- From Larry Clark
- lclark01@nycap.rr.coms
- 2-28-5
-
- It was an odd presentation...almost two different shows.
-
- The 1st hour gave a fair overview of the history, presented
cases objectively with eye witnesses, and showed what a sham Project Blue
Book was and the motivation behind it. The animation of the Illinois case
was well done and well integrated with the actual 911 tapes.
-
- The 2nd hour was full of misinformation and cast the
phenomenon in a quasi-fantasy, quasi-cultist light. The word 'belief' was
repeated like a mantra to create the impression that advocates of the phenomenon
are 'believers' rather than inquirers.
-
- Roswell? Why didn't you discuss the Cash-Landrum incident,
or Shag Harbor, or any number of well documented cases?
-
- No physical evidence? Why didn't you mention Ted Phillips
physical trace database of several thousand items gathered over 40 years,
or the EMF effects database?
-
- Abductions? Why didn't you obtain alleged implants from
investigators such as Darrell Sims and subject them to rigorous analysis
and report the findings? Are they made from elements with isotopes not
common to this planet? Do they respond to the presence of certain frequencies?
-
- Do they suggest sophisticated construction? Are they
a hybrid physical/organic mechanism? Given the money spend on travel and
filming you certainly could have afforded some money to establish or dismiss
these claims.
-
- As an example of what happens to this phenomenon:
-
- I have a copy of the original NICAP report that was written
by a state trooper for an incident that occurred in NY in the '60s. A commercial
pilot of a plane flying from Albany to Syracuse saw a glowing disk pass
him going in the direction of Albany and called back to the airport. It
was picked up on radar as it came over the airport, and was seen by a small
private aircraft. It then shot north towards Saratoga.
-
- Shortly afterwards people in the Malta area were calling
the police reporting a strange light moving around the area. A state trooper
was dispatch and came upon the object. What he said in his NICAP report
was when he located the object it was hovering stationary above the ground.
He parked his car and got out and could see it was solid. It remained there
for 45 minutes until a 2nd object arrived, hovering next to it. Then both
shot off in different directions.
-
- However, being interviewed by the news media several
days later he claimed not to know what the thing was or that he had viewed
it closely for a considerable length of time. It was just a fuzzy light
seen by people from a distance, and refused further interviews since then.
-
- Likely he was told to 'play down' the incident. And this
sort of incident, involving a sequence of time, multiple witnesses, ground,
air, and radar combinations is not unique.
-
- It would have been a more objective presentation if you
had ended it with what was presented the 1st hour, or objectively pursued
the subject in areas that may have been uncomfortable for viewers. The
2nd hour made the overall show a shallow and deceptive presentation on
the subject.
-
- Larry Clark
-
-
- From James Neff
-
- I certainly didn't expect The Peter Jennings/ABC UFO
Special to be anything but a seriously watered down version of the apparently
profitable UFO programs one sees on The History Channel/Discovery Channel.
That's really all this is... bottom line. A way to make a buck. ABC saw
how the ratings were for UFO oriented programs on these cable and satellite
channels and decided they needed to jump into the act and get some of that
advertiser green. And why not? They had nothing to lose. There was never
any intention by the producers to seriously look at UFOlogy, just to use
it as a means to an ends. The same way they do anything and everything
else that hits that screen. If it's not going to make a dime, they aren't
going to do it. Period. They wouldn't waste their time. Likewise, the History/Discovery
channel...even the Sci-Fi Channel... produces material along these lines
just to make a buck. I don't think these goomers are bright enough or even
motivated enough for there to be any grand 'conspiracy' behind it. All
the decisions bottom line on green, on ratings and maintaining the status
quo is only there because it makes a nice, clean bedrock for everything
they want to do in the future. This won't be the last UFO special we see.
There will now be droves of them. Everyone who got the books out and saw
the ratings will convince a producer somewhere to pump out more UFO specials
for a little piece of the pie. It's all terribly boring, when you get right
down to it. Borning, predictable pablum for the masses.
-
-
- From Douglas Herman
-
- Peter Jennings is just a media whore.
-
- Sherman Skolnick called them "media whores"
-- those people in the limelight with hundred dollar haircuts and ten cent
brains. Long live the Internet, where frauds and whores are shown the proper
disrespect and fake "news" is lambasted and villified as the
treason it is.
-
- Douglas Herman - USAF veteran
From James Walker
2-26-5
-
- UFO Special - AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL
-
- That UFO special was such a thinly-researched superficial,
rehashed, original load of crap that I can't believe it was put together
by some "veteran reporter". Any bright Ivy league college student
could have thrown that together on an all-nighter. Peter Jennings, his
staff, and ABC news shoud be embarassed. I want a refund for 2 wasted hours
of my life.
-
From Lea MacDonald
- 2-26-5
-
- You fly with it, you die with it.
-
- I couldn't have been more disappointed in the Jennings
UFO documentary the other night. Despite the hype that lead up to the special
it fell well short of even a high school effort. We all know that there
is significantly better evidence than what was presented yet Jennings either
missed it or deliberately skirted presenting it. Why?
-
- One could argue that it was yet another conspiracy to
support the status quo against a second conclusion it was simply a poorly
done documentary. Jennings covered a lot of ground, unfortunately, it was
all ground that had been well traveled before. I was waiting to hear excerpts
of the brave souls that made statements at the National Press Club but
none were profiled - yet these people served in government positions. Why
then would Jennings not use their testimony to offset the air force's ridiculous
report, Roswell, Case Closed? To date, the air force has proffered a couple
conflicting stories of what happened in Roswell from crash test dummies
- time compression, and project Mogul. When it became apparent that the
crash test dummy incident happened a couple years *after* Roswell, the
air force simply changed their story.
-
- Jennings's profile of Peter Davenport, a man whom I consider
to be infinitely more intelligent and articulate than Jennings, was less
than flattering and extremely poorly done. So too was the Jennings profile
of Stanton Friedman. Mr. Friedman has more than ample material gleaned
from archive searches to satiate the staunchest critic yet Jennings did
not cover any of it.
-
- The Jennings documentary leaves open two possibilities
now. One, because it was so laughable, other main stream media organizations
will leave it as a harpoon in the side of Jennings, yawn and move on, or
two, they will see it as a real opportunity to do another documentary that
could easily eclipse the Jennings piece thereby presenting themselves as
an authority who finally broke the story.
-
- The old axiom, "If you fly with it, you die with
it," fits the Jennings piece perfectly. I hope that Jennings death
is quicker and more merciful than the two-hour ordeal he dragged us through.
-
-
- Jim Mortellaro
-
- I think people are forgetting something important here.
This show was not for those who are in the field. The show was for the
masses. Scores of millions of viewers are NOT in the field. They want to
see a show, not an apologetics treatise on the proof of Roswell or for
that matter, anything else.
-
- You people make the mistake of thinking (or worse, believing)
that this show was for you, the Intelligencia. Well, think again. It was
for those millions of viewers who know little to nothing about the phenomena.
You are a fly dropping in the soup when compared with the rest of the world
... those who would scoff, or say, "Maybe, maybe not." For those
viewers, this was a major revelation.
-
- My two cents.
-
- Jim
-
-
-
- From Leon Jackson
- 2-26-5
-
- To Peter Jennings:
-
- You blew it. What could have been a turning point in
revelations about UFO's turned into a mockery of the veracity of millions
of Americans and people all over the Earth. I trust the words of Gordon
Cooper more than I do Peter Jennings.
-
- Leon Jackson
- Coalgate, Ok
-
-
- From Sonia
- 2-25-5
-
- Jeff, have to agree with the comments of Kevin Timmons
and Gordon Douglass (below). Jennings is an illuminati spokesperson and
on their payroll for years. Why would he want to shed 'light' on UFO's?
No, this 'special' was put on for some reason other than to enlighten the
public. You can bet ABC is paying close attention to the comments viewers
are mailing in. They can thus feel the lay of the land and take it from
there.
-
- From Gary Jacobucci
-
- Hi Jeff - the way this 'Special Investigation' was presented,
and the reaction to it, are a mirror of the Jennings/ABC special on the
JFK assassination from November 2003:
-
- ABCNEWS will air a two-hour special, Peter Jennings Reporting:
The Kennedy Assassination " Beyond Conspiracy, on Thursday, Nov. 20.
