UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 21

Re: BLURFOs - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:19:57 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:19:58 -0500
Subject: Re: BLURFOs - Stanford


>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:40:54 -0000
>Subject: Re: BLURFOs

>>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:14:30 -0500
>>Subject: Re: BLURFOs

>>>From: Bill Hamilton <skyman22.nul>
>>>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 05:29:14 -0800
>>>Subject: BLURFOs

>>I suspect that James Neff's warning (and those of others who
>>prefer fact over fantasy) will fall on deaf ears, however, and
>>that, e.g., the pages of a certain UK magazine will continue to
>>be replete with enough color images of 'orbs' (dust, as clearly
>>demonstrated in Neff's article) and other prosaic artifacts of
>>photography as to make any realist nauseated.

>Hi Ray,

>If you have ever edited a magazine, and when I say "a magazine",
>I mean one intended for the newstands - as opposed to one to
>give out to a few like-minded friends - then you will know that
>you don't restrict it's contents to just what you would like to
>see in it.

>Aside from the commercial aspects, its about people and about
>giving them access. Life would be a lot simpler without
>customers but as Palin said to Cleese in the "Dirty Fork"
>sketch, "Never kill a customer - it's bad for business". I
>didn't particularly care for the orbs pix either but there it
>is.


Hi Stuart,

I understand what you're saying, but no not at all agree with
such 'taking' of an uninformed public with photographic
artifacts (i.e., 'orbs', as clearly demythologized by Neff and
others before him) presented in a context by which they may be
misunderstood as images of truly anomalous objects or phenomena.

It is reasonable to speculate that UFO magazine's editorial
policy on such serves, ultimately, to the detriment of the
magazine and goes against the credibility of UFO research in
general. If such policy is maintained, ultimately, the magazine
will come to be regarded more and more as the tabloids 'Weekly
World News', 'Globe', or whatever. In fact, I could introduce
you to a number of seriously UFO-interested scientists and
engineers who already feel that way.

In maintaining the position the magazine has taken concerning
such things, some persons who are doing serious, objective, and
scientifically credible UFO research increasingly cringe at
submitting an even highly popularized article for the magazine.
How do I know? I have talked to some of them who have considered
and rejected submission of interesting and, IMO, evidential and
important manuscripts.

Don't tell us that respect for readership and credibility is not
the best editorial policy in the long run.

Poor, indeed, is the publication that thrives off feeding the
appetites of the wide-eyed, which seems to be the policy your
message of today is describing.

Likewise poor is the magazine that nether respects its audience
nor respects copyright law. A back issue of UFO magazine has
today been handed to me that illegally (in violation of
copyright law) reproduces the beautiful and accurately detailed
landing-site illustrations from my book on the Socorro, New
Mexico, UFO landing without having asked permission to reproduce
them and without any attribution, whatsoever. That is a clear
and demonstrable violation of copyright law, and may be legally
actionable.


Quite Seriously,

Ray Stanford

"Men have become the tools of their tools."
                    -- Henry David Thoreau




[ 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