Canada's Government rebuffs U.S. Missile Defence and Canada's CHUM-TV airs Peter Jennings ABC-TV UFO Special on the same day. Is Canada emerging as an Exopolitical leader amongst the nations of the U.N. General Assembly?
VANCOUVER, B.C. – Is Canada emerging as an Exopolitical leader amongst the nations of the U.N. General Assembly? Whether or not the Canadian decision not to join in U.S. Missile Defence (NMD is a first step in the weaponization of space, according to most observors) and the airing of Canadian journalist Peter Jennings' special programme on the UFO Phenomenon are functionally related remains to unfold and be interpreted by the newly emerging discipline of Exopolitics.
On Thursday, February 24, 2005, two public events of some media and Exopolitical consequence were reported on major North American and world media:
Event #1: CANADA REFUSES FURTHER ROLE IN U.S. MISSILE DEFENCE; and
ABC NEWS: UFO Webpage
Exopolitics replaces the 20th Century world-view that all intelligent life ends at Earth's geo-stationery orbit. It may turn the dominant view of our Universe upside down. Exopolitics is based on a model of our reality that reveals that we live on an isolated planet in the midst of a populated, evolving, and highly organized inter-planetary, inter-galactic, and multi-dimensional Universe society. It explores why Earth seems to have been quarantined for eons from a more evolved Universe society. It suggests specific steps to end our isolation, by reaching out to the technologically and spiritually advanced civilizations that are engaging our world at this unique time in human history.
Exopolitics also provides us with a beginning framework with which to understand the meaning or function of the UFO Phenomenon itself. Here is a sampling of the mixed reviews which the Peter Jennings Special has drawn from the community of UFO/Exopolitical observors.
--- In UFOFacts@yahoogroups.com, G Simms
> Wanted to thank Dr. Alfred Webre in Vancouver, his colleagues and others for their work against the proliforation of land and space based weapons systems. Their efforts and the influence they exerted in informing the public and politicians regarding the dangers and realities of missile defence/space weapons systems was realised today in Canada. The Prime Minister announced that Canada would not participate in the development of the proposed missile defence system with the US. How sane!
> Graham Simms
Dear Graham and UFO Facts - We at ICIS want to thank you all and especially Dr. Richard Boylan for your support and your broad understanding that there is a deep connection between preventing the weaponization of space and our integration into Universe society. This is a key insight that all of us at the Institute for Cooperation in Space, including Dr. Carol Rosin have gradually bringing to the world. A Universe-oriented perspective was crucial to helping the Government of Canada arrive at this level of collective understanding. Our next step is to shepherd the Governments of Canada, Russia, China and others to sign a United Nations Space Preservation Treaty banning weapons and warfare in space. You can join more than 2600 persons from all over the world who have signed a Petition to the President of the UN General Assembly to do just this:
I personally found it very hopeful that on February 24, 2005, the very same day that (1) Prime Minister Paul Martin announced that Canada would not participate in the development of the proposed missile defence system with the US, and that (2) ABC-TV held its celebrated-infamous Special on UFOs, the CHUM network, which broadcast the ABC-TV Special in Canada, (3) I was able to breakthrough as a mainstream futurist being interviewed on CFRA, the prime CHUM Network political radio station in Ottawa, the capital of Canada, speaking on Exopolitics. My vision and affirmation is that Earth IS being peacefully integrated into a larger, organized Universe society. In the same way that we were able to transform a Prime Minister Paul Martin who on April 27, 2003 called for Canada to join US Missile Defence, so we will transform a human governmental structure that is now divided and confused about integrating with Universe society to do so.
In other words, I feel that, as we were able to keep Canada out of U.S. Missile Defence, so we will be able to deconstruct the information war against Universe society, stop the war industry and transform it into a sustainable, peaceful Space Age society. Properly understood, Exopolitics provides us with a framework for integrating into a living, receptive Universe society. Remember: More people beleive that Extraterrestrials visit Earth than vote in disputed U.S. Presidential Elections (Roper Poll 2002). By being Exopolitical, we can access the mainstream. We can call on Universe society to facilitate our integration, and Universe society will do so. Maybe not in the 3 dimensional ways one might expect, but in unsual multi-dimensional ways which are just as effective, if not more.
We need: (1) A Decade of Contact enrolling all human science, politics,institutions, schools, curricula, communities in becoming aware of our being citizens of a populated, organized Universe; (2) A Star Dreams Initiative - Public interest diplomacy with spiritually-advanced off-planet cultures now visiting Earth.
I have been fortunate to have Graham Simms conduct a very insightful Interview with me on Exopolitics, which Dr. Boylan has seen. I want to thank Graham for that pioneering journalism, as it has helped spread a positive message around the world. I recommend Graham's interview to you all.
Cheers, Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
Vancouver, BC, CANADA
Thanks to Dr. Boylan and Alfred Webre for their long term viewpoints, intellectual yet open minds, and inspirational work. My mistake of course its not Weber, its Webre, JD, MEd. That got me thinking how in terms of credentials, academia can be a learning experience which brings validity and knowledge yet as a system, like government and media it has not avoided our times constricting cultural confines arising from the materialist scientific dominator duality control self-serving-loop backwater- treadwater system, which blinds the conscious, officially sanctioned view of the open sky, universal truth. Not yet expanded to the evolution omega vector of more absolute actuality. Organized external conspiracy or internally arising, or interdependently arising phenomenon… We have to earn our return, something we need to experience to grow through.
In the political science and defense policy courses at the Canadian Universities I attended, I openly used Dr. Boylan's material and other relevant cutting edge sources in some research papers and conversations. Although profs.often insisted that their pre-approved sources be used primarily, aside from that they did not dismiss the sources or the information. In fact, outlining historical Canadian involvement/acquiescence in “above top secret”/saucer development programs, secret military/R+D/political group factions, the Wilbert Smith documents re. Canada's interaction with "MJ-12" type group etc. did not seem to phase this top mainstream prof., whom I would say is a rather honest and straightforward military man and advisor. In his office he indicated recognition of a shadowy cabal type group and their influence in the Canadian/US/military/NATO and he “ did not want to mess with them". This profs department houses the provincial front of the Canadian Institute for International Affairs: Old boys school loyalist Rhodes transatlantic outpost of the Royal IIA ,northern outpost of the CFR.
Regarding my pointing out the obvious “Chemtrail” sky to the head of the department, she inquired to the top military Prof who told her the story the Americans may be feeding the Canadian military, that it is exercises for testing over the horizon radar/ radio for military communication purposes. There seems to be more than one type of spraying program and while this may be one of original ones it could be their first layer classified cover story.
A prof. (Brazilian) at a less traditional University in Montreal told our class about his belief in nefarious manipulation of key Pan- American elections and perhaps even the Quebec referendum.
Neither my friend the conservative Senator nor the “left-leaning” opposition party head ever actually acknowledged the material I sent them re. the Disclosure and Star-Wars situation. Senators aide suggested, given his appointment, he wasn’t about to rock the boat.
The political, academic and scientific boats are slow to turn, but luckily information is doubling at a fractal and exponential rate.
At least my profs aren’t as bad as my incredulous young Buddhist friend’s relatives who are fundamentalist Christian-Zionist Apocalyptic West Point Profs.
While I dont believe in war as a conflict resolution mechanism, I think a defensive military is fine and could be transformed into peacekeeping, third world development, and space exploration.
Dr. John E. Mack
"Many thanx to Paola Harris for sharing the late Dr John E Mack's thoughts on the abduction phenomenon with the entire group, something Peter Jennings' UFO special mysteriously failed to include despite the fact that they had ample file footage of Mack being interviewed on this very subject,... what happened?!" - Victor Martinez, 27 Feb. 2005.
"The contemporary Western tenet that we are alone in the universe, conversant
only with ourselves, is, in fact, a minority perspective, an anomaly."
John Mack, M.D.
Establishing a New Science of Human Experience
By Dr.John Mack
Lecture Transcription for Audio tape, Florence Italy
November 16th 2003
Thank you to the Gruppo Academico Scandicci GAUS and Paola Harris for
inviting me to Florence for this conference. What I’d like to do first is give
an overview of the "so called Abduction phenomena and lead into questions of how
do we know or what are the ways of knowing when we are
dealing with something this strange . I also will discuss the implications of this and phenomena like this for our world.
I am a Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst and I have a special interest in extraordinary experience.I’d like to discuss how our language shapes the experience.For instance, words like "abduction" and alien shape the conversation a certain way. The word "abduction" is off in two different ways first, first, it implies that every person who has this encounter experience is taken against his or her will like an abduction in human terms . It also implies that each person who has an experience is physically taken, the whole body is taken up into a craft, which is also not true in all instances.
Another aspect of contact is transferring information to humans telepathically or showing us images. A lot of this information has had to do with what our species are doing that is destructive to our planet. It is as if what we are doing ecologically with the planet is creating some kind of larger problem in the Galaxy. Also" the Experiencers "are given certain skills, certain capabilities that they were not given in their schooling.
For instance they may discover that they may have a great artistic ability
that comes from this contact. Also they may have been given important
mathematical and scientific knowledge that goes way beyond anything they learned
in school and yet they are downloaded the most complicated
mathematical formulas and when the scientist and Physicist recognize that there is truth coming from these individuals and sometimes more than the physicists themselves know, they recognize it as genuine. I have personally seen many examples of these.
I’d also like to speak about the question of evidence, how do we know that this experience is true? How do we evaluate these reports and how do we determine truthfulness. For example when I evaluate, I become clear that people of sound mind have no reason for making up this story. It is sure
that they did not get it from the media because often they know more than the media. But there is something missing in what we have to evaluate or determine when a person tells us a story so bizarre whether he/she is telling the truth and whether we should take them seriously. But as yet we have had no criteria to evaluate the truth of such encounters. So I am working on just this and I’m just beginning to establish a science of Human Experience.
Now in traditional science when we observe certain phenomenon, we bring some objectivity to what we have studied. But when you are trying to understand something so profound and important to a person you can not stand back but you must enter "into "the consciousness of that person. So what the critics will say "what you are learning is too subjective" here is the problem, if you are going to learn about something this profound, then the learning needs to be "intersubjuctive. "
So still there is the problem of discovering the truth. If I say it just feels like they are telling the truth, then this is not enough. So we have to start with the "holistic way of knowing". This is close to what we know as intuitive knowing. It is like a knowing of the heart and a knowing of the spirit that has been part of traditional cultures for hundreds and thousands of years but has been lost in the west.
I received some help in this matter from Vatican representative Monsignor Corrado Balducci who says "we in the church take this UFO Encounter Phenomena very seriously and the reason for that is, that there seem to be so many reliable witnesses. In the church, we have had centuries of having to evaluate miraculous reports by some kind of criteria and so they had to develop the notion of the "reliable witnesses."
So I began to apply this idea of the reliable witness to
these cases. How do we know who is a reliable witness? For my cases, it not only
had to do with the fact just that these people who were trustworthy reported
something but it had to do with the power of their communication that came
across to me. I would experience with these people when they would be reliving
their experience, the most powerful vibration. I was in the presence of
something awesome in its intensity .The experiencers themselves would give
language to that. They would say something like "every cell in my
body was vibrating"! When you are in the presence of that, it passes your judging mind and you feel it in your whole being.
Going back to "What is a reliable witness", it has to do with a resonance between the person who is reporting or sharing the experience and the clinician. It might be called "a direct knowing". You just know that with your whole being that this person is telling the truth. There are other examples of this "direct knowing" as demonstrated when the Tribunal that was hearing testimony of the torture in Bosnia questioned witnesses. The Judge said after hearing the testimony of a particular woman about how she was tortured." I do not need any more testimony". I can just tell that it is not possible that she is not telling the truth. That is sufficient.
Now everyone knows torture exists. That is accepted. But it is not accepted in our society that these UFO encounters exist. Therefore you need to have evidence of a pattern of such similarities that is showing up in hundreds, if not, thousands of cases. One of these experiencers is helping me out with this statement she made about witnesses. " When a witness speaks, all recognize that they have been in another realm. Sincerity and truth and power of spirit are just as measurable as inches and pounds but not in the same way."
It is ironic that experiences like alien abduction encounters, UFOs, Crop Circles, and near-death experiences are called anomalies. In another words in our culture, what lies outside the realm of the cultural agreement, about what is real is called anomalous.
Therefore a huge amount of human experience is called anomalous when I have discussed this with Native Americans, and they say it is not an anomalous. We know about this. It is part of the human experience.
Estabishing a new "worldview"
In the last minutes, I want to talk about matter of a worldview and how it works. It has always been referred to as a paradigm and it has more of a scientific. But I prefer to call it worldview because it refers to something bigger. A worldview is the way we organize reality. It is the way we believe things work. In a way it is like an instrument of navigation. Our worldviews is what holds the human psyche together. What I came to realize with that Harvard Committee was that I was threatening the scientific medical world View by which they were living..
What has been the dominant worldview in our society could be called Neutonian-Carticianism or anthropocentric, humanist. It is a worldview that puts the human being as top of the cosmic hierarchy of intelligence.
The simplest term for this is, is that which I call Scientific Materialism. In this world view, matter and energy is the primary reality and there is no larger intelligence in the Cosmos .The principle method of study is objective reality which separates the investigator from the matter that is being investigated. Now in recent years, this view, which has dominated our society, is failing. It is failing in every important element that the worldview is supposed to serve. First there is a huge amount of phenomena, which it can not explain nor deal with. There is no method of study for many things that we are talking about today.
Secondly, it leads to terrible destructiveness because it treats the entire planet as simply physical resources to fight over by who are the most powerful and most important countries.
Thirdly, "scientific materialism" does not give human beings any real satisfaction. It leaves us without spirit and it leaves us with an empty feeling. Because all it has to offer are more and more material things
Now we have new emerging worldviews that are different. In this worldview, there is intelligence dwelling in the universe. That experience which happens to my clients is one example of the intelligence dwelling in the universe and the beings that have come to my clients are another example.
