[TimeStar] Here is where you can write to Peter Jennings about the show

[TimeStar]

Here is a copy of a letter to Jennings about the UFO special
from David with the addresses you, too, can write to...

David Mundhenk MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com" claiming to be <stratamund at sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
  Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:32:47 -0800 (PST)
  From: David Mundhenk 
  Subject: The Recent ABC News Special - UFO's, Seeing Is Believing
  To: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com" claiming to be abc.news.magazines at abc.com, MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com" claiming to be PeterJennings at abcnews.com


  G'day Peter:

  First of all I applaud you and ABC News for attempting to do for this topic what you have done in other ABC News prime time specials. In an era where mainstream news is often nothing more than a re-gurge of tabloidal laden cheeze whiz, you and ABC News stand alone (in my book) in tackling unusual and tough subjects with professionalism and dignity. Cases in point?; the series' you have done on religion and the Life of Jesus. And like those engaged in serious scientific study of UFO's, those in the press who have presented this subject have traditionally received less than delightful treatment for even taking it on. They are either presented as crackpots or accused of smoking pot.

  I must admit, having heard that you were doing a special on this topic I was very excited, and waited patiently for about 4 months while the time ticked off, & I even re-arranged my personal schedule to take it in live. As such, the first 60 minutes or so was very well presented as you attempted to shed light on those with seemingly unimpeachable credentials who have witnessed something beyond the ordinary. After that however, the program took a decidedly (and sickeningly) predictable path down the same ole-same ole, as you begin to contort the content to the traditional "...wellll these folks must be a bit loony, this entire subject is ree-diculous since it doesn't fit traditional scientific models, mainstream scientists claim there is no real evidence, etc." 

  The icing on the cheez whiz cake began to occur when you referred to the Roswell Story as a myth. Roswell's voluminous eye-witness testimonies, inconsistencies in US gov position, etc., leave it more in the realm of "legend", not myth, and as we all learned in grade school even "legends" contain some elemental grains of truth. In addition you supported the positions of mainstream scientists who claim that "personal observation" has no place in genuine scientific process. I submit to you that "personal observation" is a critical touchstone of science since everything scientists do is based upon their powers of observation. Their abilities to repeat/duplicate measurements, results, etc., is based upon their abilities to observe those results and have other scientists observe the same. In addition it is common knowledge that criminal and civil court proceedings can be decided based upon the concept of circumstantial evidence. Indeed many murder convictions have been b! ased upon such, without the benefit of discovering the body, the murder weapon, etc. If the same level of jurisprudence were afforded
  to the staggering volume of eye-witness testimonies, photographs and videos of UFO phenomena (btw the last time I checked, photos and videos consitute physical evidence) and the like, in the court of "public opinion" the verdict would be resoundingly clear. AND I believe it is as demonstrated by your very own polling numbers that indicate that more than half the folks polled believe there is something signfiicant to this topic. Unfortunately for you and your presentation last nite, you've attributed this 'public obession' as the result of watching way to many 50's sci-fi movies, Star Trek episodes, X-files, etc, etc, etc. 

  In addition, large bodies of scientific study have been founded without the benefit being able to repeat/duplicate observable results including on such subjects as "string theory", the behaviors of celestial bodies, etc. Do we simply dismiss such ideas because we can't observe them directly or measure the un-measurable? Do we call lable physicists who study string theory crackpots? I submit a resounding NO! We should continue to subject such concepts to ordered & disciplined scrutiny, not dismiss their proponents as simply being loony toonz or possibly in need of serious counseling. 

  Where I think you really fell decidedly short has to do with failing to present veritable tsunami of testimonies and the mountain of other physical evidence that has been gathered by Dr. Steven Greer and the Disclosure Project. When I first heard of your intent to broadcast this program it was due to Dr. Greer's testimony that he was being interviewed by ABC News for this broadcast. After watching the entire 2 hour broadcast I found there was no mention of Dr. Greer, his work of the last 10 + years or his related projects. Your other guests had mentioned that no serious science has been conducted about this topic and no physical evidence exists? Had you presented Dr. Greer's collective works you could have shattered that myth (truly a myth, not a legend) in a matter of minutes. What's up with that? Did you and ABC News yield to editorial pressures? Did the FCC clear its throat when it heard you had interviewed this man? If so for ! what purpose?

  I do applaud your attempts to deal with the Alien Abduction scenarios where the "victims" were treated with some semblance of dignity within the presentations. In addition I commend you on even trying to tackle this subject. You have succeeded in giving some level of mainstream journalistic diginity without stooping to the National Enquirer laced overtones of your peers. Now, hows'about doing at least a one hour special on the Disclosure Project eh? And howsabout including some additional testimonies from Air Traffic Controllers, SAC bomber pilots, doctors who have actually removed alien implants that defy scientific analysis, etc.? You made a great start so let's keep the momentum going.

  Respectfully,

  David Mundhenk
  Austin, Texas 



Bill Hamilton
AstroScience Research Network
http://www.astrosciences.info/
"I don't see the logic of rejecting data just because they seem incredible."   Fred Hoyle

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/earthtimes_timestar.org/attachments/20050225/7a594060/attachment.htm