Why UFOs? Why Now?

Why did ABC decide that now was the time to air Peter Jennings' special UFOS: SEEING IS BELIEVING. I reviewed the show and decided on two possibilities that are not necessarily at odds.

1) February was a sweeps months and ABC was interested in winning ratings. But given the increasing political pressure by The Powers That Be on the media to self-censor, only subjects that are considered fringe like UFOs and faith healing are acceptable. Issues like our continued invasion of Iraq and the attack on the Social Security (which would certainly have garnered high ratings) are verboten.

2) The Powers That Be want the subject of UFOs to be gradually woven into the mainstream mind. So gradually that we will eventually forget that at one time UFOs were a fringe subject. The reason? Star Wars, SDI (Satellite Defense Initiative.) They want us afraid of what’s OUT THERE. They've been "developing" this system since before the Cold War ended. It doesn't matter that for more twenty years they've yet to produce any viable results. Billions of our tax dollars have flowed into the coffers of those who promote SDI. And they don't want that river dammed.

UFOS: SEEING IS BELIEVING is certainly the first in a series. But USIB simply presented the status quo. Do people report seeing things in the sky? Yes. Did Art Bell and his wife see something? Maybe. But they were alone so we can’t be sure. What about the Phoenix and Illinois sightings? Yes. Certainly. Too many people reported seeing something. Flares in Phoenix? The witnesses, including a police officer, swear not. Fact? Yeah, okay, probably.

Roswell? Myth. Definitely. As viewers we weren't even allowed to decide for ourselves. Abductees? Telling the truth? Yes. And no. They are experiencing something but it isn't abduction. It's night terrors. I guess Carl Jung was right. There is a collective unconscious. How else could we explain how people who don't know each other are having the same "hallucinations."

USIB presented no new information. What it did summarize was the status quo. Scientist/skeptics versus witnesses/believers. But it's important to realize how the producers used filming and editing techniques to sway viewers to this already existing opinion. That is to maintain, at least for now, that, yes, people are seeing lights in the sky. But are these lights on vehicles controlled by ETs? Doubtful...well...maybe.

How was this achieved.

One technique was the presentation of the participants. I saw 5 categories.

1) Non-professional UFOlogist unnamed witnesses/abductees. Interviewed with a blacked out background. In the dark, in the shadows. Quick shots: full face/ profile/full face/profile. They are never identified. Combined it creates a mood of confusion and doubt.

2) Non-professional UFOlogist named witnesses. Filmed in situ in broad daylight in Phoenix. The Illinois police officers were filmed at night but in their official vehicles. They are verbally identified, their occupations given. This combination creates an atmosphere of believability.

3) Non credible Professional UFOlogists (non credible, that is, in the eyes of the show's producers). They are interviewed either in situ or with the usual blurred background, they are verbally identified but their credentials are either never mentioned or distorted through use of language. This would include Stanton Friedman, called a "promoter" and never identified as a nuclear physicist or author of books and articles; Bud Hopkins who "published books and articles" but not identified as an artist rather than author as was Karl Pflock; Jesse Marcel Jr. who was never identified as a medical doctor and who I believe also serves in the military in an elite unit that either was or is in Iraq (this info from Don Schmitt on a recent Coast to Coast AM).

4) Semi-credible Professionals. They are interviewed either in situ or with blurred background. But only identified verbally. This would include pilots and armed forces personnel witnesses as well as people like Art Bell of Coast to Coast AM. Doubt is sown though by referring to his home in Pahrump as a compound. The word compound conjures image of numerous and perhaps suspicious people are living on well-guarded grounds, as in that Kennedy Compound or the dwelling of some nefarious drug lord and his minions. Dr. Michio Kaku was verbally identified as "one of the leading theoretical physicists in the world" but he becomes semi-credible because he is willing, unlike most of the other scientists to at lest be open to an investigation of the UFO phenomenon. He says, "let this investigation begin." And unlike most of the other scientists (who fall into category 5) he was only identified verbally but not visually.

5) Highly credible Professionals. Interviewed either in situ or with blurred background. They are identified verbally AND visually. An overshot banner is presented spelling out their names and credentials/occupations. To a person they were almost all skeptics and PhDs. This combination promotes an air of respectability and the visual banner makes it easier for the viewer to remember their names. These would include Neil deGrasse Tyson of New York's Hayden Planetarium and Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine.

Another swaying technique was the use of language. The most blatant was the "into commercial" tease regarding Roswell. "When we come back," Jennings says, "Roswell, the making of a myth." Whoa! Before the viewers even have a chance to review the facts they're told that the Roswell incident is a myth. During the segment Stanton Friedman, Don Schmitt et al are dismissed as "promoters." Dramatic words and wording is rampant such as "proclaiming," "Holy Grail," "a parade of new witnesses came out of the woodwork to share in the limelight, with tales of secret government activity and alien bodies found in the wreckage" and (my favorite) "decades after something fell from the sky outside Roswell this remote New Mexico town had hit the jackpot."

Though Roswell was absolutely put down as myth other techniques continued the "maybe." These would include:

A visual of brightly primary colored (childish?) magazine covers with the voiceover talking about the widespread public interest in UFOs during the 50's that is then legitimized by the photos published in LIFE. [NO/YES.]

Mention of the Twining memo that asserts that UFOs sightings are real but with a note that his findings were overruled by his superior who wanted physical proof. [YES/NO]

The sightings at Minot Air Base by highly credible witnesses who were then dismissed by their own Army Air Force. What these officer and gentlemen must have seen were "stars." [YES YES YES. NO]

I could go on and on with these examples but I think my point has been made.

This special neither proved nor disproved the theory that this earth has been visited for at least 50 years by ETs. All this show did was bring the notion into the mainstream consciousness.

Was SEEING IS BELIEVING UFOS 101. Yes, but to what end. The beginning of the dissemination of truth or fear? Will USIB 201 and 301 reveal more facts or create panic? I suspect the later. And I suspect that using the techniques above credibility will be reversed. Stanton Friedman was right all along. Michael Shermer was wrong wrong wrong.

I suspect that The Powers That Be were the puppet master behind SEEING IS BELIEVING. They invented the technique of cherry picking the facts and presenting truth inside a lie. Honesty doesn’t matter to them, only control.

Filed by zedpoint