It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MUFON State Director Admits to 'Misleading the Public'

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

MUFON State Director Admits to 'Misleading the Public'


naturalplane.blogspot.com

History Channel contacted MUFON Nevada State Director about a new program on "Mystery Quest". The producer proceeded to tell him they wanted to do a show on searching for crashed UFOs near Area 51. (yeah, that's right...searching for crashed UFOs near Area 51)

When the crew and Easter meet in Rachel, NV, somebody named Peter pulls up in jeep with the remains of a nose cone from a test rocket Area 51 launched in 1967 as well as 1000 pages of tech information on the rocket.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
naturalplane.blogspot.com
naturalplane.blogspot.com
ufomedia.blogspot.com




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
To make a long story short, when they arrived at the destination the producer proceeded to explain how the sequence would be shot. They had to pull the huge pile of debris out of the jeep and plant it in the desert so on camera they could drive up and discover it. In the shot Peter and Easter are kneeling next to the debris and pulling pieces out talking about them as they pretend they are looking at it for the first time.

The producer then instructs Easter to interject certain words about the debris into the dialogue like "alien", "extraterrestrial" and the word "UFO". They all then proceeded to go searching the site for other debris. When they didn't find any, the producer again came up with a less than ethical, solution. They would plant a piece of the debris and act as if they just found it.

naturalplane.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-1-2010 by Medieval1028]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
There are many more reasons why I would like to see the NV director of MUFON to step down and find other work, and this just makes my case. I have said for some time now that this man is dispassionate, dishonest, and in it for the money.

MUFON, despite what this particular man has done to the name, is still a credible reporting institution, and it's name should not be tarnished because of the actions, past and present, of this man.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Star & Flag ! This is sad to read! It's bad enough that most of these UFO shows come off as cheezy with no real evidence or conclusions. Trying to get ratings and viewership is one thing but there are already enough hoaxes in this field. It just fuels the skeptical fires of doubt.
MUFON is a serious organization with real scientists and truth seekers in it's ranks. Hopefully they cancel this show too !

This is another dent in the UFO Community Bus!
(and it isn't a short bus!)



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
In my limited experience of Mark Easter, he seems to have a great deal of integrity. He told me that while investigating a case, he doesn't like to immediately jump to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. He prefers to follow the evidence wherever it leads. "If you have to disappoint someone by telling them they saw a weather balloon, that's what you tell them if that's what he evidence says it was," he said. As far as the MysteryQuest program goes, I'm glad he had the balls to expose the sham. I have posted similar information on ATS and other forums.

The show's so-called crash site investigation was a fiasco. The field producer wanted to visit a mystery crash site so they could find some debris for scientific analysis. They asked me if I knew of any potential sites near Area 51. I didn't know of any unidentified crash sites in the vicinity but I knew of four Area 51 related crash sites (U-2, two A-12s, and a D-21B). The D-21B crash site was selected because it was the closest to the town of Rachel where other filming was to take place.

I warned the field producer that we might not make any new discoveries on camera and suggested I show them what I had already found in 2005, the rocket booster nose cone and some small pieces. She wanted a sample to send to a lab for identification. I told her that lab analysis was unnecessary unless you wanted a breakdown of metal alloys. Otherwise, I was perfectly capable of identifying any debris myself.

I was hoping that they would treat the D-21B crash site examination like a “C.S.I.” episode. I would give some background on the incident and explain my research methods for locating the debris field. Then I would demonstrate methods for identifying the pieces through the use of materials, construction methods, markings analysis, and comparison to photographs and official documentation.

That didn't work for MysteryQuest. They wanted a crashed unidentified object and they insisted on sending a sample for scientific analysis. It didn't matter that the lab would only be able to tell them the material was manufactured on Earth but couldn't distinguish between "part of an aircraft or a farm implement."

We didn’t actually “pretend to find the [big piece of] debris.” The field producer had me show Mark what I had located on a previous expedition (in May 2005). I started showing him various features including steel and titanium parts, manufacturer’s inspection stamps, and part numbers, as well as recognizable components that clearly identified the debris as part of the rocket booster for a D-21B. The producer admonished me against saying anything that would “take away the mystery” and told Mark to ask if there could be anything extraterrestrial about it. Mark objected because it was clearly man-made but the producer insisted that he speculate about the possibility of an ET connection.

When I pointed out that it was clearly identifiable through materials and construction methods, Lockheed Skunk Works inspection stamps, D-21 part numbers, and recognizable components that could be checked against photos and technical manuals, I was told I couldn't say that on camera. We had to keep it a mystery so that a piece of debris could identified in the lab.

I thought that seemed ridiculous and wasteful but the producer said "that's what the audience expects." I keep expecting someone to jump all over me about using the Geiger counter. I know that seemed unnecessarily melodramatic but parts of the D-21B were made of magnesium-thorium alloy, a mildly radioactive metal. (If you're wondering, we didn't find any mag-thor.)

The producer said she did not want to “fake any discovery” of debris but wanted to document a find on camera for the show. After a fruitless search for new (i.e. previously undiscovered) pieces, however, she decided to have Mark “find” one of the pieces I had found in 2005. We both felt really uncomfortable with this and raised objections but the producer promised that between the laboratory analysis of debris and an interview I was to give later (presenting my research findings), we would be able to show what it was. The interview I gave on the final day of the shoot never made the final cut.

After the staged "find" Mark told me, "I'll never live this down." Throughout the shoot, the producer constantly insisted that Mark mention the possibility of a UFO connection to Area 51, despited his repeated objections.

He and I both went into the show against our better judgement but with the hope that we could somehow steer the contents of the program to get the truth across. The MysteryQuest episode was originally to focus solely on Area 51. Halfway through the final edit, the producers decided to expand the scope to include a whole bunch of unrelated stuff (Roswell, Nazca lines, the jet pilot's sighting, etc.). It went from a coherent narrative to a confusing jumble. The result was terrible and an insult to the audience.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
......................and this is why everyone should throw out their television sets!
It's utter garbage targeting eveyone to be stupid and silent and..... to make you CONSUME!!!!!

It's an absolute insult to watch these days. But.....keep watching while you're downing your BigMacs then; tune into Dr Phil to figure out why you're so fat and dumb!!

(unreal)



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
As if these History Channel-Ufo shows weren't disappointing enough.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
It's all about what the customer wants. That's why the producer was using less than ethical means; she wanted to make the sotry mysterious for the audience.

Personally, I'm rather insulted by the assumption that I would only watch the show if it involved a mysterious alien prescence.

Maybe if more of us demanded the real deal, we'd eventually get it?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
There has not been a truly original Area 51 show since 1997. Think of how much we have learned about Groom Lake since 1997 when "Inside Area 51" first aired. Unfortunately MysteryQuest just rehashed the same old stuff: Black Mailbox, cammo dudes, Lazar, Aurora, and the obligatory Tikaboo Peak hike.

With each new program, the producers promise to tell the real story about Area 51 and get away from the mythology. They insist on acting like Area 51 is still a mystery, as if nothing new has been learned over the past decade. They might occasionally manage to squeeze in some new information but don't blink or you will miss it.

Each time I have objected to this approach, I have been told, "This is what the audience expects." Well, maybe they should give the audience what it wants instead. Most of the critical comments I have seen on discussion forums are to the effect that the episode was a rehash of the same material we have been seeing since the mid 1990s.

When the MysteryQuest "Alien Cover-Up” show first aired it was almost as cheesy as I expected but it was better than the "UFO Hunters" Area 51 episode. I was grateful for some of the things that ended up on the cutting room floor (if I can use that anachronism in the digital age) and I was also disappointed about some of the material that was left out. It was a missed opportunity.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by derpif
As if these History Channel-Ufo shows weren't disappointing enough.


I know where you're coming from but, to be fair, there have been a few good ones.

This documentary dealing with black box aircraft recordings during UFO encounters is an excellent one and covers some 'very difficult to explain away' incidents.

Don't let all the other trash put you off - there are some diamonds in the rough.



UFOs - Black Box Secrets



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Hey thanks for that link

You are right, "I know what I saw" wasn't bad either.
Cheers



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

I know where you're coming from but, to be fair, there have been a few good ones.

This documentary dealing with black box aircraft recordings during UFO encounters is an excellent one and covers some 'very difficult to explain away' incidents.

Don't let all the other trash put you off - there are some diamonds in the rough.



UFOs - Black Box Secrets


karl 12,

Definately! - that is one of the best one's out there - pretty indisputable evidence of legitimate UFO encounters for sure!


Shadowhawk,

So you were on that show - and shows like it - and you submit to this clear disinformation/exploitation just so you can be on TV?

That's pretty disgraceful man - to be perfectly honest...

I, for one, certainly do NOT subscribe to the any attention is good attention doctrine - especially when dealing with scientific research.




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Disgraceful? It would have been disgraceful to sit back and let them peddle their crap without making any effort to get them to do a decent show. I gave it my best effort, so you can stuff your self-righteous attitude.

I fought hard to get some factual information into the program and I fought to make the show more original. I consider it a minor victory that they allowed me to say that, over the years, there has never been any hard evidence of "Aurora." They cut out the part where I explained the origin of the AURORA name (line item for B-2 budget). They also perpetuated the myth that Area 51 was an officially unacknowledged base, something I have disproved with extensive documentation. I spent a lot of time in front of the camera revealing information about Groom Lake that has never been included in an Area 51 documentary. As in the past ("Return to Area 51," UFO Hunters," etc.), these scenes never made the final cut.

I just kept pushing the facts and hoping some of the material would make it in. It would have worked if they had stayed with the original plan of just doing an Area 51 show.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


Shadowhawk,

I understand what you are saying - I would just say that purposefully participating in fake discoveries - for TV - sets UFOlogy back somewhat as a legitimate science.

Now - Jesse Ventura pulls a similar stunt on his show when he "discovers" breaking new information on camera - that I heard him discuss openly over a year ago in interviews...

I can totally appreciate you trying to put forth accurate information that is not used - or which is taken out of context - as happens to almost any 9/11 truth activist who does not produce his own documentary themselves.

So - I guess the next question to you is - since this approach of working with sensationalist infotainment pseudo-journalists seems pretty sketchy - what is our next best step as a science?

Could we create an Alex Jones type TV/Radio show that has much greater control over the information and it's accurate dissemeniation?

I mean - as a Truth activist (and very amateur UFOlogist) myself - if Fox News offered to interview me - I simply would HAVE to turn it down - knowing that they would almost certainly use it to try and discredit legitimate research in either area.

Where do we draw the line? - can UFOlogy ever be done in a somewhat more credible weekly show - even if it is internet based only?

What do you think might work best?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Someone needs to be willing to produce a documentary about Area 51 that is just a straightforward history without any sensationalism. The trick is getting a network (such as The History Channel, Discovery, etc.) to buy into the idea that this is what the audience wants. In other words, they have to believe the show will generate good ratings and revenue from advertisers.

So far, no network executive has been willing to stick his or her neck out on this point. They are locked into the idea that sensationalism sells and that people would rather have the mystery preserved than get any real answers. So, they just stick with the old myths. As the fictional reporter said in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” This seems to be true for television documentaries, as well.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join