Are UFO Sightings Real? A Look at Peter Jennings' Investigative Program on ABC

[mouseonmoon]

ABC press release:
"Peter Jennings Reporting: UFO's: Life In The Universe - Thursday,
February 24 (8:00-10:00 p.m., ET) -- Each year there are
thousands of reports of unidentified flying objects, but the
U.S. government doesn't investgate any of them. This special
program will seriously examine the unexplained phenomena around
the world that so many people believe is proof of the existence
of UFOs."

usual suspects been interviewed-stayed tuned!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Long time no see.

 

[The_Professional]

Why don't this so-called UFO's or supposed alien beings physically show up and send a clear message to mere mortals? would this somehow break a pattern of universal or scientific law? so far I only keep seeing grainy footage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is much richer and more complicated than that - "grainy images" - and how can we possibly know what agenda an ET would have? Also, allegedly, they do make themselves known beyond any doubt. Most of us choose not to believe such stories.

 

[The_Professional]

It is much richer and more complicated than that - "grainy images" - and how can we possibly know what agenda an ET would have?

Oh that's easy. They're going to observe us for a while then take over the world

/goes back to reading sci-fi

 

[Chronos]

Fortunately, the mineral and bio rights to planet 1011101-011001010010-011 [earth] is hotly contested by several different alien factions. Anyhow, that's one of the more.. interesting.. ideas. Seriously though, any civilization far enough advanced to travel at will among the stars would have no apparent need to conquer primitive societies like ours. The only possibly unique resource would be DNA. You would think samples could be easily collected without disturbing any native sentients. There are plenty of good reasons a society with millions of years of history would be reluctant to disturb one that is only a few thousand or so years old. Even at our tender young age, we have a pretty good idea what happens when primitive societies are exposed to advanced societies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We could even be inconsequential. They may find blue-green algae more interesting.

ETs travel guide to Earth [translated]:"They have some rather uninteresting hominids; most are covered with hair but one is mostly hairless. The latter possesses a few primitive technologies, dominates the planet briefly, but goes extinct within a few centuries. This makes the planet a little more interesting so you may want to consider a temporal jump as well. Nonetheless, about 70% of the planet is covered with water which makes the trip worth the 0.15 grams of exotic matter. There is no end of fascinating marine life.

Special note: Stay clear of cities due to the local air traffic. Also, watch out for weather balloons. We all remember the unfortunate incident at Roswell."

 

[mouseonmoon]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Primetime/story?id=468496

"Peter Jennings Reporting: UFOs "Seeing Is
Believing"

"For decades there have been sightings of UFOs by millions and
millions of people. It is a mystery that only science can solve,
and yet the phenomenon remains largely unexamined. Most of the
reporting on this subject by the mainstream media holds those
who claim to have seen UFOs up to ridicule."


"As a journalist," says Jennings, "I began this project with a healthy
dose of skepticism and as open a mind as possible. After almost
150 interviews with scientists, investigators, and with many of
those who claim to have witnessed unidentified flying objects,
there are important questions that have not been completely
answered, and a great deal not fully explained."

"Among the UFO cases presented:
Minot Air Force Base, N.D., October 1968 Sixteen airmen on the
ground and the crew of an airborne B-52 witness a massive
unidentified object hovering near the base."

(continues-worth reading)

Seeing is Believing...

what's to be expected?-nothing "new"- and wasted time with Roswell,
MJ-12 and abductions...ugh

ABC's got enough bucks to actually 'investigate'-but it looks like
another same old same old...150 interviews and Maccabee wasn't!

What would i like to see-just interviews with those who had 'sightings' reported in Blue Book-it's almost too late...but even more,interview
the "UFO Working Group"(Col.Harold E. Phillips,DIA)and let Howard Blum
take control with complete freedom to let 'em talk from Congress!What happened to these guys?-still going strong in 1990...

Guess we'll be inundated with UFOs after this broadcast-as the skeptics predict.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It will be interesting to see how this is presented.

 

[mouseonmoon]

(Jennings) believes UFOs: Seeing Is Believing (7-9 p.m., Channel 13) is
going to be "stunning."

"Some people in the UFO community were a little bit surprised
that we were going to do it," he said. "What we've done here is
take both the established and UFO communities seriously. They
don't often converge, but they do on occasion."

