UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 5

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

From: Dave Bowden <grafikfx@lineone.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:03:05 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 23:01:32 -0400
Subject: Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up' - Bowden


 >From: Eleanor White <raven1@mail.nas.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 08:56:22 +0000
 >Subject: Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>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'

 >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?

 ><snip>

 >>>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
 >>>UFOs.

 >>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.

 >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.


Three points I'd like to make here if I may.

1. You mentioned 'debunker' a few times in your posts. I hope
you are not implying I am a 'debunker' simply because I don't
happen to agree with your chosen methods.

2. I've noticed in other posts you favour pickets, I take it you
mean demonstrations with supporters carrying banners and
placards. After all how else would 'they' know what you are
demonstrating about? Since you thought my 'Dear Government'
comment was silly I'd be interested to know the sort of thing
you may plan to write on your banners and placards.

3. I do understand what you're trying to do, rally the troops,
battle cry, all that sort of thing.

John Velez made a simple request to get folk to sign a petition:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/petition/

It's been an uphill struggle to get a reasonable response.

Good luck on the picket line.


Dave Bowden



[ 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