UFO Community Members Weigh in on Dubious MUFON Speakers - PART II
UFO Community Members Weigh in on Dubious MUFON Speakers - PART II
Lance Moody
Thanks for attempting to insert thoughtful discourse into this topic.
From all appearances, the train left the station long ago.
From my perspective, MUFON is what it is. It has nothing to do with scientific study of anything. And it probably never did.
The embarrassing and infantile missteps are perhaps becoming more frequent but the organization has always been the realm of amateur UFO enthusiasts whose unscientific religious belief in flying saucers clouds their judgement in a profound way.
When considering celebrated UFO cases, the slides debacle is only unusual in that the denouement was so definitive. Usually there is so little evidence available that the "investigator" can really go to town on offering his speculation about the case.
And there is no doubt that many (possibly most) UFO cases rest on the same kind of faulty foundation: narratives composed by inept experimenter bias, willful belief and a certain measure of prideful stupidity.
From my perspective, what UFO organizations do is pretend to be interested in scientific modes of inquiry while either not understanding such methodology, or actually abhorring it. And even worse they often erect a false veneer of sciencey double speak and ponderous but meaningless "data" that seems to wow the rubes.
But MUFON has now dropped so low in its search for splashy speakers and TV fame that the false scientific shell has possibly become only vestigial.
Unfortunately every UFO group does the same thing and it's hard to decide what's worse: promoting something obviously silly like Bigfoot's connection to UFOs or the pretend science in the white papers of organizations like NARCAP.
It all comes from the same place.
Sue Johnson
"Boundary work" is the name given by social scientists to activities scientists undertake to demarcate and defend what counts as science -- for example, establishing a credentialing system, presenting one’s ongoing research for collegial critique at lunchtime symposia, or in extreme cases calling for retractions of papers from journals. Since its beginnings in the US, ufology qua science has been intermixed with ufology qua spirituality, the paranormal, hoaxes, disinformation campaigns, popular culture and self-delusion. Ufology as a whole has never been successful in doing the boundary work necessary to distinguish between either good vs. poor science or science and non-science. Even major organizations like APRO and NICAP each adopted their own guidelines for what counted as legitimate UAP phenomena (occupants/no occupants, for example). The most salient boundaries when it comes to studying UAPs have been those imposed by outside, by government bodies and/or academic disdain for and impatience with such a chaotic field.
Hence, it’s still possible for sideshow-style exhibits that almost everyone outside of ufology would recognize as such to be proffered by well-known UFO researchers as evidence in ufological claims-making. It’s true the high strange aspect of much UAP and related phenomena requires that the bizarre and quixotic not be automatically dismissed from consideration. However, the Roswell Slides had hoax, not high strange, written all over it just based on common sense considerations.
It seems incredible, then, that given its mission statement MUFON would continue to include the people involved in the Roswell Slides in its promotions and events. If an organization claiming to be a legitimate voice of ufology can’t make credible distinctions between scientific and non-scientific facets of its own history, how can it be trusted to make authoritative contributions to future science for the benefit of humanity?
In the case of the Roswell Slides, the appropriate boundary work was carried out in short course by an ad hoc group of knowledgeable and interested outsiders. This suggests that there are aspects of the MUFON approach to UFOs that actively work against doing the necessary scientific boundary work. The best thing MUFON could do is institutionalize a space in which difficult conversations about boundary work can take place. If MUFON can’t do this, others will continue to open such conversations elsewhere and MUFON cannot legitimately claim to be the voice of science when it comes to UFO/UAPs
James Carrion
James Carrion authors the blogs 'Follow the Magic Thread' and 'The Rosetta Deception', and conducts extensive research into the relations between the Cold War era intelligence community and public perception of UFOs. As a former MUFON International Director, he can offer specific insight into the parade of low quality speakers. Mr. Carrion explained:
As a former International Director of MUFON, I can provide a unique perspective on the antithetical-to-its-mission-statement decision making for which MUFON is currently being criticized. It can be summed up in two words: Sex sells.
Since I resigned from MUFON in 2010, MUFON has been on a re-branding mission in an attempt to make itself a sexy alternative to the current public love affair with all things paranormal that includes ghost hunting, Bigfoot tracking, and ancient astronaut theorizing. There's a plethora of these shows on cable for a reason - the public loves them - and that means advertising dollars. Taking lessons from the oldest profession in the world - MUFON needs the money and sex sells - so mission statement be damned, the truth can wait. Here are some of the relevant facts which make this a no-brainer decision for MUFON:
Fact number one - MUFON is a nonprofit organization that survives on membership dues, donations, merchandise sales, annual Symposium attendance, and extraneous revenue streams like what it squeezes out of the History Channel.
Fact number two - MUFON is run by a Business Board of "believers" who pay lip service to scientific principles, from board member Clifford Clift who believes in alien bases on the moon to Jan Harzan whose personal UFO sighting as a child drives his willingness to believe.
Fact number three - MUFON is a data collector with no clear vision on how to convert that data into scientifically sound analysis. After over forty years of existence, MUFON can't even state what it knows to be true about the phenomenon.
When I was Director, the pressure to sell its image at any cost was a discussion at every board meeting - how do we get more members and sponsors, how do we sell more merchandise, how do we get more symposium attendees? Resisting the pressures to sacrifice truth for cold hard cash is what lead to my resignation.
Until MUFON decides to get off of its street corner turning tricks and into the lab doing real research, it will be justifiably criticized for its current ridiculous actions of promoting UFO myths on its Hangar1 show and for hosting known UFO hoaxers, myth makers, regurgitators and outright liars at its annual Symposium. I am not holding my breath that will happen anytime soon under its current leadership.
 |
| Vendors at UFO conferences typically offer such goods & services as stones alleged to have metaphysical properties, psychic readings and photographing you with your aura, even when the event is advertised as science-based |
The contributions of all are most appreciated, as is the investment of valuable time and attention. Thank you. Relevant and interesting points were indeed addressed.
There is no doubt that claims asserted by some ufology figures and endorsedby the organizations that promote them are extremely detrimental to compiling a body of accurate information. It is clearly a given that those claiming to be in positions to provide information do not always prioritize accuracy in their reporting or deserve the trust they are granted. Organizations, including the Mutual UFO Network, that provide publicity to dubious speakers, particularly while claiming to conduct scientific study, should be called on such misrepresentations.
Perhaps the best way to hold them accountable is to simply not support them. We might choose to continue to withhold our attendance, membership and financial support from organizations and events which are poorly operated and do not serve the best interests of their patrons. Perhaps MUFON leadership generates enough revenue from television deals and similar sources to not care if the org has members or not. Either way, we have the ability to implement our own ban for all practical purposes and as matters of principle. Such a boycott certainly appears to be warranted, if not relatively forced upon us by the perpetrators.
While refraining from supporting individuals and organizations that engage in false claims of promoting scientific study, we might simultaneously take a positive approach, making specific efforts to turn our attention to and endorse those we identify as worthy. Let writers and researchers you appreciate know it. Encourage them. Purchase their products, and morally and publicly support their websites and appearances.
MUFON directors and conference organizers are indeed responsible for the poor shape of the org and the low quality of its events. We, as consumers, are responsible for what we choose to support or oppose. Let's keep demanding better quality, applying consequences when it is not provided, and granting support when it is, wherever that valuable support may best be offered.
(5).jpg)