Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 22 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Aug 89 23:10:00 GMT From: paranet!mcorbin Subject: Jerry Clark's rebuttal to Dr. Smith For the benefit of our UUCP readers, here is the text of the rebuttal to Dr. Smith from Jerry Clark of CUFOS. DATE OF UPLOAD: August 18, 1989 ORIGIN OF UPLOAD: Canby, Minnesota CONTRIBUTED BY: Jerome Clark/CUFOS ======================================================== (C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service All Rights Reserved. THIS FILE WAS PREPARED BY PARANET ALPHA -- PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE BBS PARANET ALPHA 1-303-431-1343 9600 BAUD DENVER, COLORADO NOTE: THESE FILES ARE NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE OF THE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE NETWORK ======================================================== Recently ParaNet carried a controversial article written by Dr. Willy Smith regarding the 'State of Ufology Today' as seen by Dr. Smith. This article (Smith.TXT) lashed out at the two major UFO research groups in America today, CUFOS and MUFON. In the interest of providing a balanced viewpoint, we have asked these groups to rebut Dr. Smith's comments. My conversation with Walt Andrus, International Director of MUFON, yielded a curt 'no' to rebutting anything that Dr. Smith had to say, citing that it "would be beneath his dignity" to do so. CUFOS has, as represented by Jerry Clark, plans no rebuttal either. However, Jerry Clark, speaking for himself, and not officially for CUFOS, has prepared a rebuttal called the 'The Smith Principle' which appears here in this file. It is ParaNet's understanding that something of like material is forthcoming from Dan Wright, Director of Investgations for MUFON which will appear upon it's arrival. THE SMITH PRINCIPLE by Jerome Clark It has been my sad experience that to pay attention to Willy Smith is to encourage him in his excesses, and so it is with much reluctance that I respond, as after reflection I feel I must, to his attack on me in "The Decline and Fall of American Ufology," of which I was recently shown a copy. This is not an official response from the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies; there will be none. CUFOS as an organization has no desire to engage in fruitless personal dispute. CUFOS chooses to deal with issues, not personalities, and that of course is a wise course. Since, however, Smith has made a series of false personal charges against me, I feel obligated to set the record straight. The following is written not for Smith's benefit, since Smith always believes whatever he wants to believe, however bizarre or unverifiable; this is instead for ParaNet people such as Michael Corbin (whom to the best of my memory I've never met or corresponded with) who think that Smith's attack "is perhaps 'on target'" and that it "is time we start demanding the truth and get it." It is safe to say that Willy Smith's accounts are not the place to get it. Smith's basic charge is that I am the evil force that controls the organization; Mark Rodeghier, its ostensible head, is a mere cipher, unable to resist the demands of my strong personality. Yet at the same time, even as Rodeghier and the entire CUFOS board bow to my every whim owing to the sheer force of my personality, I also have a weak personality (perhaps on alternating days of the week) which bows to the prevailing winds, usually coming, Smith would have us believe, from Budd Hopkins and Jenny Randles. Smith can't have it both ways; I can't have both a strong personality and a weak personality, i.e., be a tyrant and obsequious subject at once. This sort of incoherence pretty much defines Smith's polemics. Apparently it doesn't matter that one paragraph doesn't follow logically from the next, or actively contradicts it. The important thing is to nail the sinister manipulator and the timid follower -- both of them me. The current CUFOS board, aside from me, consists of Mark Rodeghier, John P. Timmerman, George M. Eberhart, Don Schmitt, Michael D. Swords, Jennie Zeidman, and Nancy Clark (who happens to be my wife). (Names of current board members are published every year in IUR.) I will gladly furnish addresses and telephone numbers of any or all of these individuals to any ParaNet participant who wishes to contact them privately to get their views on me and on Smith's representation of CUFOS in general. I urge these inquirers to ask specifically if it is true, as Smith charges, that I dominate CUFOS, that Rodeghier is a weak-willed figurehead, based on my whims. Inquirers will find, I can state confidently, that these individuals will declare Smith's charges laughable, if not downright hallucinatory, and that they will proceed to relate instances explaining why we, in common with other UFO organizations and ufologists, have found Smith impossible to work with. They will also relate instances in which Smith has made bizarre claims which, if publicized, would call into question his judgment and perhaps his sanity as well. It should be noted that Smith's track record of reliability, even when he's describing something he knows about (certainly not the case with CUFOS), is pretty awful. It has recently been demonstrated, for example, that he has consistently misrepresented his educational background. Under the circumstances it seems peculiar he is busily accusing other people of assorted crimes (largely imaginary), unless he wants to draw attention away from the recent embarrassing revelations about him. Careful readers will have noticed that, while Smith declares dramatically that "CUFOS was precipitously departing from what had been the basic philosophy of its founder," owing to the evil schemes of strong personality/weak personality Jerry Clark, he provides no real specifics whatsoever. That