UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11


From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:35:12 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:57:00 -0500
Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback

>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:42:48 -0700
>From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared)
>To: Updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback

>> From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus]
>> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:55:27 -0600 (CST)
>> Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:50:36 -0500
>> Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback


>> It looked to me that since the tree was in the foreground (relative
>> to the mountains and the lights) the relative positions of the tree
>> and the "loner" light would be strongly affected by the exact
>> position of the camera.  They said only that the daylight video was
>> taken from approximately the same position as the night time video,
>> not from _exactly_ the same position.  So I don't see how the tree
>> being in a slightly different position in the foreground shows that
>> their analysis was "way off".

>> -George Fergus

>Misalignment of the image overlays does, to some degree,
>invalidate the research and therefore the conclusions. This does
>not suggest that the conclusions are wrong but it does suggest
>the conclusions were drawn upon erroneus data. I flipped through
>the sequece in the recording of the Discovery special I made and
>noticed that the overlays appeared to be off as Tom suggests. A
>more accurate daytime video that reporduces all of the
>characteristics of Krysten's March 13 footage would be required.
>If we are to put stock in this model the image alignment must be

Unfortunately, the program's allegations and "conclusions" will
be accepted on faith by most of those who viewed it.  Those of us
who frequent this "list" are far more aware of the differences of
opinions than most of the viewing public, and unless there was to
be a follow up program in the same time slot to counter the
information portrayed, there is little or no way to reach those
who viewed the original with clarifications that may well be
important.  We can debate this matter, and refute the errant
conclusions all we want to.  But, the general public (which isn't
a part of this discussion) will never have the benefit of getting
the story from all points of view.

I think that while we can view commercial programs as
interesting, it is important that we not assume that they are
going to help provide a clear picture of this genre to the public
at large.  Each producer will usually strive to make a "point" in
his program, and the manner in which he edits the interviews and
organizes them in the program will promote that view of the
"truth".  This isn't to say that some information provided by
these programs isn't valuable, which is why researchers need to
continue working with them to provide whatever balance is
possible.  But let's not forget that the "search for truth
through  investigation" is not necessarily a goal that these
programs strive for.  Profit and self-promotion are far more
important.  I would add that I believe that ABC, NBC, and CBS are
probably worse than the cable networks in slanting their coverage
of this genre.  With the exception of a CBS special that aired a
few years ago, I find that the networks tend to go to the first
"voice of reason" they can find and accept that person's
explanation as gospel.  One might ask how many people they
approach before they find the "voice of reason" they're looking

Just a few thoughts.


Search for other documents from or mentioning: steve | jared | fergus

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com