More than 150 "serious and thoughtful people" are interviewed
for the special, Jennings said, though he admitted, "That
doesn't mean there are no kooks.

"However skeptical we begin, you come to the end of this
believing people should have taken it more seriously (in the
beginning). You certainly wish that of government. The
government intention has been to dismiss the notion of UFOs. It
creates a disconnect between the public and government
credibility."

Source: The Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/ae/tv/3046641

02-18-05

number of articles on Jennings -like he's 'on tour'-Seattle,Boulder,Houston.
good to hear IMO that Dr. John Mack's
interview was 'cut'-more time for Minot i hope!

'best' article here:
Jennings Explores ABCs Of UFOs
Source: The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26961-2005Feb15.html

By Kathy Blumenstock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 20, 2005; Page Y06

"More than 80 million Americans believe intelligent beings from
somewhere else have come here," he said. "Forty million believe
they have seen UFOs, so this is of deep interest to people."

"Like Jennings, Yellin (Executive producer) initially had reservations about devoting a program to UFOs. "I thought it was all a bunch of baloney.
Even though it has public appeal, you don't want to do something
that subjects you to ridicule just to get a rating."


STUNNING!

 

[scarecrow]

Art Bell will be featured briefly.

 

[mouseonmoon]

ya know what, Jennings has just 'stunningly'
buried any further open minded consideration of this
subject-a brilliant job of 'debunking' imho-for anyone
just introduced to the subject, not much to go on

 

[Chronos]

I watched it, and I was very impressed. Jennings did an outstanding job. It was balanced and objective. I found it very open minded. And he was entirely correct in pointing out the lack of physical evidence - conspiracy theories aside.

 

[PIT2]

What was the conclusion of the show? Do UFOs exist or not?

 

[saltydog]

Well, I saw it and I came away with something useful: Seth Shoustak and Jill Tarter (of SETI) exuded, in my opinion, a rare form of enthusiasm that I am humbled by and for that reason I think I've changed my harsh opinion about the SETI effort: I am comforted by that now: Laissez-faire.

 

[mouseonmoon]

pop-cornball-piss poor...

and not saying there is an 'agenda' here-
yet consider NYT commentary 'intake' ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/arts/television/24stan.html?

as Kaku sez: only takes 1
afriad the 'many' were not mentioned-
and the 3 were 'buried' in a mass of ...


of course i realize ... ABC ratings-80 million-
sweeps week

note : Jennings actualy didn't 'interview' anyone.
Why does he think this is "stunning"?

My response is as if i'd never heard of this subject.

I've read these 'shows' are designed for 13 yo.
and that makes sense...
If i were 13 now i might 'look into it'.

1952 'sightings' over DC= hysteria!

well, now we have 'mass medication'-
80 million 'medicated' Americans 'believers'...

let's check the 'statistics'!-is there a correlation between 'believers' and the 'medicated?

think about this:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

"There may be intelligent life in space or not.
Either thought is frightening."

but you know who said it...

Why is it "frightening"?
not for me personaly, but i absolutly "fear" for 'humanity'.
i wouldn't 'tell'!

I'm serious. This 'world' could not handle 'this truth'!

If this IS 'true'==think about it!...


'Believe' what you want-they don't 'teach' Santa Claus in school!
know what I'm sayin'?

I don't expect Jennings to 'conclude' anything;
but will anyone 'investigate'?

Maybe CSI, or the X Files...ha!

if you paid attention, these are the highlights:
Minot, St. Claire, Hynek, and the Phonenix Lights
(which are 2 disctinct 'sightings/events')-not much to go on...

Bud Hopkins?-let's jus say 'being probed is believing'!

sorry, too cheezy for me...

 

[Overdose]

I honestly believe there is no amount of evidence that would ever convince people en masse that aliens exist.
Apart from maybe a war of the worlds style invasion, in which case people would probably be forced to cast doubt aside and accept the reality of the situation...

 

[Chronos]

I agree with Overdose. There is no amount of the kind of evidence to date that will convince the masses. But an alien invasion would not be necessary. A televised landing on the white house lawn would suffice for me. I don't see your point, mouseonmoon. It appears you think the presentation was biased. I did not get that impression. The evidence, not reporting, looks more like the popcorn ball.

