This blog post has three parts: an Introduction, the text of my formally published tribute “James W. Moseley as Trickster,” and Links to web pages with comments on Moseley
Introduction
Loved by some,
reviled by others, James W. Moseley (1931-2012) was a presence in ufology for
nearly 60 years. In 1954 at age 22, he
started a newsletter that continued until his death—with a run of more than 450
issues. The zine had various titles, but
in 1981 he settled on Saucer Smear. Humor and sarcasm were its hallmarks, with a
focus on scandals, fights, irrationalities, hoaxes, and exposés. No one was safe from comment, and Moseley antagonized
many who wanted dignity and respect for ufology. Nevertheless, he should be appreciated, as I
explain in my tribute to him (which appears below this introductory section).
Many in UFO research would like to forget Jim
Moseley, so there is a risk that his contributions will be neglected in years
to come. However, Jim still has fans,
and Timothy Green Beckley has published “A Special Tribute to the Editor of Saucer
Smear and the Court Jester of Ufology.”
The book is titled The Astounding
UFO Secrets of James W. Moseley. It
carries tributes by Tim Beckley, Ed Biebel, Greg Bishop, Tim Brigham, Phyllis
Galde, Allen Greenfield, T. N. Hackney, Rick Hilberg, Antonio Huneeus, Ed
Komarek, Gene Steinberg, Kenn Thomas, and myself. Also included is a transcript of a 2010 radio
interview with SMiles Lewis and Mack White, as well as a poem by Adam
Gorightly.
Many in UFO research would like to forget Jim
Moseley, so there is a risk that his contributions will be neglected in years
to come. However, Jim still has fans,
and Timothy Green Beckley has published “A Special Tribute to the Editor of Saucer
Smear and the Court Jester of Ufology.”
The book is titled The Astounding
UFO Secrets of James W. Moseley. It
carries tributes by Tim Beckley, Ed Biebel, Greg Bishop, Tim Brigham, Phyllis
Galde, Allen Greenfield, T. N. Hackney, Rick Hilberg, Antonio Huneeus, Ed
Komarek, Gene Steinberg, Kenn Thomas, and myself. Also included is a transcript of a 2010 radio
interview with SMiles Lewis and Mack White, as well as a poem by Adam
Gorightly.
The book incorporates “the full text of UFO Crash Secrets at Wright Patterson Air
Force Base,” an account of some of Moseley’s early activities in ufology. Moseley (1998) asserted that the text was
ghost-written and fictionalized, though in this book Beckley (pp. 1-2) takes issue
with that claim. Near the end of the
volume is a copy of the infamous Straith letter, one of Moseley’s hoaxes, which
provoked an FBI investigation. The book
concludes with Appendix 1, “The Final Issue of ‘Saucer Smear’” (Volume 59, No. 9).
The book’s lurid cover and its layout are
characteristic of lowbrow UFO literature, and they are entirely fitting for remembrances
of someone like Moseley. Neither
Beckley’s nor Moseley’s productions were calculated to gain the attention or
respect of an intellectual elite. That’s
an important point. These are marginal
figures in a marginal field. Yet Beckley’s
volume, Moseley’s memoir Shockingly Close
to the Truth: Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist (2002), and his Saucer Smear should give future scholars
important insights not only into one of ufology’s significant characters but
also into the UFO phenomenon itself.
References
Beckley, Timothy
Green. (2013). The Astounding UFO Secrets
of James W. Moseley: A Special Tribute to the Editor of Saucer Smear and the
Court Jester of Ufology. New Brunswick, NJ: Global Communications/Inner
Light.
Moseley, James W.
(1998). “Smear” Editor Exposes Fake Alien Photos on the Back Cover of His Own
Book! Saucer Smear, January 10th,
Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 1-3.
Moseley, James W.;
& Pflock, Karl T. (2002). Shockingly
Close to the Truth: Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist. Amherst, NY:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The text below originally appeared on pages 18-23 of: Beckley, Timothy Green. (Ed.). (2013). The Astounding UFO Secrets of James W. Moseley: A Special Tribute to the Editor of Saucer Smear and the Court Jester of Ufology. New Brunswick, NJ: Global Communications/Inner Light.
Some of the links in the Endnotes no longer work.
A printer-friendly PDF of the text of the tribute below is available at:
http://tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/JamesWMoseleyAsTrickster.pdf
James W. Moseley as Trickster
By George P. Hansen
It is “not how men think in myths, but how myths
operate in men’s minds without their being aware of the fact.”
