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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:45:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:30:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


Hi,

Thanks for all the messages that flooded in over the weekend. To
be honest I had not even noticed that UFO UpDates was on the cc
list of the original Robert Moore and I thought I was only
talking to a few UK UFOlogists. I was quite surprised to see my
'spoof' went global. But no matter, it was an interesting
exercise.

Let me qualify 'spoof'. This was not really trickery. Rather it
was a deliberate exercise in taking an idea to its natural
extreme. Many people in the UK have been furious over the Max
Burns lecture saying BUFORA lost the plot by inviting him. THere
were demands for mass walk outs over the issue.

My response drew people onward and some, it appears, did not
stop to think. As I correctly noted we all appear with people
whom we don't necessarily agree with. We also all use these
people to promote our conferences. Some of those speaking out
most vociferously against Max Burns had themselves done much the
same inviting as lecturer's people who offer ideas that they
presumably have just as much mistrust about. I wanted them to
see that.

Moreover, the knee jerk reaction to what was an ill-advised
lecture in my view takes us to the terrible extreme of self
censorship that some responders recognised without being aware
that this was the very problem I wanted to illuminate.

For the record, I dont think it is either practical or desirable
that we issue a proclamation to ban lecturers we personally dont
like. I was perputrating a very British trait - irony - in a way
that is easily misconstrued, so I apologise to those who did
misconstrue it. Such a ban would not work, would provoke images
of big brother and UFO censorship and suppress ideas we
personally dont agree with. None of these things are what we
need. But as my 'suggestion' made apparent they were the
consequence of over-reacting to this lecture at which only 35
people showed up.

I did have a deeper intention though. My arguments about how we
present ourselves to the world were valid. I feel we need to
portray a more responsible image in that regard.

More fundamentally I think the concept of UFO conferences is
outmoded. What are they after all? In the UK they comprise a few
lecturers trotting around the country to this library or that
local group giving similar lectures to a small group of mostly
already converted listeners. They have their advantages - eg in
public education (which is why I always freely lecture to
educational and library sources when requested). They can raise
money for groups and I dont balk at that. But in terms of
contributing to UFO progress they are limited.

Far more beneficial, in my view, was the MIT style symposium
that has never been repeated - largely as it required a large
donation to avoid the need to charge entrance fees to those
taking part. In the absence of rich folk wanting to give us
money (er like a certain Mr Rockefeller) this should not be
perceived as an insurmountable barrier. I feel we should
re-invent the UFO conference forthwith.

I would like to see (as well as - I am not talking about banning
MUFON or BUFORA style conferences but adding to the mix) a
global series of themed events. Chosing, as MIT did, a set
topic, inviting participation months in advance from not just
UFOlogists but researchers in related relevant fields (from
physics to psychology or whatever suits the topic). Those
invited are urged to do first hand research to try to answer one
of, say, five questions set in advance by the organisers of the
conference. They are invited to present their original findings
at the event itself.

For example, if we set the topic 'car stop cases' we could
define a series of questions up front. Such as: what is the
statistical frequency by date, time, location, etc of car stop
cases? What physical forces can cause a car engine to stall?
what physical evidence should be sought in the wake of a car
stop? etc etc.   These questions then go out to UFOlogists and
mechanics and physicists etc and they are encouraged to do real,
new research around a chosen question and submit a summary of
their work - the results of which they will offer up at the
event. The event itself is then organised and - being a working
conference not a public event (although the public need not be
excluded) even the lecturers will be asked to contribute to the
costs if running the conference.

I believe that a core of contributers (who knows how many - 20,
30, 50, 100?) will be willing to pay to attend such events if
the costs are kept in check. They would do so to take part in a
real conference that is organised in such a way as to further
progress not just to offer up random lectures on topics we all
know a lot about anyway.

If a dozen such conferences on various topics were held
worldwide every year I believe we would make more progress in a
couple of years of such events (and their published findings)
than 50 years of random conferences that contribute very little
to real research.

Its a simple step to take - creating working conferences aimed
at doing ufology and involving outside participants with things
to contribute on very specialised themes. It would be a true
test of ufology's resolve to make actual progress rather than
just talk shop to one another and go around and around in
circles. I think once we started to do this instead of just
concentrating on attracting star names to sell out conferences
in Puddlewick Town Hall then science would soon begin to take us
seriously instead of laugh at us.

This is not a spoof. Its what I really believe we should be
doing as opposed to issuing proclamations that we wont invite so
and so to our next conference. On this basis anyone willing to
do real original research will have a contribution to make,
regardless of who thewy are or what we think of them. That
should be the only criterion.

Is there anyone out there who agrees with this idea enough to
set in motion a wave of real UFO conferences for the 21st
century?

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles