MUFON's dubious speakers problem

[Creepy Green Light]

I thought this piece regarding what's up with MUFON constantly having known fraudsters & fakes at their speaking engagements was pretty interesting. And I noticed Curt Collins did a great job when he chimed in. Anyways, for those who are interested; The UFO Trail: UFO Community Members Weigh in on Dubious MUFON Speakers

 

[Wade]

Initially , it seemed to me the answer was obvious, to be very selective in who you invite, but the reality is that the the success of these conventions...and who among us doesn't like suucess?...require a healthy turnout and to achieve that you have to get speakers who will attract a lot of people.

the problem i think CGL is less the speakers than the audience, although i have seen no studies to prove this i think there are a LOT more true believers out there than there are pragmatic semi-believers and so perhaps you have to cater to the crowd?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Initially , it seemed to me the answer was obvious, to be very selective in who you invite, but the reality is that the the success of these conventions...and who among us doesn't like suucess?...require a healthy turnout and to achieve that you have to get speakers who will attract a lot of people.

the problem i think CGL is less the speakers than the audience, although i have seen so studies to prove this i think there are a LOT more true believers out there than there are pragmatic semi-believers and so perhaps you have to cater to the crowd?

I witnessed this first hand but on a smaller scale. There is a NJ UFO group that meets twice a month (I believe). It's about a half hour drive for me but back in April I thought I would go to the next meeting. I had some idea of what to expect but then again, no idea what to expect. I know you don't judge a book by it's cover - but there were a lot of "different" looking people there. Once the meeting started, the guy that has ran & organized this group for the last 20 years or so started it right off the bat by passing along a known fraud picture (the picture of the little girl with the "alien" behind her. The one where her dad said nobody was in frame but when the film got developed the alien was there.) So right off the bat I was thinking "Jeez, you're supposed to be the leader of this group and here you are passing along a known fake picture?" I watched it get passed around while all these people "oooohed and ahhhhhhed" over it. One guy even asked if it was authenticated which the leader sternly replied "its all be checked out. It's real." So I knew right off the bat that this entire meeting was a B.S., scam, tinfoil hat meeting. They then let some other nut (who I later found out has never been to a meeting before, nobody knew him) come up to the lap top that was connected through a power point set up and take over the meeting. The guy went to his own personal Facebook account to show us photos that he took himself of UFO's while in Iceland. First off, there was technical issues and he wasted a solid 20 minutes floundering with the equipment. I was thinking "really?? nobodys gonna tell this guy to sit down and that he's wasting time and ruining the meeting??" When he finally made it to the photo's, they were photo's of stars. Plain & simple. No anomalies. No structured craft. Nothing but stars. But everyone oohed and ahhed and was asking questions. I was looking around the room wondering if I was on an updated version of Candid Camera or something. All these people and the guy running it cannot be this tinfoil-y, right? Wrong. I think there was one other guy in there that was shaking his head and getting irritated with everyone.

This next part solidified that these people were nuts was when one of the regulars at this meeting stood up at the front and began to tell us about how "John of God" is real. And that he traveled down there to witness it first hand. For those not familiar he's one of those "healers" that can put his fingers through you to remove tumors, etc." People flock to him from all over the world. For more info check http://web.randi.org/home/from-the-...-into-abc-news-john-of-god-investigation-2005

After I heard this guy bragging about John of God I was like "Yeah, ok. I'm done. This entire meeting is embarrassing and I'm never coming back."

[EDIT]: I wish I knew this info prior to atteneding; it's probably safe to say that if you go by the alias's "Dr. UFO" and "Spaceman" that your meeting is going to be crappy & embarrassing. http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/12/hamilton_man_continues_to_run.html

That was kind of a long rant but I can see how MUFON meetings can be similar based on who's up there speaking. I would be pissed if I was a MUFON member and went to a conference and they had Stan Romanek up there speaking. Gimme a break. There should be versions of UFO conferences that have only real researches as speakers. Leave out the Romanek's, Linda Moulton Howe's, etc.

