UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Apr > Apr 22

Re: UFO Documentaries And Why They Stink - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:09:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:01:15 -0400
Subject: Re: UFO Documentaries And Why They Stink - Rudiak


>From: Dennis Balthaser <truthskr.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:57:10 -0600
>Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story

>>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:57:28 +0100
>>Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story

>>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:16:23 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story

<snip>

>>>I think that you will find this is the British edit of "The Real
>>>Roswell", broadcast on National Geographic in the US last
>>>January. It was commented on by Dennis Balthaser at:

>>>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2007/mar/m14-004.shtml

>Nick and List

>The show you are referring to did more than lean toward the
>Mogul balloon theory - it ended with a comment that Roswell was
>just a "myth". I taped for over 6 hours last summer for that
>show here in Roswell, as did Stanton, Don Schmitt, Jesse Marcel
>Jr. and others at other locations, never being told by the film
>crew that the show would air with an obviously biased take on
>the Roswell Incident.

>Personally I expected a lot more balanced take of the Incident
>from the National Geographic channel, especially with a show
>title of "The True Story".

>Stan and I both wrote articles about the show after it aired
>here in the states:

>http://tinyurl.com/2b7ndk

>and

>www.truthseekeratroswell.com/ed021507.html

>voicing are disappointment with the National Geographic
>channel's documentary.

I participated in the National Geographic show, but since I
don't have cable, have never seen it. I don't even know if I'm
in it in the final edit. However, from the descriptions, the
British producer, writer, director, and interviewer Philip J.
Day (small husband and wife film company), failed in his promise
to me to be fair. (He also failed in his promise to send be a
copy of the program, another reason I haven't seen it.) For some
background on Day's documentary background, see the imdb
website:

http://imdb.com/name/nm1637762/

My experience with Day may provide some insight as to why the NG
show ended up as it did. Day struck me as an intelligent man but
obviously highly biased. I agreed to be interviewed by him last
September, at some inconvience to myself. Literally the first
words out of his mouth when he entered my home with a local hire
film crew were, "Show me the evidence that Roswell was an alien
event!" (or words to that effect)

Taken somewhat aback at what I considered a rather agressive and
strange introductory remark. (I was expecting more like "Hello,
I'm Philip Day. Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed, etc.,
etc.")

I responded that I thought there were a number of very credible
witnesses to that effect, such as Jesse Marcel, Gen. Exon, Frank
Joyce, and a few others.

To this Day responded that Marcel was simply a liar and Joyce
was obviously crazy. Also witness testimony he didn't consider
to be "evidence" (an odd comment from a documentary film maker,
since many historical documentaries are often heavily based on
such testimony). So, in other words, unless I could show him the
proverbial alien hubcap or dead body for his personal perusal,
he was not going to consider anything "evidence" of an alien
crash.

It was now rather obvious that Day was probably a hardcore
debunker and I seriously considered ending it right there. But
on the off-chance that maybe I could convince him to take it
more seriously (such as showing him the Ramey memo), I said to
something like, "It is obvious that you are highly skeptical. If
I am going to spend the time to be interviewed, I want to know
if you can be fair about this in your program." He sat there for
a few seconds thinking this over, then responded that he thought
he could be fair. Well apparently not.

The only time I thought that maybe I got through to him during
the interview is when I noted that there was almost zero
evidence that there was even a Mogul Flight 4, such as documents
to that effect. He stopped for a moment thoughtfully and said
that was a good point. Whether that got into the documentary, I
don't know.

I don't think Day is some instrument of a government conspiracy.
He is just another highly prejudiced, garden-variety Roswell
debunker who couldn't overcome his personal biases to present a
fair program. That doesn't make him an bad person, just a poor
documentarian in this instance. (Maybe a very good one in other
documentaries he's made when he may not have been so biased from
the gitgo.)

I agree with Dennis on this one. When I took a journalism class,
the first rule of journalistic ethics was to strive to keep
personal bias out of the articles one wrote. Present just the
facts as best they are known and _accurately_ present all sides
on controversial matters. Be as comprehensive with the evidence
as possible. Don't slant by carefully cherrypicking what is
presented or in use of language (such as using words like "myth"
and "believers"). And save personal editorializing for the
editorial page. Let the reader (or viewer in this case) make up
their own minds based on the strength of the overall evidence.
That's good historical documentary film-making IMHO.
Otherwise it's propaganda.


David Rudiak




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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