is because there are none to give. All he can do is attempt a smear by association. I have a "dubious pedigree" because I worked for Fate. So what? Fate was, and is, a popular and widely read magazine on anomalies and the paranormal, and just about everybody who was ever anybody in these areas, whether skeptic, believer or neither, has written for the magazine at one time or another, including Allen Hynek, who used to tell me he liked the magazine. In fact, at one time about 10 years ago, when CUFOS was in financial trouble, Allen actually approached Curtis Fuller, Fate's publisher, to suggest that IUR be published as a Fate supplement! Neither Curt nor I thought this was a good idea -- CUFOS was a scientific organization, Fate a popular magazine with strange ads, not a good mix -- and told Allen as much. In due course IUR appeared for a brief while as a supplement to the short lived paranormal magazine Probe the Unknown. My thoughts about Fate are many and complex and one day I will write about them in detail, but that is not the question that need concern here. Suffice it to say that, at its best, for what it was (a popular magazine with all the limitations of that format), Fate under the Fullers and me was a good magazine, balancing good analysis with interesting anecdotal accounts of paranormal and anomalous experience. Even many members of CSICOP (Gardner, Klass, Oberg, Sheaffer, Frazier, de Camp, Nickell, Stein, Jerome and others) have contributed to it. Not everything it published was to my taste, as you will learn from Mary Fuller (with whom I used to vigorously debate manuscript choices, on which she had the final word up till the last few months of my employment there; the last issue I edited, May 1989, was the one of which I am proudest; my ideal of what the editorial content and slant should have been always), but I respected the magazine's honesty. It never hesitated to admit error and more than a few times ended up debunking claims it had printed previously. And it was never sensationalistic, Smith to the contrary. (I think that everybody except Smith would define sensationalism as what happens when supermarket tabloids deal with extraordinary claims.) Fate's regular writers included scientists, folklorists, psychologists, and religious historians as well as plain folks naively relating experiences that they sincerely believed had happened to them (and which are typical of such accounts worldwide, as has repeatedly been demonstrated in folkloric and parapsychological surveys it is safe to say Smith has never heard of). Smith says I regularly wrote UFO material for Fate but he wisely doesn't get specific about what I wrote in those articles and reviews. The reason is that anyone seeing those articles is going to see a sober, critical minded treatment of the evidence. There's nothing in there, in other words, to indicate that I'm crazy or credulous or anything but supportive of a scientific approach. The UFO material Fate published (others wrote most of it, although I usually solicited and edited their articles) was always some of the best stuff in the magazine, and the writers included most of the most respected people in the field. Smith's vagueness is especially amusing in light of a sentence in his very next paragraph, the one where he (as usual, falsely) accuses Jenny Randles "of unjustified attacks against FSR which are written in vague terms and not in a constructive manner amenable to rebuttal" -- a pretty accurate description of what he's tried to do with me and Fate. Smith claims that "even Dr. Hynek was not happy with his own choice of editor for the IUR." Oh, really? Allen repeatedly told me that he was very happy with what I was doing, and if fact that was the subject of the last letter I ever received from him. He told me, Mark and others that he felt he had left the organization in good hands. Since then we have not had a whisper of criticism from Mimi Hynek, who is surely a greater authority on Allen's legacy than the self appointed Smith. Smith, in fact, is the only person I've ever heard claim Allen wasn't pleased with us, and in this case we all would be well advised to consider the source. Amusingly, Smith cites an IUR reference which apparently is supposed to prove that Allen was mad because I was taking a CUFOS from science. Those who follow up the reference (IUR 10[4],2) will find that it has to do with a disagreement Allen and I had about a particular series of UFO episodes. I was taking the skeptical position because I wasn't satisfied with the quality of the investigation; Allen felt differently. And that's fine. But Smith drops this into context that would lead the unsuspecting reader to think Allen was complaining because I was taking IUR and CUFOS into some wild blue yonder land of supernatural speculation. At any rate, the dispute about the particular case blew over, as disputes usually do that do not involve Smith, and in due course I came to feel (as did other CUFOS personnel who had shared my initial reservations) that Allen was probably right, that the case was an important one. Disagreements arise between intelligent, well meaning individuals and, except in Smith's universe, are usually not seen as evidence of conspiracy or venality. One disagreement some of us in CUFOS had with Allen concerned the alleged relationship between psychic phenomenon and UFOs. In his later years (see, for example, the Omni interview) Allen talked both privately and publicly about his increasingly esoteric perspective on the UFO phenomenon, which frankly made those of us who knew and cared about Allen uncomfortable. In some senses Allen seemed to have given up on the prospect of using science to solve the UFO riddle and in conversation with me (and I'm sure others) he sometimes sounded like Smith's pal Gordon Creighton, the occultist who edits FSR and who opts