Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Biased Documentaries By The Media

Expand Messages
  • iammrparanormal
    Over the years I have enjoyed having the opportunity to share my UFO research with the public through various venues, such as being involved with many film
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 1, 2008
      Over the years I have enjoyed having the opportunity to share my UFO
      research with the public through various venues, such as being
      involved with many film documentary productions, various TV and radio
      interviews, writing editorials and doing lectures.

      Doing lectures, writing editorials and live radio interviews rank as
      some of my favorites, because the information being presented can be
      presented in a manner that doesn't require editing in most cases,
      since it's what I like to call "off the cuff" and live. Radio
      interviews in particular fall in to this category. Agreed there may
      be some lively discussion from those that don't agree with my
      comments during a live radio broadcast but the results of those
      discussions can usually be quickly resolved. Editorials sometimes
      initiate responses in both agreement and disagreement, but usually
      are also resolvable through communication and correspondence. The
      best part about doing lectures for me has always been the question
      and answer session following the lecture, wherein I can judge my
      lecture by the questions that are asked and the dialog that takes
      place between the audience and myself. Television interviews
      particularly if for a news service, can go either way. If it's a live
      television broadcast, editing will not be needed and the information
      as presented is "out there" subject to review later if desired.

      Television documentaries being filmed for airing at a later date do
      not fall into the above categories and have become a real problem
      over the years due to the editing that takes place after the filming
      is complete, with no in-put for the final version from those that
      have been interviewed. This is happening much too frequently. I guess
      one could assume that any coverage is good, but that is not the case
      in many documentaries I've been involved with. Perhaps I don't know
      enough about TV show ratings and bottom line profits to fully
      understand why this is happening all too often. There appears to be
      an agenda and motive to deliberately produce shows that are biased,
      on the edge of propaganda and misinformation, for a reason other than
      disclosing the truth or at least showing respect for those of us that
      have dedicated our lives and financial resources to finding that
      truth. Debunkers and critics are an essential part of this research
      to help us all find the answers, unfortunately the debunkers very
      seldom come up with new information and many times are given credit
      in these documentaries for having all the answers. The people
      responsible for editing documentaries as well as the film crews
      themselves, many times have no knowledge of the information their
      preparing for consumption by the general public. They haven't done
      their homework and lead you to believe that they're after the facts
      and the truth only to find out the story line and conclusion when a
      show is aired is far from either. The multi-million dollar networks
      want our years of research for free, consuming many hours of our time
      to misrepresent us in their final product. That has to stop. I can
      honestly say that of the several hundred interviews I have done over
      the years, only a handful were factual and presented the information
      in a balanced way that the public deserves.

      The ABC-TV special with Peter Jennings in 2005 was a good example.
      The show was heavily promoted as being the truth, which it was for
      the first few minutes and then went "south" like many other shows and
      documentaries have, with assumptions and claims that were totally
      false, allowing too much air time for the debunkers which didn't
      permit the information to be shown in a fair and balanced manner.

      Sometimes you expect these type results from certain national media
      networks, because you know their track record from previous
      documentaries they produced. There are other networks that you expect
      a more balanced view from, and those can disappoint you also as the
      National Geographic channel did recently in a show about "The Real
      Roswell", which first aired in January 2007.

      Last summer I filmed with them here in Roswell for about 6 hours and
      not once during that time was I told by the film crew that the
      National Geographic special would obviously have an agenda that would
      be extremely biased by the time the one hour show ended after the
      editing was completed. I was also contacted several times by email
      and telephone requesting additional factual information about the
      Roswell Incident while the documentary was being prepared. I had a
      lot of airtime on the show and those that responded to me after
      viewing the show indicated that I came across honestly and sincerely
      in my comments that were used. I was thankful for that, but very
      disappointed with the overall show and factual information unfairly

      As examples, at one point in the show they referred to General Roger
      Ramey, the head of 8th Air Force in Ft Worth as the base commander at
      Roswell Army Airfield in 1947, when in fact the base commander was
      Col Blanchard. The Mogul balloon theory, particularly Flight 4,
      which researcher David Rudiak has proven could not have possibly
      landed on the ranch was the final word for the documentary, totally
      ignoring the fact that Russia did no nuclear testing until 1949 (2
      years after the Roswell Incident), which was what the Mogul balloon
      was supposed to detect from high altitude. Major Jesse Marcel's
      recollection of the event was linked to Sci-Fi books and movies, not
      based on his work as the top Intelligence Officer in the military in
      1947. Finally most of the witnesses' testimony shown was taken
      completely out of context.

      The National Geographic channel in the preparation of this
      documentary did obviously very little homework. Some of the witnesses
      like Walter Haut, Frank Joyce, George Newling, Major Marcel and his
      son Jesse Marcel Jr., deserved better than National Geographic
      afforded them. The same is true for researchers Stanton Friedman, Don
      Schmitt and myself who gave freely and openly to what we thought
      would be a non-biased documentary about Roswell, only to be
      disappointed again.

      The debunkers on the show added nothing new and in fact in the case
      of Michael Shermer, his responses are now predictable, since it's
      always the same ---that it's all a myth. Perhaps he's the myth with
      help from the National Geographic channel and other UFO documentary
      producers. The narrator in fact ended the show with the statement
      that, "Science now sees Roswell as little more than myth making".

      Of course no Roswell documentary would be complete without the
      comments from Dr. Seth Shostak of SETI, who continues to live in the
      stone age hoping to get a "radio signal" from out there, and B.D
      Glidenberg, both of whom I would question as to their credentials on
      actually doing research on the subject of UFOs.

      I suggest in the future, documentary film producers omit the words
      like the "Real" Roswell or the "Truth" about Roswell, unless they
      intend to present it as real or true.

      National Geographic---your credibility is at stake and you have a lot
      of room for improvement. You owe it to your audience to be fair and

      About the Author

      Dennis G. Balthaser

      Website http://www.truthseekeratroswell.com/

      Email: truthskr@...

      Call Dennis Direct - 505-625-8402
      For lecture, touring information and booking

      Source Paranormal Palace Articles http://www.paranormalpalace.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.