—Claude
Lévi-Strauss
Jim Moseley has been called the Clown
Prince and the Court Jester of UFOlogy.
The appellations are entirely fitting—Moseley was indeed a
trickster. He perpetrated some amusing
hoaxes, exposed others, mocked and antagonized UFOlogy’s “establishment,” and
often referred to the field as “UFOOLogy.”
During the eight years I spent writing The
Trickster and the Paranormal, I often pondered Jim’s life and work. His zine, Saucer Smear,
provided invaluable information—information critical to judicious assessments
of UFO cases, witnesses, and researchers.
But for me, Moseley was more than that; he himself was one of the
trickster exemplars that I used in my thinking.
Here I want to express my appreciation for
Jim Moseley, comment from the perspective of trickster theory, and explain why
he remains an important figure. Moseley,
UFO phenomena, and the field of UFOlogy generally share some abstract qualities
that can be illuminated by recourse to certain scholarly works on the
trickster. Those works help clarify several
major predicaments of UFOlogy. But
before I say much about Moseley and UFOlogy, I will need to explain a few
concepts.
What Is “The Trickster”?
The trickster is a character type found
worldwide in mythology and folklore, and trickster tales must number in the
thousands. The trickster is something of
an irrational being. He—the trickster is
typically male—can be seen as a personification of a cluster of abstract
qualities that often manifest together.
These include deception, disruption, abnormal sexuality, boundary
crossing, taboo breaking, supernatural/paranormal powers, marginality, and
outsiderhood. When a few of these
characteristics are found in a person, group, or situation, one should be alert
for others.
UFOs, Myth, Ritual, and the Trickster
In the 1960s and 1970s, John Keel and
Jacques Vallee pointed out that reports of UFO occupants are strikingly similar
to entities described in myths and folklore.
During those same decades, anthropologists made significant advances in
understanding myth and ritual. That
scholarship can be applied to UFO phenomena.
However, most scientists, including most UFOlogists, shun the topics of
myth and ritual. Those are often thought
to be remnants of superstition and hence have no place in science. Yet myths have survived for thousands of
years; it is hubris to dismiss them.
The most illuminating theoretical work on
the trickster utilizes analyses of myth and ritual—particularly the structural
study of myth (which focuses on binary oppositions) and the analyses of ritual
that generated the concept of liminality. Earlier cultures used myth to understand
supernatural forces and ritual to channel and control them. It is under liminal conditions, and around
liminal people, that paranormal (i.e., supernatural) events are more likely to
be reported.
I find it impossible to give a succinct,
comprehensible, and comprehensive explanation of liminality. But briefly, it involves change, transition,
transformation, flux, ambiguity, instability, blurred boundaries, and
uncertainty—these apply both to persons (e.g., James Moseley) and to groups
(e.g., the field of UFOlogy). Some
synonyms include betwixt and between, interstitial, and anti-structure. Marginality and outsiderhood are types of
liminality. Paranormal organizations and
phenomena display properties of liminality.
The trickster exemplifies the concept.1
Most people probably associate the
trickster with deception, and that provides an obvious connection to
UFOlogy. The field is plagued by frauds,
hoaxes, con artists, and government disinformation, even though the vast
majority of UFO reports are made by honest people. Deception is one of UFOlogy’s greatest
challenges. But there are many other
aspects of UFOlogy that can be addressed within the framework of trickster
theory. I will describe only a couple of
applications here—anti-structure and the betwixt and between.
Anti-structure
Anti-structure is a synonym of
liminality. It primarily refers to
conditions of instability in social relations, including those within and
between institutions. Strong
manifestations of anti-structure are incompatible with hierarchical
institutions. Groups and organizations
that seek to directly study paranormal phenomena using rational, scientific
methods frequently encounter infighting, schisms, and dissolution. UFOlogy has never established viable,
long-lasting, well-recognized, widely trusted institutions that study and
comment authoritatively on the phenomena.
No university departments are devoted to the study of UFOs. College courses on the topic are rarely
offered for academic credit.
UFOs generate massive
popular interest. UFO movies have
grossed hundreds of millions of dollars.
In contrast, the more serious interest by MUFON, CUFOS, and other
organizations gains meager support. Most
research is done by individuals and small groups, who operate independently of
larger institutions. This state of
affairs illustrates the anti-structural nature of the field.
