Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Navigation UFOs Paranormal People Places Area 51 Random Top 100 Catalog What's New Search... ...for this word in: Page Titles Page Contents Book Title/Author Help New Catalog Items (Random Selection) Las Vegas Survival Guide (used trpb) - $5.00 Driven to Distraction: Recognizing and Coping with Attention Deficit Disorder (used trpb) - $6.00 American Aces: Twelve Army Air Force Pilots - their most exciting missions (used pb) - $4.00 Strike from Space (used pb) - $10.00 God's First World (used hc) - $20.00 The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s (used hc) - $12.00   Other New Items | Main Catalog Page | Subjects   2000+ new & used titles, including hundreds you won't find at Amazon! Log-In Here For Advanced Features Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Jan -> Here Our Focus

From: KRandle993 <KRandle993@aol.com> [Kevin Randle]
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:18:06 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:54:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Comments on the UPN thing


 >From: BGBOPPER <BGBOPPER@aol.com> [Russ Estes]
 >Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:38:13 EST
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Comments on the UPN thing


 >From: XianneKei <XianneKei@aol.com> [Rebecca Keith]
 >Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:49:48 EST
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Comments on the UPN thing


 >>>  Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:26:18 -0700
 >>>  From: jared@valuserve.com (Jared Anderson)
 >>>  To: Updates <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>  Subject: Comments on the UPN thing

 >>>  Stan Friedman and Derrel Sims have both contributed opinions and
 >>>  comments to this list in the past. After watching the UPN special
 >>>  last night I couldn't help wondering if either of these two
 >>>  gentlemen had any regrets about agreeing to do interviews for the
 >>>  program. Any thoughts?

 >>Judging by all the responses on this list, I'm wondering if
 >>anyone caught the very end of the program where the credits were
 >>scrolled and the actors names were listed?

 >>Stan should be ashamed of himself, as should the woman
 >>psychologist (Yvonne?) from California.

 >>The rest of the experts didn't surprise me. Just what one would
 >>expect on production like this. Media hogs.

 <<snip>>

 >Hello List,

 >I would like to add a few comments from a Media point of view.

 >First:
 >Not all of the folks in the media misrepresent. Editing is
 >necessary due to the limitations of time.

 >Second:
 >Some do! Unless you live in a cave you know very well who the
 >misrepresenters are. (They have been doing it for years and they
 >still are!)

 >Third:
 >I would not consider insulting the intelligence of old media pros
 >such as, Stan Friedman, Darrell Simms, Yvonne Smith, etal, by
 >saying that they didn't know what they were getting into. Of
 >course they did!  They have all done it many, many times before.
 >And many times for the same producers and programs. (Bob Kiviat)
 >(Sightings, A&E, TLC, Sci-Fi, Channel, and more talk show hosts
 >than I care to list) and each time they signed a standard
 >industry release allowing the producers to edit as they please.

 >Fourth:
 >If you don't want to be misquoted or misrepresented don't sit
 >down for interviews!
 >As a person who sticks cameras in people's faces for a living I
 >know all about the lure of the spotlight. I am also aware of the
 >dubious practice of sucking someone onto a program under false
 >pretenses. Years ago I was asked to appear on the Montel Williams
 >Show. The topic was to be the Government involve- ment in UFO
 >coverups and they wanted a documentarians point of view. It was
 >not the topic at all but rather a typical confronta- tional show
 >with the "Good Guys vs the Bad Guys." full of misquotes and B.S.
 >editing.

 >Fool me once...shame on you!
 >Fool me twice...shame on me!

 >Last but not least:
 >Kudos to John Velez for knowing better and shining it on!

 >Keep an open mind,
 >Russ Estes

First let me point out that this program was not disinformation,
it was entertainment (not that Russ or some of the others have
suggested that). It was produced to make money for UPN and Bob
Kiviat. Too often we scream disinformation when we don't like the
tone of the information out there.

Second, I think it is important that we focus on the agenda of
the UFO community. We all have expressed a desire to elevate it
into the scientific arena. We all talk a good game, but too often
it is only talk.

John Velez, to his credit, rejected this spotlight and warned us
about the tone it would take. Others sought the spotlight and now
complain that they hadn't seen the completed project and didn't
know the form it would take. For those of you out there who have
had the opportunity to appear on television, when was the last
time that you saw the finished product BEFORE it was aired? And
if you did, could you have done anything to change it?

Are some of us so hungry for the spotlight that we will accept
any opportunity, even when it is telegraphed to us that the
program will be less than credible? Is John so clever that he can
see these things when others can't? If offered the opportunity to
appear in the pages of the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS wouldn't most of us
decline because of the forum?

Personally, I will not appear on a stage, or a conference in
which Don Schmitt appears. He has badly damaged ufology in
general and the Roswell case in particular. By showing up to
appear with him, I am, tacitly, endorsing him. Why do that now
that we know what he is?

By the same token, should the leaders of the UFO community, or
the self-appointed leaders, lend their names to a program like
the UPN show? When something like this happens, and the
scientific and journalistic communities see it, and know, like
the rest of it that it is a hoax, doesn't that detract from the
rest of us. Aren't we, by our participation, suggesting that we
approve of the program? And if we participated, shouldn't we be
held accountable for that participation, rather than attempting
to alibi it by suggesting that we didn't know what would happen?

Those of us who have been on these programs in the past know that
we will be lied to. We know that those producing the programs,
with few exceptions, know nothing about the field and couldn't
care less. They want an entertaining program and will do what is
necessary to produce it, for ratings mean money and ratings mean
another opportunity to produce something else.

Here the clue should have been Bob Kiviat. He produced the Alien
Autopsy fraud. That should have been enough to suggest that those
who appeared on the show should have given it a pass. We all know
that Kiviat edited his shows to put all the aired segments in the
best light and he cared nothing about the facts. I stood in the
kitchen of the home that had once been owned by Jesse Marcel and
listened to the director of the Alien Autopsy flat out lie to
me.

Yes, we should be outraged at the program, but blame for the
damage done to the UFO community is not in the hands of UPN, but
in the hands of the UFO community. Once again, we have shot
ourselves in the foot.

KRandle