 

[cronxeh]

Roswell, New Mexico, in July of 1947 'flying saucer' crashed.
December 1947 - transistor unveiled by Bell Labs.

i love conspiracies

 

[PIT2]

This is what some guy called 'Whitley Strieber' wrote on his website(apparently he's been abducted, wrote books about it and is some kind of expert and Jennings interviewed him for the show):

During the past year Jenning's producers interviewed me a number of times, and because I sensed what they had in mind, I made, as a preemptive strike, a number of careful, highly specific observations about the UFO abduction phenomenon. All of these crucial points - recorded by ABC on videotape - were designed to underline the physical reality of UFO abductions and to demonstrate the implausibility of current skeptical explanations. To its shame, ABC suppressed ALL of these observations.

I knew, of course, that the skeptics' favorite explanation du jour is impossibly simple: abduction reports, they believe, are all due to misperceived "sleep paralysis." Ranking as a distant second is another erroneous belief: abduction reports, they say, "ONLY emerge under hypnosis," and since hypnosis is "totally unreliable", all abduction reports must be discarded. In the light of these tediously familiar errors and misstatements, I made certain in my taped interviews to explain the following:

In the first two decades of our research, ALL of the central abduction cases involved people who were outside their houses when they were taken NONE were lying paralyzed in their bedrooms. They were driving cars, walking, fishing, hunting and even, in one famous case, driving a tractor on a farm. "Sleep paralysis" as a blanket explanation of UFO abductions is therefore, ipso facto, a ludicrous non-starter. Nevertheless ALL of my insistent statements on this point were systematically eliminated by the producers.

Second, I indicated that there are many abduction reports involving two, three, six or more people who were taken simultaneously and whose highly detailed recollections are virtually identical. This fact alone eliminates not only "sleep paralysis" but "fantasy-proneness" or any other idiosyncratic psychological aberrations as triggering causes. My descriptions of these many cases of multiple abductions were likewise completely suppressed by the producers

Third, I showed the interviewers many photos of, again, virtually identical scoop marks, consistent straight-line scars and ground landing traces at abduction sites, and other physical sequelae. ALL of these vivid photographic examples of physical evidence were suppressed by the producers.

Fourth, I was not alone in making these points. My colleague Dr. David Jacobs was asked by ABC to carry out a hypnotic regression for the camera, but since the woman he chose had been abducted in the daytime while driving a car, the case did not fit ABC's "sleep paralysis" agenda and was thus not only suppressed, but Dr. Jacobs' many hours of taped interviews were also scrapped.

Fifth, I made it very clear that perhaps 30% of all the abduction reports collected by researchers are recalled WITHOUT THE AID OF HYPNOSIS, a fact which renders the issue of hypnosis moot. This point was also suppressed by the producers whose only goal, it appeared, was to eliminate any data that contradicted their transparently false debunking hypotheses.

Despite my having presented - and reiterated - the points above, the producers chose to trot out on camera two debunking scientists (whose experiments with a mere handful of subjects have yet to be taken seriously by the psychological community) to buttress the untenable "sleep paralysis" theory, the false "no physical evidence" claim, and the demonstrably untrue "its all hypnosis" assertion. The smug presentations of these two would-be experts were accompanied by the producers' lurid "reenactments" of "sleep paralysis" phenomena, complete with flashing lights and spooky music. The taped testimony of a serious mental health professional like Dr. John Mack was likewise suppressed, along with my statement that over the years eight psychiatrists and numerous other mental health professionals had come to me about their own UFO abductions. The producers' obvious goal was to conceal the fact that within the mental health community there are many professionals who look with amusement on the "sleep paralysis" theory, and who accept the physical reality of UFO abductions.

More can be read here:

http://www.unknowncountry.com/mindframe/opinion/


From what i personally have read about the UFO subject, those 5 points mentioned above are valid.

 

[cronxeh]

Its a religion-based country, do you honestly think they'll show something on national TV that will put an egg on their head. Thats why they don't show coffins coming back from Iraq, that's why they called Michael Moore a fat ass, and that's why Bush got reelected.

