Thought I'd mention a little test I tend to use to judge any researcher or documentary's attempt to remain objective and avoid sensationalism: When quoting a famous person or scientist to support a premise, is the comment edited, or relevant context removed?
I think one of the best examples of this type of persuasive writing is that famous Ronald Reagan speech, where he mentions how our differences as nations would disappear "if we were facing an alien threat from outside our world. And yet I ask you, is not an alien threat already among us?"
That is usually where the quote ends, and it's often used as proof that Reagan was in on alien secrets. I recently read this edited version of the quote in a Brad Steiger article. As much as I like him, this sort of cutting and pasting rings false to me.
The full quote shows the statement in a different light. Immediately after this statement Reagan adds, "What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?"
The appended comment makes the statement seem much less ominous and relating to literal "aliens", so it's often cut out.
When a researcher does editing like this, I get the impression that they're willing to "bend" the truth a little bit in order to prove their point.
(as a side note, in the documentary "Out of the Blue" James Fox includes the entire quote, which I think raises his credibility as an honest researcher)
I think one of the best examples of this type of persuasive writing is that famous Ronald Reagan speech, where he mentions how our differences as nations would disappear "if we were facing an alien threat from outside our world. And yet I ask you, is not an alien threat already among us?"
That is usually where the quote ends, and it's often used as proof that Reagan was in on alien secrets. I recently read this edited version of the quote in a Brad Steiger article. As much as I like him, this sort of cutting and pasting rings false to me.
The full quote shows the statement in a different light. Immediately after this statement Reagan adds, "What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?"
The appended comment makes the statement seem much less ominous and relating to literal "aliens", so it's often cut out.
When a researcher does editing like this, I get the impression that they're willing to "bend" the truth a little bit in order to prove their point.
(as a side note, in the documentary "Out of the Blue" James Fox includes the entire quote, which I think raises his credibility as an honest researcher)