for magical solutions (believing, for example, that UFOs are djinn -- i.e., supernatural creatures from ancient folk belief; Creighton may be the only person in the West to believe in their existence). How much Allen actually believed this is another question; I liked to think he had an imagination that might be described (so to speak) as impish and perhaps he enjoyed being outrageous. But as time went by, I -- and many other people -- were less sure. Certainly we had grown concerned about his too ready acceptance of various cases and theories. Allen was getting lambasted in places like Discover and Skeptical Inquirer for incautious statements; one, as I recall, had to do with his seeming endorsement of the old occult concept of the "etheric realm." We were concerned, in short, about Allen's and CUFOS' scientific reputation. This is not in any way to demean the enormous contributions this admirable man made over many years to serious UFO inquiry; it is well to keep in mind that when these unhappy developments were occurring, he was old, tired, distracted and (though none of us knew it then) suffering from the brain tumor that would kill him. When Allen moved to Arizona, CUFOS and IUR took a sharp turn to the right, perhaps a bit too far as I think when I re-read some of my early editorials. But we felt we had to re-establish immediately CUFOS' conservative (i.e., scientific) credentials. An early editorial decision all of us involved with IUR agreed on was that there would be no discussion of psychic phenomena in the pages of IUR. Cattle mutilations would be treated with the skepticism we felt they deserved, especially following the publication of Kagan and Summers' devastating Mute Evidence. Cases published in IUR would be scrutinized far more closely, this in response to earlier articles in which possible IFOs had been treated as certain UFOs, mostly because Allen was no longer paying strict (i.e., scientific) attention to the material he was letting appear. Again, none of this was characteristic of Allen in his younger, vigorous years, but it was a problem toward the end. I should point out here that, though he pretends to expertise about my personality, activities and motivations, Willy Smith is barely an acquaintance of mine. Several years ago we exchanged a few letters. On one or two occasions we spoke over the phone. This is the extent of Smith's knowledge of me. He has never visited CUFOS headquarters during Mark Rodeghier's tenure as director and he knows no board members well, with the possible exception of John Timmerman, whom Smith calls a "gentleman" and who tells me (most recently in a phone conversation on July 29) that Smith's ideas about CUFOS are wildly off the mark. In fact, John says, recently he tried to set Smith straight, to no avail. I do find it hilarious, however, that Smith calls me a "weekend ufologist" (which is what 99 percent of ufologists are, by the way) when I happen to be one of the world's very few full time ufologists. So where does Smith get his ideas? He makes them up, that's how. For example, how does Smith know that weak personality Jerry "has been strongly influenced by his friendship with Jenny Randles"? The answer is nowhere, since (all Smith's wishful thinking to the contrary) we aren't certifiable lunatics. Our position has been consistent from the start; that the paper deserves investigation, that thus far the critics haven't made a compelling case, that thus far the proponents have been able to produce only the thinnest and broadest of circumstantial cases. My own personal feeling is that the paper is probably a hoax and probably engineered by individuals within the intelligence community. But that's just speculation; we all would do well simply to await further developments and better evidence, pro or con. what could possibly be wrong with that? Of course "the existence of MJ-12 and the genuineness of the documents are two separate issues." Does Smith think he's the only person to whom this obvious consideration ever occurred? What on earth or in the heavenly firmament is Smith talking about when he says my alleged feelings about the MJ-12 document ("not based on the available evidence," naturally, since I could never do anything so unvenal as to base judgments solely on evidence) stem from my negative "feelings...toward Barry Greenwood"? What? I scarcely know the guy. I met him once briefly and have spoken with him two or three times over the phone, and exchanged probably as many letters. Our interaction, slight as it has been, has always been cordial, and I've always thought of him (from what I've read of what he's written) as sober, bright and reasonable. And he may well be right to be skeptical about the MJ-12 paper. Smith may not be a good critic, but he does have a great imagination. Smith's comments on my villainy vis-a-vis Gulf Breeze are typically incoherent. On one hand he says weak-personality Jerry was swayed by his friendship with Budd Hopkins. On the other hand, strong-personality Jerry was able to bully all of CUFOS into submission to his point of view. In point of fact, I don't know any CUFOS person who "believes" in Gulf Breeze; there are merely different degrees of skepticism, form hard (Rodeghier and Eberhart) to agnostic (mine). We all agree, however, that clear disconfirming evidence has yet to emerge (which is not to say it will never emerge), that the best proponent (Maccabee) has taken care to answer critics' objections and that much of the investigation was botched, by both believers and debunkers, who became wildly emotional when they should have kept their heads clear. Personally, I had learned from earlier experience that Smith's claims have to be taken with a large dose of sodium chloride; his attack on me, the one to which I am responding here (there have been others about which I've kept silent, with