(ABCNEWS.com)
-
- One review from: http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/abcjfk.htm
-
- I've received many e-mails asking me about the Peter
Jenning's special on the John F. Kennedy assassination on ABC. Basically,
the program did little else but offer a rehash of old, discredited lone-gunman
arguments. The special essentially ignored the mass of new evidence that
has come from the files that were released by the Assassination Records
Review Board in the 1990s. It also ignored the work of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) regarding Jack Ruby, his Mafia ties,
and his suspicious actions before and after the assassination. The program
relied heavily on the spurious computer animations of Dale Myers and on
the biased, problematic research of Gus Russo and Gerald Posner. Even people
who knew little of the JFK case when they watched the show have commented
to me that it was obvious from the outset that the program was very one-sided.
-
-
- From Jerry Kirkegaard
2-25-5
-
- Just about what I expected. I did not time the segments
but it seemed that more time was spent with Bell and SETI.
-
- What I came away way with was this: white wash, joke,
purpose? Journalism? - no way.
-
- On a scale of one to ten - ten being highest - I would
rate Jennings and the Special somewhere below ZERO.
-
- Jerry
-
-
- From Gordon Douglass
2-25-5
-
- Jeff - Peter Jennings did exactly what he was supposed
to do. Why should anyone be disappointed?
-
-
- From Kevin Timmons
2-25-5
-
- I have been hearing a lot of speculation and anticipation
surrounding tonights Peter Jennings UFO special. Some people are hoping
that it will bring UFO's into the mainstream to be taken seriously by more
people. Some people are ridiculing the fact that Peter Jennings and ABC
have chosen to focus on this subject. Unfortunatley I haven't heard anyone
indicate that they recognize this special for what it is. The Emperor has
no clothes.
-
- Extra Terrestrial life is a reality. To disbelieve that
fact is to be a naive little child still clinging to the notion that the
earth is the center of the universe. But that is not the issue here. ABC
didn't suddenly decide that it was time to bring UFO's out of the shadows.
Wasn't Peter Jennings the same journalist who did the piece on why the
conspiracy theories are wrong? Tonight's special on UFO's will do just
what a lot of people hope it will. It will bring UFO's into the focus of
a greater number people and cause many of them to give the subject more
serious thought. It will indeed lift some of the stigma surrounding UFO's.
It will open the minds of people and many of them will believe. However,
this is not a change in the paradigm. It is a change in the agenda. There
is a reason why they call television broadcasting programming. The Illuminati
or whatever you want to call them are playing their trump card. This is
their end game. The entire human race is about to be duped.
-
- 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.
-
- One could use the events surrounding the 911 tragedy
as a template for what is to follow. Create an enemy, introduce him to
the people through the media, attack your own people and blame the actions
on the enemy, use the incident to further and enact your agenda. Only this
time it won't just be the United States that is betrayed. This time it
will be the whole world. You are going to be hearing more and more about
aliens. There will be new evidence...more and more credible sightings.
People will witness incredible technology. But all the while there will
be a perception building that there is something hostile about these aliens.
This of course will be a worldwide phenomenon. Then one day they will come.
There will be nothing else in the media for a long time. Still remaining
vague and mysterious they will attack us using a technology never before
seen on this earth. Perhaps a ray weapon right out of Buck Rodgers. When
that happens, just as Reagan predicted, the world will join as one. This
will happen almost overnight. The United Nations will truly become the
ruling body of the world. All the people will become it's subjects. All
the armies will become it's sceptor. We will defeat the aliens of course.
Even assume their technology for ourselves. The world will be saved. Perhaps
no one will notice that the Illuminati dream of one world government will
have become a reality. Maybe it won't matter to anyone that a small ruling
group now controls the world and all the people have become it's tennants.
Most of us will be to busy mourning the dead. The aliens were very powerful.
We are lucky that half of us survived. Still in shock and exhausted, as
our recovery begins so will our servitude.
-
- Their won't be any websites about conspiracy. The internet
was destroyed in the war. Few people will ever hear anyone suggest that
the aliens weren't aliens at all. That their technology was nothing more
than the true extent of what our own technology has become after 100 years
behind the walls of suppression. Those who wish to control the world only
had to uncloak the machines that they have stolen and hidden from us. Wonders
that inventors and brilliant men created that we never saw. Maybe no one
will ever know that they brought out their machines and killed half of
us while assuming control of the world. They had questioned whether or
not to procede with this plan but 911 had been too easy. The world was
ripe for the picking and they harvested it. Nothing in life is complicated.
It is all very simple. Complication is nothing more than a mechanism to
obfuscate the obvious.
-
-
- From Doug
-
- Dr. Michio Kahku was more open minded than Jennings.
The Dr. cautioned to be fair in the analysis admitting that we may not
have all the answers.
-
-
- From Donald Hart To: abc.news.magazines@abc.com
-
- I had a new insight from your special I wish to share:
-
- 1. SETI would, of course, belittle UFOs. They have a
financial interest in keeping them "out there."
-
- 2. To the person who said "show me one scrap,"
look in the vaults at Wright-Patterson Air Force base. Why would they keep
scraps of weather balloons? Why would they have soldiers keep everyone
away at gunpoint whenever some scrap collecting has to be done. And why
would the FBI or whoever show up to confiscate someone's picture, never
to return them if they were pictures of "swamp gas?"
-
- 3. But the most important insight was when someone reported
about sleep paralysis being the culprit to imagination, then it explains
perfectly what the alleged "virgin Mary" experienced with the
angel. She was experiencing the exact same thing. Ask the expert about
that!
-
- 4. Finally, substitute the belief in religion in place
of ET's. Religion has much less evidence for it than ET's and UFOs do.
Why don't you do a special on that fallacy while you're at it?
-
- Your experts say belief in UFOs are not enough, they
are untrue without evidence. I want you to acknowledge that religion is
untrue without hard evidence on the exact same suppositions. This is nothing
more than saying why should we belief the President when he claims there
are WMD (UFOs) in Iraq? No difference!
-
- Donald Hart
dobar@sbcglobal.net
-
-
- From David Billingsley
-
- Here/s something else in addition to the poor presentation.
The ads were mostly per-inquiry ads for records and household goods.Either
they could not sell the show to their normal prime time advertisers or
maybe Jenning's production company had to buy the time from the network
and sell the ads themselves. A truly bizzare two hours indeed.
-
-
- From DL Harvey
-
- I did not watch it closely and in the second hour I watched
as much Trump as I watched Jennings. But on this superficial level I am
inclined to be positive about it. It did not pan the subject and the first
hour was actually interesting. Maybe too much was expected. I do have to
ask why so many people think Jennings had much to do with point of view
or content.
-
-
-
- From Dennis Balthaser
truthskr@roswell.net
2-26-5
-
- The anticipation is over and all of us that seriously
research the subject of Ufology now have our own views of how the ABC special
played out. I noticed that for the first 12 hours after the show aired
on February 24th on ABC, most comments on the various Internet lists were
less than complimentary about the show.
-
- Sweeps weeks are important to the TV networks and I believe
airing a show about UFOs with someone as well known as Peter Jennings was
not a coincidence. ABC was looking for big numbers in the ratings, which
they didn't get. UFO shows are popular with the general public, if for
no other reason than the majority of the public believe UFOs exist. Unfortunately,
the general public is unaware of all that is taking place with this subject,
by many researchers on a daily basis, and when a show such as the Peter
Jennings show last night is aired, the opportunity is there to inform the
public objectively, and honestly and I didn't sense that happening during
the two hour show. Several times I thought the show was headed in the right
direction, only to have it fall flat by comments from those that will never
believe or agree to accept the facts.
-
- The animation used was to me, done well and I had heard
that all animations were confirmed with witnesses to assure they were as
accurate as possible, so for that I compliment ABC. The sad thing for this
two-hour show is the fact that the animations were better than the script
that was used.
