posted by RRRGroup at
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Nick should realise that there is a boredom threshold. The media has devoted plenty of time to Roswell and other UFO stories over the years. Time to give it a long rest, I would say. And the Roswell tale is solved anyway - via the USAF in 1994. As for abductions, these are surely best left to private UFO investigators (and even they seem to be getting mighty bored by it now). Perhaps Nick is a little bit sore that nobody in the media has shown much interest in his own Roswell ideas, as given in his book.
By cda, at Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Nick's not echoing anything that hasn't been espoused by Billy Cox with his DeVoid blog.
By MrAnonymous, at Wednesday, September 02, 2015
CDA:Did you actually read the article? I can assure you that the media has NOT "devoted plenty of time" to Roswell. What they have done is to repeat the Mogul theory, in fairly small articles, and for the most part without any critical analysis. I made it clear that yes the media has covered the UFO subject on many occasions. But there has never been the kind of investigation we see in relation to things like Snowden, Watergate etc. That was the entire point of the article: yes the media covers UFOs; no they don't do so in-depth and in a way that parallels major political/government issues.As for my own book on Roswell, no that has nothing to do with it. The book was published more than 10 years ago, and so I certainly don't focus on it more than a decade later! If that was the case, don't you think I might have let people know about my book in the article? But, I didn't. Because this article is not about my book. It's about the press' unwillingness to go after UFOs on the scale they have with certain political, government events etc.
By Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Nick:Why do you think the media (press or TV) should spend any further time on Roswell? Do you seriously think there is anything useful to be obtained by doing so?The story has been debated ad nauseam by endless believers and skeptics, plus a good number of fence-sitters. What more do you think can be discovered at this stage? You have already stated that the Disclosure Project is useless. The USAF gave their verdict on Roswell twenty years ago. We can debate it, and many do. But it is NOT a topic that the media wants to take up, at least not any more. Nor does the scientific fraternity. Roswell is a dead issue, for the mainstream media anyway. The only people keeping it alive are the likes of you and me and several others on these blogs, plus the usual gang of so-called 'researchers', who simply repeat ad nauseam what they have been saying since 1980, about cover-ups and such. One day we may (and it is a VERY big may) get the all important hard evidence on Roswell, or even Rendlesham. Until then I consider the media are entirely right to ignore it. So is science in general. Until then, it is and will be a dead issue.And the slides fiasco has not exactly helped either!
Why do I think the mainstream media should spend time on Roswell? As I point out in the article (which I don't think you have actually read, because you seem to be constantly missing my point), the mainstream media are the very people who could have the potential to blow the lid. The manpower, budget, coverage etc that went on the Snowden affair blew it wide open. Same for Watergate. It could happen for Roswell if the same approach was taken and with a major in-depth investigation by one of the world's most powerful media outlets.Yes, I do think that a carefully applied, aggressive, year or longer investigation of Roswell by a major press outfit could take things much further than Ufology has.
CDAYou say:"Roswell is a dead issue, for the mainstream media anyway."Yes it is, but not because they have in-depth investigated it. Quite the opposite. The media ASSUMES it's dead because of a cursory, largely uncritical look at the Mogul and Crash-Test Dummy reports, and because it consistently refuses to address the case deeply and in a fashion it did with Watergate etc. And yes this latter point is me repeating myself, as you clearly do not see what I'm saying.
Nick:Did you ever see, or read, "The Roswell File" by Tim Shawcross of Channel 4 some 20 years ago? That program and book DID go in depth into the Roswell case. How much deeper do you want it to go, or for that matter, should any other Roswell investigation go?The point is that people are never satisfied. If the conclusion is negative the ET proponents will say "they omitted so and so and the testimony of umpteen others; they took a negative stance from the outset, they omitted secret government files", etc. etc.If the conclusion is on the fence it will be unsatisfactory for most ufologists. If it hints at further 'dark secrets' to be revealed in the future, again it will infuriate ET believers. Whatever happens, certain groups will NOT be satisfied, and the debate will continue, as it has. You write: "The skeptics and debunkers would say – and they have said – that this glaring issue of the world’s leading journalists not having cracked something like Roswell, is because nothing of an extraordinary nature occurred back in the summer of 1947. That’s not true."What is "not true"? What extraordinary event DID happen in the summer of 1947 that the media should now be investigating? Perhaps the media (i.e. press and TV) do not think Roswell is worth spending any more resources on. It does not have sufficient public interest. To the public and to the media Roswell HAS been solved, whatever certain ufologists may think. There are far more important topics in the news to spend time & money on. And what did Lazar discover, or reveal, that merits an in-depth investigation by the same media? As it was, the media did not need to investigate him, as a thorough investigation had already been done by a certain Stanton Friedman, the very person who has insisted for decades that Roswell was a true ET event. (There's an irony for you!). Lazar's tale was phony. Yes I have read your article, twice in fact. I shall now drop out of this debate as I am going on 'extended leave'.