The Crop Formations are also evidence of this intelligence that is trying to communicate with us. Also it is a model of the universe and us in it which says that everything is connected with everything else and we know that "cutting edge" physics is supporting this worldview. So it includes not only new ways of knowing but it also involves a spiritual awakening.
This change which is happening around us is met with enmity and a great deal of resistance because there’s a huge psychological economic and political investment in maintaining the Old World view. I will give you one examples of the UFO resistance because books being written which discuss
this new paradigm are being called "new age, pseudoscientific, psychcentric in order to dismiss them as out of hand because some people who write such books do not hold themselves responsible to any scientific standards what so ever.
I will conclude by speaking about the implications of this new worldview. We see around us all kinds of forces which are supporting the emergence of this way of thinking.People around the planet are opening up to new ways of thinking.Groups , like the GAUS (GRUPPO ACADEMICO UFOLOGICO SCANDICCI), are committed to the new emerging paradigm.
How would this planet be different if the emerging world view became be the dominant world view?
We would be connected to all living beings not just those around us, and with all nature and spirit which would make it impossible for us to treat nature in such a exploitative way. For example we would be able to identify with other peoples, other religions and with all animals so we would not
treat them just as products to consume. With this deeper reality ,we could appreciate that we are connected to the Divine, the creative principle which would be more fulfilling than the material focus that has been so dominant today.
So it would be global like a" global awakening of the heart."instead of global exploitation, a word that is has that connotation today. I might add "opening of the heart " has been a fundamental aspect of alien encounter experience I learned from my dealing with experiencers. Sometimes experiencers get information from these beings that we are not just a menace to the Earth but we are a menace to the Galaxy . In conclusion ,as this emerging paradigm this emerging world view, takes hold, we might become more responsible citizens of a galaxy instead of becoming the eminent menace we appear to be!
KATHY (KIT) VAQUILAR
International Contact Support Network
Many in the UFO community have responded to Peter Jennings' "UFO's: Seeing is Believing" with a lot of frustration and deep anger -- again. Anger is good if it's turned towards positive energy, but negativity has reined in the ranks of the community for a very long time and for a reason, but it's getting too old. Anger will not move this community forward unless we all band together with more creative and positive energy, and also take care of each other. The Universe is always calling us to this task. Anger is a fire energy and from fire there is either great destruction and/or great creativity. Its our own community's responsibility to get its act together and to keep working together at it, supporting each other in many ways. It's not the responsibility of the beings in the UFOs to do this for us. We have been asked to do this for a long time by them. People like Peter Jennings or the other skeptics in their own ways are asking us to do this too, but they come at it from a very different angle.
The solution to all these negative mainstream media blitzes that fail so badly on the UFO subject is not to mourn, but to organize and to create something that's better. To not be afraid, but to be courageous. To not sit back, but to get out there and do the work. It's not over until it's over. Many of us are in this for the long haul because we've been contacted. Most of you know that I'm an experiencer, but I have never seen myself as a victim of abduction. It was a matter of figuring out what I had and have to learn in this life. The beings I encountered keep inspiring me, but they too find human beings frustrating to work with because of our limitations as 3 dimensional creatures. They find the UFO community frustrating to workwith. We find each other as humans frustrating to work with.
We must work together and we must do it with love and courage in our hearts, not with fear or anger. Fear and anger is really how people, who want to keep the old paradigms in place, want us act, especially in the United States. If we let our anger and frustration get in the way we are simply playing into their hands. The UFO community will help change this world for the better if our combined positive energies of free willed manifestation are at the center of our collective awareness and actions -- even when the chips look like they're coming down.
We have another opportunity here! It's time to act and time for us to work together -- again and again.
1) ABC can be reached at:
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
Tell them what you think.
2) Share the absolutely best UFO video of all time to your family, friends, and community. It's an award winning film called "OUT OF THE BLUE" and it's really good! Go to www.outoftheblue.tv for more info. Even that film made the folks at "Skeptic Magazine" think twice. ICSN will be assisting OOTB again with local distribution here in and from the Bay Area. Help us get that great film out -- again!
3) Support the UFO folks in your locations and elsewhere to keep doing what they're doing to advance Disclosure and related information, because they're doing most of the work out of pocket on their own funds.
There are two good conferences coming up that I'll send you more info on soon -- International UFO Congress and Steven Bassett's PRG Conference. If you can attend or help spread the word, please do.
4) ICSN will be meeting again soon in the springtime.
Let's keep changing the world for the better. Believe me, that's the message that the beings want us to listen to and act upon. No, they aren't going to eat us. That's mostly dis- and misinformed entertainment that started with the radio program "War of the Worlds", which Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruz are resurrecting soon at a theater near you. As for the negative ETs that seem to pop up sometimes? I think we have more to worry about with the negative human beings who are already inhabiting our planet and creating havoc around the world.
Peace and best wishes,
KATHY (KIT) VAQUILAR
International Contact Support Network
Peter A. Gerston, Esq.
PAG COMMENTARY: ABC-TV UFO PROGRAM
Not surprisingly most followers of the exploits of our enigmatic aerial craft found the media's latest presentation, hosted by Peter Jennings, disappointing. But why would any "true believer" expect otherwise - especially when the "status quo" is to continually deny the obvious?
The real significance of the TV special was the placement of this latest UFO "programming" in prime time - specifically up against three of the most popular shows on TV - "Apprentice," "CSI," and "Survivor." Could some group be attempting to gauge the public's interest in a "first-contact" scenario?
When released the Nielson ratings for last week will reveal the present state of the public's interest in the phenomenon. If Jennings' program beats out any of the three mega-hits - I will be amazed. If it finishes within the top ten - I will be pleasantly surprised.
After almost 60 years of continuous appearances - the UFO mystery still remains "behind-the-curtain" and will continue to do so - until our non-human guests decide otherwise. Make no mistake - it is the Intelligence that controls all aspects of its contact with this reality - not us!
"UFO" related events - both direct and indirect - both real and hoaxed - happen for a reason. Simply because we do not understand that reason does not diminish their programming importance. So for all of you who are disappointed with the UFO program last week - I suggest you look beyond the obvious.
[ECETI News] Budd Hopkins on Peter Jennings UFO undocumentary
During the past year Jenning's producers interviewed me a number of times, and because I sensed what they had in mind, I made, as a preemptive strike, a number of careful, highly specific observations about the UFO abduction phenomenon. All of these crucial points - recorded by ABC on videotape - were designed to underline the physical reality of UFO abductions and to demonstrate the implausibility of current skeptical explanations.
To its shame, ABC suppressed ALL of these observations.
I knew, of course, that the skeptics' favorite explanation du jour is impossibly simple: abduction reports, they believe, are all due to misperceived "sleep paralysis." Ranking as a distant second is another erroneous belief: abduction reports, they say, "ONLY emerge under hypnosis," and since hypnosis is "totally unreliable", all abduction reports must be discarded. In the light of these tediously familiar errors and misstatements, I made certain in my taped interviews to explain the following:
> In the first two decades of our research, ALL of the central abduction cases involved people who were outside their houses when they were taken NONE were lying paralyzed in their bedrooms. They were driving cars, walking, fishing, hunting and even, in one famous case, driving a tractor on a farm. "Sleep paralysis" as a blanket explanation of UFO abductions is therefore, ipso facto, a ludicrous non-starter. Nevertheless ALL of my insistent statements on this point were systematically eliminated by the producers.
> Second, I indicated that there are many abuction reports involving two, three, six or more people who were taken simultaneously and whose highly detailed recollections are virtually identical. This fact alone eliminates not only "sleep paralysis" but "fantasy-proneness" or any other idiosyncratic psychological aberrations as triggering causes. My descriptions of these many cases of multiple abductions were likewise completely suppressed by the producers
> Third, I showed the interviewers many photos
of, again, virtually identical scoop marks, consistent straight-line scars and
ground landing traces at abduction sites, and other physical
sequelae. ALL of these vivid photographic examples of physical evidence were suppressed by the producers.
> Fourth, I was not alone in making these points. My colleague Dr. David Jacobs was asked by ABC to carry out a hypnotic regression for the camera, but since the woman he chose had been abducted in the daytime while driving a car, the case did not fit ABC's "sleep paralysis" agenda and was thus not only suppressed, but Dr. Jacobs' many hours of taped interviews were also scrapped.
> Fifth, I made it very clear that perhaps 30% of all the abduction reports collected by researchers are recalled WITHOUT THE AID OF HYPNOSIS, a fact which renders the issue of hypnosis moot. This point was also suppressed by the producers whose only goal, it appeared, was to eliminate any data that contradicted their transparently false debunking hypotheses.
Despite my having presented - and reiterated - the points above, the producers chose to trot out on camera two debunking scientists (whose experiments with a mere handful of subjects have yet to be taken seriously by the psychological community) to buttress the untenable "sleep paralysis" theory, the false "no physical evidence" claim, and the demonstrably untrue "its all hypnosis" assertion. The smug presentations of these two would-be experts were accompanied by the producers' lurid "reenactments" of "sleep paralysis" phenomena, complete with flashing lights and spooky music. The taped testimony of a serious mental health professional like Dr. John Mack was likewise suppressed, along with my statement that over the years eight psychiatrists and numerous other mental health professionals had come to me about their own UFO abductions. The producers' obvious goal was to conceal the fact that within the mental health community there are many professionals who look with amusement on the "sleep paralysis" theory, and who accept the physical reality of UFO abductions.
So what can one say about such a deliberately dishonest presentation as Peter Jenning's "Seeing is Believing" take on abductions? Perhaps one can only shrug and warn, yet again, that the incurious members of the press and the many blinkered, conservative scientists had better collectively pull their heads up out of the sand and join us in our work. Whatever one's personal attitude toward the UFO abduction phenomenon, science insists that an extraordinary phenomenon demands an extraordinary investigation. What ABC served up on Thursday night was, instead, an extraordinary whitewash of the abduction phenomenon, and a brutal suppression of the evidence for what may well be the most portentous event in human history.
Peter Jennings and his staff should be ashamed.
Budd Hopkins New York, Feb 25, 2005.
Kathy "Kit" Vaquilar,
International Contact Support Network
Quick ICSN Media Review: "UFOs: SEEING IS BELIEVING" / PETER JENNINGS
DOESN'T BELEIVE IN UFOs
Please feel free to share our group's thoughts on Jennings' program with your readers too -
International Contact Support Network,
On February 24, 2005, Entertainment Tonight reported that Peter Jennings does not believe in UFOs. One of Jennings' conclusions in ABC's "UFOs:Seeing is Believing" was that Roswell is a myth. Jennings did a very sophisticated journalist's job of dismissing the UFO subject as "myth-making" by unscientific believers.
However, he also presented some impressive modern and historical records, interviews and testimony from quite an array of professional experts and civilians who can't all be discounted in the UFO field. His program left his audience to their own conclusions and seemed to give more weight to well funded scientists like SETI's Seth Shostak, who want material evidence such as "pens" and "wheel parts" from UFOs, than to many expert eyewitnesses.
This wasn't surprising at all. Jennings wanted to come across as balanced and rational in his reporting, but his own beliefs still leaked through. It would be hard for him to hide that. After all, his career would be at stake.
"UFOs: Seeing is Believing" started out sounding sympathetic to the phenomena, but also gave critics and skeptics major air play. It came down to pitting "believer" against "nonbeliever" -- again and again. Whatever evidence is available was still not enough, especially for mainstream scientists and skeptics, who seemed to count more than the witnesses and UFO researchers themselves.
Personal perspectives and subjective views continue to play a major role in the formation of opinions on this controversial topic and how far one is willing to go with those views. It's unfortunate that Dr. John Mack was not available to counter his fellow psychologists from Harvard on this national TV show.
A couple of them came out and put forth the repeated theory that the abduction experience is simply caused by sleep paralysis and a certain level of Rapid Eye Movement (R.E.M.) that can be used to explain many paranormal experiences.
Bob Hopkins was shown and left alone to fend for himself as an artist leading in abduction research with hypnosis as his only tool. Hypnosis was conveyed as unreliable. Peter Davenport was interviewed as the only full time UFO investigator in the entire United States.
Michio Kaku was given the limelight to express himself, and as a scientist he encouraged viewers and colleagues by exclaiming, "Let the investigation begin." His inclusion as a contemporary physicist, who wants us to open up our minds to more possibilities, was very refreshing to hear amidst the more traditional and conservative skeptics who think interstellar space travel is too difficult to conceive and that radio waves are the most advanced form of communication in space by ETs.
Jennings' traditional "objective" journalism was displayed well in his program and gave both sides their day in court. However, sometimes it felt a bit schizophrenic going back and forth. He also stated that in courts eye witness reports are considered "high evidence", whereas in science, it is "low evidence."
Jennings ended his special with "Ultimately only contact is going to solve the mystery." Problem was that those who told Jennings and his staff that they had contact were already dismissed by him and others on television. There was obviously a lot covered in his special, which I didn't mention here, and also a portion that reminded me of some of journalist Terry Hansen's work related to the history of media with UFOs and the U.S. government's dismissal of the phenomena that was designed to keep our population under emotional control.
Historian Richard Dolan, Stanton Friedman and many others we're familiar with were key sources for Jennings to tap into. I hope you were able to catch "UFOs: Seeing is Believing" on television. It was a professional piece, but still not the best work out there on mainstream television. However, it's a real technical notch above anything else that the other national networks like NBC and Fox have done in the past.
Thank ABC that Jennings did not wear a trench coat with scary music playing throughout the broadcast. In spite of its shortcomings, "UFOs" was a slick piece of mainstream media work that both denied and acknowledged the phenomena. It still left enough room for further discussions in chat rooms and elsewhere.