difficulty), demonstrates what might be called the Smith Principle: when a fact isn't available, make one up. Gulf Breeze is a case that may have been blown permanently because the debate was conducted, for the most part, incompetently by individuals (with a few honorable exceptions) who were unqualified intellectually and temperamentally. Much of what went on on both sides of the issue was, and is, a disgrace. It also must be said that if Gulf Breeze is an authentic case, those who from the beginning engaged in relentless character assassination of the principle witness, Ed, will have earned their place in the UFO Hall of Shame. Incidentally, my friend Budd Hopkins did not sway weak- personality Jerry. He and I conducted a vigorous, sometimes heated correspondence on the subject. We remained friends, however, and eventually decided to agree to disagree and to go on to other things. I don't see how any objective observer could be anything but confused about Gulf Breeze. Frankly, I don't know what to make of it and I don't think I am under any obligation to have a strong opinion. Like any sensible person, I have a tolerance for ambiguity and there's plenty of that to go around here. I envy Smith his absolute certainty even in the absence of evidence convincing to persons other than himself. Nothing is "missing" in IUR where Gulf Breeze is concerned. We have published pro (Maccabee, Stacy) and con (Rodeghier, van Utrecht). We intend to give the subject a rest, however, in the interests of not trying our readers' patience, until new and significant evidence comes along. Incidentally, I have no idea what Smith means when he writes that "lately the pages of the IUR...disclose Dr. Maccabee's adamant opposition to an independent computer analysis of the suspected photos..." No such statement has ever been made in the pages of IUR, by Maccabee or anyone else, and in fact CUFOS has called (in IUR's pages and elsewhere) for just such an independent analysis. Smith is blowing smoke again, when he writes that the "selection of the articles is not determined by a firmly established policy but by the predominant wind." Evidence? None. Nor is there evidence that IUR does not have scientific standards; Smith wisely cites no examples of foolish, scientifically-indefensible statements in the magazine, knowing they are not there. He writes, even more incoherently than usual, "Although the exact circulation of the IUR is not known, a secret maintained at the price of higher postage rates" -- could anybody explain what that's supposed to mean? -- "the publication delays seem to indicate a decreasing readership and a not very promising future for CUFOS." IUR's circulation is between 1000 and 1100. Renewal rates are excellent and the mail, both to the CUFOS office in Chicago and to my personal residence in Minnesota, is almost universally laudatory. (A typical letter arrived just last week, from a professor of philosophy at a California state university. He said that of all the magazines he reads, the IUR is the only one he reads from cover to cover.) IUR, a bimonthly, comes out regularly every two months; there are no "delays," and in fact we are close to having the issues out at the date indicated on the cover. CUFOS is doing quite well, thank you. We have more money in the bank than we`ve had in years; mail and inquiries are answered promptly; our files are all in order and available for the use of any serious researcher. We have reactivated the Journal for UFO Studies under the capable editorship of Prof. Michael D. Swords. The issue that came out earlier this year has been widely praised, and justly so. All this can be verified by a call to Mark Rodeghier or George Eberhart at the Chicago office; the number is 312-271-3611. If CUFOS is an organization with a "not very promising future," I'll take no promise any day. In the postscript of Smith's manuscript we finally learn the reason it was written at all; as a pre-emptive strike against a two-part article on UNICAT by Paul Fuller of England and Wim van Utrecht of Belgium. According to Smith, to whom those who disagree with him never operate from honorable motives (they're "vitriolic," suffering from "frustration," "destructive" -- never of course honest in their dissent), the critics of UNICAT "fear that we may be approaching basic results." Why would they "fear" that? No answer. In fact, CUFOS had nothing to do with the Fuller-van Utrecht project, though Mark Rodeghier had long said privately that he saw major methodological flaws in UNICAT. Nonetheless he remained silent, not wanting to irritate the volatile Smith even at the expense of letting stand a dubious enterprise. Fuller and van Utrecht were well into their work when they contacted CUFOS (the first we had heard of it) and asked if they could publish in IUR. They were corresponding with Smith, seeking information, opinions and explanations from him, and (as we urged them to do) they showed their manuscript to him prior to publication. We also made it clear (both indirectly, through Fuller and van Utrecht, and directly, through me) to Smith that IUR was open to his rebuttal of the piece (to appear in the next two issues of the magazine). Smith, however, claimed that we would never publish his response! Not unnaturally, we have concluded he has none. I apologize for taking up all your time (and frankly wish I hadn't felt compelled to devote mine to this). But there is scarcely a word of truth in anything Smith's piece says. I've learned, though, that if falsehoods aren't answered, they're seen as truths. Should Smith respond to the above, as no doubt he will, watch carefully to see if there's any evidence, any documentation, to buttress the bombast. Hold him to standards of fact. Make him cite chapter and verse. Ask him how he can know what's going on at CUFOS without knowing the people involved, the dynamics, the considerations that go into decision-making, and all the rest. If he claims to know it through psychic powers, you can rest assured there's plenty of static on the mental radio. Ask him to produce printed statements, letters, actual knowledgeable informants (anonymous -- i.e., fictitious -- ones don't count), anything to back up his fantastic charges. He won't be able to do it since none exist. But that will not, we can be sure, stop him; he'll just invent wild new charges. All that will stop him is if people stop paying attention to him. Ufology has enough problems. It doesn't need a Willy Smith. 