(Added November 21st: Comments now closed, thank you.)
I can't help but think, as cliché as this will sound, that there’s a bit of sexism involved in including Linda Moulton Howe in Paul Kimball’s Zorgy Award category: 2008 Hall of Shame.
Kimball asks for nominations for various categories; people send in their choices, and the voting begins. Here are the candidates for the Hall of Shame category:
Linda Moulton Howe
George Van Tassel
Dr. Seth Shostak
Kal K. Korff
The context -- a Hall of Shame -- implies something heinous, dishonest, etc. Being gullible, which I acknowledge Linda Howe often is, hardly qualifies for this category.
Compare her name with the list of others: really? Do you mean to tell me that, when compared with the others in the long list of candidates, Linda Moulton Howe is (so far) coming in second, with Bob Lazar in first place?
Ray Santilli, admitted hoaxer. Richard Doty, Silas Newton,Kal Korff, all deserve to be in that category. William Moore and Richard Doty, who admitted to playing with Paul Bennewitz’s sanity, and Linda Moulton Howe, in the same category?! Give me a break.
The Contactees, Adamski, Van Tassell, do not belong either. It is far too simplistic to dismiss them as kooks or hucksters, doing so does UFO research a real disservice. But that argument is for another time. (See Vintage UFO for a bit more on this.)
Is it because Howe charges for access to her Earth Files site? On that I’m fairly neutral although I do have problems with researchers holding evidence and data hostage for a fee. (On the other hand, that’s what an author does in a sense.) True, John Greenwald, Peter Davenport, etc. don’t charge fees; they ask for donations but make available their research regardless. I haven’t paid to access the Earth Files site, and I doubt I will. Whatever your opinions on this may be, the question remains one of context; is this really cause to induct her into the hall of Shame?
I hesitated in writing this, because I can predict all too well the kind of knee jerk responses of some: that this is whiny chick stuff, defend ones own gender, expecting special treatment, and all the rest. To that I say: feh!
Howe has won several awards for her work, including three Emmy awards and one nomination, a Station Peabody award, and awarded the Encyclopedia Britannica Award for Journalistic Excellence. She’s made several documentaries. And of course, her work concerning cattle mutilations helped set the stage for further research by others.
This isn’t about my agreement with Howe on things, or believing that she, or any woman, is immune to criticism. So don’t even go there.
The point is the context. If one believes Howe is somehow more deserving of an award for being “shameful,” than a Richard Doty or a William Moore, that says more about them and UFOlogy than it does Howe.