You forgot "www." at the beginning of the server name! You have accessed this page though an incomplete server name: ufomind.com instead of www.ufomind.com --- so some services may not work. Please go to the correct address for this page to make this message go away.

Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:14:10 -0400
Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


Hi,

All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
suppress them all?

My argument here is not that BUFORA were right. I don't think
they were. Free speech is no substitute for allowing nonsense to
be set before the public in your name. But the point is one that
requires deeper consideration as to a degree we all do the same
thing without probably being aware of that fact. So - perhaps, a
general consensus that we could agree and issue as a
proclamation about is what we need to emerge from this mess. If
we agree to abide by this working practice we would set an
example to Ufology.

What example? Let us all take the decision here and now that any
public event we organise involve the invitation only of serious
researchers who can put forward hard evidence with a
demonstrably scientific basis and who do not endorse patently
absurd, unscientific ideas without support. Nor that we should
invite anyone who sets before the public a scenario that has
damaging moral or ethical repercussions. As these things require
common sense and someone to make a value judgement we don't want
to set ourselves up as the thought police.  So I suggest we
agree a second principle, if we make a value judgement and yet
someone whom we invite still clearly offends the sensitivities
of people out there - such responsible criticism should be
heeded. If it is apparent there is concern over an invite then a
free vote is offered over the net - a simple yes/no to whether
that person should be considered suitable for invite and that
the decision to run with that lecturer or to cancel the invite
be abided by whatever the outcome of this vote.

Otherwise we face the question of setting ourselves up to make
moral choices about who should be empowered to speak and who
should not. I don't see how we can fairly do that. For the record
I would certainly have voted no to Max Burns - except had there
been a two way lecture (i.e. Max versus David so the audience
could judge the case side by side). This is exactly what I
proposed to BUFORA Council over the Santilli farce - that he be
allowed a platform at Sheffield in 1995 only if the alternative
perspective was simultaneously offered to allow free debate and
let the audience make fair judgement. As you know BUFORA
scuppered that plan and left themselves open to what are
therefore utterly justified criticism to this day over the way
they aided and abetted the autopsy promo.

So when it came to Max Burns, I did not scream and shout at
BUFORA - I protested quietly by declining to promote the lecture
and by not accepting an invite to lecture to BUFORA during the
next 12 months. My point was thus, I trust, made without
fanfare.

Rather than us now argue over a lecture that happened and which,
frankly, by trying to stop probably made it seem more
interesting to some than it deserved to be, lets stop blaming
some and shouting at others and do something positive instead.
Let us agree a declaration like I have just set out (that
obviously needs fine tuning) and those of us who accept it - on
behalf of ourselves and groups we represent  -then issue it as a
proclamation to the UFO world ASAP encouraging other UFO groups
to sign up to the initiative.  The plan would be to demonstrate
globally that we are voluntarily setting standards as regards to
the people we invite to give our public lectures - even if it
means not inviting some whose dramatic claims and media stardom
would attract audiences and put money into our coffers. We are
putting the principle of only promoting good, serious,
defensible research and theorising first and any personal gain
second.  This will send a small message that we do care about
self policing ufology and making efforts to do the right thing
by educating the public - surely one of our primary aims.

To me doing this is a positive outcome from the Santilli and Max
Burns affair. We will be turning it on its head and taking a
step forward on behalf of Ufology. So why not? Lets stop
fretting over a lecture that's been and gone and use it as a
springboard to agree a simple, straightforward but constructive
policy initiative for ufology.

Comments please.

Jenny Randles