[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

TLC documentaries on UFOs (fwd)

I watched a fair amount of one of these documentaries on 3/25 at 9:00 PM.
I hope you won't mind some criticism. 

To jump right in... 

It shows photos known to be hoaxed right alongside those which are fairly
solidly established. Contactee photos fill a lot of the narration time,
along with some vague and pretty bad moving lights simulations. Photos and
videos are not attributed. 

It claims that the 20% or so AF (Air Force) unknowns were classified by
Hynek as CE-I, CE-II, and CE-III, when, in actuality, his original
classification system also included NL (Nocturnal Light) and RV (Radar
Visual) cases. The AF cases were largely NLs. There were very few AF
CE-IIIs and few of those were classified as unknown, due to the AF
prejudice against such material. 

It covers the airship sightings of the late 1800s, shows how they fit the
UFO maneuver pattern (high speeds and hovering), shows how they fit the
light emission pattern (light beams) (never referring to this as a
pattern), but then follow it with a statement by a skeptic asserting that
those cases were hallucinations based on "fantasies" of flight, and that
the UFOs in the 50s were based on fantasies of space flight. This expert
does not and cannot explain how UFO maneuvers could be thought to be
characteristics of flying machines in the 1800s, since at that time, the
only flight patterns available to the imagination were balloons,
dirigibles, and gliders. Why would people imagine big searchlights and
luminosity as characteristics of flying machines in the 1800s? It later
discusses a CE-III publicized in the 1800s which follows the modern
pattern but fail to draw the conclusion. They cover the Orson Wells scare
in the '30s, but never note that this did not stimulate a UFO flap, which
would be required if the skeptical account is correct. 

They even misspell Dr. Maccabee's name in the caption when he discusses
his analysis of the Gulf Breeze photos. 

There's a lot of coverage of the development of science-fiction. Really
doesn't belong, since no real correlation is shown between that and UFO
reports (i.e. relation between publication date and flaps, etc.)

Lots of coverage of disreputable stuff like Adamski, Billy Meier, etc. No
coverage of pilot, police, or military sightings. 

The one interesting thing is a Gulf Breeze videotape, which I had not seen
before, but whose analysis I had read. One of the important points Dr.

[48 lines left ... full text available at <url:http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/go?choice=message&table=03_1997&mid=4918106&hilit=HYPNOSIS> ]

Article-ID: 03_1997&4915276
Score: 78
Subject: NLPTALK: Re: Work on Yourself