UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 19

Re: Media & 'Truth'

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:32:00 -0500
Archived: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:04:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:07:45 -0400
>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:03:25 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

>>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:45:13 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel]


>>>You do get lied to. You never know what's going to happen in

>>Shades of NOVA! When Budd asked me to participate in the NOVA
>>segment I insisted on speaking with the segment producer myself
>>before I made my decision. At that meeting with Denise DiIanni
>>and her assistant I was assured that NOVA was going to take an
>>impartial look at the abduction phenomenon and that the
>>witnesses/abductees were going to be given a "fair hearing". I
>>even volunteered to take any kind of tests (physical,
>>psychological or otherwise) that may have wished to perform.


Hi Don,

You wrote:

>Hi John,

>Didn't realize that you were in on that production.

Doing NOVA was how my case first became public. It was also the
reason I was invited (originally) to participate in this forum.
I didn't _ever_ want to go public. I didn't 'volunteer' for any
of this.

I was drafted!

Budd called me and asked me if I'd participate because he wanted
to present the NOVA staff with the most 'solid' cases and people
that he had in his cache. Appearing on that program was one of
the hardest decisions I ever made. If I was going to 'come out'
I knew it was going to take an all out commitment. Not just for
the duration of the program but for a long time afterwards.
Because I have never been a 'half-stepper' about _anything_ I
have committed myself to... seven years down the road, here I
am.  :)

Originally I did it for Budd. Out of deep gratitude for all he'd
done to help me through a very rough patch in my life. And
simply because _he_ asked me to. _All_ of the TV and radio
programs and interviews (with few exceptions) that I have done
in the past were done because Budd asked me to and because I
felt a deep sense of gratitude to the man. At one time, the list
of things I wouldn't do for him was very short indeed. It had
absolutely nothing to do with 'getting on TV' or 'making a name'
for myself. I felt like I owed it to Budd to be there for him
the same way that he was there for me.

>But yes,
>Budd was certainly screwed over in that case. It would have been
>interesting to see the stuff they cut out. This just proves that
>NOVA's integrity is only as deep as whatever credibility they
>suck out of their other production talents.

What they ignored (as opposed to 'cut out') was all the physical
evidence. The medical reports, the pictures of the scoop marks
and scars on the bodies of the abductees, lab reports on ground
trace evidence, and multiple witness cases. What the public
missed out on was the 'evidence,' circumstantial though it may
be, for what we were/are reporting.


Short of invasive surgery, I was willing to volunteer for _any_
kind of tests that the NOVA experts may have wanted. They not
only lied to the public, they squandered a golden opportunity to
do some 'real' and socially relevant science reporting. You'd
think that anyone doing good science reporting would have jumped
on such an offer. They did nothing.

On top of which, they failed miserably with their attempt at a
hatchet job!

After the original airing, John Mack threatened to sue them
and they had to go back and re-edit the program in order to
remove libelous material. The segment that airs today as a
re-run is _not_ the original program that was aired the first

That one, single program received the _highest_ (negative)
viewer response in the history of the series. WGBH had to put
on extra security because they were receiving 'threats' over
that presentation. It wasn't just the participants that were
unhappy with what they tried to pull, the public was pissed
too. And in very large numbers. The whole thing back-fired
on them. NOVA lost a lot of viewers and a lot of credibility
because of that segment.

>As for dropping out of all productions to teach them a lesson,
>I'm not sure who will be the ones who suffer.

Yeah, that's what keeps me coming back to the school-yard every
day. If we each don't lend our voices then who is going to say
the things we know _need_ to be said and that nobody else is
saying?  Until somebody comes along who can really speak for
me... I'll continue to speak for myself.

I can only hope that in the final analysis all the effort will
have done some good. That I will have made a small but useful

>If we can believe the polls of late-there is some understanding
>of what's going on amongst the general public. They must be
>getting that somewhere. Hopefully it's the right information and
>not just media and production generated hype.

We can safely take 'some' of the credit for that. And why not?
We spend years working like slaves, using our own $ in order to
get the job of keeping others properly informed accomplished.

A friend used to tell me that, "no good deed ever goes

S.O.B. was right.   :)


John Velez
In tattered, but shiny armor

[ 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