November 27, 2008

Dear Discovery Channel

Nov. 27, 2008 Last night Monday night I watched your program about UFOs over America and was surprised to find that I have seen the same program at least a dozen times. Even though it had a different title, setting, and cast of characters, it was the same old plot, same action, and same outcome as every single program on UFOs that has ever appeared on television: someone sees an unidentified flying object, someone else goes to investigate and look for evidence, the investigator take the evidence to two different scientific authorities who have been carefully selected to contradict one another – end of plot. It all reminds me of the cheap, slutty stories I used to read in True Confessions magazine when I was sixteen. Always the same story with lots of hot, illicit sex…and always ending in disappointment. Why would you go to all the time, trouble and money to find believable witnesses, spend a day with Levengood taping the amazing research findings, only to short-circuit the truth at the end? The truth is:
  • The UFO witnesses did not see the moon, stars, or a stray airplane hovering just above the tree.
  •  The investigators did not offer a single shred of proof for their moon, stars, or airplane theory. If we are going to hold credible witnesses who were there to the burden of proof, why are we not holding the naysayers to the same burden of proof?
  • Dr. Levengood found extraordinary evidence of anomalies in the leaf specimens he examined, including:
  • The purple coloration in the leaves was anthocyanin.
  • The leaves had fallen off their branches because of high levels of abcissic acid, something not at all normal for spring and summer.
  • The leaves had numerous, tiny square holes punched in them.
  • Evidence of microwave energies that hit the leaves caused the intracellular fluids to boil and erupt through the surface of the leaves like small volcanoes.
  • Dramatic changes in leaf shape from ovate to heart-shape due to stunting of the growing tip by unknown energies.
    • Dr. Frank Salisbury, your choice of scientific opponent, did not say anything conclusive at all. His comment, “That’s a big leap in conclusions…” merely implied there was no validity to Levengood’s conclusions.
    • That Dr. Salisbury personally called Levengood and apologized for his criticism, then asked for further details from Levengood.
    • You deliberately left out all the scientific evidence that indicated something very unusual happened at the site.
How many more times are you going to present this same kind of story to us, your viewing public, and still expect us to keep watching? Your attempts to pawn off the same cheap story again and again, hoping it will sell if you create enough controversy, are signs that you have not matured as much as your media-savvy audience has. Maybe you need someone to tell you there’s a paradigm shift going on and you seem to be stuck in the old paradigm characterized by a familiar, Eric Berne-style game called “Let’s you and him fight!” There is much more relevant programming happening on the web than the dilute, predictable clichés you are presenting. The new paradigm is thoughtful, collaborative, mature, and dynamic. If you want to stay in business you ought to consider this.