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

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

Expand Messages
  • Joe McGonagle
    Crosspost from UFO updates ... that ... approach ... kept ... very ... to ... via ... vomit,
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 3, 2003
      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
      > >one site is better than another? Do we take the Art Bell
      > >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
      > within a hierarchy, which in some cases proved near impossible
      > to gain access too, And I am afraid' many researchers, were
      > 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 )
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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 2 of 3 , Jan 3, 2003
        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
        > >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
        > >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
        > >solution, which included harnessing the benefits of the
        > >to nurture a positive effect on ufology and how it is
        > Humans are humans, not everyone will agree on everything, so I
        > feel that is a far overlooked piece of thinking, but I would
        > 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
        > >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
        > >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
        > 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
        > >and combinations thereof is currently in legal dispute with
        > >Norfolk UFO Society with regard to group assets and other
        > >matters. In fact, if you follow the link which is on your
        > >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
        > >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
        > >of the in-flight conversation. This incident recently received
        > >great deal of publicity both on the national media, and in the
        > >UK UFO magazine due to the release of the flight accident
        > >by the MOD. The UFO connection has effectively been shown to
        > >an outright hoax, but there is no mention of these details at
        > >the site. I am not suggesting that either Tony Dodd or Roy
        > >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,
        > 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
        > asked to remove it several times, but to no avail.
        > >the Sheffield Incident as put forward by convicted drug
        > >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
        > I take it you did this on some occasion?
        > >Please don't misunderstand me, I appreciate that operating
        > >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
        > 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.