After watching this past week’s Animal Planet show, “Uncovering Aliens,” I’m still without an answer — other than ratings.
At any rate, I watched to see my friend Derrel Sims. It was fun to see him on TV. But I confess I had to roll my eyes in several places. Two come to mind and, for me, tells me that this was a show for newbies by newbies.
In the second half of the show viewers were introduced to Dr. Bob Wood, the person most well known in ufology for the “Majestic Documents.” Bob’s a nice guy, and readers here will know I think very little of the documents (I had a dozen or so linguistically tested for authorship authenticity – they failed miserably), but this segment was awful. A couple of the show “experts” acted (I hope it was acting) like they were new information. Frankly, if you don’t know about the Majestic Documents, you’re no expert and shouldn’t be on a TV about UFOs.
Here’s the point: If you think the Majestic Documents are good evidence for ET contact, you’ve been played like a fiddle.
The Majestic Documents have a VERY checkered history. That’s putting it nicely. They are the product of several layers of deliberate misdirection and disinformation. That isn’t my opinion. It’s the opinion of mainstream UFO researchers. Back in 2007, the MUFON Journal (MUFON = the Mutual UFO Network) devoted 70 pages to a lengthy “state of the question” article on the Majestic Documents. It ain’t pretty. If you want to be informed (and not just parrot UFO blather) you’ll read the article.
The other issue was the oft-repeated myth about how ETs gave us semi-conductors and the transistor. This is bunk. Igor Witkowski’s fascinating book, The Truth About The Wunderwaffe
Volume 11, Issue 2, 1994).
Here’s the point: The trail leading to the semi-conductor and the transistor is well known. We don’t need aliens at Roswell for it.
Someone better tell Animal Planet. (Like they’d listen).
I recently read all 76 issues of Klass’ UFO newsletter. I had read your report on the MJ-12 documents so it was interesting to see how they were gradually rolled out — and how their errors were exposed and (ridiculously) rationalised. I was heartened to see a great many UFO proponents had no problem critiquing the documents. Such controversies show who in the UFO community tends to respect facts (Randle, Todd, Hall, Sparks) and who doesn’t (the Woods, Greer, Friedman — though the later documents from Tim Cooper shamed even Stan to speak out).
We often see the final, well-polished versions of myths packaged in books and on TV, so it’s illuminating to see the early, raw versions with all their flaws, followed by sometimes clumsy patchwork. As you point out, if we don’t fact-check some of these claims ourselves, especially when delivered in a bright and shiny form, we might be deceived.
thanks for this; a nice summary comment.
Coincidentally, on the same day as the current post, two UFO bloggers made the same basic complaint about two other UFO programmes.
Mark O’Connell on Nazi UFO Conspiracy: “This is one big reason UFOlogy has such a bad name. How can anyone take us seriously if theory and speculation are routinely presented as established fact?”
http://www.highstrangenessufo.com/2014/01/roswell-schmoswell.html
Kevin Randle on Unsealed: Alien Files: “This is one of the reasons that we have trouble getting science and journalism to take UFO reports seriously. It is one of the reasons that so many people have so little time for UFOs or who believe those seeing UFOs are deluded. This program, in the guise of a documentary, was filled with every half-baked idea, every conspiracy theory associated with UFOs, and every lousy piece of evidence available. It was horrendous.”
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.ca/2014/01/unsealed-alien-files-seriously.html
Interesting. I caught an episode of the “Unsealed” series. Didn’t seem at all new — as in recycling the same ideas, a lot of the same footage, etc. without a contrarian view.