612 North Oscar Avenue Canby, Minnesota 56220 August 1, 1989 -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com ARTICLE SUBMISSION info-paranet@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 22a --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Aug 89 23:11:00 GMT From: paranet!mcorbin Subject: Dan Wright's rebuttal to Dr. Smith Here is Dan Wright's rebuttal to Dr. Smith DATE OF UPLOAD: August 22, 1989 ORIGIN OF UPLOAD: ParaNet Alpha/Denver, Colorado CONTRIBUTED BY: Dan Wright/MUFON/Deputy Director, Investigations ======================================================== (C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service All Rights Reserved. THIS FILE WAS PREPARED BY PARANET ALPHA -- PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE BBS PARANET ALPHA 1-303-431-1343 9600 BAUD DENVER, COLORADO NOTE: THESE FILES ARE NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE OF THE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE NETWORK ======================================================== What follows is a letter sent to me for uploading to ParaNet. It is a rebuttal to the Smith.Txt file and Dr. Willy Smith on behalf of Dan Wright, the Deputy Director of Investigations for MUFON (Mutual UFO Network). This is not an official MUFON response and is not endorsed by Walt Andrus, who told us at ParaNet that he would "not dignify Willy Smith with an official response from MUFON." This letter has been reproduced in it's entirety. August 19, 1989 Michael Corbin ParaNet Information Service P.O. Box 928 Denver, CO 80034 Mr. Corbin: It has come to my attention that Wily Smith mentioned me in an unfavorable manner during the course of his paper, "Decline and Fall of American Ufology," as uploaded by ParaNet on 7/12/89. Characteristically, Dr. Smith chose not to limit his critique to the quality of investigations conducted or evidence gathered. Instead, he again penned a personal attack on CUFOS and MUFON principles. Sadly, it is Smith'`s uncompromising, mean spirited disposition and fallacious diatribes bordering on slander which were responsible for his removal from these organizations in succession. In comparison with the remarks Smith reserved for Jerry Clark, Mark Rodeghier and Walt Andrus, I suppose I ought to feel comforted in having been only rather briefly maligned. Nonetheless, I wish to respond, restricting most of the following too his statements about me personally and my position within MUFON. One exception is to point out that, in your introductory comments, you incorrectly referred to Smith as a former member of the MUFON Board of Directors. His was in actuality a staff position, which you might have verified via the MUFON UFO Journal or UFO Symposium Proceedings. A staff person is not in a decision making role, a point which seemed to be lost on Smith during his brief tenure with MUFON. Smith first referred to me in his paper as "a MUFON henchman who really doesn't count." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "henchman" variously as (1) a squire or page to a person of high rank; (2) a trusted follower: a righthand man; (3) a political follower whose support is chiefly for personal advantage; and (4) an unscrupulous often violent member of a gang. Since I have no background in gangland activities, of the remaining possibilities let's assume Smith only meant to say I'm a trusted follower of MUFON's objectives. As a henchman, Smith accorded me the status of being one of only five persons (Walt Andrus, Don Ware, Budd Hopkins and Bruce Maccabee being the others) for whom the Gulf Breeze photos "are unconditionally accepted as genuine". That is a most curious assumption on his part, in that I have made no such proclamation to him or anyone else. Later in his paper, Smith devoted a lengthy paragraph to denouncing my abilities. I am, in his judgment, one of the people Walt Andrus surrounded himself with who would "dance to his tune," a contention which Walt would surely find comical. To Smith, I have "undermined the seriousness of MUFON investigations by establishing absurd rules which consider that having the appropriate forms completed is more important than the investigative process itself." This point is comical to me since I know the source of his despair. Two years ago, he assisted on a local investigation, a momentary CE-1 involving several reputed witnesses. Unfortunately, the principal investigator failed to turn in witness sighting forms or separate signed statements. Thus, in my role of evaluating case reports, I ruled the report incomplete for lack of documentation that the event actually occurred - the very conclusion Smith himself would reach in his UNICAT analyses had he not been personally involved. [Smith is not aware of my conclusions on any other report and has never asked that I summarize my evaluative criteria. Therefore, my "sin" in that case apparently led to his sweeping generalization that I have absurd rules - which, incidentally, are detailed in Ray Fowler's chapter on report writing in the MUFON Field Investigator's Manual.] The fundamental lesson in this regard, which seems to elude Smith, is that I don't evaluate cases. I offer preliminary evaluations on case reports in order to encourage strengthening of a given case