tin foil hat research

Why UFOs? Why Now?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:10:00 -0500

Why did ABC decide that now was the time to air Peter Jennings' special UFOS: SEEING IS BELIEVING. I reviewed the show and decided on two possibilities that are not necessarily at odds.

1) February was a sweeps months and ABC was interested in winning ratings. But given the increasing political pressure by The Powers That Be on the media to self-censor, only subjects that are considered fringe like UFOs and faith healing are acceptable. Issues like our continued invasion of Iraq and the attack on the Social Security (which would certainly have garnered high ratings) are verboten.

2) The Powers That Be want the subject of UFOs to be gradually woven into the mainstream mind. So gradually that we will eventually forget that at one time UFOs were a fringe subject. The reason? Star Wars, SDI (Satellite Defense Initiative.) They want us afraid of what’s OUT THERE. They've been "developing" this system since before the Cold War ended. It doesn't matter that for more twenty years they've yet to produce any viable results. Billions of our tax dollars have flowed into the coffers of those who promote SDI. And they don't want that river dammed.

UFOS: SEEING IS BELIEVING is certainly the first in a series. But USIB simply presented the status quo. Do people report seeing things in the sky? Yes. Did Art Bell and his wife see something? Maybe. But they were alone so we can’t be sure. What about the Phoenix and Illinois sightings? Yes. Certainly. Too many people reported seeing something. Flares in Phoenix? The witnesses, including a police officer, swear not. Fact? Yeah, okay, probably.

Roswell? Myth. Definitely. As viewers we weren't even allowed to decide for ourselves. Abductees? Telling the truth? Yes. And no. They are experiencing something but it isn't abduction. It's night terrors. I guess Carl Jung was right. There is a collective unconscious. How else could we explain how people who don't know each other are having the same "hallucinations."

USIB presented no new information. What it did summarize was the status quo. Scientist/skeptics versus witnesses/believers. But it's important to realize how the producers used filming and editing techniques to sway viewers to this already existing opinion. That is to maintain, at least for now, that, yes, people are seeing lights in the sky. But are these lights on vehicles controlled by ETs? Doubtful...well...maybe.

How was this achieved.

One technique was the presentation of the participants. I saw 5 categories.

1) Non-professional UFOlogist unnamed witnesses/abductees. Interviewed with a blacked out background. In the dark, in the shadows. Quick shots: full face/ profile/full face/profile. They are never identified. Combined it creates a mood of confusion and doubt.

2) Non-professional UFOlogist named witnesses. Filmed in situ in broad daylight in Phoenix. The Illinois police officers were filmed at night but in their official vehicles. They are verbally identified, their occupations given. This combination creates an atmosphere of believability.

3) Non credible Professional UFOlogists (non credible, that is, in the eyes of the show's producers). They are interviewed either in situ or with the usual blurred background, they are verbally identified but their credentials are either never mentioned or distorted through use of language. This would include Stanton Friedman, called a "promoter" and never identified as a nuclear physicist or author of books and articles; Bud Hopkins who "published books and articles" but not identified as an artist rather than author as was Karl Pflock; Jesse Marcel Jr. who was never identified as a medical doctor and who I believe also serves in the military in an elite unit that either was or is in Iraq (this info from Don Schmitt on a recent Coast to Coast AM).

4) Semi-credible Professionals. They are interviewed either in situ or with blurred background. But only identified verbally. This would include pilots and armed forces personnel witnesses as well as people like Art Bell of Coast to Coast AM. Doubt is sown though by referring to his home in Pahrump as a compound. The word compound conjures image of numerous and perhaps suspicious people are living on well-guarded grounds, as in that Kennedy Compound or the dwelling of some nefarious drug lord and his minions. Dr. Michio Kaku was verbally identified as "one of the leading theoretical physicists in the world" but he becomes semi-credible because he is willing, unlike most of the other scientists to at lest be open to an investigation of the UFO phenomenon. He says, "let this investigation begin." And unlike most of the other scientists (who fall into category 5) he was only identified verbally but not visually.

5) Highly credible Professionals. Interviewed either in situ or with blurred background. They are identified verbally AND visually. An overshot banner is presented spelling out their names and credentials/occupations. To a person they were almost all skeptics and PhDs. This combination promotes an air of respectability and the visual banner makes it easier for the viewer to remember their names. These would include Neil deGrasse Tyson of New York's Hayden Planetarium and Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine.

Another swaying technique was the use of language. The most blatant was the "into commercial" tease regarding Roswell. "When we come back," Jennings says, "Roswell, the making of a myth." Whoa! Before the viewers even have a chance to review the facts they're told that the Roswell incident is a myth. During the segment Stanton Friedman, Don Schmitt et al are dismissed as "promoters." Dramatic words and wording is rampant such as "proclaiming," "Holy Grail," "a parade of new witnesses came out of the woodwork to share in the limelight, with tales of secret government activity and alien bodies found in the wreckage" and (my favorite) "decades after something fell from the sky outside Roswell this remote New Mexico town had hit the jackpot."

Though Roswell was absolutely put down as myth other techniques continued the "maybe." These would include:

A visual of brightly primary colored (childish?) magazine covers with the voiceover talking about the widespread public interest in UFOs during the 50's that is then legitimized by the photos published in LIFE. [NO/YES.]

Mention of the Twining memo that asserts that UFOs sightings are real but with a note that his findings were overruled by his superior who wanted physical proof. [YES/NO]

The sightings at Minot Air Base by highly credible witnesses who were then dismissed by their own Army Air Force. What these officer and gentlemen must have seen were "stars." [YES YES YES. NO]

I could go on and on with these examples but I think my point has been made.

This special neither proved nor disproved the theory that this earth has been visited for at least 50 years by ETs. All this show did was bring the notion into the mainstream consciousness.

Was SEEING IS BELIEVING UFOS 101. Yes, but to what end. The beginning of the dissemination of truth or fear? Will USIB 201 and 301 reveal more facts or create panic? I suspect the later. And I suspect that using the techniques above credibility will be reversed. Stanton Friedman was right all along. Michael Shermer was wrong wrong wrong.

I suspect that The Powers That Be were the puppet master behind SEEING IS BELIEVING. They invented the technique of cherry picking the facts and presenting truth inside a lie. Honesty doesn’t matter to them, only control.

Filed by zedpoint

Orange Alerts Are Very Profitable Indeed

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:46:00 -0500

Tom Ridge, former US Director of Homeland Security loved to punctuate his orange level terrorist alerts with recommendations to buy duct tape, plastic sheeting, extra batteries, and flashlights.

Home Depot reported sales of these items tripled everytime Ridge made one of these statements. Home Depot's stock also went up every single time an orange alert was in effect.

Guess where Tom Ridge is working? He's now on the Board of Directors of Home Depot.

Filed by Top Men

UK Freedom of Information Act Results Reveals 88 UFO sitings

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:41:00 -0500

British Ministry of Defense released 88 reports on UFOs released under a Freedom of Information Act within the past several weeks. Local ufologists are pressing for quick updates on the reports. Some of the areas mentioned in the reports were Whitstable, Staffordshire, Cambridgeshire, Wilshire, Somerset, and Surrey. Most common colors for UFOs reported were black, yellow and orange.

Filed by Top Men

Jennings UFO show - First in a Series

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:08:00 -0500

I absolutely agree with the callers on Coast to Coast last night who weighed in with their opines on the Jennings UFO special.

"Seeing is Believing" was UFOs 101. Anyone who knows anything about the study of the UFO phenom was probably pretty bored. YAWNzzzzzzzzzz.

That show was for those who aren't quite up to speed on the whole UFO thang. And the reason people who hadn't been interested in the subject in the past did watch was because...? Yes, you got it right. Because this time it was offered in a pretty, SAFE package wrapped by a serious newsguy. Peter Jennings.

It's not about disinformation anymore. It's about presentation.

Pretty soon The Powers at ABC will announce "Oh, we had such a great response to our first show we just had to have another. And guess what, we dug a little deeper and we found..."

...not the "golden nugget" (why is everything with these people about money). The GN won't be in UFO 201 or even 301. But 201 might have "part" of a little treasure map. : )

Of course, in 301 it might seem as if the map lead nowhere : ( because as we all know X never ever marks the spot.

But in 401... : ) WooWhoo! Lookie what we discovered and "you are not going to believe what we found."

Will the golden nugget be the truth? I doubt that very much. Partial truth, I think. Worded Very Carefully.

But I still contend this isn't about finally investigating the facts, facts we've been hungry for for a very long time. This will be "news" that will feed--not the part of our psyches that long for honesty. No, the UFO Revelations According to Jennings, chapter 4, verse 1 will feed that monster in the id The Powers love to nurture.

Fear.

Filed by zedpoint

Jennings UFO Show - Prelude to HAARP

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:07:00 -0500

My first reaction after watching Peter Jennings' "UFOS: Seeing is Believing" is that it is, as best, mediocre reporting. But then, I never expected it would be a serious investigation. Because nowadays very little that comes to us via the mainstream media is true journalism.

I'll review my recording of the program and produce a more detailed analysis later but for now let's just say that the glaring journalistic omissions are:

1) Lack of follow-up. EG: Did the Air Force ever confirm they had released flares that night over Phoenix? Are these flare releases done on a regular basis and, if so, why was this event something so new to all those Phoenix residents?
2) Omitted details. EG: Why do the Air Force and FAA refer calls about UFOs to this one man in Seattle, Washington and how is he able to do this full time? What is the source of his income?
3) Time wasted. EG: On such things that everyone already knows about such as the SETI project. Exactly who were they trying to educate on this particular subject. Ever see the movie CONTACT? We get SETI already!

Of course, my very first reaction upon hearing that the grand high exalted mystic Peter Jennings was doing a program on UFOS made me ask only one question.

WHY?

Peter Jennings and UFOS uttered in the same sentence? Why would anyone of Peter Jennings caliber report on such a wacky, far out, fairy dust subject like UFOS. Especially when other more dire subjects such as WAR/TERRORISM or the Social Security program or even catastrophic (some might say bizarre) weather patterns loom before him and cry out to be investigated.

My suspicions are many but the two that top my list are:

1) All other subjects are verboten. The Powers That Be are not interested in any investigation of the invasion of Iraq or the "election" in Iraq or the allegedly ailing Social Security System or White House "reporter" James Guckert/Jeff Gannon. You can do reports on faith healers and UFOS, the Powers pronounce. So what's next? Those voices George Bush is rumored to be hearing while in the White House are actually ghosts of past presidents? My suspicion is they're beastily bellowing ala Amityville "GET OUT!"

2)This "report" was a prelude. The Powers That Be are preparing us for the "discovery" of the "golden nugget" of UFOlogy as Jennings calls it. Suddenly, something will appear that will "prove" UFOS are real. And why? HAARP, STAR WARS etc. etc. etc. The Powers will cry, "See, it's all true. We NEED to launch an orbital defense. Right now. Yesterday! We might be attacked by one of these alien races. OH NO! Mr. Bill. SLUGO the alien is coming. And oh how much $MONEY$ there is to be made with orbital defense contracts. They've been trying to sell us this STAR WARS system since Ronald Reagan was president. But with the USSR just a James Bond memory why would we need missiles in space. Not even al Qaeda merits that. But ALIENS. That's not fear. That's FEAR!!!!

Of course, none of this has anything to do with actually investigating the UFO phenomenon. But then, very little of Jennings report did either.

More later.

