Maintenance script: ParaNet BBS Archive

2023-09-12T01:09:51Z

ParaNet BBS Archive

New page

[[Category:ParaNet]]

{{Infobox BBS
| image = Archived-En.png
| file = wright.txt
| author = Unknown
| date = Unknown
| subject =
| orig_bbs = Unknown
| bbs_main_page = [[ParaNet Main Page]]
| key_words = ParaNet, UFO, Ufology
}}

<pre>

*****************************************************************
I M P O R T A N T N O T I C E
concerning the following text file
*****************************************************************
ParaNet makes no endorsement of this material and the views
expressed herein are not necessarily the views of ParaNet. This
information is provided as a public service only.

This file is SHARETEXT material. This means that you are free to
distribute it to anyone you like, as long as it is not used for
commercial purposes, you do not charge for it, you do not remove
this header, or change the contents in anyway. Additionally, we
ask that you contribute to ParaNet, if possible, to assure a
continuation of this valuable, educational SHARETEXT service.
The suggested contribution is $75.00 and entitles you to full
access to our comprehensive library and our network of electronic
affiliates all over the world. Other services are available.
Mail your contribution to:

ParaNet Information Service
P.O. Box 172
Wheat Ridge, CO 80034-0172

ParaNet(sm): Freedom of Information for a better world!

(C) 1991 ParaNet(sm) Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
****************************************************************
ParaNet File Number: 00264

DATE OF UPLOAD: August 22, 1989
ORIGIN OF UPLOAD: ParaNet Alpha/Denver, Colorado
CONTRIBUTED BY: Dan Wright/MUFON/Deputy Director, Investigations
========================================================

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

</pre>

ParaNet BBS/wright - Revision history

Maintenance script: ParaNet BBS Archive