at hand and to hopefully assist the investigator to avoid similar oversights in the future. And, yes, proper documentation - of the witness account, collateral contacts, natural and man-made IFO sources and all the rest - is crucial. Without it, for later research purposes the event has no more merit than hearsay. These are the very criteria by which Smith himself discounted most of the CUFOS files. Me thinks the real reason for his ire is that anyone but himself would dare engage in case report evaluations, let alone give feedback to the originators. Smith went on to say in the same paragraph: "The worst thing about Mr. Wright is his lack of UFOlogical knowledge and experience, and his unshakable belief that he is favored with both. Again, I have first hand experience with this, because in my naivete I attempted to educate him about the complexities of the evaluation of UFO reports. I soon discovered that his only emphasis was on the number of reports sent to MUFON headquarters to be placed in dusty file cabinets, out of circulation forever." I'll try to address this passage one slur at a time. As to my "UFOlogical knowledge," I readily admit to being a lifelong student of the subject, not a grandmaster the likes of which Smith reserves for himself. After all, I only began reading about the subject 20 years ago and have been avocationally involved for a mere 11 years. Apparently, Smith has personally investigated far more than the hundred or so cases I have engaged in. And he has definitely read and evaluated more than the two hundred fifty case reports that I have responded to over the past two years. In his eyes, then, I'm still the rank novice. Nevertheless, I do offer feedback to the investigators forthwith so that case reports can be redressed if necessary while events are still fresh in the minds of the witnesses and collateral sources. That is a dimension he has never attempted and with which he may feel uncomfortable, given his penchant for tart verbage. So, to anyone who has been feeding cases to Smith, it might be illuminating to ask him how he disposed of them and why. Under MUFON's case submittal - feedback procedure, there is nothing hidden and there are no bad surprises later. As to my experience, which he called into question, my eleven and a half years with MUFON have been spent thus (with some overlapping duties): thirty months as an investigator, handling among other cases much of the Michigan flap of 1978; six years as State Director, building the organization from four to forty plus members, incorporating it, and hosting the 1986 MUFON Symposium; three years as the central state regional director; and the last two as Deputy Director in charge of investigations. Along the way, I've authored MUFON's field investigator's examination (with able assistance from dozens of consultants and others), published a booklet and produced a video tape on proper interviewing, distributed and photographic slide set and narrative for public appearances, and written 9 years of newsletters - to the Michigan membership, the central regional state directors, and most recently all state and Canadian provincial directors - emphasizing investigative methods. All of these assignments were self generated and mostly out of pocket. Others may have gained greater fame (or, in Smith's case, notoriety) within the UFO community, for my intent throughout has been to upgrade the preparedness of, yes, our "grassroots" investigators, whom Smith so blithely dismissed as incompetent in another sweeping generalization elsewhere in his paper. All readers would rightly be offended by that brand of snobbish scientist elitism. As to the charge that my "only emphasis was on the number of reports sent to MUFON headquarters," how would I influence that? I can only evaluate what I receive from people around the continent, most of whom with which I have no contact. If I were trying to affect the numbers in any way, then surely I wouldn't be returning roughly thirty percent at present as needing more documentation. Moreover, the 250 reports over two non flap years to evaluate, I've found, has just about eliminated all other joys in life, and a year like, say 1967, would definitely bog down the feedback system. It seems, rather, that at this point he had run out of "substantive" criticisms but was determined to reach for anything that had a sting on paper even though divorced from reality. Between the lines of Smith's dismissal of my role in this pursuit, I have found the cardinal sin over which, to him, I shall forever perish. During the tumult encompassing the Gulf Breeze events, having been fundamentally embarrassed over his early and premature hoax assessment, Smith adopted the Klassic posture of attacking the character of his perceived opponents, chief among them Walt Andrus. In a series of letters, which Walt subsequently shared with me, Smith first suggested that Walt was stressed out and had a heart condition (patently absurd), then blatantly termed Walt insane (even more unfounded and downright bizarre). When I decided this had gone quite far enough, I quoted some of his more extreme written statements in a newsletter. Having been apprised of same, it is little wonder that he felt a need to try to belittle me - and the others over not unlike circumstances. About the only thing Smith got right about me is that I am indeed a bureaucrat, to be accurate a mid level technician in the social services delivery system. Over two decades I've seen many welfare clients living on the edge, in many cases coping with life by means of aggressive behavior. For the past eighteen months especially, in my judgment Willy Smith has been living on the edge. Not having produced any results from his grandiose (if not suspect) UNICAT Project, he seems to be coping in the way he knows - by attacking everyone in sight. He was run out of