Flying Saucer Review January 1983 [antikvár]

This we are indeed delighted and honoured to do, and we present it below. As will be seen, it constitutes a valuable companion-piece to the recent blast of straight-talking from our French colleague. Monsieur F. Lagarde, which we printed under the title A Warning to All, in a recent issue, FSR Volume 28, No. 1. As readers will know, Dr J. Allen Hynek, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus and was formerly Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at North-Western University and Associate Director of The Smithsonian Astro-physical Laboratory at Cambridge, Mass. Having been Scientific Consultant for seventeen years (1952-1969) to the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book study on UFOs, he founded his own Center for UFO Studies in Evanston, Illinois in 1973. He has been a Consultant to Flying Saucer Review for eleven years. EDITOR ***** NOVA AND UFOs Dr. J. Allen Hynek "NOVA can no longer be perceived as credible journalism after this" wrote Linda Moulton Howe, award-winning TV documentary producer, to John Mansfield, Executive Producer of NOVA. She was, of course, referring to the NOVA presentation "The Case of the UFOs" which launched the 1982-83 NOVA season on Oct. 12. "1 don't believe 1 have ever seen such a biased, lopsided story, especially not on NOVA. There were so many glaring omissions," she continued, " This was a preachy, biased script of such questionable journalistic ethics, with such a clear and focused bias of content, that it's an insult to the journalistic profession of which I am a member." That from a person who knows how documentaries should be produced and from one who is a credit to her profession. "1 have been producing programs and films for television since 1970," she continued. "1 had come to respect the program content of NOVA until the October 12 broadcast of a program entitled 'The Case of the UFOs,' produced and written by John Groom of the BBC, London. It should more correctly have been titled: 'The Case Against the UFOs'." Perhaps the fault is not entirely of the American NOVA, for they bought this pig-in-a-poke from the BBC. It would be somewhat excusable if they had bought it "sight unseen" so to speak, but that was not the case. The American version was considerably edited and changed, not however, after seeking the advice of persons knowledgeable about the subject, but apparently from one who is ignorant of it. According to Walt Andrus, Director of MUFON, Cindi Jessen, Promotional Assistant to NOVA, admitted to him that the final participants for the American version were selected by Kendrick Frazier, editor of "The Skeptical Inquirer," published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal! If we needed any further evidence that this committee is dedicated not to truth but to the maintenance of a position, we have it here. Even the promotion for the program was deceitful. The program was advertised widely as "a rigorous, scientific investigation of the fact, fiction and hoax of unidentified flying objects" and the press release stated, "NOVA takes a penetrating look at several famous UFO reports . . . and proves that serious study of these mysterious phenomena is very much alive, and may just now be on the verge of significant discoveries." A come-on if there ever was one! The actual program, however, gave the impression that anyone spending time on broad-based investigations of the UFO phenomenon was not playing with a full deck of cards. I had the opportunity of previewing this NOVA program several weeks before its airing, through the courtesy of WTTW, the PBS station in Chicago, and was shocked at the unfair treatment the subject was given. I was frustrated that there was no chance for a rebuttal to the Kangaroo Court treatment I had just witnessed. Not one recognized ufologist had been allowed time to rebut the parochial, opinionated statements of the well-known skeptics, who were prominently exhibited, although many had been duly interviewed and taped. Their testimony had been completely omitted. As Erwin Polakoff, Counsel for the Center wryly remarked, "It doesn't take a lawyer to see that an injustice has been done." It would be unthinkable in any American court of justice to give time only to the Prosecution and none to the Defense. A few examples of some of the material that had been taped and then deliberately omitted: Walt Andrus informs us that when John Groom (the BBC producer) was in Houston, he taped more than two reels of an interview with John Schuessler at the site of the very excellent Cash-Landrum case; none of this was used. Nor were the several reels of tape made at the Center for UFO Studies used; these described the work of the Center and the overall nature of the UFO phenomenon and the various theories about it. Likewise, none of the Center's participation in the taping in Canada which pointed out some glaring flaws in the Persinger theory of UFOs as caused by piezoelectric glows arising from geologic faults. The only part of the long Center sequence that was used was that of Hendry discussing IFOs and the common mistakes people make, but these were so adroitly edited that Hendry came across largely as a debunker and avowed skeptic! To give another example of the egregious bias of the NOVA presentation: Groom had asked Allan Hendry and me for "a really good case" to re-enact for taping. Hendry chose a case he had carefully invesd-gated some years ago when he was Chief Investigator