Files by zedpoint

Eye Witness Testimony - Credible or Not?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:46:00 -0500

Eye witness testimony is often considered the lowest form of evidence when investigating UFOs and paranormal phenomena. If this is so, then we must ask ourselves the following questions:

Why do we go to war based upon eye witness testimony of investigators who supposedly saw various types of weapons?

How is the special weapons investigators eye witness testimony any better or worse than the testimony of trained pilots in the United States Air Force?

How can we doubt the eye witness UFO testimony of former President Carter who was a nuclear scientist on a Naval submarine?

Why doesn’t former President George H. W. Bush, a trained pilot, and his son, President George W. Bush, also reputedly a trained pilot, not rush to vindicate the testimony of US Armed Forces pilots in regards to UFOs?

How can we imprison people for life based upon eye witness testimony?

How can we send people to their deaths based upon eye witness testimony?

Eye witness testimony can not be considered credible in one case and incredible in the other.

A Call for Higher Quality UFO Documentation

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:41:00 -0500

"DO YOU NEED ANY MORE PROOF?"

Yes, we do.

The current year is 2005 and photographic and recording technology is amazing. Amazing, small and cheap.

The Tin Foil Hat Research Team is of the opinion that many of the current photographs and video that has been passed on as "proof" of UFO’s since the mid-90’s is shoddy, unbelievable and inexcusable. We, as students of the UFO phenomenon can no longer accept and will no longer stand for the same quality "proof" that may have stood as valid in the 1940’s - 1980’s.

For example, if you are attempting to document valid proof in a pre-designated UFO hot spot where phenomenon has been seen before and do not have the presence of mind to create a credible experimental environment, do not expect us to believe your "proof" without question.

When someone sits on lawn chairs or a hillside, on a clear night, with coolers and cameras in tow and does not bother to invest in something as simple as a tripod or take the time to learn how to adjust the camera to focus, how can anyone take their work seriously?

Used tripods are fairly easy to get at a garage sale, charity sale, or in the used classified. Steadiness of camera makes all the difference in the world. If one considers themselves a serious UFO chronicler, it is wise to take at least a half hour and learn how to control your camera by reading the manual before going out to shoot phenomena.

We have seen far too much footage shot in total blackness, with not a moon, star, plane, mountain, tree, building or other structure in sight to give the viewer some sense of perspective.

If there is a lack of perspective, there should be a very good reason presented.

What was unusually good about more recent footage out of Mexico and South America was the amount of documentation filmed in broad daylight, by many different cameras. In this footage, it was clear that ordinary people had their regular routine interrupted by an unusual and inexplicable occurrence.

Average citizens were stopping their cars and pulling over to view the spectacle. Buildings, cars, planes were visible and perspective and rate of motion was easy to discern. These people seemed to have very little trouble keeping their hand-held cameras still and though nervous, were able to include regular structures in their footage.

That is the type of minimum and basic quality that we should be demanding from those contesting to have proof.

The burden of proof is on the presenter, not the viewer.

Some present a better case than others and there can never be such a thing as too much documentation.

The fact of the matter is we, The Tin Foil Hat Research Team, believe in the probability of UFOs and alternative life existing on other planets and within other dimensions. But we are of the opinion that shoddy evidence merely clouds the issue and crowds out the attention that higher quality evidence should deserve.

Greetings Earthling!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:37:00 -0500

The Tin Foil Hat Research Team is composed of concerned citizens of this planet eager to expose the truth.

Discontent with the passive, incuriousity that currently passes for news, The Tin Foil Hat Research Team will strive to connect the dots and ask the questions others dare not.

We will tackle information based in part on scientific theory and professional conjecture. All theories are open to examination and critique based upon their own merit.

The Tin Foil Hat Research Team is determined to investigate the many possible explanations but not necessarily the only possible conclusions to the mysteries that lay before us.

You are invited to join us on our ever-expanding exploration.

Onward!