 

[Kakarot]

Its a religion-based country, do you honestly think they'll show something on national TV that will put an egg on their head. Thats why they don't show coffins coming back from Iraq, that's why they called Michael Moore a fat ass, and that's why Bush got reelected.

its true the literal christians who believe everything in the bible would go crazy if proof of ET was found rofl

 

[mouseonmoon]

re:"abductions"
first,that's what we got in the 'intro', and incredibly Dr. Mack (who was also interviewed)
wasn't 'shown'-instead we get Hopkins the hypnotist (Svengali)...and 'abductions' is a subject
in itself...as 'cattle mutalations';
Whitley Strieber...geez, this case is 'temporal lobe'---agh

all of this is like 'stigmata'-let's not go there,please.

The 'best' cases are virtually unknown-DC 1952 is written off as 'hysteria'.

The "Holy Grail" of Ufology- Rosewell -give me a break.
not interested...

Star Trek warp drives and the "X-Files" ! yeah, real balanced--STUNNING!

How about 'I saw a UFO and it turned out to only be the full Moon'!

Sci-Fi's Kennenberg was excellent-but it IS from Sci-Fi and Bryant Gumbel
(at least they tackled the subjects of Rosewell and Brentwaters 'in depth')

Jennings may as well do a 'special' on Elvis Sightings during next year's 'sweeps'.

What's Kaku's response to this show?

maybe can we 'pass the plate' and get him to do an NBC special?

check out the NYTimes article:sum it up--"Believing is Seeing"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/arts/television/24stan.html?
An ABC Documentary Lands in U.F.O. Territory
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
(note the 'religious' connection)-do yr own thinking...

-----------
2nd
Nothing 'stunning' about this show-80 million 'believers'-maybe they'll 'tune in'.


"A televised landing on the white house lawn would suffice for me. I don't see your point, mouseonmoon. It appears you think the presentation was biased. I did not get that impression. The evidence, not reporting, looks more like the popcorn ball."-Chronos

Did you catch the difference between the 8 and the 10 o'clock 'events' in Phonix?

Trust me-they 'ain't going to land on the White House Lawn'-grown up!
>they already 'served breakfast to President Truman'-he begged 'em to go away!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, ABC news just made UFOs a mainstream news subject. They barely touched the tip of the iceberg but the slant was heavily pro-mystery. In one specific case review the lame interpretations of the one-man Project Bluebook summary were exposed for the nonsense that they are. As I and other have often argued, the contrast between the evidence and the report summary is painfully obvious to any rational person. Jennings even scoffed a bit as he read the "they saw stars" conclusion.

The typical debunking gibberish was seen to be just that. Take for example our astronomer who argues that the three to four hundred people of Phoenix didn't see a structured craft as they say they did; this since such a craft would have shown up on RADAR. Now let's think about that for a moment. We can avoid detection by RADAR but a race of beings sufficiently advanced to make possible interstellar [or whatever] travel are certainly not? [Edit: not to mention that this goes all the way around the many cases where the UFOs were not only seen by multiple witnesses but was also tracked on one or several RADAR systems.] This shows the typical level of thought applied to the events that can't be explained as mere lights in the sky - his other favorite reference. If the only evidence to support the most extreme claims were lights in the sky then there would be no UFO phenomenon. But first he implies that the basis of UFO phenomenon are mere lights in the sky, then he claims that no one saw what they say they saw. It's called circular reasoning and this is representative of most debunking arguments. Most debunking is based either on ignorance or personal beliefs.

The treatment of Roswell was superficial and unrepresentative but all things considered the rest wasn't bad. Michio Kaku helps to conclude the program by calling for the scientific investigation of UFOs to begin. This was also the slant desired by ABC news. ABC clearly sought to make this subject respectable. We have overwhelming evidence that a mystery is found in UFOs and much of it suggests that we do have visitors. We have no proof of such that has been made public, but don't confuse a lack of proof with a lack of evidence. This is another favorite dodge used by the debunkers: They try to equate evidence of ET with proof of ET.

We don't have proof of ET [or some other entity that may be visiting], but this does not refute the thousands of reports that strongly suggest otherwise; or the millions of reports that imply otherwise. I'm not convinced that ET is here but if these feeble minded debunking arguments were the only basis by which to judge I would have been a true believer long ago. Luckily we can all think for ourselves and we aren't limited to mindless rhetoric based on ignorance and sneaky deceptions that are motivated by fear.

 

[Integral]

Is there any difference between interstellar travel and time travel?

I would find it easier to believe that unexplained sightings are the result of time travel, rather then interstellar travel.

Though the single most acceptable explanation, is none what so ever... insufficient evidence to say anything other then, "I don't know".

Anything else requires such huge assumptions that "god did it" is every bit as understandable.

 

[mouseonmoon]

Ivan:"Most debunking is based either on ignorance or personal beliefs."

The same may be said about 'most belief'.


"ABC clearly sought to make this subject respectable."

i know it seems I'm nit-pickin, but a good part of my personal response revolves around this-Jennings did this 'report' independent of ABC=in my
dreams perhaps-but it seems to be a 'a sweet-heart deal'.

Furthermore, i was dreaming of some 'serious' investigating of this subject-more than SC-Fi/Gumbel and i really don't think Jennings was
trying to 'debunk the debunkers'. The astronomer you mention in regard to the Phoenix lights-imo did in reality debunk the 'lights' at 10 pm. Flares were dropped by the Maryland Air National Guard around this time.If you've seen the entire video the lights 'go out' just like flares. The 'theme' of the show
says it all.

i haven't actually met anyone who watched the show-little strange.
Your 'take' on the the program is thoughtful-likely more than the audience
who watched-i'm wondering 'who they were'. Hope some of your optimism
sinks in...

Wouldn't it have been nice if that amature astronomer who called Davenport from Miami had been contacted and interviewed? perhaps he will by some Florida newspaper? I'm afriad Davenport is collecting reports from just so many 'pranksters' and 'serial reporters' and naive 'believers' etc.

"We have overwhelming evidence that a mystery is found in UFOs and much of it suggests that we do have visitors."

Like the Airship Mystery beginning around 1897-why couldn't the 'Flying Triangles' simply be huge lighter than air air-craft>yet now they can fly 300+mph, and still hover and 'float'...one day they may project 'images' of flying dragons and freak-out the Chinese. I have an open mind-maybe my brains are falling out-but i don't think it's far-fetched to suggest the UFOs are more likely 'man-made'--and not just by our military/ government...

I didn't see any mention of Capt. Ruppelt and his "Report..." and this guy begins "Blue Book" and coined the term UFO--geez

"Let the investigation begin"--Kaku



-----
just a note-Mac OS 9--haven't been able to get "quotes" to work,spellcheck...so it goes
best

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan:"Most debunking is based either on ignorance or personal beliefs."

The same may be said about 'most belief'.

That's why its best not to draw any conclusions. The evidence is what it is and there is nothing that I've seen that ends the debate either way.

"ABC clearly sought to make this subject respectable."

i know it seems I'm nit-pickin, but a good part of my personal response revolves around this-Jennings did this 'report' independent of ABC=in my
dreams perhaps-but it seems to be a 'a sweet-heart deal'.

Furthermore, i was dreaming of some 'serious' investigating of this subject-more than SC-Fi/Gumbel and i really don't think Jennings was
trying to 'debunk the debunkers'.

There was a clearly slant that was not only pro-mystery, but even pro-ET at times. If you clock the time spent telling UFO stories and interviewing witnesses like military pilots and crew, and half a dozen policemen from Illinois that chased a UFO all around Highland, and compare that to the time spend debunking anything but Roswell, the bias becomes obvious. Note also that the pro-ET slant was run earlier that night on the ABC evening news.

The astronomer you mention in regard to the Phoenix lights-imo did in reality debunk the 'lights' at 10 pm. Flares were dropped by the Maryland Air National Guard around this time.If you've seen the entire video the lights 'go out' just like flares. The 'theme' of the show
says it all.

There were two events that night. The flares were reported after the rush of initial reports of a large craft over Phoenix. From what I've seen, it appears that the military dropped some flares coincidental to the initial sightings that were already all over the radio before the flares were seen. Again, three to four hundred people report having seen a structured craft. Some people even entire families reported watching it drift over their house. One guy reports that you could land our entire fleet of B2 bombers on the craft that he saw. The witnesses may or may not be lying, but they did not base their reports on flares.

i haven't actually met anyone who watched the show-little strange.
Your 'take' on the the program is thoughtful-likely more than the audience
who watched-i'm wondering 'who they were'. Hope some of your optimism
sinks in...

