• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

ABC Doing New UFO Show Tuesday 16th

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Well, I'd love to be wrong, but it looks terrible.

Building on the original Peter Jennings report in 2005...
Click to expand...

That sounds the BS meter right there.

Some Edgar Mitchell stuff, plus (here we go) Jeff Peckman.

This show claims to cover from Arnold sighting forward, so it's historical overview, not some new smoking gun. What did we call these 101 classes in college? Survey courses.

I won't be watching.
 
Hmmmmm...

Wouldn't it be interesting to review just for the sake of WHAT the mainstream corporate media is saying. What they are going to be TELLING the common people?

I mean, we ALL know there is a secret cabal sitting around a conference table that decides what the public will actually know - Right?

So - what will THEY dictate gets told to the unwashed masses?

We - the defenders of civic truth NEED to know what THEY are deciding.

(am I exaggerating?)

I'll add that I won't watch it either. That kind of stuff just leaves me so disappointed.
 
CapnG said:
ABC treat UFOs seriously? After what they did last time? Don't hold your breath...
Click to expand...
They will treat it in the fashion that their marketing people say will generate the best ratings, and the fewest incidents of channel switching. That's all they care about. :)
 
Looks like another rehash show. Same ol same ol. You can't do justice to the history of modern day ufos in an hour and a half with or without commercials.
 
exo_doc said:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=5790432&page=1

Will it be good?
Will it be fluffy crap?
Click to expand...


I would love to see a "Prime Time Show" based on ufos that would go beyond anything that has been done before !. Hopefully it could be around two to three hours long. I would love to have both "Skeptics" and "Believers" there, probably three to four on each side of the table we would of course have a live audience on that night and questions could be given to the panel at the end of the show .My panel of Believers would be, yes i know believers sounds corny, what can you do." David Beidny", "Richard Dolan", "MacTonnies", and maybe "James fox", i left out "Stanton freidman" because everytime i see him on a ufo show he is always holding up his latest book, it really annoys me.i believe this is the best panel out there to argue the case for ufos,Tv would love those guys and i Trully do believe they would capture the imagination of the tv audience. Radio can be sometimes be limited in getting the message to the mainstream public.

My panel of SKeptics would have to be world renowned skeptics, they would have to have intelligence, no Bill nye please,i think there must be better sceptics out there. Maybe we could get a military skeptic, a civilian skeptic,a politican skeptic, it doesnt matter as long as they are credible.Of course we will need a host, not Larry king,ok maybe, a thoughT, lets get Oprah winfrey, fuck me, we would be really rocking then:D
 
Gene Steinberg said:
That's probably a lot longer than you have a right to expect these days.
Click to expand...


If I understand you correctly, I agree. If by right you mean, what's practical, or likely. I was pleased that it was over an hour, but disappointed it wasn't at least two.

Thing is, is I have family members who only do research via watching a documentary every few yrs. Bugs me how much is left out, they assume the show did a good job. They say, "We have you, we don't need to do research". If only it was that easy.

It would be nice if they would at least say, there's loads more info. out there on a given event etc. One of the things I liked about some of Stan Friedman's vids is he talks about how he can't teach you all there is to know about ufos in 1 program or even 5. People need reminded of the obvious unfortunately.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
That's probably a lot longer than you have a right to expect these days.
Click to expand...


What would it take to produce a non-tabloid, Paracast worthy documentary on UFO's?
I mean something that is non-sensational, rational, and as was pointed out by a previous poster, having skeptics and intelligent investigators in a round table for some of it.
It would need to present select cases with the strongest available evidence.
Maybe even, to do each case credit, have it in several different parts or volumes or chapters or whatever, like a running series. (Like UFO Files should be).
However, no matter how well done a documentary is, I don't think it would really change anyones attitudes or mind set. Skep-dicks will still be skep-dicks, honest skeptical researchers will stay where they are, and those who already have an open mind won't be affected by it either way. (Of course that last statement reveals my personal bias).

I would love to see a well produced documentary, but I guess it would be kinda useless. I'd love to be wrong.
 
I'm excited to see something new on the subject, be it that it will more than likely be another "hollywood" shit fest full of sensationalism and great detail for ratings and geared for sheeples who want to believe........ To put a twist on a an old smuckers add,,,,, With a name like Peter Jennings, it has to be crap.

It should be interesting to see what sort of damage control the real investigators will have to after this. I do reserve a small bit of optimism that there may be some good facts in this one. If John Greenewald Jr.'s name was attached to the production it may have some credibility. Otherwise this may become the arm chair reference for idiots. Shit now I'm becoming pesismistic on the matter,,,,there goes my optimism........

~A
 
can you watch that show on the net anywhere. Is it tonight it is being shown . love to see it, but i dont have ABC primetime here:frown:
 
CRAP!....The special isn't being shown on the ABC network I have on my dish!!!!!
What a damn rip!!!!!!
Maybe I can find it on the net somewhere........
 
While it was a network show with some obvious flaws, I have to say that I was very surprised at it's treatment of Project Blue Book. The segment said that it was created to downplay and debunk the phenomenon after the large number of sightings from 1947-1952. It did not go much further into it, but for a mainstream UFO show to call Blue Book a PR exercise was a welcome surprise.

-t.
 
Much of the footage is previous stuff from other shows. Alot of it the Jennings special. Hardly anything new at all was shown. Only thing I hadn't seen before was when they showed the host talk and the Stephensvile (sp?) sightings was new I think.
 
Aaron LeClair said:
Much of the footage is previous stuff from other shows. Alot of it the Jennings special. Hardly anything new at all was shown. Only thing I hadn't seen before was when they showed the host talk and the Stephensvile (sp?) sightings was new I think.
Click to expand...

It is called lazy reporting. So much has happened since 2005 surely they could have put a new show on for a hour at least.The money must be tight at the networks, i guess it is happening to all types of programmeing.That is a guess on my part , i have no prove of that.
 
Irishseekers said:
It is called lazy reporting. So much has happened since 2005 surely they could have put a new show on for a hour at least.The money must be tight at the networks, i guess it is happening to all types of programmeing.That is a guess on my part , i have no prove of that.
Click to expand...


Its called a ratings grab and is for entertainment purposes only.
 
I didn't see it.

QUESTION:
=======

What was the tone? Was it overtly negative to the reality of the phenomenon?

I'm curious how a very main stream news source is treating something that has been ardently dismissed.

Any thoughts?
M!
 
Back
Top