Fw: UFO UpDate: Re: Is Ufology Dead Or Just Dozing? - Hale
- 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
> 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outdated, and in some cases, totally unfounded articles.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:
> 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
> 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:
> >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
> >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:
> >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
> 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:
> >which, incidentally, I think is much more professional looking
> 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?