I'm sure there will be many people talking about this show over the next few days to weeks. Disney owned ABC probably received the ratings that they were looking for. If that's the case, they may come out with another UFO program to follow this. Let's hope it gets better, especially in regards to further real Disclosure, but it will still take more work on our part to keep pushing that through. Art Bell is probably up late discussing this one. He and Ramona were also featured by Jennings.
In the meantime, I have to get some shut eye myself so I can perhaps experience some of my own sleep paralysis and R.E.M.
KATHY (KIT) VAQUILAR
International Contact Support Network
ABC's "Seeing Is Believing"
Reagan let the cat out of the bag when he made the statement that the countries of the world would put aside their differences and join as one if they were suddenly confronted by a force from outside this world. The machine is manufacturing a new enemy. The controllers behind the curtain need aliens to be real. They have to become real before we can learn to fear them. They have to be real before we learn to hate them. They have to be real before we will surrender ourselves to those who would defend us. They have to be real before they can become a tool in the trade of deception.
Richard Boylan, Ph.D
Dear Alfred Webre, and Graham,
I thank you for bringing us at UFOFacts soime very good news, indeed!
It is not every day that an entire country says "No!" to space warfare, especially a country as large, industrialized and powerful as Canada, and not intimidated by being one which borders the largest military bully in the world (current regime).
I heartily endorse Mr. Webre and ICIS's goal of a Decade of Contact, spreading across societal institutions awareness that the human race has been engaged in massive, mostly-individual contacts by Star Visitors.
While I also agree with ICIS's Star Dreams Initiative, I wish to make everyone aware that the Star Kids Project, Ltd already has as part of its mission establishing a Star Kids and Star Seeds Diplomatic Corps to engage in formal public relations with ranking representatives from the Star Nations in contact with Earth. Some progress along those lines is already in development.
To quote from the Star Kids Project Development Plan:
"E. Phase Five. 2003-2012:
"Identify, train and deploy the Star Kids Project Interstellar Ambassador Corps© : wherein select Star Kids Project graduates are selected as Cadets and prepared to serve as envoys, liaisons and intermediaries between Earth and the Star Nations."
The very best to our insightful neighbors to the North, who have shown world-class leadership by maintaining peaceful skies across Canada.
In the light,
Richard Boylan, Ph.D.
Richard Boylan, Ph.D., LLC
Director, Star Kids Project, Ltd., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
P.O. Box 22310, Sacramento, CA 95822, USA
1-(916) 422-7400 (PST)
My take on the misguided Jennings UFO Special (what was
printable) is presented below.
On the whole, the ominous thing I think that Peter Jennings has signaled is the onset of a Phase Shift in the Cabal policy: one predicted by German scientist Werner von Braun, and reported by aerospace contractor Dr. Carol Rosin.
Rocket scientist von Braun had the highest security clearances, including for UFO information, and was let in on the scenario that the Military-Industrial Complex was developing for their Cabal masters.
The Cabal's plans include the Next Phase after the UFO Cover-Up is abandoned, which is for public admission that UFOs are real, but at the same time putting out the message that those UFOs are full of vicious threatening terrorists from space. (sic) (And please stand out of the way while your Department of Defense shoots them down.) [sick!]
This is a manufactured "Armegeddon", complete with human-manufactured antigravity craft posing as UFOs and attacking populated areas, providing the "provocation" that "justifies" a total global military response. This will be used by the Cabal as cover, while they impose global martial law, and seek to assume total control over the Earth.
Be advised, be warned, be alert, be prepared to take counter-measures appropriate at the time of the Next Phase.
In the light,
Richard Boylan, Ph.D.
Like many of you. I turned in to the Peter Jennings Special
last night: "UFOs: Seeing Is Believing". If I had discretionary funds, I'd have
undertaken this morning to sue Jennings/ABC for consumer fraud.
Peter Jennings knows better than the mish-mash of UFO reports and debunker put-downs he served up to the American public. He admitted as much to Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" on Jon's broadcast Wednesday night. On that program, Jennings admitted to Stewart that he thought UFOs were real, and that the only question left in his mind was who was piloting them. This is a very telling statement. It suggests that the _real_ Peter Jennings knows that high-performance antigravity craft abound in our skies, and that the only question remaining is which are Star Visitor craft, and which are ours.
But the fake Peter Jennings, the one on-camera Thursday night, served up a bland pastiche of tired old UFO film clips: clips of unqualified amateur hypnotist Budd Hopkins regressing experiencers (as though hundreds of qualified, credentialed, behavioral science professionals specializing in competently working with experiencers didn't exist), clips from the lurid TV show "Taken" showing a guy strapped to an "alien" table screaming, and, worst offense of the evening, showing as the expert on experiencers from Harvard University not the world-renown Dr. John Mack, but an unknown graduate student repeating disinformation about all close encounters being merely "hallucinations" induced by "sleep paralysis". The student further showed her ignorance by claiming that such sleep paralysis hallucinations are "common", whereas they are relatively rare, very rare in contrast to the abundant numbers of actual incidences of Star Visitor encounters.
The Jennings offering shows that the Cabal still control what the public gets to see from "credible" news sources.
As for Jennings, his journalistic integrity is in the tank.
With David Brinkley gone, and Dan Rather retiring, it is now time for the last of the Big Three anchors to pack it in. No loss.
Richard Boylan, Ph.D., LLC
[ECETI News] James Gilliland
I commend Peter Jennings on bringing out the UFO issue on prime time. What many people do not realize is just the idea of UFOs entering into the collective consciousness on such a large scale creates an opening, a pondering of the subject. That opening allows the inspiration of the benevolent beings to enter. People who are curious; sincere about finding out the truth will start their own investigations. I thought the show went well in the beginning presenting witnesses with great credentials. Then there was the debunkers who looked rather ridiculous. They will look even more ridiculous in the days to come because full disclosure by the UFOs themselves in on the horizon. The main stream media had to address the subject because if they do not due to the mass sightings they will loose what little credibility they now have. If it isn't obvious by now the media is completely controlled other than a few slips now and then which are quickly dealt with. A journalist will get fed up with the nonsense and have moment of courage and integrity only to find themselves making retractions and public apologies or doing the 4 AM news hour in some small mid western town.
My grandfather sold equipment to the ranch where the UFO crashed. There were two incidents the other ship crashed not far away in flight time. There were bodies and the secret government projects started years after the event. My grandmother who knows Peter Jennings is probably writing him a letter right now. She knew the sheriff, and police involved in the incident as well as others. She told me they were good old boys, very shaken by the event and they are honest as the day is long. Maybe Peter and company can learn something from these folks. To be honest with you I fell asleep three quarters of the way through the show. It was old news, boring and lacked real substance. The SETI interview was beyond ridiculous. Why didn't Peter ask Seth about his debate with Stanton Freedman. It was a slaughter. Why didn't he ask if SETI had to go through NSA before they could release anything? What about NASA which is also under government restraints. Paul Allen was duped into investing millions into a array of disks when for 15 dollars he could have bought our DVD and had all the proof he needed. SETI knows about the contacts at the ranch but they already have millions and big salaries, an investment in keeping them far away in the distance. NASA has incredible footage of UFOs with comments by astronaughts, top people in mission control who said every one of our space flights was shadowed by UFOs. The Times/CNN poll stated that over 80% of the people believe in UFOs and there is a government cover-up. Not 50%. Was there a little bias there?
We offered Peter and company an interview along with all the stills, video and testimony of over 3000 eyewitnesses that have come to the ranch. Top physicists were willing to go on the record stating undeniably these are not known craft, extremely advanced vehicles under intelligent control. There were several people in contact with the Peter Jennings crew and made them aware of what is transpiring at the ranch along with giving them contact information yet we did not hear a thing. I even tried myself to contact them and never received a response. Does Peter Jennings want to know the truth or does he already know the truth and has to stay within accepted guidelines? There are literally millions of sightings a year around the world, we have enough UFO parts and craft from crash sites to fill a football stadium. There is incredible undeniable footage from around the world which is readily available. The scientists that say there is not proof are either totally out of the loop, ignorant or part of the disinformation campaign. Let's see a real documentary. It is an insult to the intelligence of America to continue to create these fence sitting substance lacking documentaries. When you have footage of UFOs responding to over 60 people on the ground, dropping down and lighting up the whole field on cue why not show it? There is footage of ships arriving with advanced notice displaying extremely advanced electronics, morphing from one to three, changing colors, dematerializing and rematerializing. Why not make this available? Is it to real? The one thing that brings me solace is the fact that I know without a doubt UFOs are real, they will reveal themselves in mass in the near future and there will be a lot of egg on the faces of those who continue in the charades. By the way if anyone knows Paul Allen tell him we can show him a UFO he can personally video tape for free if he is serious about wanting to know the truth. Same goes for Peter Jennings. I think after grandma gets through with him he might change his tune. Feel free to forward this email far and wide. People have the right to know.
James Gilliland http://www.eceti.org/
Peter Jennings and UFOs: Spinning and Deceiving
By Richard M. Dolan
February 25, 2005
copyright ©2005 by Richard M. Dolan. All rights reserved.
Within the UFO community, this was the most anticipated media event in a long time, perhaps since the 50th anniversary of Roswell in 1997. Cable networks, such as the History Channel and SciFi Channel, have been getting into the mix with documentaries on the subject for some time, but the major networks have been silent for years. And whenever there was an occasional treatment of the subject, it was always to debunk.
So when it appeared that ABC was attempting to do something "serious" about the subject, a few people asked me what I thought would happen. Especially since I have written previously that I absolutely did not believe that a major network would be able to handle this subject in a forthright manner.
To such readers, I predicted that ABC would not completely debunk UFOs, but it would also not endorse them. I said under no circumstances would there be any hint of credence given to a conspiratorial angle, that I would be shocked if any mention was made of deep black military technology, or of claims that we are now in possession of alien technology and bodies.
As far as the UFO topic goes, that’s where the action is, at least for those of us who are interested in the structure of power of this world.
These predictions turned out to be true. No surprise, and I imagine there were others who predicted the same thing. Although I have to say I was surprised by the number of pre-Special commentators who seemed to think that this event could trigger some form of immanent disclosure.
I support the goal of UFO disclosure. Indeed, I consider it to be a critical goal of UFO research. But we must realize that if or when disclosure ever comes, it will be on someone’s terms. That is, the terms of covert players that have a specific agenda. Under such a situation, UFO researchers must be vigilant in determining how much information is being given out, and how much of it is true.
We may ask, why would ABC do a UFO special at all? For ratings? This in fact is what many media people cynically seem to be implying. In fact, it appears that the special helped ABC a little in that regard, but not a lot.
Could it be out of a sense of sheer intellectual and public responsibility?
Okay, now that we’re done laughing, let’s move on...
It is ludicrous to think that ABC’s leadership just decided to "do" a special like this. When dealing with the powerful media – which George Orwell today would certainly describe as our Ministry of Truth – one must assume there is a political (and in this case national security) goal. This is, after all, a critical national security topic. Major media is in bed with our national security apparatus. This ain’t your great-grandpa’s U.S. of A., sonny. It’s become more like the old Soviet Union. Indeed, we have to watch ABC in the same way that the people who used to be called "Sovietologists" analyzed official Soviet public statements. "What does so-and-so really mean by that? What is the significance of this person’s presence or absence at an official function?" As Tass was to the Soviet elite – the primary mouthpiece and propaganda instrument – so are the major networks of today, including ABC, to America’s power elite.
Thus, we might ask, was ABC attempting to "prepare the public?" Or, instead, some form of spin control?
Looks like spin control to me.
The program essentially worked by building up something of a legitimate-looking case, a kind of "bringing out the best evidence" (which was not the best evidence), then puncturing the case with the help of spokespersons for the scientific community. I say spokespersons because many of these people weren’t scientists. Thus, you set up a straw man and then knock him down.
For about the first hour, the show provided a decidedly "pro-UFO" crescendo. We saw Art Bell and his wife discuss their UFO sighting, we saw some Phoenix lights video, clips of CUFOS Director Mark Rodighier, and (in my opinion) a very good handling of the Illinois "Cop" sighting of 2000. The space given to skeptics for most of that first hour was limited, although peppered in various places so you didn’t forget about them.
The next segment provided some history, of a sort. For anyone who knows this material, this was extremely basic and low level. But more seasoned UFO researchers and readers must remember that most viewers of this special are at the Kindergarten-or-less level of knowledge. If the typical researcher is at a level nine or ten, then most people are at a zero or one. So if the ABC special gets even to the level of three ... well, you get the idea.
I understand that you have to walk before you can run, and it’s not realistic to expect ABC to condense a topic with the complexity of the UFO phenomenon into a mere two hours without a lot of material ending up on the cutting floor. But what we had was sheer spin.
Mr. Jennings repeats the U.S. government position (a lie) that it is not in the business of investigating UFOs. Well, that essentially removes the military from this discussion.
But why, one may ask, during the days of Project Blue Book, when the Air Force did have a public investigation of UFOs, did they dishonestly debunk so many reports? ABC certainly showed that Blue Book was dishonest, that it was never a legitimate investigative effort. Here was an opportunity for honest journalism to attack some significant issues.
Instead, we "learn" that the orders to debunk UFO reports were in order to remove the threat of clogged communication channels caused by a hysterical public. Nothing to do with the objects themselves.
While the recounting of the 1968 Minot AFB UFO encounter was well done, the opportunity for asking some serious questions was ignored. Such as, what could that object have been? Or, what is the likelihood that this incident had repercussions within the military-intelligence community hierarchy that were beyond Blue Book?
That was essentially the first hour. The balloon was expanding, albeit in a conventional and sanitized manner. Still, for much of America, I would bet that even this was pretty strong stuff.
So, it was time to let some air out.
Thus we get the SETI people. We get to hear about Jill Tarter’s UFO sighting, which was actually the moon. (Seemingly implying that all UFO sightings are conventional objects). We get Frank Drake and Seth Shostak. Why?
Then we come to Roswell. Roswell is important because it has become, in the public mind especially, the cornerstone of the "conspiracy" argument. In reality, an overwhelming argument for a UFO government conspiracy can be very easily made without reference to Roswell, but never mind. You kill the one and you at least disable the other for the time being.
Jennings immediately and ceaselessly used the word "myth" to describe the Roswell crash of 1947. ABC pulled out all the stops, even to the extent of seriously maligning the most persistent Roswell researcher of all, Stanton Friedman. This was cheap and underhanded. Friedman was given almost no air time whatsoever, and was portrayed as a cheap "promoter" of the Roswell myth, like a modern day P. T. Barnum. This is absurd. Without recourse to anything but the official Air Force propaganda, Roswell was decreed by ABC to be an article of faith, with no credible witnesses, and possessing "not a shred of evidence." Roswell may or may not have been everything Friedman or other proponents have maintained, but the Air Force study – itself a deeply flawed undertaking – was accepted without reservation.
With a half hour to go, the Special came to abductions. I was expecting to see Dr. Michael Persinger on this segment, discussing tectonic stress theory and the sense of "presence." Fortunately, I was wrong. But in fact the replacement crew was just as bad. Thus, after a sympathetic treatment of Budd Hopkins, we get Harvard psychologists and ... yes, sleep disorder paralysis. What was galling about this part was the absence of the late John Mack, the other Harvard professor. Before Mack was killed last summer (some believe suspiciously) by a motorist on a lonely road late at night while in Britain, he had been interviewed for this special. Why was he left off? Inexcusable.
Abduction researchers will tell you, by the way, that despite the sleep paralysis argument, there is physicality to this experience, in the form of odd and unexplainable body marks (scoops, triangular-patterned dot formations, etc.) While this is not proof of abductions per se, these marks are real and common among abductees. A truly dispassionate documentary would have dealt with this.
Finally, we reach the problems of space travel. Yes, the "distance" argument. "The aliens can’t get here from there." What was surprising was that ABC was so 19th century about all this. The speed of light barrier? C’mon. Fortunately, the inclusion of physicist Michio Kaku threw some cold water on this idea.
Essentially, the program came down to he said vs. she said. Wheels spinning while the vehicle moved nowhere.
What was notably absent were the political connections. No mention of Area 51 or S-4. No mention of black world technology. No mention of the many rumors of alien technology and bodies. No inclusion of Apollo 14 astronaut, Dr. Edgar Mitchell. For some time now, Dr. Mitchell has been saying publicly that elite sources have told him about alien bodies and technology being studied at deep levels. When a moon-walking astronaut makes such a statement, that is news worthy.
Ultimately, by focusing on this topic as purely a matter of science, and not of public policy or politics, the ABC special defanged a topic that is potentially explosive. For secrecy about UFOs is potentially the most destabilizing secret of all.
There were other subtle things going on with this special. The depictions of Peter Davenport and Art Bell were especially interesting. Both men were shot with lighting that accentuated their aloneness and provided an aura of eccentricity about both of them – out there in the middle of nowhere, so to speak.
And what was going on with those commercials? Infomercials that sold products for losers – LoserWare? – such as people who can’t flip an egg, or need help organizing their teacups. These are the types of infomercials you expect to see on late night cable stations, but ... Prime Time ABC? The message is clear: people who watch UFO specials are morons.
Spin, spin, and more spin.
I do confess to wonder, however, why now? ABC could have left this issue alone. By broaching it at all, even in this tightly controlled manner, there is the possibility that more people will become interested to know more. There were segments, after all, that would attract the attention of an intelligent skeptic. The military encounters, the police encounters.
The door may have opened just a crack, and it’s always possible that events will take an unexpected turn. The Special did not debunk UFOs, after all. At the end of it, as I see it, anyway, the phenomenon was still standing.
I’m not sure how this will play out. My feeling is that it won’t go any further, but I could be wrong. It is just possible that masses (that’s us) may surprise the mighty. As a wise person said, "all revolutions are impossible – until they happen. Then they’re inevitable.
"Hello Victor, I wish all these old Ufological queens would give us some
analytical thinking about the UFO phenomenon instead of complaing and fussing
about their TV images like spoilt brats who need a good slap. The exclusion
of ancien regime MUFON mechanists and Victorian station masters such as
Dick Hall and the like from the Peter Jennings programme was one of the good
things about it. Another good thing was the exclusion of those who would turn
Ufology into a cross between a kind of documentary cult and a school science
board circa 1955. Also missing were the data bases as big as the Ritz, which
will surely puzzle the future as Mayan temples puzzle ourselves. Thank the gods
fro Peter Jennings!
Professor Jim Marrs, University of Texas at Austin
University of Texas at Austin and best-selling author, Professor Jim Marrs
shares his comments and criticisms of the recent ABC News Special "UFOs: SEEING
IS BELIEVING," by Peter Jennings, aired 2-24-05
For what it's worth, here's my contribution to the critiques of PeterJennings' ABC special:
The recent ABC Special "UFOs: Seeing is Believing" was an most interesting blend of fact, fiction, information and DISinformation.
It appeared that ABC was trying to play catch-up. Most of the good information was years out of date. The coverage of the Phoenix flyover and the police chase of a UFO in the North were quite good. But why were these "good" cases not covered as news events when they occurred? It was as though someone in charge of ABC said, "This stuff is already in the public domain and anyone interested in this knows about it so we can talk about this." Or to be more blunt, ABC was mimicing the bumper sticker that reads, "Hey wait for me! I'm your leader!"
Yet, there were some astounding moments in the program. After reviewing the 1950s Robertson panel and Project Bluebook, which purported to be the last government word on UFOs, Jennings correctly concluded that it was all hogwash. There was no scientific investigation, only a public relations effort to stop interest in the subject. In other words, hey America, your federal government lied to you in the 1950s and 1960s! But then Jennings turns to Roswell.
He concludes that it was only a secret Mogul balloon that crashed and places all the blame for later publicity on Maj. Jesse Marcel who stirred up a number of publicity seekers. This is an atrocious assault on a gentleman and fine military officer. One need only review Marcel's military records to see that he was quite highly regarded. There was no mention of the more than 400 witnesses to the Roswell event. Not all of these people are flakes or hoaxers.
To suppport the Mogul theory, Jennings trotted out Karl Pflock without mentioning that Karl is CIA and a former deputy asstistant secretary of defense. Pflock argues in his book that Mogul was so secret that its recovery at Roswell had to be covered by a story about a flying saucer. Now just think about this one for a moment --- a "secret" Mogul balloon crashes and the authorities do not want Soviet agents snooping around New Mexico. So they announce they have recovered a flying saucer?!! Every agent in the world would flock to NM!
He also points out that more than half the Mogul ballons launched were never recovered. Why not? No one bothered to go look for them, he tells us. Some Top-Secret project, eh? If the Mogul balloons were to detect Soviet nuclear testing in the atmosphere as claimed, it has never been adaquately explained why they were launched from New Mexico instead of US bases in Turkey or Japan.
The 1997 official Air Force explanation of crash dummies was not even mentioned by Jennings. This is probably due to the fact that the government's own documents clearly show the very first crash dummy test was not until June, 1954.
Both Jennings and their scientific "experts" all came down on the fact that not one piece of physical evidence has been made public to verify the UFO phenomena. Yet there was not a whisper concerning the massive amount of evidence, both documentary and narrative, that this maddening lack of physical evidence can be directly tied to government crash retrieval programs designed to appropriate such evidence and hide it away. If I take a quarter from you and place it in my pocket, then claimthat I do not have a quarter, how can you "prove" that I do without emptying my pocket. We cannot empty the government's pocket.
So the Jennings special ended up all about lights in the sky which admittedly is the weakest evidence supporting the reality of UFOs. He brushed aside the abduction phenomenon as a sleep disorder and never mentioned the peer-reviewed work of the late Harvard psychologist Dr. John Mack. And there was no mention whatsoever of crop circles, animal mutiliations or the numerous cases involving physical effects on both people and property.
Jennings instead speant an inordinate amount of time of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in which radio signals are beamed into space hoping for a reply. While most UFO researchers support the SETI propram, they also question the use of primitive radio signals to contact a technologically-advanced alien civilization. What if I sent a Morse Code message by AM radio signal to your house? Would you even receive it on the new sophisticated digital receivers? Would you be listening for it? And could you understand it if you did receive it? I know I have long forgotten the Morse Code I learned in the Boy Scouts.
For all of this, the upshot of the Jenning special was encouraging. Yes, they debunked Roswell but they admitted that the government lied to us about UFOs in the '50s and '60s, a period many of us still remember. They pooh-poohed alien abductions yet showed sobering personal testimony from some unidentified persons. The personal narratives presented were riveting and compelling and undoubtedly stirred some interest in that portion of the public still in denial about life outside the Earth.
Most importantly, ABC, a major Establishment news outlet, actually addressed the UFO issue without the usual smug and condescending attitudes which marked earlier efforts. The door to serious discussion and study of UFOs may have cracked open a bit. This may be yet another step forward in the 50-year program to condition the American public to the reality of the UFOs.
Professor JIM MARRS
Review of Peter Jennings Report on UFOs http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/feb/m25-022.shtml
Peter Jennings ABC special:
The definitive special about alien life ...has yet to be made.
by Will Bueche
John E. Mack Institute
Peter Jennings' report on UFOs was awaited with much excitement by people such as myself who have an interest in the subject of alien contact - excitement which was only partially tempered by the unfortunate news that the final interview given by Harvard's Dr. John Mack, a leading authority on the subject of alien contact, would not be presented in the finished program. Still, the potential for a powerful program remained, due to the high quality work which Peter Jennings Productions are known for. I duly tuned in the broadcast this evening.
It seems that the best of what Peter Jennings Productions (and the filmmakers
at Springs Media) delivered was a strong 20 or 30 minute introduction to the UFO
subject, and then (much later in
the program) an all-too-brief couple of minutes of modern perspectives on how alien visitation could be possible (from internationally recognized authority in theoretical physics Dr. Michio Kaku). The first segment persuasively argued that early investigations of flying saucers on the part of the Air Force or government were so weak as to be considered a squandered opportunity for knowledge. But from that segment on, the program seemed rather uninspired. If the program had taken the lead of modern scientists such as Dr. Michio Kaku or Brian Greene this program could have been a grand statement about the current theories and ideas about ufos/alien encounters, and how we might investigate them if we apply this modern knowledge. I refer to knowledge which - as anyone who has looked into alien encounters would appreciate -involves theoretical physics' insights into the structure of reality as well as theories of consciousness or, to put it more simply, theories of how perception of reality is affected by different states of consciousness.
Instead, modernity was given a couple minutes of limelight (in the form of Dr. Kaku explaining how modern physics believes that seemingly vast distances between worlds could be crossed in an instant) followed by people who are retreading theories of the 1970s - including present day researchers who are parroting theories from that era (the people from SETI, Harvard's Dr. McNally, and - to be entirely fair - even some "pro" ufo folks).
If only Jennings' program had been as fascinated by contemporary theories as they were by the early days of the UFO era. It was evidently not to be, and therefore this special was itself an opportunity squandered.
Sadly, the definitive special about alien life has yet to be made.
Reaction to the Peter Jennings Special, sampled from the web:
"...thank god for the Dr. Kaku segment; as he said, I believe most of our skeptics are only thinking 100 years in the future; not 1 million. The arrogance [of some scientists who] think we know the way the universe works is amazing to me - especially because science has been revised and proven wrong so many times in the past. Considering the age of the universe, why would we assume that any race near us would be as young as we are? And using radio waves for god's sake?"
"John Mack, whose interview was cut, was sorely missed here as plenty of
abduction stuff was offered up, only to be coolly dismissed by pretty Dr.
Clancy, with little or no rebuttal or debate presented."
"...the 'experts' have that haughtiness that indicates they think they know what is going on in the universe. Well, nobody knows. I'm inclined to think that what actually is going on is so bizarre that any one of us would be hard pressed to believe it [unless it] were it presented to us in a way we would
understand -- an unlikely prospect in itself. There's likely more to it than we can imagine."
"I was left with the feeling that [Jennings] wants the audience to give the topics serious consideration, and that scientists should give it serious study."
"It seems as if a number of the Scientists, Psychologists, Psychiatrists and
others interviewed for these and similar topic shows pound the drum of the
fallibility of memory and the concept that the mind is weak storage device
because everything is filtered through perception and that the information
within is prone to be rewritten and edited over time. To some extent I believe
that most would agree this is true, but I hardly believe this means that memory
should never be trusted. After all, some
folks put these little PhDs, MDs, and other markers of learned knowledge behind their names, which I would assume, means they don’t doubt their own experience, suggest that we should trust their memory, and what they say should somehow hold some weight because of the memory of their past educational experience, which is somehow immune to be rewritten or edited. Is that faulty logic? Are these two different concepts?"
"It's easy to tell the smart people from the dumb people. Compare some of those skeptics on the show with their smirks and blank eyes to the bright light of Michio Kaku's eyes and his clear passion for learning and physics. I think there are really two kinds of people in the world - those who are fascinated by the universe and what it might contain, and those who want to just plain contain it within a predetermined idea structure."
Jennings Blinded By Skepticism Ignorant Or What?
The Peter Jennings UFO special on ABC was overall very under researched, very narrow-minded, quite short in length, and barely touched the tip of the iceburn when it comes to the most stunning evidence that extraterrestrials are visiting our planet.
Countless extraordinary cases were not even mentioned by this program. Instances where nuclear missles were remotely turned off by UFOs, in which UFOs were captured by the space shuttle, instances where energy pulses were seen shooting at these UFOs in orbit, even other cases in which craft were captured on radar while being chased by jets, the numerous Mexico City sightings of the 1990's to present day, the UFOs encounted by the Belgium Air Force that were seen by so many, the Kecksburg case, the Rendalsham Forest incident, many high level government/military witnesses to the coverup, and so many other important aspects to the UFO phenomenon were not even considered!
For goodness sakes, the entire MJ-12 issue was not even discussed!
Additionally, skeptics were given lots of time to talk but Ufologists that could have easily refuted their claims (like the Pheonix lights were just flares) were not even interviewed. Also, they did not even interview city council woman Francis Barwood who went on a single person _crusade_ to get to the truth about the Pheonix lights only to have the Governer of Arizona announce an emergency press conference to bring out two of his goons dressed in kooky alien costumes to try and belittle all the eye witnesses who saw a huge solid object. His quote was, "You guy's need to stop taking this stuff so seriously."
However, what _really_ upset me the most was his complete bashing and debunking of the Roswell UFO crash. Instead of doing any real research into Roswell he basically refused to question anything the Airforce said, labeled all Roswell researchers as "gold diggers", claimed that no one can be certain if Jesse Marcel was even telling the truth, and that all new witnesses were frauds that were just jumping on the bandwagon!
Here are a few of Peter Jennings quotes from the show or at least as close as I can remember them:
"The myth of Roswell."
"There is not a shred of credible evidence that an alien ship
"There are no credible witnesses of bodies."
"There was lots of money to be made, but your book had to have even more grandious claims than the previous one."
"Many more witnesses came out of the woodwork to jump on the bandwagon."
"They (speaking of anyone who believes roswell was the crash of an alien space craft) cling to a myth that in Roswell the answer to alien life was answered, but it was _not_!"
Peter Jennings complete and utter contempt for even the possibility of an alien space craft crashing at Roswell clearly shows during the segment. Additionally, he disrespects witnesses by basically ignoring all of them and not mentioning one name other than Jesse Marcel (and briefly his son) which he gives no signifiance and in a way even belittles.
The _truth_ of the matter is that there are many credible witnesses of the Roswell incident, they came from all walks of life (from rancher Mac Brazel all the way to general Author Exon), all have unique perspectives to the event, and show something _extraordinary_ happened that could NOT have been any type of weather balloon, mogul balloon, or even a string of weather balloons.
Want to read about these witnesses? Then read the statements of many, many witnesses to the Roswell Incident at the following internet address:
Does he need some more evidence that Roswell happened?
Well too bad he did not take the time to zoom in on the telegraph that was in General Ramey's hand while he posed for photos infront of the switched weather balloon _junk_! If Peter Jennings had bothered to zoom into that letter (he showed the general non-zoomed photo during the special) he could have almost clearly read the following:
"AND THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK IN THE DISC WE WILL SHIP" among other readable portions of the telegraph!
Wanna read it for yourself? Go to the great website of David Rudiak at:
http://www.roswellproof.com/ and take a look!
An incident involving nothing more than a mere weather balloons (that would
have been easily identifiable by Jesse Marcel and everyone else on base without
question) would not have
_victims_, that apparently were harmed by a _wreck_, and would be shipped in a _disc_! Peter Jennings ignored and basically refused to even mention the testimony of _numerous_ witnesses to the Roswell Incident. But one that he did not mention, in particular, really ticks me off! The name is Col. Philip J. Corso co-author of, "The Day After Roswell." Col. Corso was as solid and credible of a witness as you could find. He was a decorated military officer and had a military career that many would dream of having. His testimony is basically two fold:
1) In 1947 while on watch at a military base he came across a couple large crates that were under high security. After another soldier had reported taking a peak he opened them and saw two very bizzare bodies of what he would later realize were EBEs or extraterrestrial biological entities from the Roswell Craft.
2) In the 1960's he was assigned to the Foriegn technology division of the pentagon. The general that was his supervisor gave him access to a filing cabinet that contained photos, documents, sketches, debris samples, and all kinds of info on the crash of an ET space craft outside of Roswell NM.
Col. Philip J. Corso before his death signed sworn affidavits to the above,
wrote his book about his experiences (that Senator Strom Thurmond wrote the
forward to _knowing_ full well what the
content was about, but then when his staff realized what he did they ordered it be yanked), gave many interviews about the above events, and went on the radio to tell the world of what he saw, read, and knew.
No one in the military, not one living soul, has officially declared him to have lied, misled anyone, or even to have hallucinated the whole story.
Peter Jennings _completely_ and totally ignored Col. Corso's testimony!
Obviously, if Peter Jennings had done any _real_ research into Roswell they would have discovered his book, his testimony, and his sworn affidavits. But obviously they brushed his testimony under the rug just like they did _every_ single other witness to Roswell (except Marcel and his son). I highly urge everyone to read the book, The Day After Roswell, and read yourself about the man that Peter Jennings did not want the world to hear about!
Another part of this UFO special that I found repugnant was his obvious lack of research into new physics research that could allow for FTL travel, allow for gravity manipulation, alter the properties of inertia itself, and extract unlimited energy from the vacumm to allow for ET's to travel basically anywhere they want (without having to harness the power of entire stars).
Want to read more about the above?
Then why don't you read up on websites such as....
Yes, they talked about wormholes... big deal! People are working on devices that tap energy from the vacumm, manipulate gravity itself for propulsion, and even generate beams of gravity to retract or push away objects. Want to learn more and read the scientific abstracts about these experiments? Go to the above sites!
To sum it up, this UFO special was nothing special at all. Peter Jennings showed his true colors to the world by following the Air Force's line and refusing to even look at the Roswell witnesses (the many credible witnesses and of course Col. Corso), repeatedly calling those who seriously study UFOs "true believers", refused to look at the telegraph in Ramey's hand, ignored so many of the amazing incidents that have occured in the UFO phenomenon, and only reported a small handful of not even the best cases indicating ET's are visiting our planet.
He took a cursory glance at UFOs, towed the mainstream party line on the entire subject, refused to admit any type of coverup, refused to take a solid position himself other than just saying he remains skeptical, and ignored one very important principle.
If you have a thousand or a million black crows and then find one white crow you have just PROVEN that not all crows are black.
I have a VERY important question for Peter Jennings:
How many different people, military officers, radar systems, pilots, space shuttle cameras, satellites, and even whole cities will have to report seeing or one step further even taking images of white crows until you are willing to believe that not all crows are black and take a firm position on this issue?!
Perhaps Peter Jennings is a true skeptic at heart, perhaps he is just ignorant of the vast majority of UFO data, or maybe this show was all he was allowed by the powers that be to raise public awareness of these issues.
It is even possible that Peter Jennings knows more and accepts more than he presented on the program.
But overall, the show was not much of special, and in my opinion did little to advanced the cause of exposing the truth about ETs visiting our planet.
I ask once more... When will you admit to a _white_ crow, Mr. Jennings?
ABC Jennings Special
The first segment was weighted positive by the number of witnesses. Unfortunately they combined the "8 o'clock hour" events over Phoenix (triangle) with th 10 PM videos that probably show flares, as described on my web site.
The astronomer guy clearly didn't know anything about the 8:30 PM triangle or else simply ignored all that testimony in favor of commenting only upon the :"lights in the sky" that were videod at 10 PM.
Kudos to Michio for pulling our theoretical irons out of the fire. Oddly enough, he was saying what is in the recently published "Inflation" paper mentioned previously on this List: we ought to examine UFO sightings on the off chance that one or more might actually be evidence of a far advanced civilization.
As Kaku said: "Let the investigation begin."
Too bad Jenning disparaged Roswell (all a bunch of people trying to make a buck) and tried to make abductions look like nonsense (all mental, dreams). No reference to abductions while the witness was doing something other than sleeping.
Kudos to all the witnesses and investigators. This show will probably cause a
number of people to come forward with their own reports.
From: BILL HAMILTON, UFO
Subject: "UFOs: SEEING IS BELIEVING AND NOT SEEING IS BELIEVING!"
Last night I watched Peter Jenning's present his ABC Special and have already seen statements made by some UFO researchers and would like to express my opinion. BTW, I have not seen how yet to provide feedback to ABC, but an email campaign might be in order.
1. Recent sightings - fairly good presentation with convincing witness testimony.
2. Early sightings - Not too bad. Military pilot testimony very interesting.
3. Phoenix Lights sightings - good witness testimony, but now I see who they
interviewed when I was told they wanted to interview me, but went to Tucson for
a real expert (gag!). James McGaha is an arch skeptic, but his explanations are
like leaky balloons which fall to the ground. His explanation of 5
airplanes instead of 1 large object with 5 lights came from one eyewitness, a
dubious young man named Mitch Stanley who said he saw 5 airplanes in formation
on the night of March 13th through his Dobsonian telescope. No one else saw
these 5 airplanes. As for the flares, I will not waste your
time on that.
4. Roswell - BIG FLUNK on this one. Maybe Peter Jennings did want to delve into that bag as he did not want to incur flashback from politicos. Karl Pflock got in more than his 2 cents and Stanton -- oh, we did not hear any rebuttal from Stanton. The Mogul balloon explanation that the Air Force dug out of its handy dandy files has been thoroughly discredited by any researcher worth his salt, but Pflock backs the Air Force: Roswell, Case Closed. HA! Anything but closed.
5. Majestic 12 and the cover up - well, the impression is that anyone who believes this is a conspiracy theorists. Check into how Jennings dealt with the JFK assasination. Just the straight poppycock and pamblum for the viewers -- no real insight here.
6. Abductions -- The abductees did well in telling a little of their stories, but the lasting impression given by the two psychologists with their opinion of hypnosis and sleep paralysis without rebuttal from Hopkins or another professional (John Mack not shown - too bad we lost him). Their statements made my wife angry and she said, "they should be taken". No fair and balanced reporting here.
7. Space Travel - I don't want to hear one more time "they can't get here from there", the distances are insuperable, or it is so incredibly difficult. Thank God Dr. Michio Kaku offset this with his positive and upbeat statements on wormhole travel.
8. Astrobiologists - Chris McKay made an outstanding statement saying that his only difference from those who believe UFOs represent the existence of ET life is that he prefers looking for material evidence, but was actually quite friendly with his remarks.
9. SETI scientists - what is with these guys? We are not trying to fight a turf war with them. And what were they doing on a show with a UFO focus? Give them their own damn show. The time they took to make their case could be given to CE-5 cases as defined by Dr. Richard Haines -- cases involving signaling UFOs and receiving responses such as I did when I was a naive teenager.
Conclusion: UFO researchers should team up and produce their own television special and make it a mini-series. Anyone who can donate the dollars would be welcome as long as we are free to present our case for the UFO.
Well, I hope that it raised public awareness. That is the least it could do.
AstroScience Research Network
"I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible." Fred Hoyle
ABC - A First Reaction From Outside Ufology
I'm not a Ufologist, per se, but merely a Fortean researcher and writer. So I
watched _the_ program, anyway, out of curiosity and to see how ABC News dealt
with this subject. My first reactions:
Very well-done. High production values, not sensationalized, and quite intelligent.
Peter Jennings' UFO special created a decent overview of the ufological phenomena, I thought, for the general public. First a few quick grabber moments with recent cases of triangles over Phoenix and southern Illinois, with Coast to Coast AM's Art Bell (but why no credit to George Noory?). Then some good historical material, with great down-to-earth commentary by Jerome Clark and others. Pilots' sightings, J. Allen Hynek, and more pro-UFO material filled the first hour.
When hour two opened, I thought the good cop-bad cop split was going to
occur. And indeed, for a time, it was nothing but skepticism, from SETI people
and astronomers. Then the "myth" of
Roswell was retold, with lots of funny visuals and a bit of media bias in the voice-overs. Stan Friedman and Karl Pflock were given good moments to detail their thoughts. This was followed by a segment delivered, with a careful introduction from Jenning, on abductees and Bud Hopkins, who was portrayed as the "first one out of the gate" on this subject. Unmentioned, let's hope Betty and Barney Hill and John Fuller, please, are resting in peace. Whitley Strieber's book cover was shown as one of those tomes coming after Hopkins. I'm outside the feuds of the field, but I could feel the sparks flying already. And then the whole thing ended with some thoughtful insights on space travel from physicist Michio Kaku.
All in all, an excellent addition to the documentary attempts to address the
question of UFOs.
"Where Was John Mack?" Peter Jennings UFO ABC Special
Hello Everyone who saw the UFO Special:
While many of us would have appreciated seeing John Mack's work mentioned and his rebuttal of the sleep paralysis theories, this UFO documentary was produced by the ABC News department. The program was intended for a mainstream audience that was basically unaware of what UFO activity was all about.
Rather than wail on the wall over why didn't ABC include this one or that one, we need to recognize and appreciate the fact that one of our favorite topics was given 2 hours of prime time coverage on national television. If done correctly, this national exposure could spur the general public into demanding more information from the government about the UFO cover-up which is a common goal we all share.
I agree with John Brandenburg's remarks and hope someone forwards my e-mail to him. His comments about the "Yo Yo" astronomers were right on target, for which he could have included the SETI Siamese-scientists who could not tell a moon in the clouds from a star. . . which made me think
it was time to yank their federal funding, unless of course, they are the modern day version of Project Blue Book, exisiting only to de-bunk alien contact.
The ABC documentary also stated at the beginning that all animations were approved by their witnesses. Another key point to appreciate is the way ABC chose to feature Air Force pilots, trained in knowing what commercial and test aircraft look like, to describe their aerial encounters with UFOs.
This then, alerted the viewer to the fact the re-enactments were based on visual testimony of the pilots and others. Reports from Air Force pilots and law enforcement personnel hold more credence than listening to stories from people living in the country about lights in the sky, which is why so much of the program centered on uniformed witnesses.
