UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 18

Re: The State of Ufology Today

From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:56:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:01:15 -0500
Subject: Re: The State of Ufology Today


>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 01:37:06 -0800
>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: The State of Ufology Today

>>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:15:06 -0500
>>From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
>>To: UFO UpDate <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: The State of Ufology Today

<snip>

>These are selected snips from your post that I think illustrate
>your caustic and hostile attitude toward Jerry Clark, Richard
>Hall and MUFON investigators (like myself). I had to look at
>your displays of hostility even when other researchers were
>being civil to you and only asking you to prove what you were
>saying in your posts. Bruce Evans received the same treatment. I
>respect the work of the above people and despise seeing you
>resort to character assasination. I don't know what drives your
>cynicism and hatred. Perhaps a qualified therapist would be able
>to help you understand yourself and your obvious self hatred.

>Perhaps then you will drop your hateful attitude and actually
>begin to finally contribute something to this field. Judging by
>the work of Jerome Clark and Richard Hall you may after years be
>worthy of licking their boots.

>Gary, don't vent on me. I've seen more than enough of your
>ugliness in far too many posts. I will not stoop to respond to
>you.

>Josh Goldstein
>(lowly MUFON investigator dumb as dirt)


Josh,

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You object to the style of message that I used; however, isn't
it true that if I tried to make these points in the "academic"
style so fashionable today no one would have paid it any
attention. I have been observing this list for more than two
years and I see "researchers" you favor insult, degrade and
debase posters to this list, you are silent. Jerry Clark posts
no original research or work to this list. He posts to attack
and debunk other's postings using the method of character
assasination that so upsets you. Does the archives document your
criticism of him for being out of bounds?

It seems that the use of sarcasm and humor brings out the worst
in people like yourself who immediately use this as an excuse to
ignore the substance of what I was saying.

It is sad when native speakers of English (ok, we speak
American) misconstrue debating technique as hostility. I have
taken the time to point out some of the amusing aspects of
today's ufology; what ever "hostility" has been in evidence
began on the side of my critics, as the record of this debate
will show. As for other researchers being civil to me, the
record in the archives shows the opposite.

Where were you, defender of civility on this list, when I was
called names and insulted by said "researchers". As for Roger
Evans and his post (I note you referred to him as Bruce Evans)
where did you point out the impropriety of his four-fold
invocation? Et tu, hypocrite?

As to the issue of "proof". This is the holy grail of ufology
and is the usual hue and cry of those can't or won't understand
that all you will ever have is evidence supporting hypotheses.
Even the "hardest" sciences only have theories supported by
hypotheses built on evidence and proof in these fields changes
with time and advances. Edward Ruppelt, nearly fifty years ago,
pointed out the hypocrisy of those who clamored for proof in his
book - The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects. If you have
something original to contribute vis-s-vis "proof" then I am all
ears.

Generally speaking on this list those clamoring the loudest for
proof use this as a smokescreen for ignoring discussion of
evidence and hypotheses. An example of this is your response to
my post clamoring for "proof" while you fail to engage in any
discussion, civil or otherwise, of any and all points I raised.

So for those people like yourself who confuse the substance of
the matter with the manner of presentation, here is the straight
version the "academic" approach. Since I note from your closing
remarks that you have already foreclosed any civil discussion
(you "won't stoop to respond"), this is for the benefit of other
"neutral" readers of the list, they will make of you what they
will.

Here we go.

As regards to UFO field investigations, yes, it is upsetting to
hear from someone, me, that much of what one works very hard at
is of little value. However, it is a point of view that is not
mine alone and it is also the viewpoint of the person who is
perhaps the MOST experienced field investigator in this country,
Raymond Fowler. It is a point of view that needs to be heard.

You owe it to yourself to find out why he left those
organizations as he has documented the infiltration of both of
those organizations by some of the most unsavory elements of the
intelligence community and the way in which they corrupted the
purpose and function of those organizations.

Let me point out what he had to say on this matter in one of his
early books:

Raymond Fowler, 'Casebook Of A UFO Investigator', pp. 228-9,
1981. this is in the chapter is called "Where Do We Go From
Here?"

"In my opinion, civilian UFO research is at a dead end. I must
confess that after years and years, investigating and
documenting the same types of unexplained events has become
routine and frustrating. It is disheartening to realize that the
detailed, concise, typewritten reports I mail to MUFON and CUFOS
will be filed and lost in a mountain of other reports."

 "For the most part, UFO research work is voluntary and part
time. Photographs, soil samples, and other alleged UFO evidence
necessarily take a back seat to the routine work of earning a
living. Such second-rate methodology does not impress members of
the scientific community."

As for what was done to these organizations read the following
chapters which are well documented and footnoted:

Chapter 14: Pressure From the Pentagon Chapter 15: Government
Surveillance Chapter 16: The Government's Own Investigations

This was written nearly 20 years ago, in 1981!

Will another 10,000 or 100,000 sighting reports MUFON collects
since the time he wrote these statement change the situation in
the field of ufology or the public understanding of the UFO
situation?

I think not.

You don't seemed concerned with my criticism of Mr. Filer's
portions of the article, does that mean that:

 1. Portions of what he wrote also struck you as inane?

 2. You feel he displayed naivete for someone for someone so
    long in the field?

 3. You accept the misinformation he provided on the security of
    classified information?

 4. You accept his concept of verification of UFO reports which
    has been ignored by the scientific community for nearly
    fifty years?

So are you prepared to deal with these issues now?

See, stooping isn't that hard if each person bends a bit.

Gary Alevy


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com