Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jan -> Here

From: Theresa <70571.1735@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 12 Jan 97 00:39:26 EST
Fwd Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:35:28 -0500
Subject: The Two Faces of Ufology


>>From: XianneKei@aol.com
>>Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:02:01 -0500 (EST)
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Comments on Discovery programs

Dear Rebecca (and All),

   I have pulled one specific comment from your message to Bob Shell, and
separated it into a new thread.   I think it is more important than any one case
or claim  and encompasses a great deal in the field of Ufology and should be
addressed that way.

You said to Bob Shell:

>> Why don't you check out these claims before they are posted
>>because no doubt somebody somewhere will now believe, whether it true or not
>>that Four WInds Production Group is based near the Pentagon and is some sort
>>of gov't. front! >>

    Over the past two years something wonderful happened inside the UFO
community.  Ufology laid down some criteria for what it will accept. Tough new
rules were put into place for what is acceptable proof, and tough questions were
asked. Claims were expected to be backed up.  What a wonderful new image for the
UFO community! No longer did the world see  it as "those gullible fools that
will believe anything and everything".

     But what good are these new rules if we only apply them to people or claims
that we don't like. Claims made by some people have been scrutinized
practically down to the last syllable, while others have been taken at face
value.  One person that made inaccurate, or inadequate claims was ridiculed
mercilessly, and even assigned a diminutive little nickname.  Not such a good
image for ufology, but if its acceptable to do that, it has to be applied to ALL
those  whose claims are found to be inaccurate.  Regardless of whether they are
on the 'correct' side of the fence or not.

    Some people state that they are unwilling to do any research on a case until
certain requests have been met.  That's perfectly alright, it's a personal
choice and there are no rules saying that anyone has to research anything. If
one wishes to sit quietly on the sidelines and watch they may do so.

    However, if they are sitting on the sidelines making claims to substantiate
their own beliefs or opinions, should they not also be required to check those
claims for accuracy before they spout them? Isn't there the same chance that
those claims will be believed by somebody?

     And, while I don't personally care for the practice, if they are going to
use those claims to try to discredit someone or accuse them of something,
shouldn't they be even more careful that the claims are correct?

    If the field and topic are ever to be taken seriously there has to be a set
of rules and those rules must be applied to every researcher, investigator,
expert and witness in every case.

    Wouldn't it be wonderful and save us each a lot of time and research effort
if we could depend on each person doing their homework!  Or we could depend on
each other to say they don't know for sure.  Then we would know just what we
need to check it.  But it doesn't work that way. Instead we find things like a
researcher making claims, but doesn't even know what Record Group of the
National Archives to find documents on the topic being discussed.

(Nothing personal, Ed. I know you only asked me for the references because you
thought I didn't have them.  I hope you were pleasantly surprised.)

    Credibility is everyones responsibility. We need to be sure that we actually
check before we claim anything as fact and if we aren't sure, we say so.  There
is nothing wrong with saying you don't know or asking for help or information
with things.

     In the case of the message I quoted you from, that is exactly what Bob
Shell did.  He heard it from a source and was asking for clarification on it. If
you read it over, you will see that. He asked for clarification, which I noted
you could and did provide, Rebecca.  But you also stated he should have checked
before he posted his request??

     I personally would like to see the UFO topic taken more seriously.  And I
would like to see credibility and accountability as standards in the field. But
some attitudes and double standards really need to be changed before that can
happen.

    Regards,

       Theresa