-
- Living in Roswell as I do, and continuing to be a "staunch"
supporter of the Roswell Incident as a researcher, I was particularly disappointed
in ABCs presentation of the Roswell Incident. Stanton Friedman, nuclear
physicist, and the original civilian researcher of the incident was not
given adequate time. Stan was not able to mention MJ-12, the blacked out
government documents he's obtained, or any of his years of devotion to
the subject, while Karl Pflock, ex-CIA employee and debunker was allotted
too much time. There was no fairness in this segment. The Mogul balloon
theory has been dismissed as a cause for several years, but that was conveniently
omitted, and in fact given as the cause of the Roswell Incident. The crash
site shown was finally shown as the real crash site on the Foster ranch,
which was re-assuring to see. The carnival atmosphere for the anniversary
of the Roswell Incident each year I suppose is necessary for attracting
visitors to Roswell, but not necessary for a serious attempt at explaining
UFOs in a TV documentary.
-
- In the discussion about Project Blue Book nothing was
mentioned about Roswell not even being included, or the fact that hundreds
of cases in Blue Book are still not resolved. The Blue Book was then, and
still is nothing more than a public relations "stunt" to pacify
the public, which will continue, as proven by the four excuses given for
Roswell in the past 50 plus years.
-
- Prior to the show being televised I had read that an
interview segment with Harvard professor and author Dr. John Mack, had
been omitted from the show, however a professor (Dr Clancy), from Harvard
was allowed to cast her views against what Dr. Mack and Budd Hopkins have
devoted so much time and effort to. Fair---I don't think so.
-
- The law enforcement officers, commercial pilots and certain
retired military personnel were given an opportunity to share their experiences
fairly openly, and their combined comments were to me some of the strongest
evidence of proof that something mysterious is flying around in our skies,
that no one thus far has been able to explain. Hopefully the military or
government will come down on Jennings for airing those portions in the
show, so he might finally know there is a lot more to this, than he reported
last night.
-
- SETI representatives were allotted way too much time
during the show trying to convince themselves that a civilization hundreds,
perhaps thousands of years ahead of us in technology would be using something
as primitive as radio signals to contact us. Seth Shostak of SETI was presented
as "the knowledgeable one" on UFOs, with hardly anyone realizing
that Stanton Friedman destroyed his thinking and comments recently on a
nationally broadcast radio show debate. Did anyone hear the SETI people
say anything of scientific value? I didn't.
-
- On the abduction segment in the program, no mention of
Barney and Betty Hill was given, and those experiencers that did share
their ordeals were immediately put down as being victims of sleep paralysis.
-
- The astronomer who blatantly stated that "eye witness
testimony was a low form of evidence", woke me up from the boredom
I was watching. Is it any wonder that most of those that experience something
choose to not come forward? Thank goodness our judicial system doesn't
work like that.
-
- One of the few highlights of the show to me was near
the end when physicist Michio Kaku, explained how time travel can be possible
with worm holes and bending time, asking the scientist and astronomers
not to be so quick to reject the possibility of travel in the universe.
Perhaps it's time for them to quit looking into their telescope's and start
looking at the sky from their backyard, like thousands of witnesses have.
-
- For me and many others that take the subject of Ufology
serious, the anticipation for the Jennings special fell extremely short.
It was probably entertaining to the general public, but certainly won't
change many views about it. For us that devote hours of time and resources
to researching this subject nothing new was presented, and in fact some
of the same biased opinions were continued. Did it help us understand what
our place in the universe is---No. Did it reveal the cover-up used by the
military and government for 58 years ---No. Did a two-hour special cover
the most important aspects of the 58 years---No? Did it give credit to
the pilots, military, and law enforcement officers that shared their experiences---No?
Did it give serious respected researchers such as Stanton Friedman and
Bud Hopkins a fare review---No?
-
- In closing, I want to thank Mr. Jennings and ABC for
giving me the opportunity to continue doing my research and in some small
way through my web site, editorials, TV and radio interviews and an occasional
lecture, I'll be able to share my research with the public in a manner
that allows them to reach their own conclusions. I don't anticipate a follow-up
by Jennings or ABC. They had their chance and "blew it."
-
- From Jeffrey Ritzmann
2-24-5
-
- Mr. Siegel's "review" of this program is generally
what we've come to expect from folks who time after time fail to see, research,
and acknowledge the evidence that proliferates the UFO enigma. Anyone,
who truly does their homework into this long standing mystery will come
to realize that there remains, after all these years a true and solid unknown
element. While I find the large part of his review rather humorous, there
is a constant that runs through so called "debunkers" essays,
and that is pure and simple personal attacks. Not serious questioning on
credibility, on evidence, or on UFO witnesses accounts of what they see.