CUFOS over his nastiness and, after first believing that he could be useful, Walt Andrus discharged him for the same reason. Like the malcontent professional athlete who has some skills but wreaks havoc everywhere he goes, Smith has now run out of options but continues to spit into the wind, believing fervently that everyone but himself is both wrong and evil. Frankly, I pity the man. FYI, a MUFON committee was formed following this year's symposium for the purpose of establishing a computer program and data fields to encode our historical files. When this first step is completed in the coming months, we will begin to enter our cases on file. If Walt had not guided the organization into a state of solvency, there would be no funds for the hardware, software and paid staff to accomplish this formidable task. In Smith's dreamworld of fantasized enemies, that constitutes emphasizing profits over answers. The enigma of UFO visitations might be resolved next week by the proverbial landing on the White House lawn. Alternately, Bill Moore, John Lear or Willy Smith might single-handedly answer all our questions - if we only support their individual (and contrasting) efforts with kudos and hope and staying out of the way. Then again, it's just possible that we'll all be dead before the final resolution is apparent. MUFON and the Center, for all their disagreements through the years, share the assumption that the answers might not be right around the corner. For a Willy Smith, already in retirement, there is an understandable urgency in all this and, I suspect, a frustration that he might not be at center stage for the climax. Hence, he blames everyone whom he delusively perceives as getting in the way. It is indeed understandable - but, given his extended irrational behavior, not excusable. Please upload this response. Thank you. Dan Wright cc: Walt Andrus John Schuessler Mark Rodeghier Jerry Clark Budd Hopkins Bruce Maccabee Don Ware -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Aug 89 23:11:00 GMT From: paranet!mcorbin Subject: Dr. Smith's Rebuttal Here is Dr. Smith's rebuttal. DATE OF UPLOAD: August 23, 1989 ORIGIN OF UPLOAD: ParaNet Alpha CONTRIBUTED BY: Dr. Willy Smith ======================================================== (C) Copyright 1989 ParaNet Information Service All Rights Reserved unless Copyrighted by Author. THIS FILE WAS PREPARED BY PARANET ALPHA -- PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE 1-303-431-1343 9600 BAUD DENVER, COLORADO NOTE: THESE FILES ARE NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE OF THE PARANET INFORMATION SERVICE NETWORK ======================================================== Date: August 7, 1989 >From: Dr. Willy Smith UNICAT Project To: UFO Publications, electronic media Proponents of Gulf Breeze photographs Subject: Statement of Position In mid-June, 1989, the UNICAT Project submitted several photographs for computer enhanced image analysis. The photos considered fall into two categories: 1) portrait of a girl iwth an anomalous image above her right shoulder; and 2) photos of an alleged UFO obtained by Mr. Walters/Hanson of Gulf Breeze, FL starting in November, 1987. The results have been spectacular: the girl's photos were undoubtedly obtained by using double exposure, thus demonstrating the photographer's familiarity with the technique, while the UFO photos show a well defined supporting structure under the alleged spacecraft. The reaction of the interested parties has been swift and predictable. Instead of addressing the main issue, i.e., why a real UFO needs to be supported, the proponents have flooded the mails with anonymous and world shaking communiques which can be described only as malicious gossiping, aimed at cushioning the negative impact of the new information revealed by computer analysis. The releases follow the time-honored pattern that what counts in politics is not the truth, but what is believed to be the truth. In an attempt to provide a semblance of credibility, names and circumstances are provided, but no supporting evidence is offered. Authorship of the masterpieces of intrigue -- I am told -- have been attributed to various sources, some of them luminaries on the UFO scene, such as Budd Hopkins and/or associates, or Dr. Maccabee, or secondary characters in the play, as for instance Col. Robert (sic) Reid or "Ed-of-Gulf-Breeze" himself. Whatever the case may be, until such times a signed copy of the statements reaches me, I will not dignify them with a formal response. The computer enhanced material has not been released as yet, as some questions have been raised by the photographer regarding the copyright protection of the photos, an issue that has been complicated by the fact that the lawyer that initially contacted me has indicated that she does not represent Mr. Walters any longer. In the meantime, information received from the Copyright Office in Washington has created some doubts with reference to the validity of the copyright for this specific instance, as well as disclosing interesting possibilities based on the doctrine of "fair use". Willy Smit -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Aug 89 22:20:15 GMT From: paranet!f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder Subject: Re: Cydonia.txt > > Perhaps they thought that 0 & 1s would make more sense than just > saying "Earth" in about a dozen languages. Personally certain > pictures would be of more value, something on the order of a modern > day\ hieroglyphics. > > Could it be that's where the concept of hieroglyphics came from ? > hehe. OH well. > The binary numbers would make sense to an intelligent race; at least the plaque designers thought so. The plaque also shows a man & woman and included a video disk of pictures & sounds. Let's hope whoever receives this plaque has a video disk player. Somewhere I have a record album