Aliens From Outer Space

Documentary

Reality Films

R1 DVD

The 1950s was the period of the flying saucers. Following the tremendous and rapid development of science and rocketry during World War II peoples’ interest was now becoming focussed on “up there”. Science Fiction was now being based on science fact, not fantasy. Early pictures and drawings of strange beings were now being reinterpreted by believers to “prove” aliens regularly visited the planet. UFOs were not a new phenomenon. Unexplained sightings by WW2 pilots were called “Foo fighters”. Civilian sightings described them as cigar shaped, like a Zeppelin.

The name “Flying Saucer” came from a private pilot, Kenneth Arnold, who in 1947 described strange flying objects that flew like a stone skipping across the water. He likened them to a broken saucer with a cup inverted on the top. The media picked up on the description and coined the phrase “flying saucer”. Perhaps we should ask how accurately the media was reporting later sightings? Were they accurate, or were the newspaper reports trivialised like so much of our news is now?

The U.S. Air Force’s Project Blue Book found that 95% of sightings could be readily explained by natural events. Thus was born one of the world’s longest-running conspiracy theories. It did not explain the remaining 5% but refused to accept extra-terrestrial origins. There was simply no evidence of such origins. Many sightings were verified by professional airline and military pilots, people who lived near airports and were familiar with aircraft of different types, and even astronauts. There were so many reports that the Air Force couldn’t deny them so they left them open to conjecture.

Some of the 5% may have been genuine. During the early 1940s when UFOs were first reported in numbers Northrop was flight testing its Flying Wing bomber prototypes under conditions of great secrecy. In spite of this it was seen on a number of occasions and reported as a UFO. The military naturally denied all knowledge of aircraft in the area for security reasons, leading to quite valid claims of a Government coverup. They had the same problem in later years with the Stealth aircraft. Making a bit of allowance for artistic licence, these aircraft somewhat resembled the descriptions of UFOs and the drawings from witness descriptions when viewed from different angles. Unfortunately the documentary gives this only passing mention.

Bill Knell says he divides people into two main groups – the sceptics who want more evidence and the True Believers who will see a UFO as the first and probably only explanation for any phenomenon. He rates himself as somewhere in the middle and the tone of the documentary at first seems to reflect this. He concentrates on the unexplained sightings and draws few conclusions. He just presents the history, but later in the film it is often subtly slanted in favour of the True Believers. His beliefs come out more strongly as the film progresses. The weakness of his approach is, like so many conspiracy theories, a simple lack of supporting evidence in too many cases. He has a tendency sometimes to voice opinions as facts but expresses them as questions rather than assertions. This way you don’t have to provide corroboration.

Some of the information presented is slanted to give it a more sinister look. Porton Down in Britain is called a “top secret Government installation”. Yes it is, but it is and was well known as the British centre for chemical and biological warfare research among other uses. Not Flying Saucer research. A separate wing now also tests new high-tech weaponry there. There is nothing mysterious about it but it is a good example of how “facts” can be inferred without having to prove them.

For the last half of the documentary Knell covers many individual cases. So many of the reports are based solely on human sightings. The unanswerable question becomes “how reliable are these people?”. Many sightings were made and reported by reputable people whose reports should be taken seriously. We are often supplied with the names and qualifications of the witnesses, which is a strong point in the documentary’s favour. However a burst of sightings often results from one published report, then carries on for a few weeks until the hysteria dies out. The later reports usually describe UFOs remarkably similar to the first reports. Is it just people who want their moment of glory, or those who will tend to see a UFO in anything unusual? Knell plays this down.

He actually goes to the trouble of testing one of the reports of a man who claimed responsibility for the source of a sighting. The hoax involved using helium balloons to lift a commercial road flare. The test showed that the balloons simply couldn’t lift a flare as described by the hoaxer. There needs to be more research like this applied to sightings. Now stories are surfacing about alien abductions, anal probes and so on. How much credibility can we give these reports? Alternatively, on a recent TV interview arguing whether Creationism should be taught in schools as science, one participant asked “How much time can we keep wasting on these loonies?”. That question applies to the True Believers as well.

I tried to find some of the raw evidence for UFO reports listed in the documentary on the Internet. This can be a useful tool for testing the validity of the reports. I gave up after half an hour because the whole business seems to have been hijacked by True Believers. There are names and dates available in the documentary which simply can’t be checked. Then I checked on Bill Knell to see what his qualifications were – another useful tool to check the authority of a documentary. What I found was a number of sites warning people about Knell and openly suggesting fraud. They allege that he runs “seminars” on UFOs to the True Believers, but that most of his information has just been gathered from the Internet. He is also accused of compiling documentaries like this one from information pirated from the Internet in violation of copyright. This would explain the amateur quality of the film’s production. There are gaps where new scenes begin, the sound cuts off abruptly, and often Knell pauses in his narrative so the video can catch up. His speech is hesitant and often words or names are incorrectly pronounced. This does not inspire confidence in the documentary.

At over three hours this is a long film. This is because of the last half going into all the detail on specific cases. This level of detail presents a much stronger case than unsupported assertions, but it can’t be convincingly checked. Regardless of the film’s problems (and Knell’s) it offers a useful, comprehensive study of many UFO cases. By the end of the film his slant is obviously that of a True Believer but the information included is a useful starting point to the subject. Make up your own mind about UFOs. Caveat Emptor, though.

Reviews appear on the Synergy website with a single cover image. In the digital and print edition, reviews appear with multiple images and with expanded content.

This review will appear in Volume 4 No. 2 of the digital and print edition of Synergy.

We recommend you download the free digital edition (or buy the print edition) to get the most from Synergy. The print and digital editions of Synergy also include a large selection of articles and features not found on the website. If you have a limited download quota you can view the digital edition via the Issuu viewer on the digital edition page.

If you came to this page directly (and missed our menu), click here to go to the front page of Synergy Website or use the following link: http://www.synergy-magazine.com