Richard Hall Resigns From
MUFON - Alleges Censorship
From Richard Hall

As of June 17, my monthly column for the MUFON UFO Journal was vetoed (read: censored) by John F. Schuessler, the International Director, because it included critical comments about the line-up of speakers for the 2001 symposium in Orange County, California. No dissension allowed. As a result, I have submitted my resignation and will contribute no further columns to the Journal.
I was informed that the Orange County MUFON chapter had selected the speakers and considered them "appropriate for the theme of the event as well as the location of the event." How true! But how appropriate are they for the national MUFON organization which claims to be scientific in orientation?
Following my own advice to others on this list, I did some research and looked at the MUFON Orange County web site (, and discovered that the "New Age" is alive and well in Southern California. Their stated goals include "Actively promoted INTERACTION with intelligent life and URP." (Shades of Steven Greer, the speaker that I protested most strongly.)
URP (UFO-related Phenomena) is defined to include PSI Phenomenon [sic], astro-geology, paleo-archeology, and human and animal mutilations, among other things. MUFON-OC public education programs include presentations about hypnotic regression by a woman associated with the Association for Past Life Research and Therapies, and who has recently published a book titled "Crop Circles Revealed: Language of the Light Symbols."
Other public education programs featured remote viewing, underground bases, Area 51, etc. If this mish-mosh is where MUFON is going, I'm not going with them. My advice to scientifically oriented MUFON members is to instruct your leadership to clean house and start behaving scientificially, which includes peer review as a central element.
My offending column is attached. ___
Perspective On the Role of MUFON
By Richard H. Hall
I have been made aware of an undercurrent of "unrest" or "concern" about MUFON policies and activities that I wish the people concerned would address directly to International Director John Schuessler rather than to me. Essentially, they center around the apparent (and I stress "apparent") endorsement by MUFON of some very extreme and questionable people and viewpoints.
It all comes down to leadership style, standard setting, "free speech" and fairplay issues, and other sometimes subjective judgments as well as honest evaluation of objective facts. Primarily I am referring here to the 2001 MUFON symposium in California, though it is merely putting a sharp focus on an incipient issue. That issue concerns the credibility and, indeed, honesty and integrity of some of the people in ufology who have now been invited to be featured speakers at the symposium.
Let me say up front that I have privately protested the inclusion of Dr. Steven Greer as a speaker for reasons that I won't reiterate here, but that are obvious to anyone who has observed, or followed, or participated in his activities. To me, it is a travesty that he is being allowed to speak at a MUFON symposium. However, the leadership of MUFON - for reasons that they have not expressed to me - disagree and are allowing him to be on the program. So be it. We will see what the fallout is.
In addition to Greer, we find on the program a highly controversial leftist lawyer, Daniel Sheehan, who supports Greer but also drags Left vs. Right politics into the arena as an unnecessary complicating factor. He and another highly controversial character, Alfred L. Webre (who has made some exceedingly strange political comments and dragged in the issue of weapons in space) both were prominently involved in Greer's press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., advocating Congressional hearings about UFOs.
Is the UFO subject not controversial enough in its own right without introducing these politically loaded issues of questionable relevance?
Some of the other speakers are controversial as well, particularly Roger Leir and his claims about alien implants, Joseph McMoneagle and remote viewing, and the Woods who are claiming (despite a great deal of knowledgable commentary to the contrary) to be "expert" document analysts. Leir and the Woods, at least, are making claims that are more logically relevant and more subject to legitimate peer review. However, it is my firm opinion that unless they are subjected to "real time" peer review during (not after) the symposium, MUFON comes off looking naive and gullible.
As for "remote viewing," once again there is an appearance of naivete and gullibility unless MUFON takes pains to provide background as to its relevance and as to its validity.
A symposium on UFOs obviously ought to explore a range of issues with an open mind, but my suggestion is that perhaps more attention should be paid to (a) vetting speakers, and (b) providing background information and context to an ill-informed public to help them understand what the speakers are saying. This is even more important in regard to the impressions that scientific and news media observers who may be observing will obtain on how MUFON (and "ufology") go about their work.
My final thought is that John Schuessler and MUFON need to give strong consideration to what the purpose of the annual symposium is and how to go about it. My bias is that the symposium should have as a primary purpose informing the public about reliably established UFO information, a secondary purpose of providing background and contextual information to help the public unerstand the information, and a tertiary purpose of encouraging and promoting critical discussion of controversial issues.


This Site Served by TheHostPros