Jennings Special - Embarrassing
Even For Prime Time

By Shelley Thomson
Hi, Jeff...
Even for primetime TV this was embarrassing.
I've had the benefit of going to UFO conferences, talking directly to witnesses and researchers (including Seth Shostak) and seeing actual footage from around the world. The Russian military footage was particularly impressive. It was all made public during glasnost. (A couple of years later the CIA had it sewn up again, but the horse was out of the barn.)
UFO observations have gone far beyond fuzzy night lights. There is wonderful, very detailed footage under all lighting conditions. I wondered at first why they chose to use shoddy animations instead of the real thing.
--Then I realized that if they had shown the real footage they'd have had to acknowledge its sources, thereby sending hordes of citizens to the internet to look up UFOs, exactly what they didn't want.
Unless I missed it, there was virtually no reference to the huge body of non-visual evidence. This includes radar and magnetometer data, radio signals, microwave emissions, audio recordings, etc. Quite often these instrumental observations coincide with visual sightings by trained, trustworthy people.
If viewers want to know what they're missing, rent a George Knapp documentary on UFOs, visit the Project Hessdalen website, and read the UFO files on . Rent a copy of "Masters of the Stars." Spend a little time with a search engine and get the last photo sent back by the Russian Phobos II probe.
Then think again about the heavily spun garden fertilizer Peter Jennings presented.
I've talked with Seth Shostak about UFOs. He's an ideologue. It is very misleading to present him as a scientist. Despite his academic qualifications he is not not able, or not willing to treat the subject of intelligent life beyond Earth objectively.
Here's a little SETI [Searchfor Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence] factoid most people don't know. While SETI still had government funding I was on an email list populated by radio astronomers, both amateur and professional. How one can tell whether a given signal is evidence of intelligence is a really difficult question and there were fascinating discussions about it.
It developed that at the time SETI was defunded there were, depending on which set of criteria you used, between 38 and 60+ signals that qualified as intelligent. Pressure built up in the organization: "Shouldn't we make the phone call [to the White House]?" "When can we schedule our press conference?" People muttered darkly about phoning their Senators.
Surprise, surprise. All of a sudden, without warning, Congress axed the program. A private company picked up the funding. Seth Shostak works for the new SETI. Nothing more was heard about the intelligent signals, and I guarantee that things will stay that way.
Suppressing this knowledge is a crime against science and a crime against all human beings.
It's being done not for our protection but because powerful ve$ted intere$ts want it that way.
Shelley Thomson



This Site Served by TheHostPros