• 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!

The Media, UFOs and Investigators...

Free episodes:

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member


[Boy, do I agree with Dennis on this subject
By Dennis Balthaser
Truthseeker at Roswell - Dennis Balthaser Independent Roswell Research, Journalist and Lecturer

I have in previous editorials vented about my feelings toward the media and how they report events related to the subject of UFO’s, and in particular their expectations from researchers. I’ve discussed these issues with other researchers I have worked with over the years, and we all seem to be of the same opinion. I don’t expect this editorial will cause any changes in the media’s method of operation, but for those reading this that believe we researchers make a lot of money for doing conferences and radio and TV interviews, I’ll present some examples of that false belief.

Perhaps due to the economy or the information available via the Internet, many groups, (several MUFON chapters included that I’ve dealt with recently), are anxious to ask researchers to speak to their group, but when it comes time to discuss an honorarium or travel and lodging expenses for the researcher, the discussion becomes stalemated and the researcher is not invited since they are not willing, or don’t have the finances to pay for the speakers expenses. I am appreciative to those groups that I have lectured to about my research that were willing to pay my expenses to get there. In those cases covering my expenses was my only motive, as I’ve never done this research for profit, continuing to believe that sharing the research is important, and it should be compensated at least for the many years it has taken to obtain the information.

Basically what it comes down to is the fact that the media, and many groups want the information that we researchers have obtained over the past 20 to 30 years at our own expense and time, for free. I know of very few other organizations that expect their speakers to share their information for free as we UFO researchers have had to do for years.

The TV documentaries you see on TV about UFO’s are on the air for two reasons; (ratings and profits), and many times they distort the information we shared during the filming with a crew that knows nothing about the subject. So we’re at the mercy of some editor back in New York or Los Angeles. (Researchers do not have the opportunity to review what will be aired prior to it being broadcast.) I have never received any compensation for the hours of filming I did with any film crews that I’ve been involved with. Brad Meltzer’s “Decoded” series on the History channel was an exception, i.e. the information I shared with the crew was depicted as I presented it in the final product, and the crew had done their homework before the interview with me. A National Geographic Network show several years ago was the opposite, when they filmed me for 6 hours, using my vehicle to get around, and the show aired as a total distortion of the information I shared. Stanton Friedman was also involved in that show and we both informed National Geographic about our displeasure with the results... Rest of article HERE:
 
One of my favorite topics to rant about! Once the novelty of UFO news reports wore off, they would still cover them if it met their, criteria, which is mostly: "Is there something to take a picture of?"
Sometimes an "expert" or an official commenting is enough, but an obvious kook or a crying woman are also good visual candidates.

Dennis mostly talks about UFO programming. I understand his frustration, but UFOS are hardly unique in getting superficial coverage. This kind of docu-tainment typically just covers things enough well to just put together a good teaser ad for itself.
 
I've been on talk radio a couple of times and was once interviewed for a "forest circle" piece on the TV news. I went to the studio to view the footage of the circle and concluded that it was probably a natural phenomenon. They were not happy and my input was never included. When the piece aired, it concluded that the circle was caused by a form of fungus and credited the local forestry service. I believe they knew this before they asked for my input and that they had only asked for my input because they wanted a tin-foil hat UFO nut to declare aliens had landed. In my opinion this was a deliberate attempt to to set me up for the resulting ridicule, however their fiendish plan never worked!

Here is a bit on some similar rings in Ontario.

cheechka-220.jpg
 
I was just listening to George Knapp interviewing Robert Powell and it was brought up how during 1950s through the 1960s more than half of the UFO reports on file were explained by some official as U2 or SR-71 spy planes. Knapp commented on how different those aircraft look from disk shaped UFOs, and asked how it could be possible to confuse them. Powell agreed and they went on to imply that it wasn't a reasonable explanation. I'd like to point out that when that story first broke, I seem to recall that a lot of those reports were made by radar operators who never made visual contact. Then there would be the night flights, and lastly, what about the rest? If under half weren't due to our most sophisticated secret aircraft ... what were they? What about aircraft from the other side? Not a bad show though. I generally like Knapp and the new book they were talking about looks like it's worth checking out:

 
I was just listening to George Knapp interviewing Robert Powell and it was brought up how during 1950s through the 1960s more than half of the UFO reports on file were explained by some official as U2 or SR-71 spy planes. Knapp commented on how different those aircraft look from disk shaped UFOs, and asked how it could be possible to confuse them. Powell agreed and they went on to imply that it wasn't a reasonable explanation. I'd like to point out that when that story first broke, I seem to recall that a lot of those reports were made by radar operators who never made visual contact. Then there would be the night flights, and lastly, what about the rest? If under half weren't due to our most sophisticated secret aircraft ... what were they? What about aircraft from the other side? Not a bad show though. I generally like Knapp and the new book they were talking about looks like it's worth checking out:


U2 and SR-71 explanation is based on the CIA's study written by government historian Gerald K. Haines which was published back in 1997 within journal Studies in Intelligence. The article in question was titled, "CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90". Robert Friend, former head of Blue Book was confronted with that claim by Mark Rodegheir of CUFOS. Bruce Maccabee also made analysis of the Haines' claim. More about it within my thread at UFO Updates from October 2010:

Message 1:
BBC On A-12 OXCART & CIA Study
Message 2 (from Bruce):
Re: BBC On A-12 OXCART & CIA Study
Message 3:
Re: BBC On A-12 OXCART & CIA Study

About book - can't recommend it enough.

Best wishes.
 
I've been on talk radio a couple of times and was once interviewed for a "forest circle" piece on the TV news. I went to the studio to view the footage of the circle and concluded that it was probably a natural phenomenon. They were not happy and my input was never included. When the piece aired, it concluded that the circle was caused by a form of fungus and credited the local forestry service. I believe they knew this before they asked for my input and that they had only asked for my input because they wanted a tin-foil hat UFO nut to declare aliens had landed. In my opinion this was a deliberate attempt to to set me up for the resulting ridicule, however their fiendish plan never worked!

Here is a bit on some similar rings in Ontario.

cheechka-220.jpg
My dad has one in his yard right now, it is about 5 feet in diameter, i have heard them called "fairy circles".
 
Back
Top