Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Jan -> Re: Comments on the UPN thing

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: BGBOPPER <BGBOPPER@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:28:12 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 06:16:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Comments on the UPN thing


> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 06:42:14 -0500
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 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

> >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

> >Russ-

>In this genre, most of the researchers have been interviewed by
>numerous groups and have little or no idea where some of those
>interviews will end up.  Several of the videos that have been
>cobbled together by various production companies includes
>snippets of comments by interviewees who have no connection or
>knowledge of that particular production.  That doesn't mean
>they've been misquoted, or that they would become upset with
>their treatment, but the fact is that many have lost control over
>those images (which were at one time given freely on tape with
>few prior restrictions). They all know they have legal redress if
>their comments are twisted out of context, but it is difficult to
>keep track of every interview one does when everyone and their
>brother is approaching you with a video camera or tape recorder.

>Stanton friedman has stated that he never saw the video, and
>hasn't seen the final production.  He was asked to appear at a
>studio and answered some generic questions for the camera, which
>were later edited into the program where they seemed to fit.
>While there are some who would like to hold him accountable for
>lending credence to this nonsense, I believe that it is UPN that
>should bear the brunt of our anger.

>We are involved in a genre that we can't (collectively) clearly
>define and where a clear definition of "proof" and "evidence"
>tends to be elusive. UPN has pushed all the right buttons, and
>made us look foolish.  Unfortunately, with the approaching
>millenium, it's only going to get worse.

>Steve


Steve,

As I said in my previous post... Not all people in the media
misrepresent BUT some do. It is very evident that the fine folks
at UPN do!

As a proud member of both the media and this genre, I find truth
in everything that you said.  Yes, once a person is interviewed
the interview becomes "Stock footage" owned by the production
company and it can be "Plugged" into other productions but that
was not the case with the UPN show.  All of the interviews used
were new and shot by Bob Kiviat's production company.

When a respected UFO resercher consents to an interview they are
lending credence to the production.  If they have any indication
that the production will be misleading it would be wise of them
to back off.

John Velez not only backed off but warned all of the others on
the list of what was taking place. (A very wise move)

Stanton Friedman is most probably the most interviewed researcher
in Ufology.  If we were to use the phrase, "Been there, done
that" it would apply to Stan.  He knew what he was getting into
... he has been there many times as have the others.

Yes Steve, UPN should bear the brunt of our anger, they are the
bad guys.  But they couldn't do what they do with the active and
willing participation of the UFO researchers who they taped.

We all must take responsibility for our actions. My original
comments still stand... If you don't want to be misquoted or
misrepresented don't sit down for the interview.

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste,
Russ Estes
http://www.crystalsky.com