Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Here's a little something that has piqued my interest as of late. I've been waiting my whole life for proof that extra terrestrial life exists, and a few weeks ago I thought my prayers had been answered. I initially saw it on CNN.com, and was very excited at the prospect. Apparently, a Denver business man and ufologist named Jeff Peckman is trying to create an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission to prepare for visits from extraterrestrials. He needs 4000 signatures to get this proposal on the November ballot. In 2003 Peckman got an initiative on the ballot that said, "Shall the voters for the city and county of Denver adopt an initiative ordinance to require the city to help ensure public safety by increasing peacefulness?" It didn't pass, but he made a bit of a name for himself. Apparently he sells a technology that purportedly "reduces electromagnetic fields." Okay, so there's Jeff Peckman's quick bio. The reason he's trying to get the E.T. stuff going is because of a guy from Nebraska named Stan Romanek. Stan Romanek claims that he has video taped evidence of extra terrestrial life. He claims that he set up a camera in his house to catch some peeping toms that were spying on his teenage daughter, what he got was quite a bit more. The footage, of course, is unavailable to you or me, but was screened by an audience of reporters who leaked this still to the internet. It's a little creepy, but hardly proof of anything. I kept searching and found the actual video of the encounter. Slightly spooky at first, but then obvious differences (different alien, different window, etc.) make it clear that at least one is a fake. Further research uncovered that Bryan Bonner, a member of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society, and his friends had faked the video to demonstrate how easy it would be. The actual footage will supposedly be released in a documentary later this year produced by Stan Romanek. It's all pretty interesting, but it leads me to ask: How can video be considered viable evidence anymore? Watch just about any of these new political "documentaries" these days and it's easy to see that raw video is no different than modeling clay in terms of how it can be manipulated. Heck, I could probably edit something together that might look like an alien invasion. I guess I just don't understand why this particular incident is getting so much attention. Any thoughts?
Posted by Richard Cutman at 8:16 PM