 

[technomage]

I think this it the same place Chris O'Brien gave his talk last November, which I attended, since I live only 15 minutes away from the venue they used at the time. Chris's lecture on cattle mutilations was very good and it looked like it scared the hell out of some people. Many were very relieved when Jaime Muassan came out and showed a bunch of pictures, most of which were fakes or questionable, with a message of hope for humanity by accepting that we're not alone.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I didn't want to comment on this material till I had time to read it. I think the most significant contribution came from James Carrion, a former MUFON director who also authored "The Rosetta Deception." He provides the insider's view that helps define the problems with MUFON and its approach to alleged research, and the drive to promote more memberships and higher attendance for conferences.

While the participants were mostly those to be expected, several had well-known agendas. The two skeptics, for example, wouldn't accept any organization as doing good work. And there was one person, formerly associated with a rabble-razing podcast and publication, and it was a case of pot and cattle.

But most of the contributions were worthy comments and criticisms about how MUFON may have lost its way. Or perhaps it never had a proper approach to begin with, considering that episode in the 1980s when former MUFON director Walt Andrus led the support of the questionable Gulf Breeze UFO case.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I think this is probably impossible to do, but what is really needed are two different groups of believers; one that 99% of the members here would probably want to be part of (serious, legit members/speakers/subjects) and then another group for people that believe in the UFO/Bigfoot connection, the secret underground UFO moon bases, the Stan Romaneks, Margie Kay's, Michael Horns, Moulton Howes, etc.

I set myself up for failure & dissapointment by assuming that everybody was going to be legit at the meeting I went to. Just imagine yourself going to a meeting that you think is legit and then the very first speaker puts up a slide of one of Meier's "beamships" and then starts rambling on about how this is the best documented contactee case in the world. You'd probably stand right up and head for the door thinking "wow, this was a waste of time and $".

 

[Randall]

I thought this piece regarding what's up with MUFON constantly having known fraudsters & fakes at their speaking engagements was pretty interesting. And I noticed Curt Collins did a great job when he chimed in. Anyways, for those who are interested; The UFO Trail: UFO Community Members Weigh in on Dubious MUFON Speakers

Good find there. I may even have to weigh-in on the opening line: "We hope to bridge the gap between science and ufology. They're one in the same." - Jan Harzan, because it does nothing for ufology other than invite accusations of pseudoscience. It's a poorly thought out assumption that reflects a lack of depth for both science and ufology, and therefore adds no academic credibility to the field whatsoever. In fact it damages it. I have written to MUFON in the past explaining why, and have never even had the courtesy of a reply. Needless to say I wouldn't waste my money on a membership.

 

[Mulvaney]

I always enjoy Clueless Wonder's UFO Trail blog and recommend his book The Grays Have been Framed. Both are required reading if you are interested in sorting out the state of ufology. Brewer has been suggested as a guest here.

In any event, I stopped attending local MUFON events awhile back. The person who was in psychic communication wth both Bigfoot and aliens did not rise to the level of entertainment. The person who presented on the Apollo 20 and William Ruttledge was entertaining, but that it was presented as something other than entertainment was a little baffling. But by the time the local MUFON organizer began holding conferences with Sean Morton, Michael Horn, the Romaneks (who apparently had to cancel), Joanne Richards (on behalf of "Captain" Mark Richards), and group hypnotic regression . . . it was time to do other things.

But the sensationalism of Hanger One, with MUFON representatives talking about "if something happened, then it could be true" was as far away from a scientific approach as I could imagine. The same person had no problems giving a lifetime achievement award to David Jacobs. Even after the Slides, national MUFON stuck with Jaime Maussan.

I agree with the previous comment that MUFON is trying to cater to a particular audience - they invited Jaime because his presentations were popular. But it gets into a cycle. Sensationalism helps boost membership . . . then you have to invite speakers who will appeal to that group . . . then you wonder how to make ufology respectable. You end up being what Sharon Hill (Doubtful News) describes as "scientifical," trying to sound scientific without achieving it.

There are good people within MUFON - Mark O'Connell's High Strangeness blog comes to mind because I was just looking at that. But in general, I don't see much connection between MUFON and its stated goal of a scientific understanding of the phenomenon. Perhaps that was an illusory goal all along. But certainly its speakers reflect that.