which has this plaque on it but I can't remember whose album it is. -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!268!102!Paul.Faeder INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 02:03:30 GMT From: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Linda Murphy) Subject: CUFOS files Organization: Paranet Information Service, Denver, CO (303) 431-1343 > > serious accusation?". Could you enlighten us, as to why you feel > > this to be so? > > As a general comment it sounds odd that an organisation dedicated to be > against secrect actually is secret its self, or have I just read too mush > into the comments. Very true! WHat I find interesting is the "hoax" factor. If it a hoax, then what *kind* of hoax? What is the objective of the photographs? What are the real results of what appears to be an ongoing thing? I know I am bent more towards the "human factor" -- and if it is a hoax, then the possibilities of the "human factor" must be taken into consideration. To me, it is a serious thing if someone pulls off such a "hoax" to achieve an end that is NOT KNOWN about.... (So with that thought in mind, is it *really* a hoax?). ( 1:304/1) -- Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Linda.Murphy INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Aug 89 07:42:00 GMT From: Jim.Speiser@f20.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Exploding Common UFO Myths #1 Organization: FidoNet node 1:30163/20 ___ __ /__ /_ The ___/peiser / ile ___________________________________________________________________________ Ubiquitous UFO Untruth #1: Astronomers Don't See UFOs < o o o > The following astronomers, AMONG OTHERS, have sighted UFOs: Dr. C. D. Shane, Lick Observatory, California Seymour L. Hess, Lowell Observatory, Arizona Frank Hastoad, head of Darling Observatory Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto Dr. H. Percy Wilkins, former director of British Astronomical Association Dr. Bert Bok, Nobel Prize Winner, Mt. Stromie Observatory, Australia Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Dearborn Observatory, Michigan Dr. Muammer Dixer, director, Kazdilli Observatory, Istanbul < o o o > "I doubt that the phenomenon was any terrestrial reflection, because...nothing of the kind has ever appeared before or since...I was so unprepared for such a strange sight that I was really petrified with astonishment." -- Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, on his 8/20/49 sighting of a UFO over Las Cruces, NM -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!30163!20!Jim.Speiser INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f20.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Aug 89 21:16:00 GMT From: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bryon Smith) Subject: Re: RE: CUFOS files Organization: FidoNet node 1:19/19 - The Rainbow Q, Fort Smith AR > damage Smith's credibility. Since the ParaNet rating of > the Gulf Breeze > case seems to be at least partly based on Smith's opinion, > it would be > worthwhile to determine the truth in this matter. Smith's > statement > should not be accepted without verification. Jim S. had placed that rating on this case well before the W.Smith file. I think that perhaps they may consider that the W.Smith file might provide certain evidence to support this rating, but certainly it's an indication that something isn't totally right about the case and as such other things need to be looked into. I can't speak for ParaNet on that, but I believe something isn't what it might appear to be in this case. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!19!19!Bryon.Smith INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com ARTICLE SUBMISSION infopara@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM Info-ParaNet Letters Volume 1 Issue 22 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Aug 89 23:32:00 GMT From: Dale.Wedge@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Dale Wedge) Subject: Hello again Hello to those who know me, those who care, those that don't, and those that never want to hear from me again. Still living in Ohio, the great Buckeye State being a co-sysop on a UFOLOGY SIG in the FreeNet system. For those interested in calling the system, call 216-368-3888 and call in as a guest. Type "go ufo" and add to the wonders of the Cleveland System. Have fun, turn blue, and don't let the E.T. bugs bite! -- Dale Wedge - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!Dale.Wedge INTERNET: Dale.Wedge@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 89 00:34:00 GMT From: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze Photos Jim, First, let me thank you for the note detailing your interests in UFOs and Gulf Breeze. I hope that I did not come off too aggressive as this was not my intention. Yes, I was curious about whether your interest was official, however, for the record, it seems to be purely personal. The investigation into the Gulf Breeze case is presently ongoing and I am not at liberty to disclose too much more at this point, however we are very interested in looking at the original photographs to have them independently studied. Since it would seem that these photographs are the only substantive thing supporting the Gulf Breeze case scientifically, I am very determined to answer a lot of questions that I feel have been unaddressed with this issue and the photographs. In short, I appreciate your comments, as I am sure our readers do, and I am very interested in anything that you have to say. Hopefully before long we will have some more definitive answers to share with everyone. Take care. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: ...!scicom!mcorbin INTERNET: mcorbin@paranet.FIDONET.ORG ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com ARTICLE SUBMISSION infopara@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM