Huff & Mahood on Discovery Channel Area 51 show [a.c.a51]

From: newsifter@vs.felton.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:43:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Huff & Mahood on Discovery Channel Area 51 show [a.c.a51]


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: A Couple of Questions for Tom Mahood
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:42:44 GMT

Gene Huff (gufon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I've been a little busy lately and haven't even browsed the newsgroups
: but I just took a look a moment ago. Someone called me after I came
: home from Desert Blast last Sunday morning and told me to watch for
: that program on the Discovery channel. I watched and there you were
: telling an international audience that your gut feeling was that Lazar
: was at S4.

Gene, good to have you back.  The newsgroups have been a boring, barren
desert without your effervescent presence!

At the time of the interviews, that was a feeling I had. Probably some sort
of
chemical imbalance on my part, unless that was my evil twin...

:  I guess my first question is, What do you think of the way those
: programs edit your interviews?

I think it's a crapshoot.  You are totally at the mercy of the
interviewer, and if they have preconceived notions about the subject,
it's likely your response, however phrased, will be edited to meet
their agenda. This has occurred to me before involving other subject matter.


The Discovery piece is also good example.  I think the Caltech yearbook
"evidence" is some of the weakest stuff I did.  It really doesn't prove
anything, and I pointed that out to the producer.  Yet, of all the
talking I did, that's what they chose to go with.  I think it's because
they could have a good visual tie-in with Caltech.  Ah, television!

: I know your feelings on the Lazar story
: change from time to time and they are complex. Do you feel they clearly
: and accurately conveyed your feelings on the subject?

Yes and no.  The interview was done in two pieces, one over a year ago,
and one maybe 9 months ago.  At the time, I was quite split in my
thinking on it, hence my "On paper he's a fraud, but my gut says he's
been there" position.

Since then, I have received info I wasn't previously aware of that
eliminated some of the "sticking points" I had with Lazar's story.  I
am now reasonably satisfied that most, if not all, of Lazar's story is
fabricated.

Unfortunately, much of the newer data that allows me to reach this
conclusion is of a confidential nature, and I can't throw it out on the
web.  This would be troubling to me if I were trying to support a
specific position (i.e., the guy's a fraud), but I've always tried to
take the stance (although perhaps not always apparent to the pro-Lazar
folks) of "Here's the info I found, make up your own minds."  Since my
personal goal is to find out "what's going on?", I personally need to
know whether I should factor Lazar's story into the grand scheme of
things.

Were I to do the interview today, I doubt I would have used the same words,
and would have introduced a lot more ambiguity into it.  If you listen to
Lazar, he comes across as quite sincere and believable.  However, the
totality of the hard data and personal accounts I have strongly suggest
otherwise (at least to me).

: Did you mean to
: leave the audience with the impression that you feel Lazar worked at
: S4? Of course you know that some of your most ardent followers will
: need psychological counseling after hearing you say that!:)

At the time, I thought there was a reasonable possibility that Lazar could
have been at S-4.  Today I think the possibility is much, much less, but I
will still grant a small possibility.  (There will be some more Papoose
stuff popping up on my web site in the next few months) I try to stay
away from either-or scenarios in favor of probabilities because it allows
consideration of many diferent theories without becoming "attached" to any
one.  As new information comes in, I readjust my weightings.  As you've
already noted, I've shifted my position before. I may well again.  This is,
after all, very weird shit.

I'm not too concerned what impression I leave, as to a great extent it's
out of my control due to editing and whatnot, and even individual
perception.  All I can say is what I think, then duck.

:  Some of the more paranoid people around here feel that I must have
: been a great force on that program to the extent that I saw to it that
: the lighting was better for Lazar and worse for you and that was be
: design to slant the story. Did you see any evidence that any of those
: people gave a damn what I thought about anything, much less to the
: extent that they'd slant the story at my request? I didn't think so.

Lighting has nothing to do with it....Lazar's just much more devilishly
handsome then myself.  It was the best they could do with what they had to
work with.

Actually, I thought the show played around with Lazar a bit, distorting his
image at times, and cranking up the grain.  It didn't do that with anyone
else.  I suppose it could be written off as artistic license, but it was
noticable.  As far as slanting the story, if anything I thought it slanted
against Lazar (Einstein quote, et al), so I don't think they were doing it
at your request.

:Sorry about the lack of flames, you
: know how that disappoints the kids!:)

You could have at least put in one for old times sake!

Tom

----------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51
From: gufon@ix.netcom.com(Gene Huff)
Subject: Re: A Couple of Questions for Tom Mahood
Date: 16 Jan 1997 15:55:46 GMT

mayor@tiac.net (Ken MacGray) writes:
>I notice how you managed to worm your way into the credits, however...
>
>- Ken MacGray

-Actually, I didn't even know that had happened as that was their
choice, not mine. Speaking of worms, who are you and what would you
have to do with it? Never mind, I don't really care, I'm just
interested in Mahood's response to my questions. He's suspiciously
absent. I hope Goober didn't kill him out of jealousy for stealing some
of Goober's spotlight.-