Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sci Fi Channel puts its corporate muscle behind effort to investigate UFOs
Miami Herald ^ | Fri, Jun. 20, 2003 | David Bauder

Posted on 06/21/2003 12:07:33 PM PDT by demlosers

NEW YORK - In an unusual step for a television network, the Sci Fi Channel is campaigning to persuade the government to be more forthcoming and aggressive in investigating UFO sightings.

Sci Fi has hired former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta as a Washington lobbyist, sponsored a symposium on interstellar travel and is considering a court effort to declassify documents related to a 1965 incident in Pennsylvania.

The network will premiere a documentary, "Out of the Blue," Tuesday at 9 p.m. (Eastern and Pacific time zones) that methodically lays out an argument that there's something out there.

Most TV networks are reluctant to spend money for anything other than self-interest. The few public interest efforts are hardly controversial: Lifetime promoting breast cancer research, for example, or MTV's Rock the Vote campaign to encourage young people to register.

But by fighting for UFO probes, Sci Fi is wading into an area that invites not only dissent, but also ridicule.

"It's very, very tough for people to take this subject seriously," said Ed Rothschild, a lobbyist in Podesta's firm. "We thought the only way it was going to be seriously addressed is to have serious people talk about it, scientists."

Rothschild won't even identify the members of Congress he's talked to about leaning on the government for more openness about UFOs. He's afraid they'll never help if their names come out and they're laughed at.

Even believers are reluctant to talk about the issue.

After hearing that former President Carter once saw a UFO, "Out of the Blue" filmmaker James Fox repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, asked Carter's representatives for an interview. Undaunted, Fox essentially ambushed Carter with a camera one day at a book-signing. Carter confirmed the incident but his brevity and forced smile indicated he wasn't happy to be answering.

Given the "giggle factor" that surrounds UFOs, Sci Fi is taking a chance with its reputation, Fox said.

"I don't think there's a risk because the questions need to be asked," said Thomas Vitale, Sci Fi's senior vice president of programming. "Even somebody who is the biggest skeptic in the world ... still wants the questions answered. And who better to do it?"

The mission isn't entirely altruistic, of course. The Sci Fi Channel, which is seen in about three-quarters of the nation's TV households, polled viewers on the topic. Evidence of keen interest is also seen in the ratings.

Last November's documentary on the celebrated, suspected 1947 UFO crash in Roswell, N.M., was the highest-rated special in the network's 11-year history. It was seen by nearly 2.4 million people, or about 2 1/2 times Sci Fi's usual prime-time audience.

"Our main goal is not to find a UFO," Vitale said. "The goal is finding the truth. We're expanding and exploring the blurry line between what is science fiction and what is science fact."

Vitale wouldn't say how much Sci Fi is spending on this. The network sponsored an archaeological excavation at Roswell, will debut a public service announcement Tuesday and has four new UFO specials in the works.

It is backing an effort to get U.S. Air Force records released on a 1965 incident in Kecksburg, Pa., where some witnesses believe a UFO crashed. This may end up in court, Rothschild said.

Fox, a San Francisco-based journalist, never thought much about UFOs until a visit nine years ago to Nevada, when he and his friends watched a saucer-shaped object hover silently in the sky then dart away.

"When I got home, I was met with laughter," he said. "No one believed me, even my family. I thought, if my own family doesn't believe me, who does?"

Intrigued, he began looking into other UFO incidents. He sold a 1998 documentary to the Discovery Channel and shopped "Out of the Blue" to the same network, but said he was told Discovery no longer buys pro-UFO films. (A Discovery spokeswoman denied this.)

So he went to Sci Fi. Fox considers 95 percent of reported UFO incidents bunk, either hoaxes or easily explained conventional phenomena. And don't count him among people who believe aliens already live among us.

But that still leaves a significant number of mysterious cases. "Out of the Blue" outlines several, concentrating on the most reputable of witnesses - former astronauts, military and government officials, topped off by an ex-president.

Fox's storytelling is sober, not sensational. Summing up incidents at the end of the film, Fox gives the official government explanations of what happened, and they're often more ridiculous than the sightings themselves.

"You get to a point where you can no longer dismiss each and every episode," he said.

Fox and Rothschild can think of several reasons why the government doesn't want to talk about UFOs:

_ The military doesn't want to spend time or money on something that isn't perceived as a threat.

