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 -> May -> Here

From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 10:04:33 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 10:59:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunker Containment Strategy?

> From: EdKomarek@aol.com
> Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:59:26 -0400 (EDT)
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: Debunker Containment Strategy?

>        I would like to see a book written exploring the
>interactions and relationships between such debunkers as
>Karl Pflock, Karl Korff, Col. Weaver, Phil Klass, James
>Oberg, Carl Sagan, Donald Menzel etc.  I would also like
>to see investigations of CSICOP and the tabloid press
>particulary the Weekly World News.

While such a publication would be of interest, I would rather see honest
research into the psychology of those who tend to follow this genre with
religious zeal.  I believe that blind faith is easily focused and
manipulated by gentle suggestions from the outside.  Some sort of grand
scheme of for the containment of information through the use of
dis-information is not needed, IMHO, since much of the genre tends to feed
on itself endlessly.

If one were to develop a so called "Debunker Containment Strategy", who
would establish the line one would cross before your thoughts would be
considered to be heresy.  Unfortunately, this seems to follow a pattern of
attacking the messenger, when you don't have the evidence or the ability to
attack the message.

A few vocal individuals have indicated that major UFO research
organizations should be investigated because of their expressed concerns
about recent efforts by CSETI.  But how should "peer review" be
implemented, and by whom?

As with any volunteer organization, there is a certain amount independence
and confusion among various groups within it.  A recent statement on this
list indicated that MUFONHQ@aol.com might not be connected with Walt Andrus
and MUFON at all, but when I contacted that address I found that the
message that had been sent out was written by Tom Deuley, Administrator for
the UFO Coalition, who also works in Texas with Andrus and others.  It
appears that the address is real, and represents an outlet for information
from MUFON and the Coalition.  But the seeds of distrust have now been
sown, and they can't easily be called back.

There was a time when religions were started by those who felt the need to
expand or modify the existing faith.  It appears that UFOlogy has developed
that same pattern.  IMHO, we have one extreme represented by the follower's
of Heaven's Gate, and another represented by a number of researchers who are
trying desperately to document official actions and force information to
the surface.  At which end of that spectrum would one place the
responsibility of "peer review"?

Of course, the creation of a new religion often resulted in battles for
power, and Ufology appears to be no different.  Unfortunately, the search
for truth often gets trampled in the battlefield.