Moseley’s style was highly compatible with
anti-structure. His UFO activities were
not undertaken as an employee or representative of any organization, and he
proudly proclaimed his low rank within the UFO field by appending “J.S.” to his
name on the masthead of Smear (J.S. standing for Journal
Subscriber of the MUFON UFO Journal).
Moseley did head NUFOC (National UFO
Conference), but it was a small group that only occasionally helped him
organize conferences. A few colleagues
assisted him with Smear. For
instance, Vince Ditchkus provided him with information from the Internet, but Smear
was essentially Moseley’s product. His
newsletter appeared for 59 years. It was
produced by an individual, not an organization, thus reflecting the
anti-structural nature of UFOlogy.
Betwixt and Between
A concept closely related to liminality
is the betwixt and between.
Among other things, it refers to a social position between two larger or
more powerful groups.
Moseley held a spot betwixt and between
aggressive proponents and sneering debunkers.
He was not part of UFOlogy’s “establishment,” but neither was he a fan
of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly CSICOP). Moseley accepted the reality of UFOs, even
though Shockingly Close to the Truth was published by Prometheus Books,
whose founder co-founded CSICOP.
Moseley maintained open, even friendly,
relations with individual skeptics and debunkers. He has described Philip Klass as a personal
friend, and Klass’s comments frequently appeared in Smear. Also, Moseley published remarks from Michael
Dennett, Martin Gardner, James Oberg, Gary Posner, Tim Printy, James Randi, and
Robert Sheaffer. Shortly after Moseley’s
death, Lance Moody reported that, “Jim and I had long conversations about once
a month for 20 years. I loved talking to
him, hearing all of his stories and discussing UFOs and the paranormal. We never had a single cross word even though
he knew I was a hard core skeptic.”2
While Moseley was friends with individual
proponents and skeptics of UFOs, his relations with “the establishment” of UFOlogy
were not so warm. Members of that
establishment were not shy in saying what they thought of him.
Michael Swords, a now-retired professor, a
stalwart member of CUFOS, and former editor of its Journal of UFO Studies,
wrote the following: “Moseley, however, nice a guy he may or may not be, has
spent a life fouling the waters of UFOlogy with hoaxes, misrepresentations,
rumors, misplaced ‘humor’ ... it has been an almost wholly unhelpful ‘career’
to the field” (ellipses in original).3
Richard Hall was perhaps the epitome of
establishment UFOlogy. He worked for
NICAP, served as a board member of MUFON, wrote a column for UFO Magazine,
and was dubbed the “dean of UFOlogy.”
His feelings toward Moseley were those of revulsion. In an online roast that celebrated Moseley’s
50 years of saucering, Hall responded to a commentator who wrote, “Love him or
hate him, there’s no denying Jim Moseley, for better or worse, has been
and remains a Presence in ufology.” Hall
replied, “Yes, like a steaming turd on the living room carpet. This sort of silly crap explains why you and
your idol, who constantly treat the whole subject as a joke, might just as well
be on the Government payroll for UFO debunkers.”4
Clark, Swords, and Hall served in official
capacities within major organizations of UFOlogy. They spent decades of their lives
contributing to the field and attempting to gain mainstream acceptance for it.5 Moseley, on the other hand, had little
concern for such acceptance; he not only accepted his marginality, he revelled
in it.
Tricksters are often looked upon with
suspicion, especially by those who aspire to respectability. Tricksters today are frequently seen as
amusing or annoying, but also as rather inconsequential characters, not
serious, and not worthy of much attention.
Centuries ago, court jesters were held in
esteem; they were often highly intelligent and were allowed to say what others
were not. Earlier cultures honored them
and understood their importance.
Moseley’s Significance
Jerry Clark, author of many books on UFOs
and long-time editor of International UFO Reporter of the Center for UFO
Studies (CUFOS), wrote to Moseley: “Though you have nothing of consequence to
say about the UFO phenomenon as such anymore (if you ever did, after you
exposed Adamski), you are still the Greatest Living Authority on the
history of saucer fandom and the funniest writer around” (posted above the
masthead of Saucer Smear, October 5th, 2002).
Shortly after Moseley died, Lance Moody
reported, “We spoke about two weeks ago and had an excellent and upbeat
conversation. He faced his illness
soberly. He also wondered if his life
with UFO’s had any value—in the end I think he concluded that he had fun and
that maybe that was enough.”6
Grandiosity is an occupational hazard of
UFO research, but Jim avoided it. I
never found him to be pompous, pretentious, or self-important. Consequently, he seems not to have recognized
his own substantial contributions to the field.
