by Jerry Cohen


. . .
Martin Kottmeyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Jennings


Some brief comments concerning Martin Kottmeyer's article appearing in The Reall News, Volume 13, Number 3, April 2005, The Peter Jennings Media Event, "UFOS, Seeing is Believing". (link in pdf format)

Observations and thoughts:

Since Martin had his say concerning Peter Jenning's special, "UFOS, Seeing is Believing", I thought it important to point out the following . . . . As I know Martin agrees, there are two sides to every story and in the interest of fairness, both sides should be heard before one draws any final, definitive conclusions concerning any specific topic. Concerning the portion of the show regarding claimed UFO abductions, it is an undisputed fact neither side was happy with its conclusions.

With regards to Martin's article, if my short 67 years of life have taught me anything, it is to be extremely careful when laughing at the "possibility" of something before _all_ relevant data is in and fully analyzed, as there have been one or two times when I have had to eat my own words.

That being said, I happened to notice the following letter from Budd Hopkins concerning _his_ views regarding Jenning's handling of the UFO abduction phenomenon, most notably with regards to the show's omission of important data from Hopkins. (Perhaps omitted because it makes the whole topic too real and more than a little scary to contemplate?) Martin never commented on this when making light of the entire issue. Perhaps it was an accidental oversite on his part, or the fact that he may have been unaware of its existence. It's something certainly worth a few moments of people's reading time, if you haven't accomplished same already.

Here's what Hopkins had to say.

- - - begin letter (below Mack Institute credits) - - -

Source: The John E. Mack Institute

Feb 25, 2005

...... . .Budd Hopkins

During the past year Jenning's producers interviewed me a number of times, and because I sensed what they had in mind, I made, as a preemptive strike, a number of careful, highly specific observations about the UFO abduction phenomenon. All of these crucial points - recorded by ABC on videotape - were designed to underline the physical reality of UFO abductions and to demonstrate the implausibility of current skeptical explanations.

To its shame, ABC suppressed _all_ of these observations.

I knew, of course, that the skeptics' favorite explanation du jour is impossibly simple: abduction reports, they believe, are all due to misperceived "sleep paralysis." Ranking as a distant second is another erroneous belief: abduction reports, they say, "ONLY emerge under hypnosis," and since hypnosis is "totally unreliable", all abduction reports must be discarded. In the light of these tediously familiar errors and misstatements, I made certain in my taped interviews to explain the following:

* In the first two decades of our research, _all_ of the central abduction cases involved people who were outside their houses when they were taken _none_ were lying paralyzed in their bedrooms. They were driving cars, walking, fishing, hunting and even, in one famous case, driving a tractor on a farm. "Sleep paralysis" as a blanket explanation of UFO abductions is therefore, ipso facto, a ludicrous non-starter. Nevertheless _all_ of my insistent statements on this point were systematically eliminated by the producers.

* Second, I indicated that there are many abuction reports involving two, three, six or more people who were taken simultaneously and whose highly detailed recollections are virtually identical. This fact alone eliminates not only "sleep paralysis" but "fantasy-proneness" or any other idiosyncratic psychological aberrations as triggering causes. My descriptions of these many cases of multiple abductions were likewise completely suppressed by the producers

* Third, I showed the interviewers many photos of, again, virtually identical scoop marks, consistent straight-line scars and ground landing traces at abduction sites, and other physical sequelae. _All_ of these vivid photographic examples of physical evidence were suppressed by the producers.

* Fourth, I was not alone in making these points. My colleague Dr. David Jacobs was asked by ABC to carry out a hypnotic regression for the camera, but since the woman he chose had been abducted in the daytime while driving a car, the case did not fit ABC's "sleep paralysis" agenda and was thus not only suppressed, but Dr. Jacobs' many hours of taped interviews were also scrapped.

* Fifth, I made it very clear that perhaps 30% of all the abduction reports collected by researchers are recalled _without_ the aid of hypnosis, a fact which renders the issue of hypnosis moot. This point was also suppressed by the producers whose only goal, it appeared, was to eliminate any data that contradicted their transparently false debunking hypotheses.

Despite my having presented - and reiterated - the points above, the producers chose to trot out on camera two debunking scientists (whose experiments with a mere handful of subjects have yet to be taken seriously by the psychological community) to buttress the untenable "sleep paralysis" theory, the false "no physical evidence" claim, and the demonstrably untrue "its all hypnosis" assertion. The smug presentations of these two would-be experts were accompanied by the producers' lurid "reenactments" of "sleep paralysis" phenomena, complete with flashing lights and spooky music. The taped testimony of a serious mental health professional like Dr. John Mack was likewise suppressed, along with my statement that over the years eight psychiatrists and numerous other mental health professionals had come to me about their own UFO abductions. The producers' obvious goal was to conceal the fact that within the mental health community there are many professionals who look with amusement on the "sleep paralysis" theory, and who accept the physical reality of UFO abductions.

So what can one say about such a deliberately dishonest presentation as Peter Jenning's "Seeing is Believing" take on abductions? Perhaps one can only shrug and warn, yet again, that the incurious members of the press and the many blinkered, conservative scientists had better collectively pull their heads up out of the sand and join us in our work. Whatever one's personal attitude toward the UFO abduction phenomenon, science insists that an extraordinary phenomenon demands an extraordinary investigation. What ABC served up on Thursday night was, instead, an extraordinary whitewash of the abduction phenomenon, and a brutal suppression of the evidence for what may well be the most portentous event in human history.

Peter Jennings and his staff should be ashamed.

Budd Hopkins New York

- - - end letter - - -


jc: As if that isn't interesting enough, clicking HERE and noticing what some upper-level people have involved themselves in (N.B. claimants from several cases I and others have previously posted or referenced), it makes one realize that there may be more to this than many realize and should spur us to seriously ponder how deep this whole thing may really go. Do we really think _all_ these people are totally crazy or misidentifying what they are reporting? Who would do this if they really didn't believe it? Look closely at who some of them are, and which cases they are from. (Major General DeBrouwer - Belgium NATO : General Parviz Jafari - Iranian AF (found within FOIA releases) : Charles Halt - Deputy Base Commander of RAF Bentwaters Rendalsham, England in 1980 : Ex-Governor Fife Symington - Arizona (Phoenix Lights case) Also specifically note testimonies from Oscar Alfonso Santa Maria Huertas, Jim Penniston, and John Callahan.

Are we postulating that the military and others from around the world are colluding to make us believe in UFOs, or is this whole thing actually what it appears to be?

Respectfully submitted,

Jerry Cohen