This was prime time with Peter Jennings. This is now mainstream news. If they had tried to blow everything out of the water that would one thing, but the slant on all but Roswell was flat out shocking to me. I could hardly believe my ears and eyes. They actually presented a tiny tiny bit of the real story. That's a first!

"We have overwhelming evidence that a mystery is found in UFOs and much of it suggests that we do have visitors."

Like the Airship Mystery beginning around 1897-why couldn't the 'Flying Triangles' simply be huge lighter than air air-craft>yet now they can fly 300+mph, and still hover and 'float'...

I was all but convinced that the Illinois police had chased a lighter-than-air or nearly lighter than air military craft, but after reading the police reports in detail and after listening to the interviews it gets a little harder to buy. Still, I think this may explain a large number of UFO sightings. I believe [know] that we do have stealth blimps and some may use an uncommon form of propulsion; or perhaps even some really good noise cancellation technology for that matter. Whatever the case, these do exist. The question becomes one of the limits of performance for any conceivable technology and the behavior of the UFO as reported by eyewitnesses - the reliability of which is always tough to gauge.. But based on some seemingly good reports I have a really hard time believing that we could build anything that could perform as some black triangles apparently do. In short, I don't see any way to be sure at this point. Both explanations may even be true. If the military finally reveals a super-high performance blimp of impressive scale, maybe then we will know.

one day they may project 'images' of flying dragons and freak-out the Chinese. I have an open mind-maybe my brains are falling out-but i don't think it's far-fetched to suggest the UFOs are more likely 'man-made'--and not just by our military/ government...

Even though the military certainly accounts for a large number of UFO reports, there are also a large number of reports that can't possibly be due to human made craft. Its that simple. In 1950 we thought this may be true [your suggestion], and then in 1960 we again thought the same, and then in the 70s, 80's and right through today we keep arguing that these could be exotic military craft. Talk about a conspiracy! In 1942 we had aircraft that can out-perform any fighter jet that we have even today! And it's still a secret!

Whatever the entire explanation may be it's more complicated than mere trickery and misperception. If we accept some of the evidence and testimony as reasonably accurate, which is often justified by the credibility of the case, the only possible earthly explanation for some events seems to be that some highly energetic phenomenon exists that can cause mild to dramatic hallucinations. This becomes a real stretch for me but it is about the only thing other than trans-temporal, trans-dimensional, or intergalactic travelers that seems to make sense. There is also the idea of some unusual form of earthly life that we never imagined and we don't recognize as life. Something whose true identity is obscured for some reason and that appears very strange to us. I guess something like this could even account for part of the story. Maybe there are five or ten explanations for UFOs that we haven't figured out yet. Its really hard to say but I know for a fact that the bonehead explanations often seen on TV and the internet are ridiculous.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is there any difference between interstellar travel and time travel?

I would find it easier to believe that unexplained sightings are the result of time travel, rather then interstellar travel.

Though the single most acceptable explanation, is none what so ever... insufficient evidence to say anything other then, "I don't know".

Anything else requires such huge assumptions that "god did it" is every bit as understandable.

Agreed. Note also that given the most complelling accounts of close encounters, the core of scientists who study this subject do not all jump to ET as an explanation. In fact, when Hynek - the father scientist of Ufology -died, he also was leaning towards something other than ET as an explanation. We certainly can't rule out time travel at this point. And this would eliminate many logical objections to ET visitors. .

 

[mouseonmoon]

Ivan:"In fact, when Hynek - the father scientist of Ufology -died, he also was leaning towards something other than ET as an explanation."

what's the suggestion? would you elaborate on Hynek


It seems to me that if only a couple hundred years 'technology' would be 'magic'>
a million years would be 'from gods'.

What if the ancient Greek science had advanced in an ideal peaceful progression?
I can see locomotives at the time of Jesus easily.

for example see:Technology Museum of Thessaloniki
http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/5/55.html

"...the ancient Greek mechanical engineers: Archimedes, Philo (who invented a steam siren for lighthouses) and Hero, not to mention Philomenes, who in 250 BC built a steam pressure vessel very like that of Papin, although without the latter's safety valve."

Who knows where 'we'd' be at this 'juncture'?

You could be a 'fool' and get burnt at the stake, or just 'ignore 'em', go underground, manipulate a few 'leaders' and live in peace up on the magic mountain...

"Anything that can be imagined..." as Blake said

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I really can't elaborate much on Hynek's comments. I have seen his last few interviews and Vallee also makes mention of this. IIRC, he said that he suspects that we may have visitors who are not ETs. He said that he was forced to consider other ideas like time travel.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But the race for ratings is particularly intense in February. Jennings points out in his introduction that as many as 80 million Americans believe in UFOs and that 40 million say they have seen one or know someone who has. If even a fraction of those people turn to ABC on Thursday night, "UFO's: Seeing Is Believing" could do for Jennings what more somber special reports like last June's "Guantanamo Bay" could not.[conitnued]

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050224/NEWS/502240307/0/FRONTPAGE

This is hilarious! The obvious point missed by the author is that this is newsworthy by definition. This since "40 million Americans say they have seen one [a UFO] or know someone who has" - rather obvious isn't it! Considering the overwhelming evidence for a mystery combined with the shear numbers this is certainly newsworthy. If we use this as a rough head count and then use the classically conservative estimate that 5% of all sightings are unexplainable, we have 2 million qualified UFO events to explain today in the US alone. Of course this estimate ignores the previous fifty years of sightings; not to mention the reports going back five thousand years and more. Perhaps this journalist could take some lessons from Jennings on what is news.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

please see also the new post above.

ABC News Special on UFO's Uses Footage, Research from Acclaimed James Fox Film, 'OUT OF THE BLUE'
Thursday February 24, 2:20 am ET
Award winning documentary now available on DVD from Hannover House


NEW YORK, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- The Peter Jennings ABC News Special "The UFO Phenomenon -- Seeing Is Believing" may be one of the most complete investigations ever into unexplained aerial phenomenon [to those who know absolutely nothing about the subject]. But viewers from the scientific and research communities may recognize that some of the material in the ABC special comes from the acclaimed documentary Out Of The Blue from producer/director James Fox. [continued]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/nyth085_1.html

WHY would a serious journalist like Peter Jennings tackle a silly subject like UFOs? Maybe it's because 40 million Americans can't be wrong.
It turns out that 40 million of us have claimed to have seen UFOs, while half — yes, half — of all Americans believe in their existence. [continued]

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/41079.htm

..."We have a lot of skeptics -- I am very skeptical -- but we seriously investigated something a lot of people are serious about," he said. "And when we come to the end, this is wonderfully interesting.

"More than 80 million Americans believe intelligent beings from somewhere else have come here," he said. "Forty million believe they have seen UFOs, so this is of deep interest to people."...

http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/224037-2085-062.html
also
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2002184393_jenningsufo21.html?syndication=rss
and
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=1458&u_sid=1339398

...Too often the mainstream media holds those who claim to have seen UFOs up to ridicule. "I approached this project as a skeptic. And I still am.
"But as a reporter it would be foolish of me to simply dismiss these mysteries as something perpetrated by a bunch of kooks." [continued]

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/entertainment_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_84_3553634,00.html

etc etc etc...

 

[Sneaksuit]

a good job?

chronos...you and everyone else should read this http://www.disclosureproject.org/Transcripts/TranscriptCharlesGoyetteRadioShowInterview-DrStevenGreer-Feb252005.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

more complaining from Greer

Inside The ABC News UFO Documentary Hoax

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00274.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I recently watched this again. I can't believe the scientists or so called "experts" who, in spite of hundreds of witnesses, claim that "we would have seen it on RADAR", so no UFO was seen. Clearly stealth planes don't exist either.

I also remember A.C. Clarke using this as his argument right before the B1 bomber was presented to the public.

This sort of thing has heightened my interests in the subject as much as anything else. The explanations are often reaching beyond reason. This only serves to discredit any efforts to provide reasonable explanations for the seemingly inexplicable.

Edit: I always want to forget the e in Clarke.