UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 23

Re: Magazine UK - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:00:40 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:20:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Magazine UK - Stanford

>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:52:49 -0000
>Subject: UFO Magazine UK

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


>>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.

>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?

I didn't include abductions in my comments about irresponsible
coverage by UFO Magazine (UK, yet I really might have included
the US magazine.). If fact,I am personally confident that some
(and, perhaps many) abductions occur. I have seen enough
evidence to become convinced that abduction does happen. Of
course, I do not believe in a lot of those publicly reported,
but suspect that there are (even among abductees) few who
believe all claims of abduction. I agree with Betty Hill that
there are many 'bangwaggoners' whose imaginations are bigger
than their regard for objective reality, but also consider that
she may be too narrow in her view on what might constitute a
valid case.

>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.

Of course, there are even a few nay sayers who believe the world
is not approximately spherical but is flat, but that should not
bother those who know the shape of our planet. Debunkers do not
concern me because they are not objective skeptics. I favor
rational skepticism over wide-eyed fools, be it to read (their
writings) or to have as company for good conversation.

>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.

I am a lot more realistic, if that's what you mean, than your
magazine has ever been. Since about 1974, I have repeatedly gone
out with recording gravimeter, recording magnetometer,
spectrographic camera, movie film cameras, and high-resolution
35 mm SLR cameras (1,000 mm lens) and gotten the kind of
evidence that is very meaningful to physicists and aerospace
engineers. If that's not being real about UFOs, please set me
straight. It's you and your magazine who should get real with
the UFO-intrigued public upon which the magazine thrives.

Speaking of UK phenomenologists whose work UFO Magazine has
promoted, I wouldn't brag if I were you. Concerning one whose
work the magazine has championed, Colin Andrews.: During the
heyday of crop circles (before the fakers got them so complex,
embroidered, and convoluted as to be credible only to the highly
credulous), I telephoned Colin and left a message on his
telephone offering to bring our project's whole array of cameras
and instruments like the recording gravimeter and recording
magnetometers and cameras over there to see what might be
monitored. I said I might, in fact, just lone him instruments,
shipping them to him, should that be of interest.

Do you think Colin responded? Of course not, he preferred to
have dowsers out in the fields with him! LMAO!

Concerning crop patterns, your magazine acts even worse, if
that's possible. In your Volume 24, number 1, page 27,
describing two highly dubious crop 'messages', as (and I quote):
"The most significant event in the UFO saga happened two years
ago. It was the first direct communication we've received from
space beings. And it came in answer to a message sent from Earth
into space 27 years earlier."

"Get real", you egotistically declare! It is clearly your
magazine's editorial policy that needs to get real! There is not
one stitch of evidence that those two crop 'messages' were
created (and rather crudely, at that) by anyone other that fly-
by-night terrestrials. The magazine staff should be ashamed of
publishing such an intellectually dishonest statement.

>>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

>It isn't reasonable at all and I don't care for speculation on

>Whatever UFO Magazine's policy may or may not be, it seems to
>have served it well over the years.

It may have served the financial interests of its publisher over
recent years (How else could one find it on local newsstands in
the USA?), but, IMO, that is a far cry from serving the best
interests of the public or even of its own narrow-band
readership. Calling those two silly little crop 'messages' an
alien communication in answer to a message carried into space
years before is just one small example of intellectual
dishonesty that does not serve the interests of anyone except
(and only in the short run) the publisher.

>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

I'm all too sure its editors know exactly what they are doing to
keep the family enterprise going. That never was my point. But
poor, indeed, are those who prostitute so potentially profound a
subject by making irresponsible statements such as mentioned

>>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.

With your magazine's track record, don't hold your breath
expecting them.

>It's not about providing a service soley for you, Ray.

I have no need of your magazine for insight into UFOs, so I
never look to it for that 'service' (to use your word)!
Furthermore, it seldom provides anything resembling real
insight. I read it mainly to learn who is taking whom 'for a
ride' of gullibility and imagination. Some of your writers seem
to be taking themselves for a ride. You know exactly what I was
saying, so quit playing games and twisting words, Stuart. I was
clearly discussing the duty to serve the interest of the public
with objective analysis rather than the wide-eyed 'Geewhizzing',
which is, IMO, the flaky fare your magazine sometimes shovels

>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.

Guidance?!! How ridiculous. I have had some, IMO, possibly
credible reports from British UFOlogers complaining about how
Graham allegedly tried to put down anything in British UFOlogy
that did not please him and his publishing effort. Hearsay, it's
true, but baseless? I wonder whether there might have been some
fire with the smoke.

>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.

Oh really! Respect, huh?! Do you call literally stealing the
copyrighted illustrations from my book on Socorro, without
asking my permission and with absolutely no credit, as to
source, being respectful? Graham Birdsall didn't care to
manifest it in the context of my intellectual property!

I expect to be speaking with a copyright lawyer tomorrow to
discuss possible action for theft of intellectual property. It
is not a matter of money, but a matter of principle. I would
hope that in so doing, the theft of intellectual properties of
other writers, illustrators, photographers, or researchers might
be discouraged. I suspect a letter from their UK office should
begin to set you people straight concerning the matter of
respect for the intellectual property of others. Of course, an
acknowledgement of the misdeed (mentioning Volume number, issue
number, and page numbers), plus a sincere and profound apology
for it from the present editor of the magazine addressed to me
via this public forum (UFO UpDates, if acceptable to Errol)
might cause me to reconsider the matter.

In a private letter to me (yesterday, February 21, 2004) you said:

"If the facts are as you describe, and I have no reason to
question what you say at this moment, then unquestionably we owe
your [sic.] a profound and sincere apology, which I extend on
behalf on the magazine.

How can you apologize for anything you have not acknowledged

>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".

I do hope for better editorial policy from your magazine.
(Pardon my generic use of your.)

>...tell me ...what changes you would like to see. I won't
>criticize - I will treat what you say seriously and discuss it
>with the editor and then >get back to you.

I like that suggestion and if you will privately provide me a
telephone number, I will gladly call you at my expense and
discuss suggestions. Sorry, I'm a slow typist and am too busy
writing on two scientific papers (ancient tracks, not UFOs,
right now) and preparing a couple of books, but I am open to
offering suggestions if there is an open mind and a 'willing

>>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.

The wise prefer quality over size, in matters ranging as widely
as sex through science. Yet, serious UFOlogy based on physical
science need not resort to small publications or to publishing
on obscure websites, when they do not chose your magazine, thank

>Hear what you're saying, Ray. "My work is too good to be sullied
>by publication in that."

Talk about trying to put words into a guy's mouth! That's an
incredibly subjective and 'read-into' interpretation of my short
comments concerning the magazine. In fact, I was not at all
referring to my work but to work and the opinions of colleagues
(and said so) whom I respect because of their objectivity and
scientific approach. Don't expect them to be knocking at your
magazine's door unless editorial policy up-grades greatly.

My exact statement was:

"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."

Looks as though you did not objectively read my statement! I
said, "I have talked to some of them..." and I am not in the
habit of talking to myself. Those mentioned, with whom I have
discussed the matter, say they also have colleagues (to whom I
did not speak) who feel the same way.

I suppose their attitude could possibly also have something to
do not only with the editorial policy of your magazine but with
the fact that your magazine has also sponsored at its annual
(until Graham's untimely death) conferences the likes of Stephen
Greer, Bob Oeschler, etc. (Yes, I realize that some of your
speakers have been much more credible than they.)

All this is not to say that your magazine has had nothing of
value in it, but a change in editorial policy would, IMO, help
you and maybe even the world, in the long run.

Very Sincerely,

Ray Stanford

[ 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