Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

Sometimes we have a look at some of our online colleagues and just have to give ourselves a shake .... or a shower .... you get the idea ... please take this in the "spirit" for which it is intended ... constructive criticism ... something we do encourage and appreciate ourselves!

Not giving credit when it is due, and not listing resources

Posted By Matthew Didier

ARRGH! I hate this!

It's been done to us constantly... and to many others too.

It's weird... for the most part, Ufology ALWAYS credits studies, theories, thoughts, work, cases... the lot. They critique and compliment with FULL realisation that this does not mean that THEY (those that credit others) don't come off stupid or "copying"... but intelligent.

Many ghost groups, on the other hand, have NO issues ripping off without giving credit ever.

Ufology sees itself as a serious science and most Ufologists dream of having their names immortalized on a library.

Ghost "hunters" see themselves as more important than the next group and fight like hell to be "the most popular" and dream of being on Montel or in People Magazine.

What's hilarious is that they will put quotes from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle on their websites... but not of the people that fed them an idea they now use.

I would reckon that 90% of the "ghost hunter groups" online not only do not mention people like The Society for Psychical Research, Britain's Ghost Club, Peter Underwood, Scott Rogo, William Roll, or even Harry Price... truly "Those Who Came Before Us", but have probably never even read their books... or articles... or even noted that some of the experiments and data collection methods come from them originally.

Just the other day, Sue found an article on "dust orbs" from a fellow who now has a TV program and a book coming out... he said something along the lines of how there is no such thing as a "dust free environment" and said that people should "ask NASA" about it...

...sounds VERY familiar.

Did he credit me? No... Did he mention me? No...

You see, he's an ORIGINAL!

Why should HE list resources? Why should HE list credits? His ego more than makes up for that! (Despite the work of other's that he's feeding from...)

So, when I look at a group, investigator, or book... I look for resources and references...

Nine-times out of ten, I'm 100% sure that the closest they've come to study is reading websites (maybe) and watching TV.

The closest they've come to a library is passing by it en route to their local MacDonald's.

Why, when it REALLY wouldn't take away from their precious egos (PROVIDED they understand the principals and concepts of the work,) can these people NOT credit others?

Simple... they're afraid that THEY will be less popular if they admit that other people led a path to their work...

...or perhaps they're afraid you might notice that they DON'T work?