CDA:You say: "Did you ever see, or read, "The Roswell File" by Tim Shawcross of Channel 4 some 20 years ago? That program and book DID go in depth into the Roswell case. How much deeper do you want it to go, or for that matter, should any other Roswell investigation go?"Yes, I have the book. You are missing - or deliberately avoiding - what I said. Namely, a major media outlet failing to do a UFO investigation SPECIFICALLY on the scale of Watergate, Snowden, Iran-Contra etc.Yes, Tim Shawcross did his own investigation. Was it on the same scale of the investigations into Watergate, Snowden, and Iran-Contra? No!I was very, VERY precise in my article that I was talking about an investigation into Roswell specifically of the scale of those 3 issues above. My article was NOT about how the media approaches Ufology in general. It was about how the media has never undertaken a very lengthy, extensive, probe into Roswell/UFOs on the Snowden level.Do you really think the media decided not to investigate Lazar because Stan did so? No. They didn't investigate it in-depth because it's a UFO story. If the story had been about half a dozen Russian nukes (rather than UFOs) stored at Area 51, they would have been all over it in a second.You can spin it however you like, I don't care. All I know for sure is that I am 100 percent right and you are 100 percent wrong: the media has NEVER done an investigation of Roswell that is the size and scope of those issues above. And if they did, there's a good chance they might find something. That was the point of the article.Enjoy your extended leave. I know I will.
Nick:Could it not be that there is so much bullshit, hoaxes and lies interwoven in ufology that it quite simply isn't worth the time and effort?
By Stephen Jackson, at Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Actually Lazar was fully investigated by the media - in fact it was the media that broke his story. George Knapp won the Edwin R. Murrow Award for investigative journalism from Lazar's story. That's no minor award.
By Brian Bell, at Thursday, September 03, 2015
Brian, Yes, I specifically pointed out in the article itself that Knapp was the one person in the mainstream media who did get behind the Lazar story. I don't dispute, and if you go back and look at the article I actually said that.But, had it been taken further by major media (as per the Snowden story after that broke), it may have opened many more doors.
By Nick Redfern, at Thursday, September 03, 2015
Stephen:What a negative, defeatist attitude. When you get rid of the bullshit, the hoaxes and lies, there is still an unknown, real phenomenon. That small number of genuinely weird - maybe extraterrestrial - cases will always be worthy of study.
Nick:I can totally see what you are getting at in your article but do you not think the media couldn't get anymore answers than ufologists do now?
By Stephen Jackson, at Thursday, September 03, 2015
Nick -No worries. Just pointing out Knapp for sake of collective discussion. Cheers!
StephenYes, I do think the mainstream media could take things further. One reason of several being: budget. Most of us in Ufology are on limited budgets, have day jobs, and are also limited on ability to travel - simply because of normal, every day things like work etc.If you look at the background to all the work that went into - as just one example - the Snowden affair, you'll see that particularly with The Guardian newspaper a massive amount of work went on with teams of journalists assigned to different angles, with a lot of traveling on the part of the journalists etc, and a solid budget.So, it's not that Ufology is any less capable of finding the facts than the media. The big difference is the scale of what can be achieved.As a hypothetical example, let's say I found five people with new - and very important - data on Roswell. One living in Canada, one in Mexico and the other 3 spread out across the USA.Could I afford to fly to all 5 places and interview them all firsthand, etc? No of course not. That's where mainstream media has the upper edge: a large budget and multiple teams of journalists assigned to different things. In other words, it's not that a big media outlet would take a different approach to that of Ufologists. It simply comes down to the fact that a large media company, such as a major newspaper, can achieve far more than 1 or 2 ufologists.
By Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 04, 2015
Nick:The thing with stories like the snowden case is that he came forward with evidence. I'm sure the media would invest more time and money into the phenomenon if someone came forward with some evidence that meant there was a definite story to be gained. Sadly all we have is witness statements and images. Bob lazar came forward with nothing but states he does have the evidence in his possession. If he released that evidence imagine how the media would react and what would be investigated. Until something like that happens, I don't think the media are going to do more than just print reports.
By Stephen Jackson, at Friday, September 04, 2015
> The manpower, budget, coverage etc that went on the Snowden affair blew it wide open. Same for Watergate. It could happen for RoswellThough I would like to see you idea happen, you make a terrible argument by analogy.Snowden and Watergate were investigated and reported when they happened. Roswell happened almost 70 years ago.Neither case you cite would have got anywhere by relying on the media alone; both times, a verified insider provided secret documents, tapes, or solid information that led to confirmation. For Roswell, dozens of "investigators" have interviewed hundreds of witnesses, some of them military men, others claiming inside information, but nothing they provided has led to confirmation of anything unusual or even interesting.A media investigation, or one done by a historian and archivist, would very likely be reduced to constructing a chronicle of a small number of facts followed by a long list of lies, innuendo and hearsay. I'd like to see that, but UFO proponents would never ever accept the findings, so why bother?
By Terry the Censor, at Saturday, September 05, 2015
Nope, not a terrible analogy at all. In the 1990s, the USAF put together 2 very extensive reports on Roswell, one almost 1,000 pages. If the USAF could investigate Roswell 50 years after the event and publish extensively, so could the media, 70 years after.You ask me: why bother? I say: why bother? Why do you have a defeatist attitude? That hardly helps.And, now, I'm off to enjoy the holiday weekend, will be avoiding anything to do with UFOs and will be back here to check in and comment on Tuesday.
By Nick Redfern, at Saturday, September 05, 2015
Well since the USAF already did the homework on this, why would the media even bother with it now? I know I know...because the USAF has been hiding the truth for 60 years. Or so believers continue to claim.As stated, if someone unbiased did the work today it would never be accepted by the ET crowd EVER. They want EXTRATERRESTRIALS and nothing less.Alas they will never get it. The event never involved ET from the get go.
By Brian Bell, at Sunday, September 06, 2015
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile