||Ian Brockwell is the creator of Profindsearch.com and interests include writing, teaching, politics, climate change, UFO reports, businesses of all descriptions, medicine and generally trying to enjoy life. Profindsearch is a very small search engine, which hopes to be a Google one day! (We can all dream) Visit Ian's website: profindsearch.com. You can email Ian at firstname.lastname@example.org.
MUFON's Reaction To My UFO Articleby Ian Brockwell
(Copyright © 2008 Ian Brockwell)
Posted: 00:25 September 28, 2008
In a recent article I mentioned that MUFON were investigating some photos (of the STS-75 tether incident) that had received a special photo process.
Shortly after the article appeared I received an email from the "International Director" of MUFON, James Carrion, asking "Who/what is your source for stating that MUFON is involved with a new photo enhancement technique for analyzing UFO photos as stated in the article.." and "I am not aware of any such technique."
Firstly, I explained that the new photo process belongs to a scientist that is supplying images to me (displayed on my site), not MUFON as mentioned in some forums. I also confirmed the MUFON contact involved in the investigation.
I received a further message from Carrion saying that my article was "misleading" as "this technique is being practiced by a single person who just happens to be a MUFON member but it sounds like MUFON as an organization endorses his methods. That is inaccurate. I would appreciate it if you could clarify that."
My response was "I thought you guys worked as a kind of team, is this not correct?" and asked whether the MUFON member was doing something he shouldn´t and operating outside MUFON rules.
I explained that I was simply presenting information given to me and assumed that a MUFON member would be working for the benefit of the organization. As this seems to be a matter between MUFON and one of their members, I suggested that "Maybe you can discuss this with him directly and clarify the actual position?" I also added that the member "is taking advantage of this new process in the hope that it might help his investigations. Isn't that what you do?"
My article did not suggest that MUFON supported or approved of the project I have been presenting, only that it was being "investigated" by MUFON (or at least one of its investigators), and I confirmed that the people involved in this project would accept the findings of the investigator. I included the following comment in my reply "If you prefer, I can write an article that says MUFON do not want to be associated with this investigation and that you do not approve of one of your members being involved in a technology that may uncover certain UFO mysteries in the future (if not this one, maybe others). Is that what you are asking?"
Carrion´s reply asked why I made the "leap of logic" that the member´s actions represent MUFON as a whole. He added that it is not MUFON´s responsibility to clarify its relationship with their member or whatever methods he is using and said "We are not arguing the validity or the worth of such methods, but simply that MUFON does not endorse these methods as most folks will come to believe when they read your article."
Is Carrion saying that even if this new process is valid and has some worth, MUFON is not going to endorse it? And what does he mean by "as most folks will come to believe when they read your article". Is this some suggestion that I write articles designed to mislead people, or lie to them? And what gives him the right to guess the reactions of my readers or his members. I present information and let the people decide, I don´t tell them what they should do.
|Click on the 'NEXT' arrow for page 2