For that matter, ABC instead could have selected that Thursday evening time slot to feature actresses dresses for the upcoming Academy Awards on Sunday night - as the other networks have already done. I for one am grateful for ABC News to have put UFOs ahead of the Academy Award dresses!
Alien Abduction Experience and Research
Subject: "Where Was John Mack? Peter Jennings UFO ABC Special"
Col John Alexander
Program was very weak. I know they had an interview with John Mack before he was killed. There is much better evidence than eyewitness testimony, though you would not know it from this program. In
fact,they should have dropped the whole abduction segment and added physical evidence.
(Col ret. US Army, author of several books, e.g. "Future War" expert in
non-lethal weapons at Los Alamos & UFOs at NIDS)
From: Kae Geller email@example.com
Subject: "UFOs: LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE," Thursday, Feb 24, 8-10 pm, ABC
I thought there was nothing new on the show that hasn't already been on the DISCOVERY CHANNEL... except for MICHIO KAKU who is wonderful. Now a 2-hour special on Michio Kaku discussing cosmology would be marvelous.
To intentionally omit Dr. John Mack's work (and he is the only researcher of alien abduction with a medical degree in psychiatry, as opposed to some psychologists (the very ones from Harvard who were trying to get rid of him) and a well intentioned painter, is not character assassination but obliteration.
In my mind, the purging of Dr. Mack's significant work, just a few months after his untimely death, is alarming. I will not sit back and be fed the same pablum in ultra close ups while significant DISINFORMATION is afoot.
Keep the debate alive. Thanks for reading and watching.
Best, KAE GELLER
ABC UFO SPECIAL FIZZLES - The Good, The Bad, And The Terrible Of A Disjointed Primetime Filler Piece
If you were interviewed for this ABC program, please contact UFOWATCHDOG.COM with an account of your interview whether or not you were included in the aired program.
Frank De Marco
I haven't noticed anyone commenting on what seems to me the most important
fact about the ABC special.
I preface this by saying that I didn't watch it. I never watch television unless I'm at someone else's house. I don't even own a TV set, not because I hate technology but because I don't care to have my reality pre-programmed. Getting your information from books and the internet lead one to construct a vastly different view of the universe, one tuned more toward the individual. Anybody who still thinks that television is anything more than indirect programming of society needs to do some research. The work of Noam Chomsky would be a good start, for one.
That said, it seems clear to me that this UFO special was a big event, marking the decision by somebody or some bodies (whoever controls such things; guaranteed that you and I don't know their names!) to begin to let the children in on the secret.
Why do I say so? Elementary, my dear Watson:
1) Peter Jennings has been reported to be the most trusted of the network anchors. Don't know whether that is true but clearly he is ABC's top news
personality, since he is their anchor.
2) That makes him a valuable commodity to ABC, yes? ABC has spent years
grooming him, building him up, and as a result they have a person who draws
3) Does anybody out there think Jennings would do the special on UFOs -- of
all things -- without ABC's permission? Or that, if he were to try to do so and they disapproved, that he would be willing and able to do so against their will?
4) Does anyone think that ABC would allow him to do so on his own responsibility, so to speak? That they would treat it as a personal quirk of
no importance to them?
5) What other conclusion can we draw, then, but that:
a) "someone" told ABC it was time to begin debunking the UFO debunkers,
b) Jennings, as most trusted, was chosen as a good one to do the program.
6) The show's shortcomings, as reported, shouldn't surprise anyone. It wasn't meant to get at the truth, presumably, or to report the truth. It was meant as the thin end of the wedge, to be followed as "somebody's" judgment feels the public is ready for more.
Frank De Marco
Feb. 28, 2005
Don't you understand that all networks are cautious and do not want to be
controversial they would rather be negative sceptical and cynical in the realms of UFO'S and the paranormal, these people don't want to be seen gullible it's all about money and keeping their salaries.
I wish you all love and peace of mind!
F.Y.I.: My latest book Uri Geller's Life Signs, published by Readers Digest, is about transforming your life through understanding your personality type, it's an amazing book, fantastically produced in colour. Please acquire it directly from my site which will enable me to sign and dedicate it personally for you. I will also draw a small, unique design in the book, especially for you, which could act as a positive, good luck symbol.
I write numerous columns for newspapers and magazines. You will find most of
these in the press reports section on my web site at www.urigeller.com. While you are there you can read - free - some of my books, and others, which have helped many people worldwide. The latest publications can be ordered online. My illustrated and comprehensive book Mind Medicine, foreworded by Andrew Weil M.D. is very powerful. The Parascience Pack, is a most unusual 3D pop-up. The book is an interactive exploration of your psychic powers.
For signed and personalised pictures and other items, please visit Uri Geller's Cyber shop at http://www.urigeller.com/
I do indeed donate part of my income to childrens charities and hospitals in my small capacity. I invite you to browse through my charities page at
If my message sounds too commercial, please forgive me, but I do want people to be aware of my work and my messages.
I wish you plenty of good health, love, happiness and remember to be positive, optimistic and believe in yourself.
(Another response to the Peter Jennings UFO special. This one is
by a friend of John Mack's who prefers to remain anonymous; I am
posting on his or her behalf).
John and I used to have chats in his kitchen about where we
thought this phenomenon was "at", and what we thought were the
next steps the larger cultural conversation needed to take. He
and I both agreed that before further discussion about the
reality of "contact" could be addressed in the mainstream, the
first point that needed to be addressed in public forums is
_why_ we westerners have such a hard time even engaging as a
possibility the idea that "contact" has already happened.
I had a phone conversation today with one of the people who
helped put together the Peter Jennings special, a man similar in
age, education, and upbringing as myself. But despite our
similarities, we were the perfect embodiment of the polarities
that exist in our culture about this subject matter. And yet,
the two of us represent people, equally "of sound mind and
body", who have the capacity to engage in private a much more
sophisticated dialogue than what a mainstream two hour program
is willing to discuss in public (for all of it's myriad of
For me, and for many others in communities that address issues
of Evolving Consciousness (not just "UFO/alien" folks), the need
to create platforms or media (whatever you want to call it,
whatever it looks like) that _doesn't_ represent ungrounded, new
agey mumbo jumbo - or it's current polarized counterpart that is
the mainstream media - but that DOES represent the cutting edge
of mainstream consciousness and the issues it is dealing with,
is a pressing one.
We are not just a few hundred people, we who are interested in
the physics of a new reality, we who are aware of the fact that
we are NOT alone in this universe (even though we may not as yet
be able to explain any where close to fully, what has been the
exact nature of our contact experiences - though, rest assured,
sleep paralysis it ain't).
There are millions of us who are interested in really moving
this larger conversation forward.
That there exists SUCH a gap between the mainstream and those
who are interested in actively participating in conversations
that push forward the evolution of our western consciousness is
And what it suggests, is that the mainstream is afraid, just as
those of us who had these "alien encounter" experiences were
afraid. It was terrifying to have our realities and beliefs
shattered over and over again. And yet, most of us survived our
paradigm deconstruction (even if it was in a "sink or swim" kind
of fashion) and have managed to recreate meaningful new
realities for ourselves in the wake of our experiences.
That the mainstream is unconsciously facing what would certainly
represent the collapse of all it has held dear (including
beliefs about God, religion, humans being at the "top of the
food chain", and reality being a definable structure as
interpreted only by our five senses and empirical science), has
everything to do with why the Peter Jennings documentary had to
be AS watered down as it was.
Interesting questions to ask here are:
Why CAN'T we have a balls to the wall, full blown documentary
"on air" that articulates the phenomenon and it's accompanying
confusion, just as it has been authentically presenting itself?
Why _can't_ we have the skeptics present their arguments, and
have them _fully_ responded to by equally qualified
professionals, scientists, & academics who possess both the
letters after their names, and the experience to satisfyingly
rebutt and make clearly obvious that the skeptics arguments are
weak at best, and in truth, fall FAR short of being able to
describe what's actually happening in this phenomenon?
If we _could_ manage to pull off those kinds of investigations,
_maybe_ we could begin the careful but courageous dance of
beginning to stick our faces into the heart of this phenomenon
(instead of into the sand) to begin to honestly explore what
seems to be the collapse of reality as we currently understand
One of the problems, I think, so far, has been that we in the
consciousness related communities have been waiting for the
mainstream to bring itself into the larger conversation. We have
been expecting the mainstream media to _want_ to investigate the
contact phenomenon in spite of its fear of ridicule for being
truthful in it's reporting.
Problem is though, no one of sound mind who wants to stay safe
and accepted within the cultural framework of what's believable
wants to be played the fool.
So time and time and time again, we who have had these
experiences are called out to report what has happened to us.
And time and time again, we are dismissed, explained away,
pathologized or marginalized. We are sacrificed because nobody
has the courage to say "hey, maybe the emperor really _isn't_
wearing any clothes".
We have a long way to go, we humans. As one of the experiencers
featured on the program said, we really are just babies. That
may be one of the most important things we need to remember as
we consider why we, as a culture, have thus far lacked the
courage to engage these possibilities... we're only babies.
And not so unlike infants, we think the Universe extends only as
far as the four walls we can see around us.
Or perhaps, even more tragically, we believe that we don't
matter. That we're alone in a vast void of space and time.
But we're wrong.
And eventually, hopefully, before it's "too late", we'll figure
that out. We'll make adjustments in our cultural belief system
to accommodate a new reality, before our old one comes crashing
down around us.
I don't offer many public comments on this subject these days, as my time is necessarily focused on other equally important agendas. But given the unique nature of the ABC broadcast, I would like to offer a few comments.
1 - Another, compatible explanation for the strengths and weaknesses of the program is this: the "limited hangout".
Clearly, rational and objective observers watching the first half of the program would conclude that the core of the phenomenon is real and of ET origin, particularly if they are sufficiently well read to realize that the testimonies offered represent just a tiny fraction of the rugged observational evidence available today. Yet, from the third quarter of the program, rational and objective observers unfamiliar with the full dimensions of the evidence would likely conclude that even the most secretive of government agencies has nothing under wraps. The treatment of the history of and evidence for a highly classified, partially-privatized program involving hardware recovery and possibly much more was completely absent from the program, and any implication of such was shot down summarily by the treatment of the Roswell case. Whatever one may think of that particular case, there is no question that this program's treatment of the larger question -- of the available body of evidence of classified programs involving hardware and biology -- was either intentionally suppressed, or simply eliminated from the narrative due to its controversy and complexity.
I'm surely willing to give ABC and Jennings the benefit of the doubt on that question. I know for a fact that very few folks are "in the loop" on issues deeper than those explicitly revealed in the program. That loop likely includes no one directly in the ABC orbit. So a purely pragmatic interpretation of the weaknesses of the program -- and the desire for ratings as justification for the program in the first place -- is fully sufficient to explain the approach taken by ABC. But either way, the effect, intentional or not, was the perfect limited hangout for the current administration. After all, if you're in power today, and you know that the great secret is in the process of coming out, but you'd rather the public not know how deep the military-industrial-intelligence programs really go, this program was spot on message.
2 - The arguments of the debunkers were unconvincing, to say the least. It is insulting to generations of scientists everywhere to suggest that 'eyewitness testimony is the least credible' kind of evidence. This assertion is particularly indefensible in domains that involve biological systems, where predictability of location and periodicity of phenomenon are often impossible in principle. How would a zoologist or anthropologist react to such a sweeping assertion as made by many of the physicists and astronomers interviewed in the program? Yes, the particulars of eyewitness testimony are subject to great margins of error. That is one main reason why statisticians have jobs. The implications of the statistical evidence compiled over decades of eyewitness testimony concerning this phenomenon are clear.
Consider an analogy: imagine that we're all fish swimming close to one coral reef in a vast ocean. A tiny number of fish report having seen "giant beings, thousands of lengths longer that we, swimming below and around our home". Of course, blue whales are a rare sight for the Nemos of our world. Other reef fish ridicule the observers, since the observers can offer no predictable schedule or locations for observing such creatures.
It is remarkably arrogant to suggest that we humans, after less than 50,000 days during which we even knew of the existence of things called "galaxies", fully appreciate the possibilities of far more ancient fish in the cosmic ocean.
These arguments become even more relevent if there is a reason -- like some kind of prime directive -- that dictates a threshold of interaction between ancient, highly advanced civilizations and the barely newborn civilization of human beings on Earth. Why would they "land on the White House lawn" until they deem we're good and ready to join their civilization? Would we behave any differently if we were observing from above a young garden world with its more primitive children weilding nuclear matchsticks in petty conflicts that should otherwise be easily resolved? Would we wish to bequeath to them far greater powers than those they are already abusing?
3 - Which brings me to the third observation. Michio Kaku's comments are quite profound, as they represent the beginning of a wedge in the "mainstream" physics community concerning the appraisal of UFO evidence. I prefer the science of Puthoff, Haisch, Hestenes and others (polariziable vacuum interpretation of general relativity, origin of inertia and weight in charge-ZPF interactions, physical interpretation of quantum mechanical behaviors, respectively) to explain how such wonders as interstellar travel may one day become everyday. But Kaku's position is of great value in advancing the dialogue on this subject within the scientific community, and he is to be commended for his courage and wisdom in taking the stand that he has taken.
The major news networks are driven by one of the most awesome and powerful forces....human ego. In the case of the major news anchors we are talking about egos on a planetary scale of dimension.
The questions you raise suggest that you believe there is some sort of overriding, deeply thought out, long term planning logic behind all such decisions at the networks. You imply that no decision is made without the full and complete agreement up and down the chain of command. May I remind you and everyone else of the name "Dan Rather".
My point being...well you get the point.
Memorandum for the Record
Subject: UFOs? What is real?
Books "Destiny Matrix" & "Space-Time and Beyond II" both at
On Feb 28, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Joe Firmage wrote:
> I don't offer many public comments on this subject these days, as my
> time is necessarily focused on other equally important agendas. But
> given the unique nature of the ABC broadcast, I would like to offer a
> few comments.
> 1 - Another, compatible explanation for the strengths and weaknesses
> of the program is this: the "limited hangout".
> Clearly, rational and objective observers watching the first half of
> the program would conclude that the core of the phenomenon is real and
> of ET origin, particularly if they are sufficiently well read to
> realize that the testimonies offered represent just a tiny fraction of
> the rugged observational evidence available today.
Jack: I agree with Joe here. My thoughts exactly.
> Joe: Yet, from the third quarter of the program, rational and
> objective observers unfamiliar with the full dimensions of the
> evidence would likely conclude that even the most secretive of
> government agencies has nothing under wraps. The treatment of the
> history of and evidence for a highly classified, partially-privatized
> program involving hardware recovery and possibly much more was
> completely absent from the program, and any implication of such was
> shot down summarily by the treatment of the Roswell case. Whatever one
> may think of that particular case, there is no question that this
> program's treatment of the larger question -- of the available body of
> evidence of classified programs involving hardware and biology -- was
> either intentionally suppressed, or simply eliminated from the
> narrative due to its controversy and complexity.
Jack: Again I agree with Joe here. My thoughts exactly.
> Joe: I'm surely willing to give ABC and Jennings the benefit of the
> doubt on that question. I know for a fact that very few folks are "in
> the loop" on issues deeper than those explicitly revealed in the
> program. That loop likely includes no one directly in the ABC orbit.
> So a purely pragmatic interpretation of the weaknesses of the program
> -- and the desire for ratings as justification for the program in the
> first place -- is fully sufficient to explain the approach taken by
> ABC. But either way, the effect, intentional or not, was the perfect
> limited hangout for the current administration. After all, if you're
> in power today, and you know that the great secret is in the process
> of coming out, but you'd rather the public not know how deep the
> military-industrial-intelligence programs really go, this program was
> spot on message.
Jack: I don't quite understand Joe's point here. However, the clearing
house for reliable information on the theoretical physics behind UFOs
is emerging at http://stardrive.org
> Joe: 2 - The arguments of the debunkers were unconvincing, to say the
Jack:I agree with Joe here. My thoughts exactly.
> Joe: It is insulting to generations of scientists everywhere to
> suggest that 'eyewitness testimony is the least credible' kind of
> evidence. This assertion is particularly indefensible in domains that
> involve biological systems, where predictability of location and
> periodicity of phenomenon are often impossible in principle. How would
> a zoologist or anthropologist react to such a sweeping assertion as
> made by many of the physicists and astronomers interviewed in the
> program? Yes, the particulars of eyewitness testimony are subject to
> great margins of error. That is one main reason why statisticians have
> jobs. The implications of the statistical evidence compiled over
> decades of eyewitness testimony concerning this phenomenon are clear.
> Consider an analogy: imagine that we're all fish swimming close to one
> coral reef in a vast ocean. A tiny number of fish report having seen
> "giant beings, thousands of lengths longer that we, swimming below and
> around our home". Of course, blue whales are a rare sight for the
> Nemos of our world. Other reef fish ridicule the observers, since the
> observers can offer no predictable schedule or locations for observing
> such creatures.
> It is remarkably arrogant to suggest that we humans, after less than
> 50,000 days during which we even knew of the existence of things
> called "galaxies", fully appreciate the possibilities of far more
> ancient fish in the cosmic ocean.
> These arguments become even more relevant if there is a reason -- like
> some kind of prime directive -- that dictates a threshold of
> interaction between ancient, highly advanced civilizations and the
> barely newborn civilization of human beings on Earth. Why would they
> "land on the White House lawn" until they deem we're good and ready to
> join their civilization? Would we behave any differently if we were
> observing from above a young garden world with its more primitive
> children wielding nuclear matchsticks in petty conflicts that should
> otherwise be easily resolved? Would we wish to bequeath to them far
> greater powers than those they are already abusing?
> 3 - Which brings me to the third observation. Michio Kaku's comments
> are quite profound, as they represent the beginning of a wedge in the
> "mainstream" physics community concerning the appraisal of UFO
> evidence. I prefer the science of Puthoff, Haisch, Hestenes and others
> (polariziable vacuum interpretation of general relativity, origin of
> inertia and weight in charge-ZPF interactions, physical interpretation
> of quantum mechanical behaviors, respectively) to explain how such
> wonders as interstellar travel may one day become everyday.
Jack: Here is where I strongly disagree with Joe. Joe has no college
degrees and he is beyond his competence here. He does the field no
advantage by citing the completely discredited eccentric physics
theories of my friends Puthoff, Haisch & Co also promoted by Eric Davis
who now works for Puthoff. I spoke to Cliff Will, William Unruh and
Matt Visser about the Puthoff/Haisch claims when I was at GR 17 in
Dublin in July 2004 and they were all even more negative about what Joe
is here promoting than I am! I spoke to several other top physicists
about this while there who do not wish to be identified. Some of the
top proponents of UFOs like Richard Dolan and Joe Firmage damage the
cause by invoking lunatic politics ( "911 as America's Reichstag"
Dolan) and bad physics like what Joe does above. Look at what Robert
Park wrote about the Haisch/Puthoff physics in his review of Nick
Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point" that you can find online. Park, paleo
that he is, represents mainstream physics being a Big Shot at The
American Institute of Physics. By promoting the wrong discredited
PV/ZPE physics of Puthoff & Haisch, Joe Firmage makes it easy for the
Robert Parks to discredit the whole enterprise. With friends like
Greer, Dolan, Puthoff and Firmage, UFO researchers do not need enemies!
> Joe: But Kaku's position is of great value in advancing the dialogue
> on this subject within the scientific community, and he is to be
> commended for his courage and wisdom in taking the stand that he has
Jack: Kaku says the same things I have been saying. There is nothing
wrong in what Kaku says in general. The difference is that I have many
more details of how to do metric engineering of warp, wormhole and
Days before the infamous Peter Jennings news special, "UFOs: Seeing Is Believing" aired I made a joke about Jennings being leaned on or something.
People jumped all over me for being 'paranoid' like they had medical degrees in the mental health industries or something.
Now that ufology has had it's guts kicked out I'm reading more claims from the same people who rode on me about how ABC is now disinformation, an arm of the government, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Now that the shoe's on the other foot it still steps in doo.
This so-called 'News Special' is growing scarier every day. We the public know for a fact what's going on and aren't snowed by the second half of that special. They didn't pull the wool over our eyes as they had intended. In fact they've brought us all closer together with more fervor than ever.
I for one would have left out the abduction end from the special. I wouldn't have even over emphasized the ETH end either. Just UFOs, who sees 'em, how long, characteristics and whom to call.
Yet now, you guys who haven't worked in the news business like I had can see how that business is done. If they did that sloppy and spiteful a job on this subject, just think what other mishaps are occuring with other stories like toxins in our food and water, major theft, just downright evil stuff.
Take any subject matter and know that it's being handled by the same people and mindset as this last UFO 'Special'.
Scary that they actually thought we and the public would be that stupid to fall for this.
Scarier? Art Bell sided with Jennings' efforts. Noory didn't. Yet Art did? I'm bowled over. Yet I'd bet credits to Navy beans that you won't boycott Art's show because it's too much publicity.
Maybe Art knows something we don't. Benefit of the doubt here.
So ABC played on your thirst for publicity and credibility and you guys got taken for saps and are sore about it.
Welcome to the club of human press victims.
Remember, 'you' make the news. The mainstream press won't treat you with respect? Then you don't need them. Take your fights to the people instead. Team up and bury the hatchet. Pro or con.
What part of the past 50 years did you not realize that the press does not like you.
Did you get that? Do I have to take out a billboard to remind
The press does not like you.
Plain and simple.
Yet, turn about is fair play. :)
Click here to read compilation of comments by COAST TO COAST AM Listeners
This is an Update from Suzanne Taylor and the Making Sense of These Times website: http://www.theconversation.org/. Thank you for your interest.
Peter Jennings Giveth and Taketh Away
After my long silence, during which nothing has gotten my attention to single
out from the cacophony of everyday misguidedness that is running our country, I
hope you'll take some time to look at this long post, all of which I think
you'll find interesting. Now no skipping to the end, but, when you get there,
some absolutely remarkable treats await you. People in the crop circle world
were excited about Peter Jennings doing a two-hour heavily promoted primetime
show about UFOs on ABC last Thursday. We hoped this first serious report by
a major TV network would open the door to the crop circles story. While the UFO
situation must leave you speculating, the crop circle phenomenon would involve a
leap to where the evidence undeniably
points to not-us. And to way ahead of us.
Jennings presented some amount of what remains inexplicable, and did point to government disinformation on the subject, so to the uninitiated the show would have seemed objective. However, what was noteworthy wasn't what was included but what was excluded. The absence of John Mack, whom I've been writing about of late (On the Passing of a Great Man: JOHN MACK and Bending the Arc of the
Universe Toward Justice ), was symptomatic of its glaring omissions. Mack, a Harvard professor and a Pulitzer Prize winner, as well as being more credentialed than any of the people who were presented was the world's leading authority on the abductee experience. He would have taken the show to a transcendent level.
Beyond the simplistic question, "Are UFO's (and crop circles) real or aren't they?," and the UFO scare stuff of abductees on operating tables, which is what this program and others in less conspicuous venues have focused on, UFOs and crop circles give us food for thoughtful appraisal. Thanks mostly to Mack's work, I know that many abductees have had extraordinarily transformative
experiences (see Mack's speech below), and we'd have been beneath the surface, where issues of consciousness reside, if we had been privy to those accounts. And, regarding the circles, there's knowledge to be gleaned from those who've delved into them deeply and have used the circles to produce such things as a stunning geometry textbook by a high school math teacher, a crop circle geometry course at the University of Manchester, new geometric theorems discovered in the circles by the head of Boston University's Astronomy Department, and, most spectacular of all, a new revelation recently discovered by a brilliant geometer of a progression of ever more sophisticated solutions to an ancient geometric puzzle that the circles offer up. Some cogent commentaries have been written about the shortcomings of the Jennings special, which manipulated us to stay in curiosity rather than encouraging us to get ignited. So nothing new to report here -- manipulation by the powers that be goes back to the 1940s, when the government first took action to marginalize thoughts of penetration by an otherness to kookland. Those who saw
the program know about that government disinformation because it was, indeed, presented -- perhaps as some of a few bones we got to make us think everything was meaty -- but here are two pieces that will add greatly to anybody's skeletal smarts.
Stanton Friedman, PhD
Jennings Program MJ Column March 3, 2005
By the time you read this you will have read a ton of verbiage about the Feb. 24, Peter Jennings ABC “UFOs: Seeing is Believing”. I think it is appropriate for me to comment since so many people sent me emails about it. Almost all were sympathetic about what they considered the unfair treatment that I and the Roswell incident received.
The producers in Roswell interviewed me for over an hour in July, 2004. Don Schmitt who has been active in Roswell research for many years was also interviewed. He and a film crew actually went out to the site, which was marked out for more archeological digging. I believe about 30 seconds of my interview was shown with none of Don’s nor of the scientific work site. I had been cautiously optimistic after hearing a few weeks before the showing that I had made the cut, but that 100 people had not. My optimism decreased when I heard that Seth Shostak, Frank Drake, and Jill Tartar, (SETI Specialists) and Michael Shermer, skeptic, were going to be on. Despite all their writing about SETI, it was clear that none knew anything about UFOs. Proclamation is not the same as investigation. I had jokingly told people that, after all, Peter Jennings and I were both dual citizens of the USA and Canada and, surprisingly, both had been born on July 29. How could I not trust him? I didn’t place enough emphasis on the fact that Benito Mussolini was also born on July 29.
I was favorably impressed with the first portion with interviews with aircraft crewmembers, comments about Blue Book’s focus on explaining away sightings and the interview with Major Friend whom I had met at Blue Book in the early 1960s. The second half of the show was like a horror film. The SETI people waxed poetic about their wonderful search for ET Signals. There was no indication of any knowledge of UFOs other than one of the sillier moments of the show when Jill Tartar described having a sighting of the moon partially obscured by clouds. This was worth recreating?? One can see why the SETI people don’t want to deal with eyewitness testimony. I think one could also see why I say that SETI stands for Silly Effort to Investigate and why I talk of the cult of SETI: Charismatic hand waving, very strong dogma (they must be out there, they can’t be coming here, we will make the most important discovery in Man’s history a signal from a distant civilization, and nobody could possibly come here… if they did, we would be out of a job) and strong irrational claims about the absence of evidence. Meaning “we don’t dare review it”. Dr. Tyson joined the crowd and proclaimed that eyewitness testimony may be OK in court, but not in science. Tell Jane Goodall that.
Several time PJ used the term mainstream science along with a proclamation about its non-acceptance of UFO reality. No evidence was presented. It appears that the only mainstream science he was talking about was astronomy. Think of chemists, biologists, and geologists, us physicists, etc. Much of science today was based on eyewitness testimony of something unusual. Think Roentgen and X rays. I believe that most mainstream scientists like me believe that the methodology has to suit the problem. Unpredictable, brief appearances of strange craft (not under the control of the observer or of Mother nature) behaving in strange ways require eyewitness testimony as of course do airplane crashes, crimes, etc. Shostak proclaims when he finds a signal they will tell everybody else who will then verify it and anybody can use his own antenna .. What happens if the transmission stops? How many can afford their own Hat Creek Telescope. System? Does he think the signal will be “Testing 1, 2” repeated over and over again? That we can order the saucer to stop while we do measurements?
PJ claimed that mainstream science doesn’t accept the UFO evidence. This was yet another misrepresentation. Polls have consistently shown that the greater the education the more likely to accept UFO reality. Two polls of R and D people showed that about 2/3 of them who expressed an opinion said flying saucers were real. But then they live in the real world unlike the SETI Cultists.
The program contained, as might be expected based on past experience, a major put down on star travel from people who know absolutely nothing about space travel. We were told that the Voyageur spacecraft, our fastest space craft launched 30 years ago, will take 73,000 years to reach the nearest star and that the fastest man made object goes only 11 miles per second compared to the speed of light at 186,000 miles per sec. Wow! Sounds like we sure can’t get there from here. These are both totally misleading. The Voyageur hasn’t been attached to a propulsion system since it left the vicinity of the earth!! It is coasting. This is like tossing a bottle into the ocean as a basis for estimating crossing time for the Queen Mary 2 or the SST or the space station.
We physicists have accelerated particles in the vacuum chambers of expensive accelerators to speeds of 99.99 % of the speed of light. 11mps is absurd. Space is a very large vacuum chamber. These totally misleading comments rank on a par with Dr. Simon Newcombe’s claim in October, 1903, (2 months before the Wright Brothers first flight) that the only way man would fly would be with the help of a balloon. Dr. Bickerton in the 1920s proved “scientifically” that it would be impossible to provide enough energy to put anything into orbit. Dr. Campbell in 1941 “Scientifically” calculated that the required initial launch weight of a rocket able to get a man to the moon and back would be a million million tons. He was, because of his total ignorance about space flight, off by a factor of 300,000,000. All three were, like the SETI cultists, astronomers. With this track record, why believe any of their proclamations? I was involved more than 40 years ago in work on a fusion propulsion system able to eject particles having 10 million times as much energy per particle as in a chemical rocket. This of course was not presented. After all, I was just a promoter.
A real hatchet job was done on Budd Hopkins in the show’s segment on UFO abductions. The witnesses were OK, but then we have the off the wall proclamations about sleep paralysis being the explanation coupled with hypnosis to generate false testimony from the witnesses. All the data provided by Budd about the fact that many abductions don’t take place in bed (Think Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton, etc), that there are many cases when more than one person is abducted (is sleep paralysis contagious?), that at least 30% of abduction investigations do not involve hypnosis, was left on the cutting room floor. Budd has worked with over 600 abductees. Had the 2 Harvard psychologists worked with more than a dozen? Why wasn’t any of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack’s interview run? The pronouncement that there is no benefit of hypnosis in memory enhancement is false. Phil Klass made the same claim to me, but stopped when I provided an article about a stonemason being able, under hypnosis, to describe tiny details on a particular stone that he had placed years earlier.
Finally we have the Roswell segment. I was introduced as a Roswell promoter.The term used twice. There was no mention of that fact that I was a nuclear physicist who had worked for the likes of GE, GM, Westinghouse etc. The totally unjustifiable term Myth was used at least twice.PJ should be ashamed. Jesse Marcel junior was filmed. There was no mention of the fact that he is a medical doctor, a Flight surgeon Colonel in the reserve, and serving in Iraq despite being 67. His father was called an intelligence officer, but without adding that the group was the most elite military group in the world, the 509th, which had dropped the A, bombs on Japan. Don’t these facts go to credibility? Of course I am a Roswell promoter. based on 27 years of research and investigation and the outlay of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours and finding loads of supporting testimony. all ignored by the noisy negativists and none presented in the program.
At the request of the producers I had provided a total of 57 videos from which they used a few clips. One video was the 105 minute “Recollections of Roswell”, which included testimony from 27witness including Retired General Thomas Jefferson DuBose. He told me of taking the call from General Clements McMullen head of SAC who was the boss of 8th Air Force Commander Roger Ramey (who was DuBose’s boss) saying to get the press off their back, send some wreckage up here today, and never talk about it again.
For reasons unknown they had historian Robert Goldberg tell the Roswell tale although he was seriously in error in his description of Roswell in his book about conspiracies and on the show. They gave Karl Pflock quite a bit of time with his Roswell debunking They blindly accepted the Mogul Balloon explanation even though there is no evidence to support it, the materials characteristics don’t match witness testimony, the dates and locations are wrong. They stressed the high security for Mogul… vastly overstated since several launches were allowed to just drop in the desert, no chase planes or ground teams. At least the Crash test dummies weren’t paraded. I have dealt with all the objections in my MUFON 2003 paper “Critiquing the Roswell Critics”.
The real promoters on the show were the SETI cultists with their myths. They have no evidence of any kind that there is anybody out there, that there are signals being sent, that they can receive and interpret such signals if there are any, using our primitive technology. An AM radio can’t pick up FM signals. They can’t admit that there is overwhelming evidence of alien visitation.
It appears that the producers were perfectly willing to present some interesting testimony though they left out things like Project Blue Book Special Report 14,or other large scale scientific studies, the statement by AF General Carroll Bolender that reports of UFOs which could effect national Security were not part of the blue Book system. But the three areas of investigation that clearly together establish both the cover-up and that the planet is being visited (Roswell and the abductions and the fact that interstellar travel is feasible with reasonable trip times) were trashed. Sounds like when push came to shove they lacked any courage at all. It was nice to give a neat segment at the end of the program to Michio Kaku saying that maybe visitors are well ahead of us and can warp space and time. Fusion propulsion systems are much closer in time. Blacked out and whited out government UFO documents force one to the conclusion that the government is not just incompetent with Blue Book, but lying through its teeth.
Perhaps I should mention that only 11.6 million people watched the show. The unsolved Mysteries program on NBC in 1989 about Roswell was seen by over 28 million people the first time around and 30 million the second time.
Particularly irritating was the frequent mention of lights in the sky, billions of stars, absence of physical evidence. There was not even the slightest mention of Ted Phillips’ 3000 + excellent physical trace countries from 90 countries. Why show Chris McKay digging in desert dirt and not the traces left by a UFO?
Frankly I was also bothered by the proclamations by nasty noisy negativist retired USAF officer James McGaha. We had a full-scale debate in Tennessee. The video is noted at my website www.stantonfriedman.com . It is easy to say we need both sides. But is that true when one does his research by investigation and the other does it by proclamation?
From: STANTON T FRIEDMAN
Part 2 of 2 /
Some of my thoughts about Peter Jennings' ABC UFO program which aired on Thursday, 2-24-05 in the United States....
Over the years I have been involved in the making of a number of Documentaries about UFOs. These include "UFOs ARE Real," "Flying Saucers ARE Real - (2 Vols.)," "Stanton T. Friedman IS Real!", "Do you Believe in MAJIC" and in numerous interviews for a wide variety of producers of
shows that have aired on the History Channel, The Discovery Channel,TLC, etc.
Therefore, I am really puzzled about certain aspects of the Peter Jennings Productions (PJP) UFO special seen on ABC on February 24, 2005. The word is that 150 people were interviewed and only 50 made the cut.That is far more than would be required for a 2-hour special.
I had heard just before the broadcast that an interview was done with Dr. John Mack, Harvard Psychiatrist that would not be used. It surely would have made a good counterweight to the two Harvard psychologists falsely explaining away abductions as sleep paralysis enahnced with
hypnosis. It was only after the broadcast that I found out how many extended interviews with very sharp people hadn't been used.
Richard Hall, Dr. Richard Haines, Dr. David Jacobs, Ted Roe of Narcap etc. I saw the people who interviewed Don Schmitt (no air time) and myself (20 seconds), and referring to me as a "promoter" twice, and calling Roswell a "myth" (at least twice) in Roswell with Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell. None of this is in the PJP show. Crews for PJP travelled a lot including, for example, to the MUFON Conference in Denver.
There was no mention of MUFON in the program though CUFOS was given a lot of time with old footage of J. Allan Hynek as well.Strangely he was portrayed as a courageous loner the only one standing up to the debunkers,... a totally misleading portrayal. The question thus arises
as to why spend at least many hundreds of thousand dollars to collect far more footage than could possibly be used? Perhaps they will do another special using "the good stuff"? I doubt it.
But if one wanted a real state-of-the-art survey of ufology - who knows what? - is there a better cover story than that a company linked to Peter Jennings, the last remaining Big Time Network news anchor, is making a hard hitting 2-hour special? People are flattered to be asked to contribute. Many of us were questioned for more than an hour.
It might also be possible when reviewing the tapes to get clues as to who might be speaking out of turn. The crews were very tight about who all they talked to. Is it really surprising that the harshest attacks came down on Roswell, the reality of alien abductions and the reality of interstellar space flight?
Glorifying the Silly Effort To Investigate cultists provides a greatdeal of misdirection away from the reality of UFOs and the government coverup. The footage would be a feast for the minions of whatever group is taking Majestic 12's place to help plan their strategy for debunking and also for possible future release of data. I suspect they are also collecting reactions to the program. I am looking for the names of others who were interviewed but which interviews were not used.
Sunday, March 6, 2005
PAG E-NEWS ONLINE: You can find the 10 most recent issues
(tomorrow's issue posted tonight) and my favorite articles (updated weekly) at:
"The nature of reality is this: It is hidden, and it is hidden, and it is hidden." --Rumi, 13th-century Sufi mystic
UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL OBJECTs - Another Special Report
Here's a rundown of the 10 most watched prime-time shows for the week ended Sunday, February 27th according to Nielsen Media Research:
1. 77th Annual Academy Awards, ABC, 42.1 million viewers
2. American Idol (Tuesday), Fox, 28.3 million viewers
3. CSI, CBS, 28.1 million viewers THURSDAY NIGHT
4. Oscar Countdown 2005, ABC, 27.7 million viewers
5. American Idol (Wednesday), Fox, 26.7 million viewers
6. American Idol (Monday), Fox, 23.5 million viewers
7. Survivor: Palau, CBS, 21.6 million viewers THURSDAY NIGHT
8. Without a Trace, CBS, 21.4 million viewers THURSDAY NIGHT
9. Lost, ABC, 19.49 million viewers
10. CSI: Miami, CBS, 19.48 million viewers
Here's a rundown of the most watched prime-time shows for Thursday, February 24th according to Nielson Media Research:
1. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: 17.1/25;
2. Without a Trace: 13.7/22;
3. Survivor: Palau: 12.4/19;
4. ER: 10.6/17;
5. The Apprentice 3: 9.1/14;
6. Peter Jennings Reporting (UFO: Seeing Is Believing): 7.8/11 [Estimate];
7. Joey: 6.8/10;
7. Will & Grace: 6.8/10
It is no surprise that Jennings' program did not make the top ten for the week. But the "good" news is that an estimated 11 million people watched the UFO special Thursday night - though far below the 40 million people opinion polls tell us believe in UFOs. So could it be that the vast majority of the "believers" do not have televisions? Not likely! So the "bad" news is that the majority of those who believe in UFOs, as well as those who do not, are more interested in watching medical/police fiction and contrived-reality shows than learning about their own world - even when it involves a very real and puzzling mystery. But for those of you who do, I present below further evidence that all is not what it appears to be in our program.
"Here is the best of about 5 or 6 photos I took of 3 mysterious discs flying over the Half Moon Bay beach in Northern California last week."
"In between storm systems over California, the clouds cleared out for a beautiful and bright evening. At 9:09 PM, after hours of watching the sky, I was about to call it a night and go inside. I looked up to see an object to my Northeast, heading South. No FAA mandated lights were to be seen. This object appeared brightly lit and moved slowly, without any sound whatsoever."
http://page-news.c.topica.com/maadf1xabeO7NbfefiNbafpNVB/ (scroll to "Triangular Object?")
"I tried to stay focused on the details of the UFO while in physical contact and use my peripheral vision to determine if the broken crystals fell from the UFO. I'm pretty sure they did but, never was positive about this."
"NWSURC is currently investigating reports where residents have seen a huge round or oval UFO emitting green and sometimes blue lights on the night of Monday February 21, 2005. The object was described as being huge, larger than an airplane and was flying above tree top height."
"The object quickly disappeared under the water and reappeared a few seconds later closer to my vessel. It elevated to the height of 60-70 feet within 5-6 seconds and stayed stationary for a few seconds and submerged again. It reappeared again moving further away but the height of the object rose to a great elevation"
"National UFO Reporting Center Most Noteworthy Cases"
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
Peter Jennings' ABC News special on UFOs claims that almost 50% of Americans believe that UFOs are real and millions of people worldwide have had UFO sightings. Even President Jimmy Carter publicly admitted seeing a UFO in 1969, as per ABC News and CNN (see CNN fact box).
When elected in 1977, Carter took this issue seriously enough to further investigate it. Through his work as a futurist at the Stanford Research Institute, Alfred Lambremont Webre directed a proposed extraterrestrial communication study project for the Carter White House. This study was cancelled by the Pentagon who said 'there are no UFOs'.
Today, millions of people know that there are UFOs. Even high level government officials don't believe that there are no UFOs. As reported by CNN, in November 2002, John Podesta, President Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, did a press conference asking the Pentagon to release the top secret information they have about UFOs. The question is: "what does the UFO issue mean to politics and the process of setting national and international government policies?" This is the reason why Mr. Webre founded the field of exopolitics, with the purpose of creating a grassroots campaign to address such questions. He supports peaceful space exploration, especially NASA's program focused on searching for life on planet Mars.
Webre's book "Exopolitics - Politics, Government and Law in the Universe" may turn the dominant view of our Universe upside down. It reveals that we live on an isolated planet in the midst of a populated, evolving, and highly organized inter-planetary, inter-galactic, and multi-dimensional Universe society. It explores why Earth appears to have been quarantined for eons from a more evolved Universe society. It also suggests specific steps to end our isolation and proposes ways to communicate with the technologically and spiritually advanced civilizations that are engaging our world at this unique time in human history.
Mr. Webre's unprecedented book, "Exopolitics - Politics, Government and Law in the Universe" is being published in March 2005. To learn more, visit: http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/www.universebooks.com. Mr. Webre will be officially launching his book at the 2nd Annual Exopolitics Conference in Washington, DC, in April 2005: http://www.paradigmclock.com/X-Conference/speakers.htm