They were masked by humor, and it is easy for many (including himself) to
overlook or dismiss them. Yet in more
than two decades of non-subscribing to Smear, I found sharp intellectual
engagement, impressive critical judgment, and commentary far more credible and
insightful than that produced by the major UFO organizations.
My own view of Moseley’s Saucer Smear
was expressed by the late psychic Ingo Swann, who was an official
non-subscriber. (Swann trained
many of the U.S. government’s psychic spies, and he reported a number of
bizarre UFO encounters himself.) Swann
wrote: “Although many of its readers might view ‘Saucer Smear’ merely as a droll
ufology gossip rag, in the larger picture it is rather more accurately a
profound ‘window’ opening up onto the sociology of ufology. Therefore its cumulative issues constitute a
precious historical archive” (see Saucer Smear, January 5, 1995, page
1).
If UFOlogy sees substantial intellectual
advances in the years to come, I am confident that Moseley’s work will be much
more appreciated than it is today. Jim
exemplified the liminal, anti-structural, marginal, trickster nature of UFOlogy
and of UFO phenomena. Both his writings
and his life are worthy of contemplation.
Endnotes:
1. The most advanced
theoretical work on the trickster was done by Barbara Babcock in 1975. That work has been largely ignored by white
male members of the academic establishment.
Black scholars, American Indian scholars, and some women have recognized
its importance. Those who have been in
positions of significant marginality often have some appreciation for the
trickster. See: Babcock-Abrahams,
Barbara. (1975). “A Tolerated Margin of Mess”: The Trickster and His Tales
Reconsidered. Journal of the Folklore Institute, Vol. 11, pp.
147-186. An early, noteworthy
application of liminality to the topic of UFOs is Peter Rogerson’s 1986 paper
“Taken to the Limits.” As far as I am
aware, it is the earliest work that provides significant discussion of
liminality in relation to the paranormal.
See: Rogerson, Peter. (1986). Taken to the Limits. Magonia, No.
23, July, pp. 3-12. Available at:
http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/limits-1/ and
http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/limits-2/.
2. For Moseley’s
acknowledgement of his friendship with Klass, see the video prepared by Lance
Moody on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOokh3re0G8. For Moody’s brief account of his contact with
Moseley, see Moody’s post on Kevin Randle’s blog on November 18, 2012 at
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/11/jim-moseley-is-dead.html.
3. See Michael Swords’ blog
post of July 18, 2012 at
http://thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com/2012_07_01_archive.html.
4. For background information
on Richard Hall, see Rojas, Rick. (2009, August 23). ‘Dean’ of UFO Studies
Devoted Life to Seeking Others Beyond Earth. Washington Post, at
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-08-23/news/36812967_1. For Hall’s comment on Moseley, see
http://www.martiansgohome.com/moseley_roast/memories.html.
5. I submit that their
failure to gain such mainstream recognition had little to do with any personal
character flaws, rather the liminal nature of UFO phenomena themselves
precludes acceptance by establishment institutions of science.
6. See Moody’s post on Kevin
Randle’s blog on November 18, 2012 at
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/11/jim-moseley-is-dead.html.
George P. Hansen was an
official non-subscriber to Saucer Smear for more than two decades. For eight years he was employed full time in
parapsychology laboratories. He is
author of The Trickster and the Paranormal.
PUBLISHER’S
NOTE: Referencing Michael Swords’ comments — at least Moseley did what he did
openly with no attempt to conceal his approach; while others do the same in a
condescending way behind everyone else’s backs.
Mr. Swords seems awfully naive for someone associated with the field for
such a long time. Same with Jerry Clark,
who flip flops back and forth in his beliefs and takes the easiest approach to
the field and its solution. Talk about
thinking INSIDE the box.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some links to web
pages on James W. Moseley
Curtis Collins
and Gene Steinberg (UFO researchers) have established a tribute website--
David Halperin, a professor emeritus of religious studies, has commented on Moseley--
Antonio Huneeus,
a UFO journalist, prepared a tribute to Moseley, the text of which appeared in
Timothy Green Beckley’s The Astounding
UFO Secrets of James W. Moseley--
Jeb B. Card, an archaeologist,
has reviewed Shockingly Close to the Truth!
at--
Sean Casteel, a
journalist, has an extended commentary on The
Astounding UFO Secrets of James W. Moseley at--
No comments:
Post a Comment