-
- This is an issue that admittedly, the UFO research community
has failed to address in relation to those who flatly refute their information.
Very rarely will you enter into a debate of any kind with a "debunker"
where you won't hear the word, "nut", "moron" or have
it implied that you or your witness is a "hillbilly". It's a
symptom of an individual who refuses to accurately research the information,
the witness, etc., and I don't personally believe that's ever going to
change.
-
- The bottom line, is that they ultimately lose the argument
because they resort to personal attacks that concretely prove they have
no real basis for their argument.
-
- I can recall a debate of about 4 emails regarding an
astronauts sighting of objects he saw in space and has been fairly vocal
about. Now, lets face the facts, these men and women are highly trained
in space flight, and science. Many have had multiple flights. There are
more than a few who have seen UFO's and have openly admitted it to the
public. When I wrote the "authority" on space flight about these
sightings, it took all of one email to say "yeah well ______ is quite
a space "experiencer". To imply in such a fashion that you could
deduce this astronaut is somewhat of a "goof" and doesn't know
what he's talking about.
-
- You're kidding me right?
-
- We're talking about an astronaut, vs. a man who has *never*
been in space, ever. He's not an astronaut, he's an "expert".
Does anyone see the absurdity? I can tell you after 20 years in this field
of study, it's completely typical. Time after time, debate after debate,
a "debunker" will tell you it's purple when he can't even see
in color.
-
- The UFO community is always clamoring for more "scientists"
and "hard core scholars, institutions" for a deeper look into
the mystery but we do have to realize that even if MIT did a serious inquiry
into UFOs...you can bet "debunkers" would try to say MIT or those
involved with the study were "a little out there" or as Mr. Siegel
put it, "sad" or "bored". The fact is, there *are*
scientists looking into UFOs, some at the pinnacle of their field, but
it will little matter what they find using a debunker's line of logic (if
there is any) and reasoning of the core facts.
-
- The bottom line is, as much as we in the field hate to
admit it, a fringe element of individuals in our study. But, are they not
in every facet of any interest? Science, music, literature, philosophy?
You can find them everywhere, in anything. The difference is, in our chosen
field of study, a debunker, or at most instances, the media, will always
gravitiate to these people.
-
- I got the general feeling in reading Mr. Siegel's review
that he's not a big fan of the sensationalism in the report. UFOs don't
need to be sensationalized, but one has to also understand the media rating
machine, and look past that. Again, debunkers wont comment on the message
in the opera, they'll say they hate the music. But that's assuming they
even paid attention.
-
- The bottom line is, in all the time UFO's have been researched,
and investigated there have always been people who chose to refute the
idea and dismiss the evidence. We as researchers and just interested people,
have come a long way in being critical and seriously finding methodologies
to improve our study. It's high time to upgrade our outlook on "debunkers",
and see that these are people who don't comment of relevant evidence, don't
truly study all the facts, and resort ultimately to personal attacks if
all else fails. There are a few that do in truth debate facts in an intelligent
manner, and bring forth true issues that need to be rethought by the UFO
researchers. The rest...well, could they not hold up their one way mirror
at their own debunking community and see themselves as the "fringe
element" of their own point of view.
-
- ~Jeff Ritzmann
-
-
- From Gary Levitan
- 2-26-5
-
- Dear Peter:
-
- As someone who's worked in ad agencies writing for ABC
and your programs, in particular, I must say the UFO presentation was a
cautious, politically correct, serious piece of journalistic drivel.
-
- You're better than that. Much better.
-
- Everyone knows the visitors are here, have been here,
and will continue to be here.
-
- Where were the first-hand accounts of physical alien
contact? Where were the government whistle blowers?
-
- Those arrogant few who control information want "the
rest of us" to be ignorant of our inter-gallactic past, present, and
future.
-
- It only seems like science fiction because our lives
are a fiction. It is a battle to keep us uninformed.
-
- Fortunately, this will be the year that changes everything.
As a new "vibe" washes away the old. And replaces it with a shining
avalanche of truth.
-
- Thank you, Gary Levitan
-
|
