UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 22

Re: UFO Magazine UK - Miller

From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:52:49 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:29:13 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Magazine UK - Miller


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

>>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

<snip>

>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.

Hello Ray,

Well, it would be fascinating to take a poll on this List to see
how many are desirous of dumping, say, abductions into the same
waste paper pin that you wish to drop the subject of orbs into.
Believe you me, there would be plenty. Not into abductions Ray?
Then whatever specifics do interest you, I guarantee you
someone, somewhere will think it's a complete load of baloney,
and whats more, will no doubt be able to point to some reputable
"expert" who can convincingly debunk your pet speciality. Don't
be so elistist.

After all, what could be sillier or more misleading than trying
to propogate the theory that from time to time, IBE's spin
around our atmosphere in silly tin cans or modular craft made
out of exotic plastics or metals and occasionally interact with
us on this planet? C'mon, get real.

>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?

It isn't reasonable at all and I don't care for speculation on
this matter. In fact I completely refute the above, absolutely.

Whatever UFO Magazine's policy may or may not be, it seems to
have served it well over the years. If we disrespected our
readers or treated them as idiots, then I don't think the
magazine would have continued for as long as it has. And in so
doing, it has over time, seen off competion here in the UK. What
does that say? Well there are a number of possible
interpretations, but the one I would go with is that it's
editors know what they're doing and are successfully providing a
service to their readership, which that readership seems to
appreciate.

>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.

And they're welcome to join the List.

Believe you me, I hear exactly the same comments about the
American publication of the same name as ours. And the criticism
always seems to come from the same type of source, the so called
"serious" ufologist. We can never win. In some ways, the
membership of this List is poison to the continuation of popular
publications in the UFO field and it is a bit short sighted.

Because UFO Magazine doesn't always present the subject in the
manner you would like, this is grounds enough - it would seem -
to write it off as tabloid. You make totally subjective
statements about the contents, without the slightest
consideration for what might interest others. It's not about
providing a service soley for you, Ray.

Perhaps it might be pertinent to turn the whole thing round and
look at the positive aspects.

UFO Magazine brings the subject of ufology to an international
market, particularly it's domestic market. Without us, the
vacuum it would create, as well as the loss of an outlet and
noted source of information, and to an extent, leadership and
guidance, would be devastating for British ufology. It would
fragment and become even more chaotic than it already is. It is
a cohesive glue that, at the moment, holds a large number of like
minded people together and provides shelter from the constant
mockery of those who regard the subject as inane or only of
interest to those who "aren't right in the head". Open it's
pages and you are suddenly in a world where, despite what you
think Ray, you are treated with respect because the subject that
fascinates and intrigues you is taken very seriously. Where you
can see that you are not alone and that there are others even
further down the road than you.

I'm bright enough, Ray, to work out that your observations are,
in a way, complimentary. You feel we've let you down. You
wouldn't feel like that if you didn't care for the magazine and
expected "better". But instead of sniping, tell me, here, what
changes you would like to see. I won't criticise - I will treat
what you say seriously and discuss it with the editor and then
get back to you.

>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.

Then those that feel like that are welcome to either sit on what
they've written, so that no one will ever read it, or to submit
their work elsewhere to a web site or small circulation
publication, so that, er, no one will ever read it.

But at least those people will have kept their moral integrity
and feel much better inside for it. There is nothing so crass as
a smug ufologist.

Hear what you're saying, Ray. "My work is too good to be sullied
by publication in that." To quote John Velez - puleese! Some of
you guys have got past the point of being in danger of taking
yourselves too seriously.

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

Answered already.

>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.

Then we profoundly disagree on the interpretation of what I've
said.


Stuart Miller





[ 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