_ Officials may also like the secrecy; it keeps other governments guessing about what kind of new weapon technologies might be in the works.

_ It could also be embarrassing, since it can expose what they don't know and the limitations of human technology.

_ And who wants to set off a "War of the Worlds"-type incident?

Fox envisions the public announcement that could come with such an event: "We don't know where they come from, we don't know what they're doing. We can't stop them if they become hostile and they can fly rings around all of our aircraft.

"Thank you, and good night."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: area51; buildthewall; extraterrestrials; johnpodesta; podkletnov; scifi; scifichannel; space; syfy; ufo; ufos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-231 next last
To: Constantine XIII
cUTE.
121 posted on 06/24/2003 8:00:46 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
U R MOST WELCOME.

Sorry my typing was not up to best speed.
122 posted on 06/24/2003 8:01:13 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Quix
IF ANY WANT ON THE UFO PING LIST, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, IF YOU HAVEN'T YET!

BLESSINGS,
123 posted on 06/24/2003 8:02:44 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
"If you see "Rare Earth" as an explanation for Fermi's Paradox, I think a more likely reason is the vast distances between stars"

Think it through; think it through. In the face of "billions and billions" they throw 0.001's and 0.0001s.

- Earth in the right orbital distance. All we seem to find are "hot gas giants" orbiting very near their primary.

- Earth with a single large moon that was formed by an impactor about the size of Mars, which came from precisely the right direction and angle. Any variation in these variables: no moon. The moon stabilizes our precession and hence gives us predictable and repeaing seasons.

- An astounding amount of water for a rocky planet.

- The "snowball earth", which killed off 98% of all life 600 million years ago, and then killed 98% of the cold-adapted survivors when the temperature overshot to as high as 70C.

Etc. It appears that the authors assemble sufficient multipliers (.0001x0.001x0.00001x....) to wipe out the billions and billions.

I would like to believe there are huge numbers of intelligent species. But I find the arguments in Rare Earth compelling. As Fermi asked, WHERE ARE THEY?.

As for the vast distances, some races could be nearly immortal, or possess technology to make themselves so. As I have commented, a technological civilization a few centuries or millennia in advance of ours would have seemingly godlike powers. Surely they could attain 0.05 "C". There has been ample time for self-replicating robot probes, running at 5% of "c", to visit every single star in the Galaxy. If several ET civilizations figure this out (as we have) there ought to be a veritable traffic jam of probes swarming about the Solar System. Again, Fermi asks: "Where are they?"

--Boris

124 posted on 06/24/2003 8:03:30 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Tell you the truth, all this is compelling and fascinating, but also scary.
125 posted on 06/24/2003 8:04:35 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Your 110% incredulity to the possibilities or probabilities or realities re UFO's

is still very mystifying to me.

I don't have trouble accepting that you are not in the government's service to debunk.

I can understand a healthy skepticism.

But you are a bright guy. And you seemingly shoot down so many things wholesale without, to my mind, sufficient in-depth research . . .

and you shoot down so wholesale and seemingly arbitrarily so many quality personal experience reports by very high ranking experts in the military and scientific field--such as the French study was full of . . . .

It's puzzling. Very puzzling.

Your assertions that it's all poop just do not cover a sufficient number of data points to remotely begin to be a viable explanation.

I suppose God will eventually show me in eternity where you were coming from. Evidently, until then, I shall continue to be greatly puzzled.
126 posted on 06/24/2003 8:10:27 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: boris
And the evidence says--they are all over the place and have been for evidently thousands of years.

Certainly in our era, there is plenty of evidence.
127 posted on 06/24/2003 8:12:45 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Wellllll, to me, The Bible indicates that in our era

men's hearts will fail them for fear . . . rather routinely.

But The Bible also says we are not to fear anything but to displease Almighty God.

How would you describe your fears and what do you do with them?

What do you fear most in the UFO area?
128 posted on 06/24/2003 8:14:15 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Your 110% incredulity to the possibilities or probabilities or realities re UFO's is still very mystifying to me.

It's completely unmystifying to me.

Bottom line: there is ZERO evidence. Merely the same old bulls**t in a new chamberpot.

I don't have trouble accepting that you are not in the government's service to debunk.

Why, gosh, thank you SO very f***ing much.

