UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 4

Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up' - White

From: Eleanor White <raven1@mail.nas.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 08:56:22 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 16:23:14 -0400
Subject: Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up' - White

 >From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 03:49:18 +0100
 >Subject: Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>From: Eleanor White <raven1@mail.nas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:22:34 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>>From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 00:40:47 +0100
 >>>Subject: Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>>I can understand your beef on this, but here's a thought, surely
 >>>in the light of 9/11 a UFO seen over New York or Washington for
 >>>instance would be of some media interest, judging by the
 >>>heightened security.

 >>>UFO items are not old news, just not happening news.

 >>You know something? If asked informally and away from
 >>the office, I'll bet 100% of media people who have rejected
 >>UFO stories know quite well UFOs _are_ happening, but
 >>are afraid to print any specific case because of fear the one
 >>they would choose would turn out to be a hoax.

 >Unless I'm mistaken all UFO's that appear to be a 'nut's and
 >bolt's' spacecraft turn out to be hoaxes.
 >If you can offer video or film evidence on the contrary I'd like
 >to see it.

 >>Perhaps a screening committee approach would help the media exec
 >>have the confidence to print/air such a story?

 >Confidence requires evidence, they don't have the confidence

To your above two remarks, you are ignoring witnesses,
especially the multiple witness sightings and the radar-
  confirmed sightings. Witnesses count in court, so why are you
discounting them?

Simple reporting of multi-witness sightings and radar
confirmation sightings, without claiming proof, but done
_frequently_ enough so the non-UFO-researching public will
finally get the point that this is not a phenomenon that
happened long ago and far away, and _not_ combined with a
debunker statement, would serve as _evidence_.

Not proof, but evidence.

What's the harm in reporting every multi-witness and/or radar-
confirmed sighting for one year, without a follow on by a
debunker and let the _public_ decide if this is evidence or not?


 >>Doesn't have to be that way, but both UFO researchers and the
 >>media need to grasp how effective _regular_, quality assured,
 >>not splashy and not long, media items can be in motivating the
 >>public. If this is done, there will be the necessary public
 >>interest to press government to disclose what they know on

 >You mean something along the lines of:

 >"Dear Government,

 >Could you please tell us what these little blobs are we keep
 >seeing in our skies?

 >We haven't got a clue what they are but there's an awful lot of
 >speculation going around.

 >Any information would be greatly appreciated."

No. That would be silly. I'm recommending what I proposed
above - _regular_, no-debunker-follow-on, brief, airings of
all multi-witness and/or radar confirmed sightings, and letting
the public digest the information.

An individual writing such a letter would be ignored, but when
regular airings of the better sightings provoke a steady stream
of inquiries, government might be more likely to open up.

Until regular, no-debunker-follow-on stories are provided to the
public over time, then the media can't claim to have tried this
and found it not to work.

The problem is that media doesn't want to roll up their sleeves
and try the long, arduous way. But most good things in life come
about by plodding, patient, incremental effort.

 >>There is no reason to hide UFO information, is there?

 >Do you know the term knowledge is power?

 >Have you ever considered that maybe the Government don't
 >actually know what these things are?

No chance. They know at least as much as the massive amount of
civilian researchers know. They make up silly stories to cover

 >For them to admit that would deminish them in some way.

 >All the time you keep putting them on the pedistal of all
 >knowledge they will always hold power over you.

It is terribly naive, given the history of government secrecy,
even on proven-in-court matters like justice for MKULTRA
survivors, or plainly observed matters like chemtrails, to even
guess that they are not witholding information.

Local Oklahoma City TV, right after the federal building blast,
showed local officials saying they found two unexploded bombs
planted inside the building, on CNN. That never made it to
McVeigh's trial. Just one example. (I have that video clip.)

When Nick Balaskas tells us he found evidence in Ottawa that
both US and Canadian brass made alien contact in the mid-1950s,
do you just brush that off as nonsense?

Why isn't Nick's find worth media attention, for example?

 >>Slow and steady gets the job done.

 >Small moves Ellie, small moves. ;-)

That is exactly my point - small moves are more likely to add up
to success than pining away hoping for a major event to occur.

Eleanor White

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com