Nova, abducted by skeptics!
Cluster User
>
> Much deserved criticism is being directed at Nova's stance on the
>subject of ufo's. In this category, Nova has lost its famed objectivity
>and responsible journalistic credo.
> This situation, however, is nothing new. Nova has *always* taken a
>biased view of ufo's. In the late '70's or early 80's, Nova ran an
>episode titled, "The Case of the UFO" or some such.
<cut>
Did you know that last month, on Jan 26th, they ran a debunking show about
"Psychic Phenomenon"? And James Randi was our tour guide. If that name
doesn't ring a bell, he's the guy that parasitized Uri Geller's career, sort
of in the way Linda whats-her-name has parasitized Mack's work. He made his
fame by showing how he could do a few of Geller's tricks using his own
sleight of hand. Geller does 'em better, but Randi followed him around the
world, holding "counter demonstrations" wherever he went, and even got some
people in close with Geller, without Geller realizing it.
What was up with last night's show? Was that a piece of disinformation or
what!? It was kind of amazing. It was an art form, it was like a debunkers
"Triumph of the Will." Proof that it was biased? Well, how about this, for
one: they dealt with the overall issue of UFOs in around three
consecutive sentences, with a backdrop of some definite and obvious (famously
so) photos of alledged UFOs and film clips from sci-fi movie disks,
concluding that there is no evidence whatsoever tht there are UFOs. It was
one photo in particular that got me, the one with the people looking up in to
the sky with a white smear to the left of where they are looking... Why not
put a Meier, or an Adamski, or even a Gulf Breeze photo? They may be fakes,
but they aren't *stupid* fakes. They would have been the obvious choices, but
this was not an objective show- it had a conviction, and was prepared to
display good evidence for it's conviction (fine) and the *worst* evidence for
the counter side (not fine). That is acceptable coming from Jenny Jones or
Geraldo, but this was *NOVA*. Amazing!
Come on, skeptics- even you guys must have thought "Oh my god, what is
this!?" That is, if you have read any of the literature or seen the photos.
Because this was not a scientific program. Remember, this show purported to
be about alien abduction, but it was really about Budd Hopkins, and even a
slanted view of him. Check out his letter in response to the show- may be the
best thing he's ever written.
I'm not even bashing Sagan here- he was a breath of fresh air compared to the
bizzare, openly biased production and creative editing. Amazing. I never
thought I'd be relieved to see him. He proved to be a bit moderate for
their agenda, I got the sense. so they picked up some random physicist who
apparently has never even read a book on UFOs, got some jockular quotes from
him. (BTW, Sagan ain't looking so good- what's up with his health?)
Things rarely get this obvious. The show raises some questions: who funds
Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
Andrea Chen
>In article <4h29bg$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, cluste...@yale.edu says...
>>The show raises some questions: who funds
>>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
>Oh, of course, the producers couldn't actually
>_believe_ what they were saying. It must be a CIA/
>NSA/CFR/Bilderburger/Rockefeller conspiracy to
***********
>force _Nova_ into broadcasting this show.
You clearly are not keeping up with things else you would
know that Laurence Rockefellar has been sponsoring Mack
and trying to push the alien experience to the top of
the public agenda.
So we obviously have a conflict between conspiracies right
now with one side (the socalled "Illuminati") pushing for
reason and human mastery with the other side (the socalled
Knights Templar) pushing for the creation of a new religion
and power based on faith.
The issue becomes: Who is paying "cluster user" (no doubt a
member of the skull and bones) to discredit the Nova show?
Scott A. Munro
>The show raises some questions: who funds
>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
Oh, of course, the producers couldn't actually
_believe_ what they were saying. It must be a CIA/
NSA/CFR/Bilderburger/Rockefeller conspiracy to
force _Nova_ into broadcasting this show.
Let me tell you something. One does not have to be in
anyone else's pay to think that Hopkins is engaged in
malfeasance, or that Mack is more interested in
pushing his own philosophical viewpoints than
in helping anyone (much less discovering the truth).
Whose pay are _you_ in? Who funds your Net connection
so you can put up this sort of posting? Who is at the
root of _your_ agenda?
Silly, isn't it?
Keith C. Borgstrom
The show raises some questions: who funds
>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
>
is provided by Raytheon - one of the biggest Defense contractors in the
country, and probably in pretty tight with the military establishment.
Just something to think about.
Keith Borgstrom
Fox Mulder
>>
>> Much deserved criticism is being directed at Nova's stance on the
>>subject of ufo's. In this category, Nova has lost its famed objectivity
>>and responsible journalistic credo.
>> This situation, however, is nothing new. Nova has *always* taken a
>>biased view of ufo's. In the late '70's or early 80's, Nova ran an
>>episode titled, "The Case of the UFO" or some such.
><cut>
>
>Did you know that last month, on Jan 26th, they ran a debunking show about
>"Psychic Phenomenon"? And James Randi was our tour guide. If that name
>doesn't ring a bell, he's the guy that parasitized Uri Geller's career, sort
>of in the way Linda whats-her-name has parasitized Mack's work. He made his
>fame by showing how he could do a few of Geller's tricks using his own
>sleight of hand. Geller does 'em better, but Randi followed him around the
>world, holding "counter demonstrations" wherever he went, and even got some
>people in close with Geller, without Geller realizing it.
>
ly no Psychic, but I seriously doubt if he half the magician Randi is.
>What was up with last night's show? Was that a piece of disinformation or
>what!? It was kind of amazing. It was an art form, it was like a debunkers
>"Triumph of the Will." Proof that it was biased? Well, how about this, for
>one: they dealt with the overall issue of UFOs in around three
>consecutive sentences, with a backdrop of some definite and obvious
(famously
>so) photos of alledged UFOs and film clips from sci-fi movie disks,
>concluding that there is no evidence whatsoever tht there are UFOs. It was
>one photo in particular that got me, the one with the people looking up in
to
>the sky with a white smear to the left of where they are looking... Why not
>put a Meier, or an Adamski, or even a Gulf Breeze photo? They may be fakes,
>but they aren't *stupid* fakes. They would have been the obvious choices,
but
>this was not an objective show- it had a conviction, and was prepared to
>display good evidence for it's conviction (fine) and the *worst* evidence
for
>the counter side (not fine). That is acceptable coming from Jenny Jones or
>Geraldo, but this was *NOVA*. Amazing!
Naturally, the show wasn't objective. You didn't agree with its conclusions.
Actually, what is amazing is that foolish people like yourself continue to
believe in the Boogey Man and other assorted nonsense without sufficient
evidence to back it up. Indivuals like Brad Hopkins are imbarrassingly
silly.
>Come on, skeptics- even you guys must have thought "Oh my god, what is
>this!?" That is, if you have read any of the literature or seen the photos.
>Because this was not a scientific program. Remember, this show purported to
>be about alien abduction, but it was really about Budd Hopkins, and even a
>slanted view of him. Check out his letter in response to the show- may be
the
>best thing he's ever written.
Read it. Singularly unimpressed. Yawn!
>I'm not even bashing Sagan here- he was a breath of fresh air compared to
the
>bizzare, openly biased production and creative editing. Amazing. I never
>thought I'd be relieved to see him. He proved to be a bit moderate for
>their agenda, I got the sense. so they picked up some random physicist who
>apparently has never even read a book on UFOs, got some jockular quotes from
>him. (BTW, Sagan ain't looking so good- what's up with his health?)
>
>Things rarely get this obvious. The show raises some questions: who funds
>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
Do you expect men and women of science to seriously accept the nonsense that
is written in a majority of UFO titles on the market?? Get real. You know, I
happen to love the X_Files, but I am able to see it for what it is - a tele
vision show. That's all.
Fox
Joe Blough
<Keith.C....@Dartmouth.Edu> wrote:
>cluste...@yale.edu (Cluster User) wrote:
> The show raises some questions: who funds
>>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
>>
>According to the header at the start of the show, major funding for Nova
>is provided by Raytheon - one of the biggest Defense contractors in the
>country, and probably in pretty tight with the military establishment.
>
>Just something to think about.
>
>Keith Borgstrom
>
>
Of course! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Hehehehehehehehehehehe....
Okay, enough. Whew. Now that that's over... I totally agree and accept
the opines above. Take any program about UFOs and abductions that's
broadcast, and then just follow the money. (To quote a famous film.)
Remember that hideous program UFO Live! Argh!
So, the above- Raytheon. Shoulda known. I want my antigravity now!
Anyone remember all the alien ads from the mid and late eighties? "Aw,
that's because of ET in '82." Hell, they didn't even attempt to hide
behind supposed scientific and unbiased programs. Recently, United
Airlines ran a campaign where a little girl is being whisked away on
an alien craft. Cutesy, punches pulled just like ET. Irised and
colored eyes. Human facial expressions..yadda yadda. Don't make it too
traumatic, just enough to stroke the social awareness..."yes they're
here and it's okay get used to it don't worry they're really just like
us deep inside have a hug"
Creepy ain't it?
Creepy was the word for how the little boy from the Hopkins segment
immediately described an abduction scenario. Out of all the stories a
little kid has seen or listened to, why an alien abduction?
Was the kid coached before filming? Did the mother ask her kid too
many questions that suggested the "reality" of the abduction idea? If
so, malicious or innocent? Are there too many people making money on
the UFOlogy market based on outrageous claims and fictions? Should ALL
stories be discounted because of some new agers looking for a quick
buck?
Did the Hills see that Outer Limits episode three nights before their
encounter? First I'd heard of it. Was it a few road sodas and a rough
nite in the DUI Coupe? What about the reversed star map that Betty
recreated with another woman's (astronomer?) help that later turned
out to be very accurate (from a few light years out)? Was all that
just bunk?
ranting now,
later...
Joe Blough
>In article <4h29bg$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, cluste...@yale.edu says...
>>
>>In article <4goeit$k...@odo.PEAK.ORG>, ste...@PEAK.ORG says...
>>>
>>> Much deserved criticism is being directed at Nova's stance on the
>>>subject of ufo's. In this category, Nova has lost its famed objectivity
>>>and responsible journalistic credo.
>>> This situation, however, is nothing new. Nova has *always* taken a
>>>biased view of ufo's. In the late '70's or early 80's, Nova ran an
>>>episode titled, "The Case of the UFO" or some such.
>><cut>
>>
>>Did you know that last month, on Jan 26th, they ran a debunking show about
>>"Psychic Phenomenon"? And James Randi was our tour guide. If that name
>>doesn't ring a bell, he's the guy that parasitized Uri Geller's career, sort
>>of in the way Linda whats-her-name has parasitized Mack's work. He made his
>>fame by showing how he could do a few of Geller's tricks using his own
>>sleight of hand. Geller does 'em better, but Randi followed him around the
>>world, holding "counter demonstrations" wherever he went, and even got some
>>people in close with Geller, without Geller realizing it.
>>
> Geller better than Randi at perfoming magic tricks? Well, Geller is certain
> ly no Psychic,
So, you're saying that there really are psychics?
> but I seriously doubt if he half the magician Randi is.
Oh, and Randi's so good, the general public had no idea he even
existed before he started debunking Geller. Don't get me wrong, I'm no
Geller fan.