If this were a bar, I'd deck you for the condescending tone in that line.

I can understand a healthy skepticism.

Until the little green men show up in person, I ain't buying in.

But you are a bright guy. And you seemingly shoot down so many things wholesale without, to my mind, sufficient in-depth research . . .

I've done a s**tload of in-depth research.

The folks who wave their "TOP SECRET" security clearances around and claim that they've seen all manner of reports on the aliens turn out to be BS artists.

and you shoot down so wholesale and seemingly arbitrarily so many quality personal experience reports by very high ranking experts in the military and scientific field--such as the French study was full of . . . .

"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy.

It's puzzling. Very puzzling.

Produce me a f***ing flying saucer or an alien. Not a "report" by a BS artist, produce the real damn thing.

Your assertions that it's all poop just do not cover a sufficient number of data points to remotely begin to be a viable explanation.

Like I've said, I've done tons of homework.

What's your take on Socorro, New Mexico, for example?

129 posted on 06/24/2003 8:22:49 PM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Well, I figure that if these things are real, and they someday manifest in such a way that no one can any longer deny their existence, the effect on civilization could be catastrophic.

Nothing will ever be the same again for anyone. No matter what segment of civilization one can think of, everything will be at risk of being lost, whether it is the centuries old traditions of Western art, the American traditions of individual freedoms or the world economy.

Not to mention the implications if they should be hostile.
130 posted on 06/24/2003 8:34:46 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Quix
My belief is that when the aliens landed back in '47, they were whisked away to a special federal facility called the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. From there, they have been busy ever since, issuing a series of increasingly bizarre decisions intended to destroy human civilization...
131 posted on 06/24/2003 8:44:24 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY.

Bottom line: there is ZERO evidence. Merely the same old bulls**t in a new chamberpot.

Q: Guess I'm getting to know you better. 0% evidence is less than I'd have expected from your IQ and what I'd thought of your criteria for such things.

Q: I don't have trouble accepting that you are not in the government's service to debunk.

Why, gosh, thank you SO very f***ing much.

If this were a bar, I'd deck you for the condescending
tone in that line.

Q: POOHBAH--THERE WAS 0-0% CONDESCENSION IN THAT SENTENCE. I was merely referring back to your assertion that such was true and reaffirming that I had accepted your statement as fact. I was trying to note that I easily agreed with you--merely taking you at your word--as a kind of affirmation of my respect for you.

Q: It hurts and saddens me that you could not receive it in the same spirit. Clearly your assessment/understanding skills of me over this medium are less than I'd thought.


I can understand a healthy skepticism.

Until the little green men show up in person, I ain't buying in.

Q: You of all people should realize that your criteria may not be the most reasonable given all the givens. Some people think it's wise to be aware of snakes before they are close enough to bite you and have done so.


But you are a bright guy. And you seemingly shoot down so many things wholesale without, to my mind, sufficient in-depth research . . .

I've done a s**tload of in-depth research.

Q: You have seemed to do an above average amount. Which leaves me even more mystified.

The folks who wave their "TOP SECRET" security clearances around and claim that they've seen all manner of reports on the aliens turn out to be BS artists.

Q: I could buy that if there were less of them and if people known to me as close friends and relatives were not among them. As it is, I don't have your luxury of disbelief.


and you shoot down so wholesale and seemingly arbitrarily so many quality personal experience reports by very high ranking experts in the military and scientific field--such as the French study was full of . . . .

"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy.

Q: To me, it depends on a lot of factors. The quality of the authority inherently in their personal integrity. The quality of the authority in terms of relevancy. The quality of the fit of the reference to that authority in the specifics involved. How much corroboration is there from how much of a diversity or relevant authorities. What might the motivations of authority be for being honest or dishonest etc. etc. etc.

It's puzzling. Very puzzling.

Produce me a f***ing flying saucer or an alien. Not a "report" by a BS artist, produce the real damn thing.

Q: I suspect even your criteria will be met sooner than I'd prefer.

Your assertions that it's all poop just do not cover a sufficient number of data points to remotely begin to be a viable explanation.

Like I've said, I've done tons of homework.

What's your take on Socorro, New Mexico, for example?

I don't know about all that whole area of thing. I've read both sides and find both sides somewhat plausible.

I'm fairly convinced that a couple of craft crashed in Southern NM 50 or so years ago. What's real vs disinformation vs imaginations vs ??? I don't know and lack the motivation to try and ferret out.

If I remember right, the Police officer in Soccoro was fairly convincing. Beyond that, I don't even remember much. It's been a long time since I read about it.

I don't recall ever feeling or thinking in a condescending way to you.

IF anything, I still have you on far too high a pedestal.

That you haven't detected that and would think so far off base the other direction really stuns me and hurts.

Sigh.
132 posted on 06/24/2003 8:45:19 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Quix
If I remember right, the Police officer in Soccoro was fairly convincing.

Except that the physical evidence didn't match his description of events. Also, nearby people who SHOULD have been witnesses saw or heard nothing unusual, despite Zamora's claims of incredibly loud noises and bright lights.

It's this kind of stuff that you keep finding every time you look in depth.

133 posted on 06/24/2003 8:49:01 PM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Probably you are right.

ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE NOT ANCHORED IN GOD AND SENSITIVE TO HIS STILL SMALL VOICE.

Nice to have the Creator when all reality is convoluting through multidimensions and realities.
134 posted on 06/24/2003 8:49:03 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Yes, the halls of mirrors and convoluted realities are extensive.

I'm not sure the conclusion that therefore

NOTHING

is going on is a suitable explanation to me.
135 posted on 06/24/2003 8:52:38 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Poohbah,

You accuse me of condescension.

I explain very candidly and vulnerably and honestly where I was coming from.

You keep silent.

I consider that beneath you.

It seems to me, the minimal honorable response would have been SOME honorable response above silence.
136 posted on 06/24/2003 8:54:21 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Like I said...

Produce something more convincing than faked photos, faked physical evidence, and "testimonials" from BS artists who you can find mentioned in Burkett's "Stolen Valor."

BTW, notice how there are many STILL photos of UFOs, but very few VIDEOS?

That's because it's many times harder to fake a video and not look like you're faking a video.
137 posted on 06/24/2003 8:54:52 PM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Poohbah,

You accuse me of condescension

If you didn't actually mean it the way it came out, then fine, I accept that.

But how about watching how you choose your words?

138 posted on 06/24/2003 8:55:50 PM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I don't know if the more stills would be accurate the last few years.

But there are also more still cameras than video cameras because one is cheaper.

And, this program had some new videos who video experts credited with being authentic--i.e. that the UFO was on the scene in the original scene photographed in the video.

Didn't you see that one?
139 posted on 06/24/2003 8:57:42 PM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: boris
- Earth in the right orbital distance. All we seem to find are "hot gas giants" orbiting very near their primary.

Purely because our method of detection (gravitational perturbation of the primary) only allows us to see huge planets. With the latest refinement of the technique last year, we would now just be able to detect Jupiter from interstellar distances. Your conclusion would be that our own system consisted of one big, boring gas giant.

- Earth with a single large moon that was formed by an impactor about the size of Mars, which came from precisely the right direction and angle. Any variation in these variables: no moon. The moon stabilizes our precession and hence gives us predictable and repeaing seasons.

Who says a large moon is a prerequisite for life. or an impact of a Mars-sized body at a time when the whole planet was a blazing cinder?

- An astounding amount of water for a rocky planet.

We're starting to find that water is common out there. Several gas-giant moons seem to have an abundance of it. The whole Kuiper belt is mostly made of it. The waterless rocky planets appear to be those that were too small (Mars) or too hot (Venus) to hold onto it.

The "snowball earth", which killed off 98% of all life 600 million years ago, and then killed 98% of the cold-adapted survivors when the temperature overshot to as high as 70C.

Snowball Earth is just a speculation, but if it did happen, it proves that life is resilient and adaptable, and therefore likely to be pervasive.

I would like to believe there are huge numbers of intelligent species. But I find the arguments in Rare Earth compelling. As Fermi asked, WHERE ARE THEY?.

Our SETI program searches for radio leakage as evidence of intelligence. But think this one through: Earth first began to leak artificial radiation about 1950, when we began broadcasting in the VHF and above. Today we are finding that long-distance communication works best over cable. This is causing Earth's radio signature to disappear after only one generation. In scanning the sky for radio leakage we would be like Eqyptian tribesmen looking for messages in bottles as evidence for life in other countries.

140 posted on 06/24/2003 9:04:45 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-231 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson