I'm always hesitant when discussing political reaction to the question 'do Ufos exist?'
The media want a story and it's expedient for later purposes that politicians give them what they want,
so they give them what they want!
This isn't a reflection on whether such phenomena exists, it's just that when dealing with the media as
a conduit, accurate information that carries no flavour, can be moulded to seem more exciting and
references to possible official concealment can be lost for various reasons.
Some outlets wish to pander to their Governments for no other reason than it may disrupt their
source apparatus and others may well be under a form of control by the powers they're supposed to
monitor.
But which ever it is, the content... the real relevance of a report, can mean little to a Journalist who is
merely looking for a good scoop. Below is Kenneth Arnold's account of what he saw whilst flying his
plane near Mount Rainier in Washington State.
'...Arnold originally described the objects' shape as "flat like a pie pan", "shaped like a pie plate",
"half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear", "something like a pie plate that was cut
in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear", or simply "saucer-like"...'
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=3241]](http://rogue-nation3.com/attachment.php?aid=3241)
An artist's impression from the description of Kenneth Arnold's report.
The Press at the time jumped on the expression 'flying saucer' because Arnold commented that
the unknown objects' erratic movements were like 'a saucer skipping across the water'
Yet, his description and later rendering, offered a different shape, more of a crescent-like object.
But the label was born and the media around the world use it right up to this day.
In the clip that Guohua kindly provided, I notice that the Presenter -Mike Harris, constantly used this
'flying saucer' title in his questions and Donald Keyhoe resisted the lure to copy him.
Keyhoe sticks to a pragmatic narrative to counter Harris' constant disparaging questioning.
For it's time, that footage shows two things.
One: The strong manner that the public were controlled through the media with the idea that whatever
officialdom stated, is beyond reproach.
Two: The poor formula of televised interviews that is still around today. The early adulation, then the
doubting attack, a mutual neutral impasse and finally, the prevailing narrative reiterated.
All for the sake of ratings and promoting of the interviewer's career.
Stripping out all this garbage is needed before one can get to the truth about what is flying about in our
skies. Personally, I think Keyhoe carried himself well.
The media want a story and it's expedient for later purposes that politicians give them what they want,
so they give them what they want!
This isn't a reflection on whether such phenomena exists, it's just that when dealing with the media as
a conduit, accurate information that carries no flavour, can be moulded to seem more exciting and
references to possible official concealment can be lost for various reasons.
Some outlets wish to pander to their Governments for no other reason than it may disrupt their
source apparatus and others may well be under a form of control by the powers they're supposed to
monitor.
But which ever it is, the content... the real relevance of a report, can mean little to a Journalist who is
merely looking for a good scoop. Below is Kenneth Arnold's account of what he saw whilst flying his
plane near Mount Rainier in Washington State.
'...Arnold originally described the objects' shape as "flat like a pie pan", "shaped like a pie plate",
"half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear", "something like a pie plate that was cut
in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear", or simply "saucer-like"...'
An artist's impression from the description of Kenneth Arnold's report.
The Press at the time jumped on the expression 'flying saucer' because Arnold commented that
the unknown objects' erratic movements were like 'a saucer skipping across the water'
Yet, his description and later rendering, offered a different shape, more of a crescent-like object.
But the label was born and the media around the world use it right up to this day.
In the clip that Guohua kindly provided, I notice that the Presenter -Mike Harris, constantly used this
'flying saucer' title in his questions and Donald Keyhoe resisted the lure to copy him.
Keyhoe sticks to a pragmatic narrative to counter Harris' constant disparaging questioning.
For it's time, that footage shows two things.
One: The strong manner that the public were controlled through the media with the idea that whatever
officialdom stated, is beyond reproach.
Two: The poor formula of televised interviews that is still around today. The early adulation, then the
doubting attack, a mutual neutral impasse and finally, the prevailing narrative reiterated.
All for the sake of ratings and promoting of the interviewer's career.
Stripping out all this garbage is needed before one can get to the truth about what is flying about in our
skies. Personally, I think Keyhoe carried himself well.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.