>
>
>>What was up with last night's show? Was that a piece of disinformation or
>>what!? It was kind of amazing. It was an art form, it was like a debunkers
>>"Triumph of the Will." Proof that it was biased? Well, how about this, for
>>one: they dealt with the overall issue of UFOs in around three
>>consecutive sentences, with a backdrop of some definite and obvious
>(famously
>>so) photos of alledged UFOs and film clips from sci-fi movie disks,
>>concluding that there is no evidence whatsoever tht there are UFOs. It was
>>one photo in particular that got me, the one with the people looking up in
>to
>>the sky with a white smear to the left of where they are looking... Why not
>>put a Meier, or an Adamski, or even a Gulf Breeze photo? They may be fakes,
>>but they aren't *stupid* fakes. They would have been the obvious choices,
>but
>>this was not an objective show- it had a conviction, and was prepared to
>>display good evidence for it's conviction (fine) and the *worst* evidence
>for
>>the counter side (not fine). That is acceptable coming from Jenny Jones or
>>Geraldo, but this was *NOVA*. Amazing!
>
> Naturally, the show wasn't objective. You didn't agree with its conclusions.
> Actually, what is amazing is that foolish people like yourself continue to
> believe in the Boogey Man and other assorted nonsense without sufficient
> evidence to back it up. Indivuals like Brad Hopkins are
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO EDIT OTHERS' WRITING, GET YOUR OWN SPELLING IN
SHAPE
>imbarrassingly
THE FIRST FRICKIN' LETTER! C'MON. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
> silly.
>
>>Come on, skeptics- even you guys must have thought "Oh my god, what is
>>this!?" That is, if you have read any of the literature or seen the photos.
>>Because this was not a scientific program. Remember, this show purported to
>>be about alien abduction, but it was really about Budd Hopkins, and even a
>>slanted view of him. Check out his letter in response to the show- may be
>the
>>best thing he's ever written.
>
> Read it. Singularly unimpressed. Yawn!
Oh, yes. So tired. You know everything.
"Anyone who does not think as I do- dismissed!"
>
>
>>I'm not even bashing Sagan here- he was a breath of fresh air compared to
>the
>>bizzare, openly biased production and creative editing. Amazing. I never
>>thought I'd be relieved to see him. He proved to be a bit moderate for
>>their agenda, I got the sense. so they picked up some random physicist who
>>apparently has never even read a book on UFOs, got some jockular quotes from
>>him. (BTW, Sagan ain't looking so good- what's up with his health?)
>>
>>Things rarely get this obvious. The show raises some questions: who funds
>>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
>
> Do you expect men and women of science to seriously accept the nonsense that
> is written in a majority of UFO titles on the market?? Get real. You know, I
> happen to love the X_Files, but I am able to see it for what it is - a tele
> vision show. That's all.
>
> Fox
INSTEAD OF CALLING YOURSELF FOX (or einstein), GO FOR "THE
MEAN-SPIRITED, KNOW-IT-ALL GRADER."
>
>
>
Drew Davis
>>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
>According to the header at the start of the show, major funding for Nova
>is provided by Raytheon - one of the biggest Defense contractors in the
>country, and probably in pretty tight with the military establishment.
>Just something to think about.
According to the show I saw, the sponsors were Merck, Lockheed,
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and "Viewers Like You" --
the same as for every Nova, week after week. Perhaps the sponsors
vary from state to state. Given that the sponsorship doesn't vary,
whether Nova is doing lightning or rollercoasters or volcanoes or
forensics on Butch Cassidy, none of which have anything to do with
aircraft or pharmaceuticals, perhaps they just like having their
name associated with a well-known science show, and are otherwise
fairly indifferent to the content?
Just something to think about. But it's not nearly as much
fun since it doesn't imply conspiracies.
--
L. Drew Davis dr...@bnr.ca
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Ted Rosen
>In article <4goeit$k...@odo.PEAK.ORG>, ste...@PEAK.ORG says...
>Did you know that last month, on Jan 26th, they ran a debunking show about
>"Psychic Phenomenon"? And James Randi was our tour guide. If that name
>doesn't ring a bell, he's the guy that parasitized Uri Geller's career, sort
>of in the way Linda whats-her-name has parasitized Mack's work. He made his
>fame by showing how he could do a few of Geller's tricks using his own
>sleight of hand. Geller does 'em better, but Randi followed him around the
>world, holding "counter demonstrations" wherever he went, and even got some
>people in close with Geller, without Geller realizing it.
If Randi's a parasite, Geller's a fucking vulture.
>What was up with last night's show? Was that a piece of disinformation or
>what!? It was kind of amazing. It was an art form, it was like a debunkers
>"Triumph of the Will." Proof that it was biased? Well, how about this, for
>one: they dealt with the overall issue of UFOs in around three
>consecutive sentences, with a backdrop of some definite and obvious (famously
>so) photos of alledged UFOs and film clips from sci-fi movie disks,
>concluding that there is no evidence whatsoever tht there are UFOs. It was
>one photo in particular that got me, the one with the people looking up in to
>the sky with a white smear to the left of where they are looking... Why not
>put a Meier, or an Adamski, or even a Gulf Breeze photo? They may be fakes,
>but they aren't *stupid* fakes. They would have been the obvious choices, but
>this was not an objective show- it had a conviction, and was prepared to
>display good evidence for it's conviction (fine) and the *worst* evidence for
>the counter side (not fine). That is acceptable coming from Jenny Jones or
>Geraldo, but this was *NOVA*. Amazing!
You're right. Substitue fake UFO shots with some truly
misleading fake UFO shots.
>Come on, skeptics- even you guys must have thought "Oh my god, what is
>this!?" That is, if you have read any of the literature or seen the photos.
>Because this was not a scientific program. Remember, this show purported to
>be about alien abduction, but it was really about Budd Hopkins, and even a
>slanted view of him. Check out his letter in response to the show- may be the
>best thing he's ever written.
What was so inaccurate in their portrayal of Hopkins? Could you
specify?
>I'm not even bashing Sagan here- he was a breath of fresh air compared to the
>bizzare, openly biased production and creative editing. Amazing. I never
>thought I'd be relieved to see him. He proved to be a bit moderate for
>their agenda, I got the sense. so they picked up some random physicist who
>apparently has never even read a book on UFOs, got some jockular quotes from
>him. (BTW, Sagan ain't looking so good- what's up with his health?)
Sagan (and I) believe that ET cultures exist; we simply require
one hair of *physical* evidence that they're visiting us.
>Things rarely get this obvious. The show raises some questions: who funds
>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
Nova is funded in part by Mobil and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and, of course, viewers like you. We all know about
Mobil's vested interest in keeping the public ignorant of alternative
ET energy sources, don't we? And PBS? We all know they spew filth
about evolution, plate tectonics and ecology! They're a bunch of
conspiratorial traitors determined to undermine to the otherwise comfy
incomes of charlatans and poison our minds with their scientific
drivel! And viewers like us? Need I say more?
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
<snip>
< Proof that it was biased? Well, how about this, for
#one: they dealt with the overall issue of UFOs in around three
#consecutive sentences,
The show wasn't supposed to be about the overall issue of UFOs, but
about alien abductions, wasn't it?
<snip>
#Come on, skeptics- even you guys must have thought "Oh my god, what
is
#this!?"
Yes, I thought that it was a show about alien abductions and not about
Uri Geller, UFOs in general, or anything else.
That is, if you have read any of the literature or seen the photos.
I have. This week alone, I have gone to the Crop Watcher, Saucer
Smear, Swamp Gas Journal, a web site on area 51, and several others.
I just finished Randall and Schmidt's last book again looking for the
38 errors that Friedman says are there, that Randall says he only
wrote the books (virtually without Schmidt's assistance) but the
errors were all Schmidt's, and that Schmidt is saying nothing about.
What did you do this week that is as thorough in the field?
#Because this was not a scientific program. Remember, this show
purported to
#be about alien abduction, but it was really about Budd Hopkins, and
even a
#slanted view of him.
Since he is the leading proponent for alien abductions, doesn't it
make sense that the show would be about him and his evidence and how
he collects it?
Check out his letter in response to the show- may be the
#best thing he's ever written.
Now there is a damning sentence, but, I'm afraid, accurate. I'm sorry
that he doesn't like the fact that lie detectors weren't used, but why
should they be since NOVA never claimed that anybody lied? And Bud
Hopkins' techniques were legitimate grist for the show since they are
so flawed. Read some of the books or journal articles on creation of
false memories. Don't just read the Pro side of UFOs but also the
other side for a change.
#I'm not even bashing Sagan here- he was a breath of fresh air
compared to the
#bizzare, openly biased production and creative editing. Amazing. I
never
#thought I'd be relieved to see him. He proved to be a bit moderate
for
#their agenda, I got the sense. so they picked up some random
physicist who
#apparently has never even read a book on UFOs, got some jockular
quotes from
#him. (BTW, Sagan ain't looking so good- what's up with his health?)
#Things rarely get this obvious. The show raises some questions: who
funds
#Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#sm3...@eznet.com (Scott A. Munro) writes:
#>In article <4h29bg$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, cluste...@yale.edu
says...
#>>The show raises some questions: who funds
#>>Nova, and who is at the root of their agenda?
#>Oh, of course, the producers couldn't actually
#>_believe_ what they were saying. It must be a CIA/
#>NSA/CFR/Bilderburger/Rockefeller conspiracy to
# ***********
#>force _Nova_ into broadcasting this show.
#You clearly are not keeping up with things else you would
#know that Laurence Rockefellar has been sponsoring Mack
#and trying to push the alien experience to the top of
#the public agenda. <snip>
But that is clearly an attempt to allow them to discredit themselves
by letting others see the quality of the research! What we have here
is clearly a conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy.
Rockfeller is clearly using his influence to put Mack into a position
where by people seeing him, it is clear that he is a poor researcher.
That way, the real Illumanti conspiracy can succeed. And after they
succeed, we will take over.
Unknown
Laurance Rockefeller has been financing paranormal and New Age projects
for several years, including projects with Jules Stein, Jack Sarfatti,
and Mack. Laurance's choice of projects has always been questionable.
Last year, over $10 million was embezzled from a New Age project that
Laurance was funding.
_ ._. .._ _ .... Courbet
Keith Preston
Rosen) wrote:
> Sagan (and I) believe that ET cultures exist; we simply require
> one hair of *physical* evidence that they're visiting us.
John Mack has offered to have Carl sit in on sessions with a person at
Cornell itself who was an alleged abductee....strangely, Carl passed...
Carl is the fraud here...when you move to show him the shred, he doesn't
have the time...
Keith
Douglas S. Caprette
Does Mack actually claim to have a shred of *physical* evidence?
--
--
DS Caprette
"There's a little truth in all jive, and a little jive in all truth."
-- Leonard Q. Barnes
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#>John Mack has offered to have Carl sit in on sessions with a
#person at
#>Cornell itself who was an alleged abductee....strangely,
#Carl passed...
#Now he can keep saying, "I have never seen any evidence
#supporting alien abductions"
Why? After what we saw of Mack I wouldn't dignify him as a researcher
either.
Twi...@hub.ofthe.net
Al Grund
ji...@emapnet.com (The Serpent) wrote:
Just having some initials after your name doesn't mean you aren't a
fruitcake. Look at "Dr." Frager.
--
Al Grund
agr...@biotechresources.com
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#In article <4husgo$2...@alterdial.UU.NET>, twi...@hub.ofthe.net wrote:
#ji...@emapnet.com (The Serpent) wrote:
##>John Mack has offered to have Carl sit in on sessions with a
##person at
##>Cornell itself who was an alleged abductee....strangely,
##Carl passed...
##Now he can keep saying, "I have never seen any evidence
##supporting alien abductions"
#Why? After what we saw of Mack I wouldn't dignify him as a
researcher
#either.
#Twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#Just having some initials after your name doesn't mean you aren't a
#fruitcake. Look at "Dr." Frager.
Al, I agree that the good doctor is a first class fruitcake, but that
raises a bigger issue! Do they keep passing him around each year at
Christmas like the other fruitcakes or don't they let him out of his
padded cell?
Twi...@hub.ofthe.net