posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:22 PM
Another approach might be to draw up a comprehensive proposal advocating radical improvement in quality of future UFO documentaries and submit it to
the History Channel.
One thing is to stop using photos and footage that are generally believed to be lens flares, hoaxes, whatever. They're very annoying and hurt
credibility. Give them a comprehensive rundown on each of the photos and videos commonly used in documentaries, to make it easier for them to comply
with this point. And show them what there is out there that does have some credibility.
Another is people with low credibility. It's hard or virtually impossible to prove that a certain person is a charlatan, but there are many that come
off that way to the first-time viewer, thereby damaging the credibility of the particular documentary itself and the topic of UFOs in general.
In both cases, most viewers would not be familiar with the arguments have been made about each photo, video, and person, but their gut feeling is what
they rely on.
People say, "I can spot a phony a mile away." Whether they're right or wrong about that doesn't matter if the goal is to get the public worked up
about disclosure. You're only going to build a credible case with the public by qualifying the statements in the narration better (people may not
notice it on a conscious level, but sneaky wording does sink in subconsciously and damage credibility), limiting images to those that don't come off
as obvious fakes, and limiting the list of presenters and commenters to those that don't cause explosive extension of people's lie-detector
It's hard, but a switchover to quality UFO coverage has the potential to move public sentiment in the direction of demanding disclosure. They could
start by taking the old documentaries and cleaning them up, which would probably require boiling four down to one, since there's a lot of stuff in
the old ones that can be considered bad strategy to include, as explained above. But okay, do it like that and remove the bad stuff from YouTube.
It's a start in the direction of presenting a more credible case.
And there are already some documentaries that are of good quality and need nothing removed, as well as some others that are pretty close and need only
a little clean-up. If the good stuff were all that could be found on YouTube (with all the ones that damage overall credibility removed), even that
might move public sentiment a bit, if not far enough, in the direction of demanding disclosure,
And even if execs of the History Channel don't care much or at all about pushing for disclosure, improved quality is good for PR, which should be at
least mentioned in the proposal.