and thoughts on UFO research.
          >
          > >They are difficult to find amongst all of the commercial
          links.
          > >On the UFO page, you have a link marketing a Fortune Teller
          > >CD..... what sort of impression do you think this gives of
          > >ufology?
          >
          > It gives the impression that I sell CDs on my site? The
          articles
          > are very well read, my stats tell me this.
          >
          > >You also have a link to:
          >
          > >http://www.AngliaEarthMysteries.co.uk
          >
          > >You may be unaware, but the "owner" of AEM who goes under
          > >various names including Jack/Jac/Steve
          Solomon/Lassiter/Sheridan
          > >and combinations thereof is currently in legal dispute with
          the
          > >Norfolk UFO Society with regard to group assets and other
          > >matters. In fact, if you follow the link which is on your
          site:
          >
          > >http://www.angliaearthmysteries.co.uk
          >
          > >there is a brief statement about the matter there.
          >
          > I am probably not the only site with a link to this one, on the
          web.
          >
          > >Another UK site:
          >
          > >http://www.crowdedskies.com
          >
          > >by Roy Lake carries an article by Tony Dodd dated June 2002
          > >about the 1970 lightning crash, complete with a fake
          transcript
          > >of the in-flight conversation. This incident recently received
          a
          > >great deal of publicity both on the national media, and in the
          > >UK UFO magazine due to the release of the flight accident
          report
          > >by the MOD. The UFO connection has effectively been shown to
          be
          > >an outright hoax, but there is no mention of these details at
          > >the site. I am not suggesting that either Tony Dodd or Roy
          Lake
          > >were conscious parties to the hoax, but it is an example of an
          > >article with no foundation in reality (and it does raise a
          > >questionmark about Dodd's effectivness as an "Alien
          > >Investigator"....).
          >
          > Roy Lake is a good friend of mine, I have known roy for years,
          I
          > will pass this comment on to him, I feel I am unable to comment
          > on the issue you raise, perhaps roy will contact you, or even
          > Tony Dodd.
          >
          > >Yet another infamous UK case is covered at your other site:
          >
          > >http://freespace.virgin.net/roy.hale
          >
          > >which, incidentally, I think is much more professional looking
          > >than:
          >
          > >http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk
          >
          > The Virgin site has been defunct for some years, Virgin has
          been
          > asked to remove it several times, but to no avail.
          >
          > >the Sheffield Incident as put forward by convicted drug
          dealer,
          > >Max Burns. How someone like him can manipulate people into
          > >supporting him in spite of his lack of remorse for his crime
          > >astounds me! He is definitely one character that ufology would
          > >be better off without!
          >
          > Every good journalist prefers to meet the people on such
          issues,
          > I take it you did this on some occasion?
          >
          > >Please don't misunderstand me, I appreciate that operating
          such
          > >a web site soaks up a lot of time, money, and effort, and I
          > >wouldn't expect it to be perfect in every way, but perhaps you
          > >can see the point about how ufology is often misrepresented on
          > >the internet in such a way as to either confuse people about
          > >what ufology encompasses, or even scare them away from the
          > >topic! I quite like a lot of the content at your sites, there
          > >are far worse ones out there.....
          >
          > So what official body would you like to see set up, to make
          sure
          > that only the correct data, passed by another body, is seen?
          >
          > Roy..
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.