Peter Jennings Reporting: UFO, Feb 24th on ABC.

page: 25
0
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
My dad screwed me over on this program!!!!!!!! I had it ready to record as I was going to school and he cancelled it becuase he thought it wasnt important.


Will there be an encore presentation of this show?????????




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I thought the whole show was a little anti-climactic, since I was hoping for more news than that. All it really was was a history lesson, and a VERY LONG two-hour one at that. I hate rehearing the same old crap over and over again.

What we need, as an UFO community is NEW information, not the old rehashing of ancient stories. C'mon!! Project BlueBook?? That's such old news that it's not even worth mentioning anymore. I've jokingly renamed it Project BlueBall because they 'tried' to get proof, but came up empty.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Seth76, Thanks for the info. You impressed me, you kept really good track of the sponsors! I guess some were different from other parts of the country. The way it works (I have been told) is possible sponsors get to view the program/s before they actually make a decision to be a sponsor. Your list has some definite high rollers. Thanks!



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
This is what I'm seeing...


A lot of people who spend time talking to 'believers' who are mad because their favorite stories weren't included in the program.

A lot of people who don't realize what the difference is between good and bad evidence.

A lot of people who can't tell when a reporter has actually helped them out a lot.

A lot of people who don't realize that a report has to include two sides if it is to be considered legitimate.

In short... I'm seeing a lot of the behavior that SCARES people aware from the UFO issue.


Let me put it this way: Grainy footage of dots taken from a space shuttle is not evidence that can move people. It is the sort of thing that can be rapidly debunked or belittled. If Jennings had used STS-48 footage any number of people could have blown that apart in a second. In the same light, if Jennings had used researchers who make make grandiose claims about UFOs the subject would have pushed back decades (that is, if he had aired the views of one guy who claims that 'reptilians' are in a secret alliance with Bush and the Illuminati or whatever... UFOs would have become even more of a public joke).

On the other hand... people, especially the viewing public, are EXTREMELY LIKELY to believe the testimony of retired B-52 pilots and housewives. They are EXTREMELY LIKELY to believe the words of mature, seasoned policemen. They are EXTREMELY LIKELY to believe the abduction reports of people who can look at the camera with a sympathetic face.

In short, what some of you guys think is the strongest evidence is actually the weakest (at least so far as public perception goes). Grainy footage of what are only dots and elaborate stories by self-proclaimed conspiracy investigators JUST DO NOT WORK on the average person. The 'ATS version' of a UFO special report would probably be turned off by all but the most ardent Star Trek fans (and they would probably be Enterprise fans at that).

Why am I fighting with you guys? Simply because you are HURTING interest in UFOs by responding the way many of you have. If I were Peter Jennings, and I had just produced a two hour documentary that used veterans and ordinary people to make UFO interest not look weird, and I was flooding the next day with letters from people who bitched me out for not including their favorite conspiracy tale... I'd probably advise my fellow journalists to stay away from the subject forever.

Seriously, guys... many of you are looking a gift horse in the mouth.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The program reminded me of a NASCAR broadcast. In the sense that every week, they go over what "loose" is, what "tight" is, what the "draft" is, etc. They do it to appease the new viewers who don't know. Borings for those who know, intriguing for those who don't. The PJ special looked like the same concept... to lay out the basics.

It was only a 1 hr 20 min program, accounting for commercials. Can you cover the UFO phenomina in 100 minutes? No. You couldn't legitimately cover Roswell or Area 51 themselves in 100 minutes. So they had to hop through the chronology to cover many areas, while not spending enough time on any one area. Again, boring to those who read up on it, intriguing for those who don't.

With that said, I thought it was fairly good. It wasn't pro-believer, or pro-skeptic, it was pretty much balanced. That was the idea. Lay it out, hop down the timeline, get views from both sides, and let people think what they want. Obviously, it looks like quite a few here were anticipating some curtain-dropping disclosure for some reason.

All in all, I thought it showed that the govt had an agenda, and was showing signs of desparation. And I also thought many of the "skeptics" they had on showed that they dismiss any evidence, and wouldn't believe in visitors no matter what, save from a craft landing on the White House lawn. Even then they still probably wouldn't believe it.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Ok I just saw it and I too am disappointed. In the beginning, the show started out such that it was a balance between a strong UFO case and skepticism, but as the show progressed, it seemed to be more toward skeptics. Jennings made the UFOlogy look very DEBUNKABLE. So I dont see how some of you people can interpret this show as "having progress" for the field of UFOlogy.

Lets not forget all the alien propoganda that came out before this documentary. We had so many Discovery and TLC programs on UFOs, many video games with alien themes, movies, everything. But instead this documentary was an "educate the public" show. This documentary should have hit hard, because the public should have already been prepared by those previous shows.

I once made a post regarding the fact that there is no desensitization campaign, but then a few days before this documentary came on, and the article that mars may possibly have life, and the frozen sea of mars, I thought maybe there is a desensitization campaign. Sadly, after watching this video, there is not.


if Jennings had used researchers who make make grandiose claims about UFOs the subject would have pushed back decades


Well after that documentary, the subject of UFOs has been already pushed back...so why not go all out? lol But I also think it depends on the degree of grandiose claims. So if he mentioned the reptilian illuminati then that would have destroyed all UFO research credibility. But if he mentioned high ranking military officials involved in seeking and collecting crashed debree, that would have been more suitable.


If I were Peter Jennings, and I had just produced a two hour documentary that used veterans and ordinary people to make UFO interest not look weird, and I was flooding the next day with letters from people who bitched me out for not including their favorite conspiracy tale


But also lets not forget that high ranking retired veterans have more credibility than average joes, so why not use them? As for conspiracy tales, finding implants in human beings is an important conspiracy tale dont you think? Couple this with many other things that should have been mentioned.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by kyateLaBoca]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Alas, it was Survivor/Apprentice night so I didn't see it. Looks like I didn't miss much.

I agree completely with TheBorg. I'm at the point where I'm not even going to pay attention unless its CNN reporting live from the UN where the Greys' embassador is presenting his credentials... or something like that... but I would like to see fresh information, not more sighting reports that are the same as a hundred before it.


gl2

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Jennings' show was just a teaser, a strong 30 minute start, then it fell flat with weak research about Roswell: no mention of high ranking military sources on Roswell (which could have been recapped in 15-20 seconds), no mention of an actual disk, just shards of balloons and a fake-seeming strip of symbols (why would the USAF put strange symbols on a balloon?). The worst part was putting only Budd Hopkins up as an abductions theorist, coupled with an ambitious blonde-haired young Harvard psychologist who explained that, in her analysis, it is all nightmares and rapid eye movement moments of waking, confused. NO MENTION OF JOHN MACK, to counter the woman, at all (pathetic).

No mention of CSETI, Corso, and NO FEATURING OF JAIME MAUSSAN'S MEXICAN METALLIC ORBS--DOZENS OF THEM IN FORMATION MOVING BEHIND CLOUDS FOR MINUTES. It was okay on the Phoenix lights and okay on Hynek. But what about Corso, Gordon Cooper and other astronauts, Steven Greer's briefing of Clinton and the UN Secretary General, plus the CIA chief Woolsey? No mention.

In short, we can see where Jennings' crew cut corners, maybe trying to save money, maybe playing to the narco-cabal crowd and a few dumb-struck cows out there in TV land. When you know these subjects and can quote them off of the top of your head, Jennings' quick take looks like a local TV crew putting together a fast, if not weak segement, stuffed with opposite sides of a few well-known controversies. Roswell as a "myth," nothing more.

So sad that, 60 years after Roswell, this show got a good start and could have been historic, but failed when it got to Roswell, then literally flagged therafter. Cable TV does a better job with actual documentaries, not corporate news jobs on a subject that is greater than epochal in significance---because of its vast, multi-historic and enormous social, population implications, the subject is multiply more than epochal. Jennings reduced much of it to trivia. He probably thinks he cracked the regime ice, just a little, so that people at least got ideas, certainly about the Phoenix lights. But, in the end, the old top three networks no longer establish the mindset, here.

The irony in all of this is that nearly 100 million US citizens know the truth. We were watching the show to see how the propaganda goes, not to see new facts. Score one for mediocrity. Pass me the Air Bud movie and get me some potato chips, yowzuh!



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
lets put this phoenix "flare" business to rest...

it may not be the perfect thread for this but i want to talk about it...

if they were flares, the flares would "go down" correct???

these lights DON'T MOVE at ALL!!!

the ONLY way these behave like flares is the way they "turn on"...

they "flicker" on just like flares...

THATS IT!!!

check my links...

www.ufoindia.org...

www.cnn.com...





posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Well, I finally got to see the whole thing (had taped it), instead of just the Roswell part which pissed me off...

I find it odd that they failed to mention the guy who led Blue Book PRIOR to '53, i.e. Ruppelt, and his comments about the coverup...
So we've basically got two leaders of the project, as well as the civilian scientist, Hynek, all saying Blue Book was just a coverup PR project, and yet the skeptics, who are so secure in their science, keep referring to Blue Book as the official gospel on UFOs...
Too funny really, but also very sad....for them.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
lets put this phoenix "flare" business to rest...

it may not be the perfect thread for this but i want to talk about it...

if they were flares, the flares would "go down" correct???

these lights DON'T MOVE at ALL!!!

the ONLY way these behave like flares is the way they "turn on"...

they "flicker" on just like flares...

THATS IT!!!

check my links...

www.ufoindia.org...

www.cnn.com...




Think about how far those lights are away. Wait a minute, you can't, because there's nothing to relate them to. Plus, on top of all of that, the cameraman doesn't leave the camera on those lights for any extended period of time.

Let's say, for instance, that the military was doing some exercise about 60 miles from the city; out where no one would be likely to interfere. They begin dropping flares from a plane, and since every single flare has a little parachute on it, it takes it a while to drop to the ground. Now consider that the distance from the flares to the person is so ambiguous, and you have yourself a very explainable situation. It all makes clear, logical sense when someone sits down and thinks about it.

Hell, it could even have been a bunch of people up on a hill back there with huge lights shining them at the camera. There's a 1000 explanations for these things; they don't ALL have to involve little greenish-grey gumbies.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Frankly, I was not at all satisfied with Jenning's program. They could have tapped a lot of good researchers but relied on animation and debunkers, same debunker who debunked the Rendlsham/Bentwaters incident of 1980. A Phil Klaas apprentice.

There are so many great videos backed by multiple witnesses that just were not interviewed at all.

Seen Jenning's on Good Morning America Thurs morning in which he clearly indicated he does not believe in the reality of UFOs. I emailed him and asked if he was directly involved in the interview and research process for the documentory.

One good thing for you UFO/EBE boys and gals, at least Peter may have opened the doors for other Networks to produce and air ufology related documentories?

Dallas



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Is there a torrent available for the show ?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
can we get a link to the video



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

One good thing for you UFO/EBE boys and gals, at least Peter may have opened the doors for other Networks to produce and air ufology related documentories?


On that I'll agree...
Despite the ludicrous depiction of Roswell as a "myth", the program did have it's finer points...

1) Showing SETI in a positive scientific light.
2) Showing that Blue Book was the coverup that all UFOlogists know it to be.
3) Showing sightings by pilots and military personnel.
4) Showing abductees minus a lot of the ridicule factor.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
For those of us outside the US, or those who just happened to miss it 'cause you had to get your Survivor/Apprentice fix, you can view the whole thing here:

guide.real.com...

The catch is that you'll need Real Player, and (if I'm not mistaken) a Super Pass subscription. Oh well...life's a bitch, sometimes, huh?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
If you're interested, check out my thread on Whitley Strieber's response to the special:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
They See All,

The way I saw it, Jennings put a fairly weak debunker up against the Phoenix Lights believers. A telling moment was when the guy made an argument to the effect of 'If it wasn't on radar, it obviously wasn't there.'

Now, every single person who knows how to turn on a tv also knows that stealth technology has been around for 25+ years. So... the debunker ABC put on the air was probably debunked himself -- automatically -- by every single person who watched the show. In a situation where a bad skeptic is put up against believable witnesses... you get a moment where the show is giving 'pocket' support to the believing side.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I have no idea why did I expect more from Peter Jennings.
. Have to admit that even if the show wasn't even by far a solid show, or as gl2 might put it "was a teaser",, which sadly I had to agree, since I think gl2 was more serious about the topic and maybe more informed on the topic than anybody I've read in the comments that were made.
There is a lot to say about life on earth or in the universe, but the truth is not known to humans.
No human on this planet knows the truth about life and its meaning.
Yet the bible talks about the complexity and life's origin on this planet.
Even more, the bible gives genetic information about human specie.As strange as it may be, even if i never saw or know personally anybody who saw ufo's, makes a lot of genetic sense that those who visit our planet and try to "harvest" genes from humans might know more about life than we do.
After i study genetics and, tried to understand life, a rather intriguing conclusion came to mind ; Science is the only tool that will discover God, who according to torah is also called Elohim = those who live in the sky.
Wish someone out there would think this topic in a more serious fashion.

Peter Jennings' show was a nice "ice breaker" and I admire him for risking his carrier now in times when the ideological struggle is rather intense. From collapsing church to failing religions, to atheism as symbol of "intellectual".
Maybe after all Peter Jennings did deliver the message i expected of him , only he choose a "mild version "


[edit on 26-2-2005 by scifinbible]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
ELohim is plural for god = GODS



new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join